A3210- put to mortal stress. Yet the Communists failed to capture a single one of the indus- trial centers. Indeed, not to this very day have the mass of the people behaved in a single country of this world as Marx had predicted they must. Marx’s philosophy of a Socialist society run on Communist lines 1s just a ragbag of gen- eralities, as full of holes as a Swiss cheese. It can be made to seem a rule that fits a case only by throwing away the whole of human knowledge and experience. Even then it passes only with people held down by the most cruel discipline of mind and body. Marxism is no success as a scientific ex~ planation of the world. And it would not be a bother to anybody, today, if its early be~ lievers had been treated with intelligence. From here on in, this series deals mainly with men who gambled on Marx being right, and how they fared. A False Picture EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. CHARLES B. HOEVEN OF IOWA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, May 2, 1950 Mr. HOEVEN. Myr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Rrec- orp, I include the following article by Frank R. Kent, which appeared in the Sioux City Sunday Journal of April 30, 1950: WASHINGTON.—Mr. Truman’s contention that a splendid prosperity still prevails in our country and that everything is lovely in our domestic situation is not easy to sustain unless you ignore some pretty preg- nant facts and do not care what you say anyhow. Yet, undoubtedly it is the Truman intention to make this his basic appeal to the people on the “nonpolitical” tour of the country which with a great fanfare of ad- ministration trumpets he begins this week. The fact is that recent developments in Washington have made it clear that this assumption is completely fraudulent. The chief of these, of course, is the official revela- tion that the Truman estimates of the Fed- eral deficit for the fiscal year ending July 1, 1950, is $1,200,000,000 short, which means a net deficit for the current year of $6,100,- 000,000 instead of $4,900,000,000. And for the year ending July 1, 1951, Senator Grorez, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, estimates a deficit of $7,300,000,000. In brief, from democratic sources it is officially estimated that in 14 months the net deficit will exceed $14,000,000. This is so far beyond the administration estimates as to make them seem absurd. . Now, what this really means is that the Federal finances are altogether out of con~< trol. When the President and his financial advisers misguess revenues and receipts by $8,000,000,000 (which is an understatement of what they have done) it means that they have lost all sense of the fiscal realities and have no real conception of actual conditions, When to this you add Senator Brry’s incontrovertible figures showing that exclud- ing interest on the national debt, money appropriated for national defense, the Mare shall plan and foreign aid and social security, our expenditures for purely domestic pur- poses has increased nearly 30 percent since 1948. Few clear headed persons will dispute the statement that our Federal finances are in a run-away condition—and that our fiscal situation is a perilous one. Considering all these things, it is cer- tainly pertinent to inquire what is this prosperity for which Mr. Truman claims full credit? Is it solid or is it fictitious? Is the breast-beating statement of Leon Keyserling, acting chairman of the council of economic advisers, that “no matter how you measure it, the situation is very, very good” justified or is it just the outgiving of a New Deal-Fair Deal job holder who calls himself an econ- omist without any clearly recognized title to do so? There is a very strong argument to be made that the sort of prosperity for which Mr. Truman claims credit and to which he intends to point on his nonpolitical trip starting next week is in fact a thoroughly false prosperity. To take this sort of pros- perity seriously is to expose ourselves to a shock from which it will be hard to recover. For the vruth is, the prosperity about which the President boasts comes from the fact that the Government is annually spend-~ ing $6,000,000,000 more than it takes in in taxes. This is a tremendous sum. With it, huge subsidies for the farmers, maintenance for the indigent, idle, and thriftless, provi- sion for countless unnecessary jobholders, and for numerous unnecessary purposes are supplied. All of this money is put into cir- culation. Along with the vast sums spent on foreign aid and‘in prosecution of the cold war, it bolsters salaries and incomes of indi- viduals and, satisfying our immediate appe- tite, gives us a false sense of security. The fact is that every day the national debt gets larger and the national finances more deplorably unmanageable. ‘This isn’t real prosperity. It is about as perilous a state of affairs as well can be imagined. Actually, we are living off the fat of America and it is pretty close to criminal, under these cir- cumstances, to tell us that all is well with the country and that no one need worry about our strength and soundness because wages are up and money is plentiful. In the war period from 1940 to 1945, we had prosperity which came just in time to rescue us from a disastrous slump as the New Deal spending policies had begun to peter out. Everybody had a job. Factories were working overtime. Ships were being built by the hundreds. Wages were shooting up. Indi- vidually, we were all prosperous then but it was & war prosperity founded on huge war expenditures and a debt which now exceeds $250,000,000,000. The Truman administration has not cur- tailed domestic expenditures since 1945. On the contrary, it has vastly Increased expendi- tures and further piled up the debt instead of reducing it. The prosperity which we now have is partly due to the tremendous demand for goods following a destructive war, and partly to the continued pouring out of Gov- ernment money from the Treasury spigots. It is a prosperity fraught with grave danger, and it is the worst sort of demagogery to capitalize it for political purposes, deluding the people into believing that everything is lovely and the goose hangs high. Even those of rudimentary intelligence should know better. Point 4 EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. TOM PICKETT Or TEXAS -IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. Tuesday, May 2, 1950 Mr. PICKETT. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday afternoon, April 18, there ap- peared an editorial in the Palestine, Tex., APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD newspaper which deals very pointedly with reasons why the point 4 program should not be adopted. Having opposed the adoption of the point 4 title of the bill extending the ICA when it was hbe- fore the House recently, I offer the edi- tor’s observations for consideration of all Members of Congress, should the matter again become an issue, The editorial follows: Point 4 HEADACHE President Truman, exponent of a point 4 program which he believes would set back- ward nations off on a spree of development, has received some pointed advice from the representative of one of the backward na- tions. George Hakim, counselor for the legation of Lebanon, says the plan to pour private capital into countries like Lebanon isn’t big enough to do any good, that it would not inspire in underfed peoples an enthusiasm for democracy, and that it is but another move for exploitation on the part of the demons of private enterprise. We are not in agreement with Hakim. We can’t agree that investment by private en- terprise necessarily means exploitation. But we do think Hakim’s opinions give this coun- try something to think about. In more detail, Hakim said the masses of the poor nations are not interested in con- cepts of free enterprise, free competition, democracy, and human rights. He said be- fore such abstract ideas can get any atten- tion it is necessary first to live and not to starve. He added: “Point 4 is based on the as- sumption that the old imperialism, exploita- tion for foreign profit, will not take place. Is it not likely that private capital in search of higher profits will exploit the workers in the underdeveloped countries?” Let’s think these things over, Mr. Tru- man. Let’s get out of our heads the fallacy that all the world admires the United States. It does not. And the undernourished millions of people of many lands, who make up about two-thirds of the world’s population, don’t even know anything about the United States. As Hakim says, they also don’t care. We are not going to sell them on democracy until they have gained enough education to think about things more abstract than where they are going to find a suitable batch of roots to boil for their dinners. We are not going to convince them of values of free enterprise until they have learned first that there can be more to life than a place to sleep and food enough to fill the voids in their stomachs. Hungry people will follow a leader who promises to give them more than the last au- thority they had. We can’t expect them to put much stock in a system of government which depends on the ability of people to take care of themselves. And let’s be honest with ourselves to this extent: We must admit, if we are honest, that the backward peoples of the world suspect those of any country whose citizens are better off. They have a good reason to he suspect. They have been exploited by great nations for hundreds of years. They expect no great nation to move in on them without exploit- ing them again. That fear is explicit in Hakim’s warning. It makes point 4 look like a quixotic propo~ sition indeed, instead of like the “bold new program” as envisioned by President Truman. We can’t win the world with the dollar, Mr. Truman, any more than we can borrow our way into prosperity at home. Mr, Hakim has made that clear,
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD The Late Generoso Pope EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. L. GARY CLEMENTE OF NEW YORE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, May 2, 1950 Mr. CLEMENTE. Mr. Speaker, it was with great sorrow that I learned of the death of Generoso Pope, who served for many years as a publisher of Italian- language newspapers. Continuously for over 20 years he served the interests of Americans, To Americans of Italian ex- traction he became a tradition. Gener- oso Pope was a friend of the little man, He never became too important to lis- ten to the plea of the humblest citizen, and thousands in the country can tes- tify to his helpful personal assistance. Born in Italy in 1891, Generoso Pope left his family when he was 12 to come to the United States. He was an out- standing example of an immigrant who made good in America. At his death he was president and chief stockholder of the Colonial Sand and Stone Co., Inc., the largest supplier of sand, gravel, concrete, stone and cin- ders to the city’s construction industry; owner and publisher of Il Progresso Italo-Americano, oldest and largest Ital- jian-language newspaper in the United States, and president and chief stock- holder of the Atlantic Broadcasting Co., operators of Station WHOM. Many observers credit him with a de- cisive role in saving Italy from a Com- munist government in the last Italian election campaign. When reports from abroad indicated that, discouraged and dispirited, the Italian people were look- ing with favor on the Communist cause, he organized a letters-to-Italy campaign among the readers of his newspapers. This resulted in the dispatch of thou- sands of letters from Americans of Ital- ian origin in the United States to kin- folk and friends in Italy urging them to reject Russian blandishments. Men of his caliber are few. He has made every sacrifice through work en- tailing inexhaustible demands of energy and virtually almost limitless patience. In the passing of Generoso Pope I feel a distinct personal loss. Aid for School Districts Affected by Federal Activities EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF _ HON. LEONARD IRVING OF MISSOURI IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, May 2, 1950 Mr. IRVING. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the House Education and La- bor Committee and also a member of the subcommittee of this important committee, which has made a very ex- tensive study of the subject and the pro- posed legislation pertaining thereto, it is my desire to call to the attention of the Members of the House of Repre- sentatives the grave need for such legis- lation, and also the Nation-wide inter- est in it, by inserting a speech, which, because the speaker was also presiding over the meeting, will necessarily include remarks relative to other speakers and phases of the program: AvDpREss BY Mrs. EUGENE MEYER aT MEETING OF METROPOLITAN AREA CITIZENS COMMITTEE FOR THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS For FINANCIAL AS- SISTANCE For Scrroou DISTRICTS AFFECTED BY FEDERAL ACTIVITIES, TUESDAY, APRIL 25, 1950, at WESTERN HicH ScHOOL Honored guests, fellow Americans from near and far, this is an inspiring crowd. Let me welcome you to this meeting on behalf of the Metropolitan Area Citizens Committee for the Public Schools. The very size of this audience and the great distance some of you have traveled proves the deep interest of the American people in public education. And we can be sure of one thing—American public schools will be just as good as the people want them to be. I should like to emphasize one point at the outset. We have not come together to dis- cuss Federal aid to education in general. We are here to discuss only two bills, H. R. 7940 and H. R. 8113, both introduced by the Hon- orable CLEVELAND M. Bamry. These bills are to provide Federal aid for the operation and construction of schools in almost a thou- sand localities where the activities of the Federal Government have created a sudden and often an overwhelming increase in the population. Thirty-four such communities from sixteen different States—from the east to the west coast—are represented here to- night with delegations. The hosts tonight are twelve governmental units around the Nation’s Capital, who have formed the Metropolitan Area Citizens Com~ mittee for the Public Schools. All of them are struggling to build schools for a rapidly mounting child population, most of them children of Federal workers. These local areas are: Anne Arundel Coun- ty, Calvert County, Charles County, Harford County, Montgomery County, Prince George’s County and St. Mary’s County—all of Mary~ land—and from Virginia, Alexandria, Arling- ton, Fairfax County, Falls Church, and Prince William County. - Those of us who live in the District of Columbia .regret that the exclusion of the Nation’s Capital from the benefits of these bills was unavoidable. But we are accus- tomed to being the step-children of Congress. And we know this—if you people who have votes can get help in this crisis, the District schools will eventually derive direct and indirect benefit from the alleviation of the school problems in the surrounding area. Though a resident of the District myself, I have tried to show my interest in the chil- dren of the nearby counties by describing the terrible conditions with which their school systems are struggling. I only regret that I could not be in two places at once and accept the invitations I received from some of you in various parts of the country to do the same kind cf studies. But we must express our gratitude tonight to nine hard-working Congressmen who de- voted two solid months to making just such studies throughout the country. During October and November of last year they made 23 stops in 17 States and held hearings of from 2 to 5 days in each place. They often put in days from 9 a. m. to 11 p. m, As we all have good reason to be grateful to these men, I am going to call their names and ask them to rise: Representative CLEVE= LAND M. Baier, of West Virginia; Represent- ative Tom Srerep, of Oklahoma; Representa- tive Lzonarp Irvine, of Missouri; Representa- tive ,THRUSTON BALLARD Morton, of Ken- A3211 tucky; Representative THomas H. Burxes, of Ohio; Representative Roy W. Wise, of Minne-~ sota; Representative Cann D. Prrxins, of Kentucky; Representative SamusL EK. Mc- Conneztt, Jr., of Pennsylvania; Representa~ tive THomas H, Wervet, of California. And last but not least, we wish to thank Repre- sentative JoHN LEsINsKI, of Michigan, who appointed the committees and made the money available for their Nation-wide study. We must not forget that a Senate com- mittee under Senator Humpurey also held similar hearings at the last congressional session and reported out a bill which passed the Senate. I am sure this audience will be glad to know that many other Congressmen are with us tonight. We are profoundly grate- ful for their interest and their presence. Their names are: Senator EuMrer THOMAS, of Oklahoma; Representative L. MENDEL Rivers, of South Carolina; Representative HenpERson LanuaM, of Georgia; Representa- tive WINFIELD K. Denton, of Indiana; Rep- resentative JoHN Murpocs, of Arizona; Rep- resentative J. M. Comps, of Texas; Repre- sentative WiLL1amM M. CotmeEr, of Mississippi; Representative Topsy Morris, of Oklahoma; and Representative James F. Linp, of Penn- sylvania. Among our other distinguished guests are Mr. Willard E. Givens, executive secretary of the National Education Association, with some of his associates. In your name I wish to thank all of these busy men for coming here tonight. What a truly American assemblage this is when the people and their representatives get to- gether to discuss a question of Nation-wide importance. I say “of Nation-wide impor- tance” though the bills in question are limited to critical areas because the people whose interests are involved are serving their Government whether in 2 civil or a military capacity. What we are trying to do here tonight is simply this. We are trying to convince the Congress as a whole that the Federal Gov- ernment must help to solve certain prob- lems created by the activities of the Fed- eral Government. We well know that the social problems in these areas are not con~ fined to the need for schools. But we learned during the war that the most stable com- munities—the ones that stood up best under the immigration of a flood of war workers— were those that had the best public-school system. Therefore by improving the schools for the children of our military and civilian personnel throughout the country, we do far more than appears on the surface. We not only do justice to the children of these Federal workers; we bring order to the whole community. We shall make the par- ents more content to remain in Government service instead of resigning, as they are now doing in large numbers. In a moment of great peril, we shall strengthen immeasura- bly the Nation’s striking power and its de- fenses, whether military or civilian. We are aware that the Federal Govern- ment needs to economize in the face of its huge financial responsibilities at home and abroad. But this trend toward economy im- plies, above all things, choice and discrimi- nation. Where will our available financial resources do the most good? I can imagine no measures which with the expenditure of a modest amount of Federal funds will be more far reaching in effect than H. R. 7940 and H. R. 8113. And now to our program. For the first half hour we shall listen to each other’s troubles in order that we may all feel less isolated, helpless, and overwhelmed by our own troubles. Having looked the evils with which you are all contending in the face, we shall cheer ourselves up by analyzing what these two bills will do to conquer our common tribulations.
A3212 The first person I shall introduce to you is Mr. William A. Early, the vigorous super- intendent of schools in Arlington, Va. By this time the citizens of Arlington are fa- mous throughout the country for their battle to improve their school system. Mr. Early had earned a reputation as one of his State’s foremost educators before he came to Arling-= ton. He is president of the Virginia Educa- tion Association. He is also known to you because he has kept in touch with your prob= lems and knows them at first-hand. There- fore, I am going to ask him to give a broad outline of the educational difficulties in lo- calities affected by activities of the Federal Government. Thereupon he will introduce to you all of our out-of-town guests and the representatives from six different com- munities, who will speak for their communities. Mr. Earty. (Remarks of Mr. Early, as well as those of the several others from various parts of the country called upon to explain their problems are not available.) Now we must inform ourselves on the two bills before the Congress which touch your lives so closely. The two men I am going to introduce to you are appearing here as private citizens, But nobody is more familiar with these bills, as both are consultants to the two subcom- mittees that have studied these problems. They are willing to answer questions, but these questions should be written and sent to the speakers. Let me present Mr. B. Alden Lillywhite and Mr. Henry F. Alves. (Analyses, etc,, not available.) Our final speaker who will sum up for us the significance of this meeting, is the presi- dent of a great State university, But he is more than that. He is a friend of the peo- ple, whose human interests go beyond his academic walls. He knows, as few university presidents do, the importance of good ele- mentary and secondary education to college and university teaching. You can judge the quality of his interest in your problems and the kindness of his heart when I tell you that he broke an im- portant speaking engagement to be with us tonight. I give you a real statesman, admin- istrator and scholar—the president of the University of Maryland, the Honorable Harry Cc. Byrd. (Address of Dr. Byrd not available at this time.) Thank you, Dr. Byrd. Now, my friends, you who have worked so long on these bills know our work is not over. Wonderful as this meeting has been, the real work has only begun. I wish to assure all of you who have traveled from the four corners of our Nation, that our Metropolitan Area Citizens Committee for the Public Schools will cooperate with you in this battle until it is won. Let me end with the words I used at the opening of the meeting: “Our American pub- lic schools will be just as good as we, the peo- ple, want them to be.” The following resolution offered by Mr. Ray McCullough, of Lavonia Township, Mich., was adopted at this meeting: “RESOLUTION TO BE OFFERED TO THE NATION~ ‘WIDE CITIZENS MASS MEETING SPONSORED BY THE METROPOLITAN AREA CITIZENS COMMITTEE FOR THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS “Whereas activities of the Federal Govern-~ ment have imposed serious financial burdens on certain local school districts through acquisition of taxable land, and by causing very large and sudden increases in school enrollment; and “Whereas the severe financial hardship im~ - posed by these Federal activities has de~ prived many children living in the affected areas of normal educational opportunities; and “Whereas some of these Federal activities will continue for some time in the future to impair seriously the ability of certain local school agencies to finance normal educational services: Now, therefore, be it “Resolved, That this Nation-wide citizens mass meeting go on record as urging the Federal Government to establish as a policy the provision of financial assistance to school districts affected by its activities commen- surate with the financial burden it has placed on them; and be it further “Resolved, That this meeting go on record as urging the immediate passage of H. R. 7940 and H. R. 8118, proposals now before the House Education and Labor Committee which have as their purpose effectuating the above stated policy; and be it further “Resolved, That copies of this resolution be sent to every Member of Congress.” Americanism Versus Communism REMARKS HON. NOAH M. MASON OF ILLINOIS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, May 2, 1950 Mr. MASON. Mr. Speaker, the two questions being asked by the American people today are, “What about Senator McCartuy and his spy charges? Will he be able to make them stick?” My an- Swer to the last question is, “He will if the Government records are made avail- able.” Jor McCarrry is a fighting Irishman. He fought with the Marines. He is a red-blooded, two-fisted American, in the best sense of those adjectives. He has a keen legal mind and has had experi- ence as a judge. He is not a man to make charges without having facts to back up his charges. Senator McCartuy has already ac- complished the following: First. He has forced the State De- partment to fire 91 sex perverts, who because of their habits were subject to blackmail by their Communist friends. The spotlight of publicity has also been turned upon a list compiled by the Wash- ington police of 4,000 homosexuals, a major portion of whom work for the Federal Government in various depart- ments, and who because of their per- verted sex habits are poor security risks. ‘We hope these will eventually be dropped from the Federal pay rolls. Second. He has reopened the Amerasia case, an incident that was hushed up and glossed over by the administration several years ago. It deals with espio- nage in the State and Treasury Depart- ments and in the Army and Navy. Third. He has publicized the fact— I have had first-hand knowledge of the same for 10 years—that the adminis- tration has been protecting Communists and fellow travelers in Government de- Partments, and has been doing every- thing possible to cover up their subver- sive activities—Alger Hiss, Judith Cop- Jon, and Dr. Fuchs are a few samples in evidence. The Senator has assured me personally that he has just begun his fight to ex- pose the espionage agents and spies in the State Department, and that he is confident of success in his efforts, APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD SOUNDS GOOD, BUT NOT A TRUE PICTURE Mr. Speaker, on April 24, 1950, Presi- dent Truman made an address to the American Bar Association, In that ad- dress the President said: No known instance of Communist subver- sion— In the Government— has gone uninvestigated and no case where the facts warranted has gone unprosecuted. He also said: The agency loyalty boards and the Loyalty Review Board have quietly and effectively carried out their job of protecting the in- tegrity and security of our Government, These statements by the President sound good, but do they present the true picture? The: donot. The fact is that despite these assurances, the loyalty boards have in many cases cleared in- dividuals with questionable loyalty rec- ords who were afterward proven dis- loyal. This demonstrates that the screening process used by these loyalty boards is very carelessly or superficially carried out. So we must look behind the President’s nice-sounding statements to get the true facts in the picture. Mr. Speaker, I cite the following cases as evidence that the picture is not as painted by the President. These cases are just a few of the many that are on record: First. Alger Hiss. Our agency loyalty boards passed Hiss as a good security risk before he was convicted of lying, which conviction, in effect, proved Hiss to have been a traitor. Even so, Secre- tary Acheson still claimed Hiss as a friend. Second. Judith Coplon. She was given a clean bill of health by the loyalty board, and afterward convicted of steal- ing secret Federal documents. She is now under indictment for conspiracy to give away vital secrets to Russia. Third. Julian Wadleigh, He was named by Elizabeth Bentley as a fellow traveler. He got out of the Government when things got too hot. The loyalty board approved Wadleigh as a good se- curity risk. Fourth. George Shaw Wheeler. This man held the position of Chief of the Denazification Section of the American Military Government in Germany. He recently issued a statement from Prague denouncing the American Government and renouncing his citizenship. He was repeatedly cleared by Government loy- alty boards. He was first employed by the Government in 1934 and remained on the pay roll until 1947, a period of 13 years. Fifth. Carl Aldo Marzani. He was an employee of the Office of Strategic Serv- ices, a highly sensitive Government in- telligence agency. At the end of World War II he was transferred to the Intelli- gence Division of the State Department. After repeated clearances by the loyalty board he was finally convicted of disloy- alty and fired on December 20, 1946. Sixth. Russell Nixon. A former di- rector of the Division of Investigation of Cartels and External Assets in the Amer-~ ican Military Government in Germany. He had a long record of Communist af- filiations and had been ousted from the
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD faculty of Harvard University because of his pro-Communist activities. Yet he was accepted as an employee of the Gov- ernment and placed in a position of trust and responsibility. He was finally forced to resign in January 1946, after issuing a denunciation of the United States Gov- ernment. Seventh. Nathan Gregory Silvermas- ter. This man was cited by Elizabeth Bentley as a member of the underground cell of the Communist Party. He began his service with the Government in 1935 as an employee in the Department of Agriculture. He remained with the Government until November 1947, when he resigned from the War Assets Ad- ministration. He had been repeatedly cleared by the loyalty boards and given a clean bill of health. Mr. Speaker, it would seem from these and many other instances that might be cited that the Government loyalty boards Iock the stable door after the horse is stolen. Their real job is to pre- vent Communists and pro-Communists from entering Government service; not to wait for years while these rats are do- ing their damage from within, and then fire them after some court of law has convicted them of disloyalty, and public clamor makes it necessary for them to be removed from the Government pay roll. The real job of these loyalty boards is to uncover the Communist patronage net- work that secured jobs in the Govern- ment for these rats. In this respect these loyalty boards have fallen down on their jobs and have failed miserably. TRRESPONSIBLE STATEMENTS BY RESPONSIBLE MEN Mr. Speaker, in referring to Senator McCarTHy, you said, “It is unfair for a man in a responsible position to make irresponsible statements.” I am in com- plete agreement with that statement and I believe every real American feels the same way. However, as yet, we do not know whether Senator McCartoy has made irresponsible statements. That still remains to be determined. Now, “what is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander.” President Tru- man occupies “a most terribly respon- sible position.” He said so himself. Those are his words. Yet the President has made the following irresponsible statements: First. Speaking of the congressional investigation of the Hiss case, President Truman called it a “red herring.” He repeated his red-herring statement nine different times in nine different places. The red-herring statements were made 3 years after the President had been sup- plied with secret information of the spy ring in Canada and notified that the Russians had an agent in the United States who was an assistant to fhe Secre- tary of State. Second. On September 22, 1948, en route to California, President Truman said the House Un-American Activities Committee “is more un-American than the activities it is Investigating.” This definitely is an irresponsible statement made by a man in a “terribly responsi- ble position.” I served 6 years on that committee myself. XCVI—App.——203 Third. President Truman said on Sep- tember 12, 1946, that he had read and approved in its entirety the famous for- eign-policy speech of Henry Wallace, the speech that yanked the rug from under Secretary of State James Byrnes at the Paris conference. That statement was an irresponsible statement that later proved very embarrassing to the Presi- dent. Fourth. On July 11, 1948, Mr. Tru- man told an Oregon audience: I like old Joe (Stalin). He is a decent fellow, but he is a prisoner of the Politburo. He would make certain agreements, and he would keep those agreements, but they won’t let him Keep them. I ask, what is this but an irresponsible statement by a responsible man? Fifth. In a letter to Governor Earle, of Pennsylvania, February 28, 1947, President Truman said: People are much wrought up about the Communist bugaboo. * * * Iam of the opinion that the country is perfectly safe as far as communism is concerned. The famous pumpkin papers, the Hiss conviction, Dr. Fuchs’ conviction in an English court, Judith Coplon’s convic- tion, have all happened since then, prov- ing that statement to Governor Earle an irresponsible statement. Mr. Speaker, Communists do not walk around carrying signs lettered, “Look! I am a Communist!” Communists can best serve the party by masquerading as orthodox loyal Americans—and that is what most of them do. Judging the strength of the Communists in America by their known number is a very stupid thing to do. When the Communists took over Russia they numbered less than 1 percent of the population. To boast about the fact that there are but few Communists in the Government to- day is like a banker boasting that only two of his bank tellers are dishonest. It is a stupid thing to do, yet President Truman and Secretary Acheson are do- ing it almost every day. Communists in the Government are almost invariably found in strategic po- sitions of influence, where hundreds of loyal Americans who work under them must bend to their will or suffer unduly in many subtle ways. Alger Hiss was not a minor Government official. He was Assistant Secretary of State, the second man in importance in the most powerful Cabinet post in our Govern- ment. He was the chief adviser to our sick President at Yalta, when Poland and all of eastern Europe was turned over to Stalin. Alger Hiss engineered the Bretton Woods Financial Conference, at which Uncle Sam agreed to under- write the credit of most of the countries of the world. Alger Hiss organized the San Praneisco Conference, presided over its preliminary conferences, and did most of the work on the United Nations Charter at San Francisco. Alger Hiss was playing on Stalin’s team at Bretton Woods, at San Francisco, ana again at Yalta. Alger Hiss is only one man, yet he did more damage from an im position on the inside of our Government than 1,000,000 Communists on the out- side could have done. The $15,000,000,- 000 appropriation each year for national A8213 defense—to carry on the “cold war’— and the $5,000,000,000 appropriation each year for international relief are needed largely as the result of the dam- age Hiss did at Yalta. Mr. Speaker, until President Truman and Secretary of State Acheson come to realize that one enemy in an important Government position on the inside can do more harm to the Nation than 1,090,000 enemies on the outside can do; until President Truman and the Secre- tary of State stop making excuses for the known subversive elements that are in Government positions, and start cleaning them out of the Government Departments; we need more Senator McCartHys to expose the covering up and the glossing over of subversive ele- ments in our Government. Mr. Speaker, this Nation needs to re- vive Gen. George Washington’s historic order: “Put none but Americans on guard.” Weneed today to take to heart the warning uttered by Abraham Lincoln in an address to the Illinois Legislature in Springfield, IIL, on January 27, 1837, when he said: At what point shall we expect the ap- proach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? Shall we expect some trans-Aflantic military giant to step across the ocean and crush us at a blow? Never. All the armies of Europe, Asia, and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth in their military chest, with a Bona- parte for a commander, could not, by force, take a drink from the Ohio or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years. At what point, then, is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reaches us, it must spring up among us, It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a Nation of free men, we must live through all time, or die by suicide. Government Reorganization EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. RUSSELL V. MACK OF WASHINGION IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, May 2, 1950 Mr. MACK of Washington. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my re- marks in the Appendix of the Recorp and inelude extraneous material, I offer for the reading of Members, a very fine ar- ticle on the Hoover Commission by the very able and distinguished president of the University of Washington, Mr. Ray- mond B. Allen, who himself was a mem~- ber of the Hoover Commission, The ar- ticle appeared on the “Pacific Northwest Industry” published by the Bureau of Business Research by the University of Washington. President Alien’s article follows: GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION: A CHALLENGE To BUSENESS (By Raymond B. Allen, president, University Washington; chairman, Washington Committee om Federak Reorganization) Businessmen have not only a legitimate interest but a very real stake in the Fecteral tax picture—as, indeed, every citizen has
A3214 today. Just as the American consumer quite properly expects full value for his dollar in purchasing the products and services of pri- vate enterprise, so too he has a right to know that his Government will use wisely and efficiently the money he spends in taxes. Upon the effective functioning of the Fed- eral Government depend many things affect- ing business—a stable economy, peaceful international conditions, and sound labor- management relations, to name a few. Be- yond these specifics, the American business system as a whole has a major stake in the maintenance of an American Government which operates efficiently. We in the Pacific Northwest are perhaps more alert to the size and importance of the Federal establishment than are a good many other parts of the country, for we have the opportunity to observe its operations first- hand in numerous spheres. Military defense construction contracts, foreign-trade policies, development of such natural resources as rivers and forests, and, of course, such major governmental projects as the atomic plant at Richland, all affect directly the health of our regional economy. It is not my intention in this statement to suggest what our Government’s policies should be on these and other matters of national concern, Yet, I submit that there is tremendous room for improvement in the structure and management of our Federal Government (entirely apart from policy con- siderations), which would promote the sound business principle of full return for every dollar spent. I refer, of course, to the findings of the Commission on Organization of the Execu- tive Branch of the Federal Government. Commonly referred to as the Hoover Com- mission, this group of nationally prominent and distinguished citizens has submitted to the Congress a thorough and searching anal- ysis of our Government structure, accom- panied by hundreds of specific recommenda-~ tions for modernizing the machinery of the greatest, wealthiest, and, in some respects, most archaic government on earth. BIG GOVERNMENT CAN BE EFFICIENT Americans today realize that they have (and are paying for) big government. Yet this is not bad in itself. The United States is no longer, as it was 160 years ago, a loose affiliation of ex-colonies, clustered on the eastern seaboard, with a population of some three million and an economy largely agri- cultural. Today, with 150,000,000 people, spread across 3,000,000 square miles and en~ gaged in a highly diversified as well as a highly mechanized economy, we need big government. Our Nation’s domestic prob- lems, to say nothing of its responsibility in world affairs, would stagger Paul Bunyan; and it requires a government of equal pro- portions to cope with these problems. Big government, however, need not be in-~ efficient government, and here is the nub of the Hoover Commission studies. The Com- mission was authorized by unanimous vote of Congress in 1947 to study the organization of the Federal Government with a view to improving and modernizing governmental machinery in the interest of serving the peo- ple more effectively. Four members were selected by the Senate, four by the House of Representatives, and four by the President. In each case the Republican and Democratic Parties were equally represented. At the suggestion of President Truman, former President Hoover was named Chair~ man of the Commission; and Dean Acheson, now United States Secretary of State, became Vice Chairman. The Commission then selected some 800 distinguished citizens from all parts of the country, all of them expert in some phase of Government operations. These men were assembled into 24 research committees, or task forces, which studied their specialized problems and reported in detail to the Commission, The task force reports and recommendations ran to 2,000,- 000 words of solidly packed analysis. The Commission then studied the find- ings and reached its own conclusions. A number of the resulting recommendations are controversial, to be sure. In fact, the Commission itself was divided in some of its thinking. The basic principle is sound however: That the Federal Government is sorely in need of intelligent reorganization pointing toward efficiency and the econ- omies which will result. As the Commission phrased it: “The Nation is paying heavily for a lack of order, a lack of clear lines of authority and responsibility, and a lack of effective organization in the executive branch.” Broadly speaking, this finding is not new. Attempts to reorganize the executive branch had heen made by virtually every President from Taft to Franklin Roosevelt. The promising development is that now, for the first time, the citizens of our country have a thoroughgoing analysis of our Gov- ernment structure, plus the prospect that something will be done about it. HLOOVER REPORT THEMES Three major themes may be discerned in the Hoover report. If these principles are acted upon, our Government can be made more truly the servant of the people. They are: 1. To make the Federal Government more responsible, through a clear chain of com- mand and a strengthening of the Executive Office of the President. This is necessary, regardless of who occupies the White House in any year, 2. To establish a scheme of ‘coherent missions,” defining the area of responsibility of the various Government agencies and bu- reaus. Too often, heretofore, there have been overlapping, duplication, and in some cases actual conflict between units of our Federal Government. A noteworthy ex- ample is the running fight between the Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation, resulting in disservice to the American people. 3. To improve the managerial operations, notably in audit and accounting and in budgetary classification. Here is an area where the application of business principles can be of major value, and an important step was taken with the presentation of a “performance budget” last January for the fiscal year 1951, I believe the immediate future must bring some clarification of the matter of Federal- State relationships-——especially in the fleld of intergovernmental relavions and taxation. Adequate financing of State operations may be jeopardized if funds are drawn off too rapidly or too carelessly for Federal purposes. The Hoover Commission unanimously rec- ommended that a new commission be ap-~ pointed to study the difficult problem of intergovernmental Federal-State relation- ships, especially as they affect fiscal health, GRATIFYING PROGRESS Visionary as some of the recommendations may seem, considerable progress has already been made toward putting into effect the principles emphasized by the Hoover Com- mission. In the 1949 session of Congress, within 6 months after the Hoover report was submitted, five major and several minor bills were enacted, with a potential saving of at least a billion dollars a year. The principal enactments included: Establishment of the National Defense De- partment, unifying the armed services under one Cabinet officer. Creation of the General Services Admin. istration, combining purchasing functions, records, building management, and war assets. Authorization of an overhauling of the State Department, paving the way for amal~ APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD gamation of the Foreign Service and the Washington, D. C., staffs of the Department, Approval of pay raises for Government employees and improvement of the Civil Service Classification Act to reduce the wasteful turn-over in Government person. nel and to promote more efficient service. Reorganization Act of 1949, empowering the President to submit plans for realin. ment of executive agencies, subject to con- gressional veto. Under this authorization, the President last year offered seven reorgan- ization plans, of which only one was turned down. Progress has indeed been made. At a national reorganization conference held in Washington, D. C., last December, it was estimated that one-fourth of the Hoover Commission’s proposals were already in effect. Much remains to be done, however, and, from the standpoint of effective action, 1950 is the crucial year. The President and many Members of Congress have indicated their eagerness to reform the Government struc- ture, and in an election year they will be particularly responsive to expressions of public sentiment on the issue. Unless the people make their support known, however, the great opportunity may be lost, In the Hoover Commission report—and, equally, in the vast public response thus far—there is real hope that our Federal Gov- ernment may at last be brought up to date. If public interest continues, and if it finds expression in the Nation’s Capital, we can meet the challenge. To facilitate wider public understanding in our own State of the issues raised by the Hoover report, there has been established the Washington Committee on Federal Reorgan- ization, with headquarters in the 905 Second Avenue Building, Seattle 4. The program of this group, directed by an executive com- mittee of distinguished citizens from all parts of the State, is primarily educational. Through speakers, study groups, press re- leases, radio broadcasts, and the distribu- tion of informative literature, the objective is to promote an expression of public opinion based on genuine understanding. The Washington committtee urges every citizen to “study the issues; make up your own mind; tell your Congressman what you think.” This threefold goal can make all the difference between the results of the Hoover report and those earlier studies which now lie dormant in the files. It is my earnest hope that the businessmen of the Pacific Northwest will familiarize themselves with the subject of Federal re- organization and, further, will help dissemi- nate the information to their employees, stockholders, customers, and business asso- clates. Contributions to finance the educa- tional program of the Washington commit- tee are certainly welcome, but equally im- portant is cooperation in helping bring the story to all the people. This can be a great patriotic service, which will produce a better—and, incidentally, a more economical—Government for us all. Interest in World Government Declines EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. LAWRENCE H. SMITH OF WISCONSIN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, May 2, 1950 Mr. SMITH of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I am including as part of my remarks an article that appeared in the Washington Times-Herald on last Fri-
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD day containing a report from Lake Suc- cess which states that the movernent for world government has passed its crest. It is encouraging for those of us who maintain that under no circumstances must world government replace our own Constitution. The one-worlders would submerge and substitute our Constitu- tion for one of questionable value. States’ SUPPORT OF ONE WORLDERS BEGINS TO Droop Laxe Success, April 27—The tidal wave of world government agitation which threat- ened for a time to engulf the Republic ap- rerev*"~ as passed its crest, although the o « of 20 States still stand commit- ted to some form of international organiza- tion with supernational law-making author- ity. Rhode Island recently became the third Scate to rescind a world federation resolu- tion neorsoucly adopted by its legislature. The Ici. cule: of California and Georgia had previously repealed similar resolutions. ttempts to repeal world federation resolu- tions have been defeated in Virginia, Maine, and Maryland, STILL COMMITTED The States still committed to some form of supernational government are Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Washington, Louisiana, Oregon, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Hampshire, and New Jersey. The popularity of world government pro- posals in the legislatures of Eastern, South- ern and Far Western States is widely attrib- uted to organized propaganda campaigns, Gsarvcintmert with the United Nations i'd eur ins: the present armaments race and so-called cold war will result in another world conflict. The world government movement received @ major set-back last February 15 when the State Department strongly opposed a group of resolutions seeking to put Congress on record for some form of international or- ganization with power to make and enforce law. Whether or not the State Department’s opposition to these proposals was inspired by a conviction that public opinion is turn- ing against world government, it could hardly have been expressed more forcibly. RUSK QUESTIONS MOTIVE Testifying before a Senate Foreign Rela- tions Subcommittee, Dean Rusk, Deputy Un- der Secretary, questioned whether the one- worlders were acting from sober reflection or from hysteria. Assistant Secretary John D. Hickerson re- marked that two-thirds of the world’s peo- ple live on an inadequate diet, one-half are illiterate and only a minority live under democratic governments. He asked whether the American people would be willing to pay the cost of a world federation and whether they would be willing to compromise their way of life and institutions. Flood Control EXTENSION oF REMARKS HON. TOM. PICKETT OF TEXAS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, May 2, 1950 Mr. PICKETT. Mr. Speaker, on last Tuesday, April 25, I introduced the bill H. R. 8188, the purpose of which is to amend section 13 of the Flood Control Act of December 22, 1944, and authorize the Department of Agriculture to give consideration of and treatment to the so-called “no man’s land” between where its work now stops in the uplands and where the Corps of Engineers program ends on the main-stem of the rivers. A brief general statement of the back- ground information and what this bill will and will not do, if enacted into law, follows: 1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION The work of the Nenartment of Agriculture under the ..0° G-ecis relies ‘lh oo: is directed toward the treatment of watershed lands so as to slow down waterflow and run-off, to prevent erosion and sedimentation and other works to prevent damage to agricultural crops on the watershed and improvements along the tributary streams. The Depart- ment of the Army is charged with fiood- control works on rivers and other waterways to provide immediate protection to high- damage areas including bottom lands, cities, towns, etc. The policy of the Congress, as expressed in sections 1 and 2 of the Flood Control Act of 1936, is that the improvement of rivers and waterways, including watersheds there- of, for flood-control purposes is a proper activity of the Federal Government and it is believed that the intent is complete control of fioodwater and thus prevent agriculture and urban damage and the loss of life. The only practicable method of carrying out the established policy is to give consideration to all water-and-sediment control measures re- quired to manage the water from the source on watershed lands down to the control projects under the jurisdiction of the Corps of Engineers. An important consideration now is the need for installation of such necessary work projects as will effectively close the gap be- tween the conservation treatment of water- shed lands and the flood-control works on major streams by the Corps of Engineers. The watershed’ surveys which served as the basis for the recommended programs for run-off and water-flow retardation and soil- erosion prevention which were approved by the Congress in section 13 of the Flood Con- trol Act of 1944 were made before World War Ii. Conditions in the watersheds affecting the movement of floodwater and sediment have changed materially in the past 10 years. Erosion has become more serious, run-off accelerated, and waterways deteriorated in many parts of each of these watersheds. Also during the past 10 years significant ad- vancements have been made in techniques for treatment of watershed lands to retard run-off and water flow and to prevent ero- sion. 2. WHAT THIS BILI, WOULD DO This bill would authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to substitute vegetative and structural measures which have proved to be more effective and efficient in controlling the movement of floodwater and sediment from watershed lands to meet present-day condi- tions and xeeds. It would make it possible to install such necessary work projects as structural control 1 Buffalo Creek watershed, New York; Poto- mac River watershed, Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania; Little Talla- hatchie River watershed, Mississippi; Yazoo River watershed, Mississippi; Coosa River watershed, Georgia and Tennessee; Little Sioux River watershed, Iowa; Middle Colo- rado River watershed, Texas; Trinity River watershed, Texas; Washita River watershed, Oklahoma and Texas; Santa Ynez River watershed, California, and Los Angeles River wate: shed, California. A8215 of gullies, stream~-bank control, upstream floodwater retarding structures, channel im- provement, and other sediment and water- control measures, which would result in al- leviation. of the extensive damages now being suffered recurringly on the fertile bottom lands in the tributary creek bottoms. It would also provide immediate results in nv-*vew tire damage to highways, railroads, coe cy 3 ¢ utilities, and reservoirs which because of their location are not protected by the major control works along the main streams, 3. WHAT THIS BILL WOULD NOT DO This bill would not authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to undertake projects which properly belong under the jurisdiction of the Corps of Engineers or other major construc- tion agencies of the Government, as desig- nated in the Flood Control Act of 1986, as amended and supplemented. This bill would not change the funda- mental concept expressed in the 1936 omni- bus flood-control act that the benefits to whomisoever they may accrue are in excess of the estimated costs. It is not intended to change over-all ratio between benefits and costs described in the original survey reports. The bill would not change the policy of Congress that improvements of rivers and other waterways for flood control and allied purposes shall be under the jurisdiction of and shall be prosecuted by the War Depart- ment under the direction of the Secretary of War and supervision of the Chief of Engi- neers, and * * * measures for run-off and water-flow retardation and soil-erosion prevention on watersheds shall be under the jurisdiction of and prosecuted by the De- partment of Agriculture under the direction of the Secretary of Agriculture. Nor does the bill change the need for both general types of treatment, viz, watershed treatment and major river-control works to alleviate flood damages to the extent feasible and practicable in the localities, rivers, and other waterways, including watersheds there- of designated by the Congress. This bill will not authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to undertake works of im- - provement beyond the cost estimated in each of the approved survey reports based on the unit costs prevailing at the time the reports were prepared. If, during the installation period estimated in the respective reports to vary from. 10 to 24 years, it appears that there will be any substantial change in the over-all cost, this matter will be brought to the atten- ~ tion of the Congress as soon as it becomes apparent. Government by Consent EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. A. FERNOS-ISERN RESIDENT COMMISSIONER FROM PUERTO RICO IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, May 2, 1950 Mr, FERNOS-ISERN. Mr. Speaker, under leave to revise and extend my re- marks, including extraneous matters, I offer an editorial from the Washington Post, April 25, 1950, dealing with a sub- ject concerning which I hope each Mem- ber of the Congress will soon have an opportunity to participate. The edi- torial to which I refer endorses H: R. 7674 which I had the honor of introduc- ing on March 13 and which would pro- vide for the organization of a constitu- tional government by the people of Puerto Rico, under an act of Congress,
A3216 to be accepted by the people of Puerto Rico in the nature of a compact. I con- sider the editorial as an expression of true and real American thinking, and I commend it to my colleagues with my sincerest thanks to the editor of the Washington Fost. The editorial follows: GOVERNMENT BY CONSENT The exemplary course followed by the United States in dealing with the Territory of Puerto Rico needs for its fulfillment only a grant of authority to the island to adopt its own constitution. It is governed now under an organic act which permits complete home rule and which was amended 2 years ago to provide for popular election of the Territorial Governor A locally adopted con- stitution would not change Puerto Rico’s status in any material way. It would not alter its relation to the United States or its voteless representation in Congress. It would simply give the people of the island an opportunity to embrace by right what is now given them as a gratuity—to apply, in other words, the vital American principle of government by the consent of the governed. The bill to authorize adoption of a con- stitution by Puerto Rico, introduced by Dr. Frernés-Isern, Resident Commissioner of the Territory, would provide for continued ap- plication of all Federal laws and operation of Federal agencies in the island. It would require adherence in the Puerto Rican con- stitution to the Bill of Rights. Its principal effect would be to raise the status and dignity of the Territory. As Dr. FeRnds-Ismrn put it, “We adopt our local laws, but we haven’t adopted our local law of laws—our constitu- tion. This is what we want to do now.” To permit the people of Puerto Rico to do this would be to bind them closer to us by the ties of affection and to present to the world @ splendid example of responsibility in trusteeship. Work of Some Kind Keeps Old People Interested in Life EXTENSION OF REMARKS F HON. USHER L. BURDICK OF NORTH DAKOTA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, May 2, 1950 Mr. BURDICK. Mr. Speaker, just be- cause the custom of business says that they do not want men and women over the age of 60 years, and some places it is less than that, is no reason why these old people cannot fill many places of em- ployment to the complete satisfaction of the employer. The fact is many jobs they can do as well as they ever could. Even where they have a retirement an- nuity sufficient to keep or living from day to day, there is something lacking and that is by mere living they are not interested in affairs—and seem to be waiting for one thing—the undertaker. To live, people must be interested in life and the affairs around them. When the world passes right on past them and all they have to live for is merely to keep on breathing, such a condition is the most unhappy state one could imagine. When, however, they see that day by day their efforts are appreciated and of value to the world, life takes on a different hue and living becomes interesting. They forget their age; forget that they are not wanted, and realize that they are mak- ing a contribution to society. An organization for this very purpose has been organized here in Washington and is meeting with marked success. Mr, Speaker, I desire to quote a statement from the Pittsburgh Press: Mature AMERICANS, INC, (By Fred W. Perkins) WASHINGTON.—The following classified ad appeared recently in Baltimore newspapers: “Men wanted—retired, educated and hon- est men, to attend a meeting to consider means of becoming occupied. No charge.” It brought 59 replies to a box number. The meeting is being arranged for next week in Baltimore. Thus Mature Americans, Inc., a nonprofit organization of overage citizens which was founded in this city ebout 6 months ago, is starting to expand. Other cities, including Pittsburgh, will be tried if the Baltimore ex- periment turns out well. Otis J. Bouma, a former newspaper pub- lisher who at 71 is active in operation of three tourist lodging houses here, is the origina- tor and spark plug of this body of elderly people who refuse to quit. He tells the story in this way: “Last September several of us who are over 60 got together to see what we could do about bolstering the morale of men and women who had been forced into retire- ment because of their age. “Today our group, Mature Americans, Inc., numbers more than 240 persons here in Washington.” JOBS FOR 45 “We have succeeded in getting jobs for some 45 retired men and women. We have found that by joining hands we have in- creased our strength—that when one of us intercedes for another member of the group it is easier to get useful employment for him. “But most important, we have been able to combat the frustration that too often comes with retirement. We have been able to prove to our members that age is no barrier to hap- py living—that simply because a factory or a store makes rules against working after 65 is no reason for curling up and wasting away. “Today everyone talks about pensions for security. But human beings must have more than security in their old age. They must be made to feel that they have a place in society, that their experience and skills are needed. “Our organization slowly, but surely I think, is attempting to fill this void in the lives of men and women over retirement age, We must break down the all too common belief that retirement means discard.” Leaders with Mr. Bouma in this undertak- ing are four men in their late sixties or early seventies. They are still actively at work. One is a tax accountant, another a lawyer, and a third is in Government work. The first difficulty, Mr. Bouma says, is that “everybody assumes this is some new kind of money-making racket.” “Our only payment,” he says, “comes in the joy and satisfaction we get out of chang- ing frustration into contentment among older people. It is easy enough if you can get them something useful to do.” Three cases in which older persons have been made happier: A writer, a woman, confined by illness to her room, has been placed in profitable con- tact with a new magazine. A former college professor, holder of de- grees from three universities, has been helped to a new teaching position in a Washington institution. A former New York City policeman, unable to get along on his pension because of fam- lly demands, has been encouraged to get a job as a hotel detective. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD MRE OLDSTERS All the official statistics show the number and proportion of older pecple is increasing in this country. The problem of what must be done for the aged is regarded as one of the most important of the future. One phase of the problem is how to get employment for them—so they can support or help support themselves. Beyond that is the aim of helping these older people to make adjustments in their living plans when re- tirement puts a period to their accustomed work. That adjustment pericd, according to med-~ ical authorities, is extremely difficult. “Our hope,” says Mr. Bouma, “is that other groups of mature Americans, under that or some other name, will be formed in other cities and towns throughout the Nation.” That Airtight Budget EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. BURR P. HARRISON OF VIRGINIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, May 2, 1950 Mr. HARRISON. Mr. Speaker, under leave granted to extend my remarks in the Rre~orp, I include the following edi- torials from the Richmond News Leader, Richmond, Va., entitled “That Airtight Budget’: It daily becomes more evident that Con- gress is baffled and almost helpless in dealing with remorselessly increasing Federal ex- penditures. By far the largest single cut the House Appropriations Committee was able to make in the President’s budget was in the so-called independent offices, that congeries of more than 30 commissions and commit- tees, offices, boards, agencies, administrations, and authorities that, beginning with the American Battle Monuments Commission goes straight down the alphabet to TVA, Each year these independent offices ask more money and justify it stolidly down to the last penny. They now account for some $8,500,000,000 in the 1951 budget. After hearings that lasted 7 weeks (and when pub- lished filled five volumes of 2,311 pages) the House Committee was able to cut only $433,= 271,000 from the $8,478,148,000 that was re- quested by the President for these lavishly prodigal bureaus that have grown up out- side the regular departments of the Govern- ment. Even this sounds better than it 1s, for most of the cuts were in places where expendi- tures are not entirely limited by appropria- tions. Almost exactly half of it was in the Veterans’ Administration, and the VA itself does not know how much money it will re- quire—it can only guess at how many vet- erans will demand how much of their almost unlimited benefits in any given year. With 3 months of the current fiscal year still to go, VA has already spent nearly a billion dollars more than was appropriated for it lust August. The House Committee was not even fooling itself when it cut $200,000,000 out of the 1951 VA appropriation; it knows better than anyone else that this will mean nothing but a larger supplemental appropriation for VA next year. The committee was not able to cut most of the other independent offices back even to the 1950 level—an all-time high. But let the committee’s report speak for itself. American Battle Monuments Commission: “The committee recommends $695,000 for salaries and expenses, which is $385,000 less than the budget estimate and an increase of $50,700 over 1950 requirements.”
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Federal Power Commission: “The com- mittee has allowed a total of $3,939,300 for this purpose, which is $238,300 in excess of the current appropriation and $157,400 less than the budget estimate.” Federal Trade Commission: “For this ac- tivity the committee recommends $3,866,695, which is a reduction of $358,305 in the budget estimate and $216,695 more than the 1950 appropriation.” General Accounting Office: “The committee has included a total of $36,250,000 for all ex- penses of this office. This sum is $696,800 less than the budget estimate.” (It is also $1,180,000 more than the 1950 appropriation.) General Services Administration: ‘The amount recommended in the bill is $155,969,- 830 in excess of the 1950 appropriation avail- able for similar purposes.” Housing and Home Finance Agency: ‘The bill contains $4,200,000 for salaries and ex- penses of this office, which is $1,800,000 less than the budget estimate and $225,000 in excess of the 1950 appropriation.” Interstate Commerce Commission: “The bill contains $9,889,600 for this purpose, which is $289,600 in excess of the 1950 appro- priation and $113,000 less than the budget estimate.” TVA, which spent some $30,000,000 in 1949, received $49,000,000 in 1950 (and has already overspent it by nearly $12,000,000). It was given $102,714,000 by the committee for 1951. Out of the lot, the Civil Service Commission did get a cut under 1950, which surprisingly enough was concurred in by the Commission during the hearings. But in the whole swarm of agencies, only the Commission on Renovating the Executive Mansion was cut to the bone. This particular Commission already has had $100,000 and its work has never been anything but advisory—all the actual work, architects’ plans, and engineers’ drawings are done by other departments. With little left to advise about excepi dispo- sition of White House materials, it wanted another $100,000 for the salary and expenses of two paid commissioners (at $50 a day), an executive director (at $15,000 a year), a con- sulting architect (at $1,000 2 month), two consulting engineers (also at $1,000 a month), three assistant engineers, two secre- taries, a clerical worker, an Army Officer, and @ messenger. Committeemen decided this was expensive advice and cut it down to $20,000, And it may well be the only cut in the whole independent-offices appropriation that will stick. Representative CLARENCE CANNON, chair- man of the House Appropriations Commit- tee, has asked for suggestions on where his $29,000,000 omnibus appropriations bill might be trimmed. Today’s suggestion: $167,000 for the Indian Claims Commission, ‘This quasi-judicial agency, created in 1947, has three commissioners with salaries of $14,000 each. In the past 3 years, only 151 claim cases have been filed with the Com- mission. Eleven of these have been disposed of. The commission expects that a total o* 300 claims will be put on record before the deadline next August. To handle this fly- weight legal burden, the commission requires 7 employees with salaries of more than $37,000. This agency’s life is supposed to be limited to a 10-year period dating from pas- sage of the act. During hearings on the commission’s request, this colloquy ensued: “Mr. Puruzires. Do you think that you are going to get through before 1957? “Jupce Wirr. Well, I just couldn't say about that, I just don’t know what will happen between now and then. “Mr. Puinurrs. With three commissioners working on it, and the staff that you have, and less than 300 claims, you are not going to take until 1957? “Judge Wirt. Well, as far as I am person- ally concerned, I hope that we do not.” While the Government is providing $107,- 000 a year to an agency which fears it cannot dispose of 800 cases in 10 years, the Federal debt currently stands at $255,841,918,602.68. Representative CLARENCE CANNON, assert- ing that the $29,000,000,000 appropriations bill was airtight as it emerged from his Ap- propriations Committee, has suggested that critics of Federal spending be specific in their objections. Today’s needless extravagance is taken from page 216 of the bill, lines 8 and 9. There it is proposed that the taxpayers provide for necessary expenses of the office of the Secretary of the Interior, for purchase of one passenged motor vehicle only, not to exceed $4,500. We raise the suggestion that a nation with a debt of $258,000,000,000, contemplat- ing a deficit in the current fiscal year of more than $5,000,000,000, could put Mr. Chapman in a Ford or Chevvie. It strikes us that $4,500 cars are air bubbles that could be squeezed out of any budget without hurting it at all. Today’s observation in how a government can spend $43,000,000,000 a year is taken from the House Appropriations Committee hear- ings on the American Battle Monuments Commission, which prior to World War IL spent $150,000 a year, spent $233,000 in 1947, $362,000 in 1948, $1,078,000 in 1949, $9,750,- 000 in 1950, and asked for $10,168,000 in 1951-52. “General NortH. Then there is a project for memorializing in some form places like Iwo Jima, Guadalcanal, Tarawa, all of those places which are relatively remote, yet are much more significant than mere little strips of sand. Our commission * * * proposes to take a rough boulder, carve on it a brief inscription which wouid read something like this: ‘Erected by the United States of Amer- ica to those 6,000 soldiers, sailors, and ma rines who died in the liberation of the Solo- mon Islands.” We would drag these big boulders to the same beaches where the troops went ashore and place them on con- crete bases where they would require no maintenance. “Mr. PHinips. What do you estimate it will cost? “General NortH. We set a top figure at $30,060. * * s * * “General NortH. Finally, in certain places such as Eisenhower’s headquarters and Mac- Arthur’s headquarters and so forth, we pro- pose to put a bronze tablet to commemorate that it was at this place that General Eisen~ hower had headquarters directing so many men, We estimate there will be 18 of these, to cost $3,000 apiece.” Sometimes congressional chickens come home to roost in the administration’s air- tight budget. Last year when Congress de- cided to assist Alaska in a 5-year construction program of essential public works, the $70,- 000,000 bill passed almost unnoticed in the spate of billion-dollar authorizations and appropriations that were pouring over the congressional dam. In the bill, Congress oh~ ligated itself to undertake the whole con-~ struction program, collecting as it could 50 percent from the Territorial government or other public Alaskan bodies. When the House Appropriations Committee was called upon to consider the first year’s result of this impulsive generosity it found Alaska had already submitted essential public-works projects costing a total of $54,035,000. Looking over the list, their startled eyes encountered items such as the proposal of Auke Bay, 300 population, for a $200,000 school, $150,000 worth of sewers, and a $750,~ 000 power supply. Sitka, with a population of 2,000, wanted $800,000 worth of schools, and $800,000 hospital, and streets, a small A3217 boat harbor and a power supply that would bring the total to $4,300,000. Klawock, with 485 population, was asking for a school, power supply, sewers, and a health center costing $720,000. When the committee had recovered its breath, it slashed the President's $25,000,000 request for this year’s construction to $9,000,- 000 and set forth in its report to Congress that it had grave doubts that many of the communities will be able to meet the obli- gations which they may assume under the construction program as submitted in the departmental justification. A comparison with any American city’s bonded debt shows that it may well say so. Richmond’s public debt is now $32,000,000 and it views with con- siderable dismay the addition of $5,000,000 during the coming fiscal year. If Rich- mond’s essential public works had been con- structed on the Sitka scale and half of it paid by the Federal Government, her public debt would be $215,000,000; on the Auke Bay scale, her public debt, after the Government had paid half of it, would amount to $368,- 600,000. The Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine, Department of Agriculture, op- erates 519 laboratories with some 2,500 full- time employees. It requested $13,891,000 for 1950-51, up nearly a million dollars from the current year. Among other pressing neces- sities listed by the Bureau were 63 new auto- mobiles and other equipment. At the hear- ings before a subcommittee of the House Ap- propriations Committee, the following state- ment from the chairman indicated that if there is one thing the Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine does not need it is automobiles. “Mr. WHITTEN. In the Denver office it was disclosed that you had 217 automobiles and for the first 4 months of 1949, 194 of them were not used at all. * * * The North- west regional office of blister rust control had 20 14%4-ton trucks that were not used in 1949. * * * The white fringed beetle control project at Gulfport, Miss., had 18 stake-body trucks equipped with spray rigs that have not been used for some time. Two were last used in 1944, 11 in 1945, 8 in 1946, and 2in 1947. * “* * The North Central regional office of blister rust control acquired three new Ford stake-body trucks in 1947 for use in Minnesota. Before these trucks were actually delivered, the use intended for them did not develop. As a result the aver- age total mileage on these three trucks is only 2,752 and they have been in storage most of the time. * * “Out of 18 cars and trucks owned by the blister rust control project in Minnesota, six of them have been idle since September 1948. In August 1948, while the blister rust control project at Spokane, the blister rust control project in Minneapolis and the white fringed beetle control project at Gulfport had so many 114-ton stake-body trucks idle, the division of pink bollworm control ac- quired five new 114-ton stake-body trucks at a total cost of $9,287. * * * The division of pink bollworm control has a tractor and trailer, which combination was used to haul water in the wild-cotton eradication program in Florida. Appropriations for this project were discontinued for the fiscal year 1947-48 so * * * the tractor was driven from Florida to San Antonio, Tex., and stored in the warehouse there. The trailer was left in Florida with the admitted intention of sepa- rating the two pieces of equipment so no one in another division would ask for them. * * * There is just page after page in this report of this same Kind of thing. * * We are running $5,000,000,000 be- hind in paying the costs of this Government. Ig this sort of thing goes on throughout much of the Government, you can clearly see why.’
A3218 When the House of Representatives comes back in session, and renews its search for bubbles-in Mr. CaANNON’s airtight budget, it might take a critical look at pages 841-344 of the $29,000,000,000 appropriation bill. These items provide $21,825,000 for running the Panama Canal and the Canal Zone in the next fiscal year. The hearings indicate that thece figures cover such doubtfully urgent matters as (1) the maintenance of an 88- man personnel office to look after 21,000 emplcyees (the Commonwealth of Virginia os 21 personnel workers and 25,000 State employees), (2) the construction of a gaso- line station at a cost of $60,300, (3) the re- moval of a certain wooden porch, 120 feet long and 8 feet wide, from a schoolhouse— estimated at $41,200, and (4) the erection of a monument to Maj. Gen. George W. Goe- thals at a total cost of $296,0C0. What busi- ness this Nation has in spending $300,000 on a Goethals monument, at a time when the Federal debt exceeds $258,000,000,000 and this year’s deficit is placed at $5,000,- 000,000, is wholly beyond us. Perhaps Mr. CaNNoN can explain. That airtight budget has a lot of paper in it tod. Most persons are familiar with the infinite variety of Government publica- tions and perhaps no one but a first-term Congressman now thinks the only thing the Government publishes is the CowNcREs- SIONAL Recorp. There is almost literally nothing on earth in which the Govern- ment is not perfectly competent to instruct its citizens by return mail. Detailed infor- mation on mist netting for birds in Japan, the synoptic principle of cyclones in Texas, the schedule for mail routes in Nevada, can- ning beef stew or baking an upsidedown cake, growing artichokes or petunias, estimating muskrat populations by house counts or cool- ing engines in supersonic flight can be had for the asking, or call it a nickel or a dime, no stamps accepted. The Government turns out these handy compendiums of all human knowledge by the tens and hundreds of thousands; after it does so, if nobody wants the things they are stored until the space is needed and then sold for wastepaper. A couple of years ago the Government Printing Office condemned over 10,000,000 copies of publications. Congressional investigators found as many as 500,000 copies of some of them on hand. But this is only the beginning of Govern~ ment printing. Congressman Rerrs, during the House debate on the current appropria- tion bill, stated that the Federal Government operates the biggest printing and publishing business in the world. There is no doubt of it, but we question Mr. Rezs’ estimate of the annual cost of all this printing as being some $50,000,000. The Army alone will spend $10,804,601 on printing next year; the Navy and Air Force, a little less bookishly en- clined, will spend $11,838,370 between them, and that great economizer, Secretary John- son, says he needs $649,000 for printing in his office. Curious readers, wanting to know what the Defense Department does with more than $23,000,000 worth of printing a year— not counting the cost of research, writing, typing, editing, reviewing and checking— are referred to the list and index of Depart- ment of the Army publications which lists the more recent publications of the Army; this list runs over 500 pages, two columns to a@ page. It is not only the Defense Department that thinks the printing presses were invented to be Used around the clock. Congressman Rees recalls that a House Appropriations Committee disclosed one year that the Bu- reau of Internal Revenue printed 500,000,000 tax forms and 114,000,000 instructions sheets to supply 47,000,000 taxpayers. Later it de- veloped that the bureau was leasing a whole building some place to store hundreds of millions of obsolete forms. A Senate Appro- priations Committee was momentarily em- barrassed in 19438 when it asked the various Federal agencies to submit one copy each of their pubiications during the past year; after 83,723 different publications arrived at the commuttee room, Senators hastily called off the cxhibit. One bureau that was called off, fortunately in time, had ready a stack of pub- lications of one copy each, &2 feet high. (The national deficit next year is now es- timated at $7,300,000,000.) Misuse of a Gift EXTENSION OF REMARKS fo) HON. CLARE E. HOFFMAN OF MICHIGAN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, April 21, 1950 Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan, Mr. Speaker, the people, through their Rep- resentatives in Congress, in 1935 enacted legislation known as the Wagner Act, which made it possible for employees to organize, form labor unions and, through those unions, bargain collectively and effectively with employers. In 1947, because of public demand, the Wagner Act was amended by the adop- tion of the Taft-Hartley Act. That act gave employers certain rights, enlarged the benefits granted union members and attempted, in a small degree, to protect the public against strikes which injuri- ously affected the public health, safety, and welfare. Under the Taft-Hartley Act, the unions, with the assistance of the Labor epartment, the purpose of which was— and I quote from the statute which created it—‘‘to foster, promote, and de- velop the welfare of wage earners of the United States, to improve their working conditions, and to advance their oppor- tunities for profitable employment,” are now able to call and continue strikes which throw hundreds of thousands of union as well as nonunion men out of employment, interfere with interstate commerce, deplete unemployment funds, and at times threaten the welfare of the public. That is a broad statement, but to realize its truth one need but recall cur- rent events. The coal strike of last winter, when one man, John L. Lewis, successfully de- fied the Federal Government, caused more than 200,000 workers to lose their jobs and impose hardship and suffering upon the people of the northern half of the United States, has not been forgot- ten. Nor have we any assurance that a similar situation will not recur next winter. There is the present Chrysler strike which was called on January 25 for one purpose, with the issue now entirely dif- ferent. Some 89,000 Chrysler employees have been out of work for more than 90 days. ‘These strikers have lost more than an estimated $126,000,000 in wages, Just how many other employees in sup- plier plants have lost their jobs, how many dealers have suffered financial loss, and to what extent, is not known. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD The Chrysler Corp. loss can conserva- tively be put at not less than $600,000,- 000. It is reported that the union has col- lected around $7,000,000 in strike bene~ fits from union members. It is charged that no more than $2,000,000 of that sum has been paid out in strike bencfits by the union; that approximately $5,000,000 will be held in a kitty for po- litical campaign purposes. From my own district have come let- ters from members of the UAW-CIO, protesting the dollar-a-week assessment for strike benefits. Some write me that they just cannot understand why they should aid in paying for a strike in which they are not interested. The press of April 25 stated there was a surprise strike by studio engineers in the American and National Broadcast- ing Co.’s in New York, which took the two systems off the air for some 2 hours, although their contract with the com- pany does not expire until April 30. Railroad employees threatened to tie up two of the country’s largest railways because—and apparently only  be- cause—the railroads would not grant the union’s demand for a third and unneed- ed man on Diesel locomotives. That demand was twice declared unwarranted by a President’s fact-finding board— once in 1934 by a board appointed by President Roosevelt and again in 1949 by President Truman’s board—although such boards are usually sympathetic toward all demands by the unions. Sixty-three hundred phone workers here in Washington were ready to go on strike, and according to the press, threat- ened to jam Washington’s telephone service. Nor are some unions respecters of either charity or the grave. Many remember when, in an eastern city, the grave diggers union called a strike, and not until a priest and his as- sistants voluntcered to dig the graves were the dead buried. Only recently here in Washington a radio station offered, without charge, to televise, for the benefit of crippled chil- dren the show produced by the Shriners, but the Associated Guild of Variety Ar- tists insisted that circus hands, though they took no part in the performance, be paid for the video performance. Result? The crippled children were deprived of the funds which they would have other- wise received through the joint efforts of the Shrine and the station. Under our system of government, no individual, no organization, unless it be a taxing body created by law, has the right to deprive you of your money or property. Yet, amazing as it may seem, in addition to a lawful tax burden which takes from each individual at least one- fourth of what he earns, millions of dol- lars are every year, by the unions, ex- acted from taxpayers who must pay if they desire to hold a job. In many in- dustries employing hundreds of thou- sands of individuals a job can neither be obtained nor held unless the demands of the union be met—an initiation fee, all regular and special assessments be paid. That condition, that is, the ability of any organization to compel a man to pay
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD tribute for a job which he must have if lke would feed and clothe his family or himself, is un-American, and if permit- ted to grow, will ultimately ruin us all. That condition exists because, and only because, a majority of our people having sympathy for the man who must work—do manual labor—insisted that the Congress make a gift of legislation which created special privileges, gave special benefits to employees. But that special legislation which, I repeat, was a gift of the American peo- ple to workers, has been misused and abused by organized labor until today powerful unions—more accurately, the Jeaders of those unions—are not only exacting tribute from their own mem- bers but are making it extremely dif- ficult for the unorganized worker to ob- tain and hold a job. In addition, unions are arbitrarily col- Jecting millions of dollars which they have, in part, used in the past—do not forget that John L. Lewis, of the UMW, contributed $750,000 to the Roosevelt campaign fund—which they will use in the future, for political purposes to ad- vanee their own political ambitions— to establish a labor government similar to that of England, which exists only because we contribute our dollars. Unions and union members are not the only organizations, the only work- ers, in this land of ours. In fact, they are in the minority. When hundreds of thousands of people are thrown out of their jobs, on relief, by a strike, or when the public welfare is threatened because of a strike, there must be a remedy. No group, to advance its own inter- ests, can be permitted to threaten the welfare of the rest of the people, tie up completely and indefinitely transporta- tion, communications, or any other busi- ness activity which affects all of us. To remedy the situation, I have pro- posed a bill which, while preserving the right of employees to organize, bargain collectively, and to strike, will, if en- forced, prevent union and nonunion men being deprived of their much needed jobs through strikes which they do not ap- prove, have not authorized. Men who must work if they would eat should not be deprived by any individual or organi- zation of the opportunity to earn a liveli- hood. When unions misuse the special privi- leges granted them by the Taft-Hartley and other laws, they should automati- cally lose the special benefits conferred upon them. by those laws designed to give them special benefits and privi- leges. Former Under Secretary of State Clayton Urges Approval of the ITO Charter EXTENSION OF REMARKS Or HON. JERE COOPER OF TENNESSEE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, May 2, 1950 Mr. COOPER. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks, I am in- cluding the following letter from former Under Secretary of State W. L. Clayton, appearing in the Washington Post to- day, stressing the importance of prompt approval of the ITO Charter: CLAYTON UrcEs ITO CHARTER APPROVAL (By W. L. Clayton, former Under Secretary of State) I am sorry to see from your editorial of April 21 con the International Trade Organi- zation that you favor deferring a decision on the Habana Charter. You say that the charter contains too many escape clauses and qualifications; that it does not remove all trade discriminations; that it will have little effect on international trade so long as ECA continues to provide aid for western Europe. You add that there is divided opinion in business groups, trade and civic organizations about the charter. May I remind you that the charter was completed 2 years ago; that it took more than 3 pears and several international con- ferences to reach agreement on it. After all this labor and waiting, if now we postpone decision on adoption of the charter, the other fifty-odd countries who joined us in writing it will probably conclude that we are no longer interested in creating this mechanism of the United Nations for promoting multilateral trade throughout the world. Further delay now probably means there will be no International Trade Organization. It is true that the Charter grants certain exemptions and escapes but far from giving any nation any rights it does not already have, it has secured agreement on many vital principles of multilateral trade. Some of the stated objectives of the Charter are: “To increase the production, consumption, and exchange of goods, and thus to contrib- ute to a balanced and expanding world econ- omy; to further the enjoyment by all coun- tries on equal terms of access to markets, products, and productive facilities needed for their economic prosperity and development; to promote on a reciprocal and mutually advantageous basis the reduction of tariffs and other barriers to trade and the elimina- tion of discriminatory treatment in interna- tional commerce.” To aid in the accomplishment of these purposes the Charter would establish the International Trade Organization as an agency of the United Nations. This organi- zation would at once become a forum where representatives of member governments could meet and discuss their trade problems just as they meet in the Assembly and Secu- rity Council of the United Nations to discuss their political and security problems. Mr. Paul Hoffman’s recent speeches have emphasized the urgent need of economic in- tegration and the lowering of trade barriers. He has repeatedly called attention to the urgent need for the United States to greatly increase its imports from Europe. The ITO would provide a forum where such matters could be discussed and dealt with day by day instead of by occasional speeches. Let me mention only one or two of the other numerous benefits which would promptly fiow from adoption of this Charter: Take the question of customs red tape, arbitrary rulings, absence of any impartial tribunal to which to appeal, lack of informa- tion about what regulations actually are~— all these things make it so dificult for peo- ple in various countries to do business with each other that some informed people have said they are a greater barrier to imports than tariffs themselves. The Charter pro- vides for a widespread adjustment, simplifi- cation, and publication of customs proce- dures all over the world. Would you say that this would have little effect upon the character of international trade? We read much about private cartels—how they hold up prices and otherwise interfere A3219 with recovery abroad. The prompt estab- lishment of international machinery for dealing with the harmful effects of cartels, which the charter provides, should prove of great benefit to international trade. I believe that the rules of the charter are basically good rules. I believe that it is most important that they be made effective at once in order to establish the direction of policy which the member governments will pursue. The fact that governments have agreed to follow the principles embodied in the charter will affect trade policy decisions which member government. make every day. In that way the charter should have a very real and immediate effect upon international rade. In fact, anticipation of the estab- lishment of the ITO has already had its in- fluence in a number of cases; for example, one of the reasons advanced to the British Parliament by the Government in support of the monopoly law recently passed was that it would enable the United Kingdom to carry out its commitments under the ITO Charter. Finally, may I say that I am surprised at the suggestion that one reason for postpon- ing action on the Charter is th- fact that there are conflicting views about the ITO. Have there not always been conflicting views in the United States on international trade? Do you think ail our people will agree with Mr. Hoffman that the United States should greatly step up its purchases of European goods? Don’t you know that we have power- fulinterests in our country who would rather see us give away $3,000,000,000 worth of goods annually than to accept goods in payment which might in some small measure inter- fere with their own business? One of the most important and beneficial steps taken by the United States in the field of international trade policy was the enact- ment of the Trade Agreements Act in 1934, This act never would have been passed, or renewed, as it has been on several occasions, if its consideration by the Congress had been deferred until opinion about it had ceased to be divided. Indeed, opinion on it has been so divided that on one occasion, the act was seriously weakened, by amendment, in renewal. HovUsTON, TEx. Economic Cooperation Administration EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. THOMAS J. LANE OF MASSACHUSETTS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, May 2, 1950 Mr. LANE. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks, I wish to insert the following article from the Boston Sunday Herald, Boston, Mass., April 30, 1950: European RECOvERY CasH Now RETURNING TO Am NEw ENGLAND INDUSTRY (By Lawrence G. Weiss) A good dollar, like a bad penny, has a way of turning up again. That’s what’s been happening to the dol- lars the United States has invested in Euro- pean recovery. They’ve been turning up in the cash registers of American businessmen, and New Englanders are getting their share. Our friends in Europe are using our dol- lars to buy our goods. It means more orders for New England factories, more jobs for New England workers, and more traffic for the port of Boston. It means a $10,000,000,- 000 investment is paying dividends. Wide-awake Yankee businessmen, never the ones to sit idle when there were dollars to be spent, have been selling everything
A3220 from can openers to textile machinery to customers in Europe. They have salesmen 3rer™7 *he rounds 4m countries like France,7: - “1 “" and ritain drumming up business in tires and ice-cream freezers, needles, and eyeglass frames. And the sales are coming in. The dollars we’ve supplied to Europe are now paying for about 45 percent of the goods that are being shipped from the port of Boston. They’ve been the major factor behind the port’s gains in export business during the last year. SPREAD IS WIDE In 1 month, last year, when the dollars were coming in at a trickle instead of a stream, more than 191 New England firms got some of them. The total number of dollars tor these firms exceeded ten million. The month was June 1949. It’s an old month, but there are no statistics available for a later one. The smallest sale in that month was $215 for abrasive wheels. The largest was $2,279,000 for coal, Since then the flow of dollars to New Eng- land has increased. When the United States first made its dollars available to western Europe in the spring of 1948, the Europeans wanted food, fuel, and agricultural implements. They bought these things from the Midwest and from areas outside the United States. These aren’t the kind of commodities that New England produces. And so, in 1948, New England got only a small amount of the dollars. Most of the dollars we did get came from the sale of coal, which was produced outside New England. By the end of January 1949, New England had received only about 1 percent of the total number of dollars that were spent through- out the world. But even that 1 percent came to $22,000,000. After European farms began to produce again and our friends in Europe were less hungry and cold, the United States set out to convince them that they’d have to use our dollars for some long-range objectives. NEW ENGLAND BOON We wanted them to buy machinery to build up their industries. In that way, we said, they could become self-sufficient and we would not have to go on supporting them, Most of the Europeans agreed. They began to put their dollars into ma- chinery, machine tools, and electrical equip- ment. And that’s where New England came in. Those things are our meat. The dollars began pouring in. By June of 1949—the month we have figures for—our percentage of the dollars had more than tripled. It’s been going up ever since. Europeans are buying more and more of the things New England makes. They’re making the purchases with dollars supplied by the Economic Cooperation Admunistra- tion, the ECA. The ECA program is a com- plicated one, but here’s a simple version of how it works. A customer in France wants to buy some- thing useful from an American factory. He tells his government about it, and asks per- ission to use up some of the dollars France nas had allocated to it by ECA. If the government says yes and ECA ap- proves, the French customer pays his govern- ment in his own currency for the thing he wants to buy. Then ECA pays the American manufacturer in dollars. ECA PAYS BILL The American seller and the French buyer do business in pretty much their own way. But ECA, which means you, pays the bill. The money the Frenchman. pays to his gov- ernment is put into a fund called the Couns» terpart Fund, This fund can be used to pay for productive improvements in France, like railroad improvements. Or it can be used to pay off some of France’s debt. In either case, the money can only be spent with ECA ap- proval. If it weren’t for ECA, countries in western - Europe simply wouldn’t have the dollars to buy what we have to sell. We'd have had to do without the greater part of six billion dollars’ worth of export business in the last year and a half, That’s a lot of business, and it means a lot of jobs. But when you come right down to it, the dividends the United States expects to get from the billions it has invested in Europe have to be measured in something larger than business and jobs. We’re sending western Europe our dollars so that 1t will be strong enough to resist communism, The men who thought up the idea feared Europe would be overrun by Communists if it weren’t helped. And if Europe were overrun, they thought, it would mean war between Russia and the United States. And they figured that, in terms of dollars and cents alone, a war would cost American taxpayers a great deal more than they’ve had to pay for ECA. So even ‘f we weren’t getting our dollars back, ECA, in their view, would still be a good investment, The McCarthy Record EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. MELVIN PRICE OF ILLINOIS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, May 2, 1950 Mr. PRICE. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Rrec- ord, I include herewith an editorial which appeared in today’s Washing- ton Post, May 2, 1950, entitled “The McCarthy Record”: THE McCartHyr REecorp Dr. Owen Lattimore’s clearly deserved re- buttal appearance before the Tydings sub- committee today should bring to an end the public, or circus, phase of the inquiry into Senator McCartHy’s charges. Thereafter, we hope, the subcommittee will retire into the closed sessions with which it should have undertaken its task from the begin- ning. Perhaps, then, this is a suitable Junc- ture to recall the original McCarthy charges, although the Senator seems anxious to have them forgotten. The initial charge came in a speech at Wheeling, W. Va., on February 9. “I have here in my hand,” Mr. McCarrayr was quoted as saying, “‘a list of 205 that were known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping the policy of the State Department.” This was followed by a telegram to President Tru- man asserting, “I have in my possession the names of 57 Communists who are in the State Department at present.” Then, in a 4-hour speech to the Senate, February 20, Senator McCarruy declared: “I have ap- proximately 81 cases * * * the names are here.” On that occasion, he outlined the cases without disclosing the names, insist- ing that he had all the data necessary to support his charges. “I shall be willing, happy, and eager,” he said, “to go before any committee and give the names and all the information available. I shall refuse to give the source of the information, however.” It can scarcely be recalled too frequently, moreover, that in the same Senate speech, Mr. McCartHy made the following categori- cal statement: “I will not say anything on the Senate floor which I will not say off the APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD floor, On the day when I take advantage of the security we have on the Senate floor, on that day I will resign from the Senate. Any- thing I say on the floor of the Senate at any time will be repeated off the floor.” Since then, he has named individuals and accused them of atrocious crimes, taking advantage of the security of the Senate. But he has conspicuously failed to repeat the accusa- tions outside the Senate’s immunity. And he has not yet resigned. In his appearances before the Tydings subcommittee, Senator McCartuy did not provide the information to support his in- dictment of the 205 or the 57 or the 81. He pleaded that he could not prove his charges unless the FBI would prove them for him by surrendering the confidential investiga- tive records which the President had pre- viously forbidden the agency to surrender. And at last he said he would let his whole case stand or fall on the validity of his ac- cusations concerning Dr, Lattimore whom he called at first the “top espionage agent” in this country and ended by describing as a “bad policy risk.” Dr. Lattimore, it should be remembered, is not and never has been an employee of the State Department. He is a private citi- zen, recognized throughout the academic profession as one of the foremost authorities on the Far East, who has occasionally sub- mitted memoranda, in response to State De- partment requests, concerning policy in the area of his experience. Senator McCarrry’s case against him rests primarily on the opin- ions Dr. Lattimore expressed—opinions with which the Senator happens to disagree, al- though many of them have been abundantly vindicated by events. Two facts appear to be plain concerning the Lattimore case. One is that it can prove nothing whatever about the validity of Sena- tor McCartHy’s charges that there are 205 or 57 or 81 Communists in the State Depart- ment. The other is that the Senate of the United States has no business conducting a trial and passing Judgment on the “loyalty” of a private citizen. Of course, if this in- volves the crime of espionage, then such a case should he referred to a grand jury. However, Senator McCarrur has apparently abandoned this charge. In view of the misrepresentation of Dr. Lattimore as a State Department employee and extravagance of the charges made against him under the Senate’s immunity, the Tydings subcommittee was under an obvious obligation to allow him the oppor- tunity to reply in public. It is now under obligation, as a matter of elementary jus- tice, we think, to give Dr. Lattimore a speedy and unequivocal vindication, and in view of the wide mischief and alarm that have been caused, to make a ringing declaration in behalf of the freedom of inqury which has been gravely threatened by the Latti- more case. State Law Overruled by United Nations Charter EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. LAWRENCE H. SMITH OF WISCONSIN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, May 2, 1950 Mr. SMITH of Wisconsin. Mr, Speak- er, certainly something new has been added when a California court rules that the United Nations Charter takes pre- cedence over State law. Here is a chal- lenge to every loyal citizen of the United
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD States. I am including as part of my remarks a news article that appeared in the Washington Daily News on April 25 which tells the whole story. This case should be appealed to the highest court in our land so the people may know which way we are going. The article follows: Los ANGELES, April 25.—A California court, in what was believed an unprecedented rul- ing, overruled a State law which banned Japanese from owning land because the statute conflicted with the UN Charter. The District Court of Appeals said yester- day the Federal Constitution provides that treaties take precedence over State laws. The decision written by Justice Emmet H. Wil- son said the UN Charter is a treaty between the United States and other UN members. “The Charter guarantees universal respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, without regard to race, color, or re- ligion. Because the alien land law discrimi- nates against Japanese concerning the own- ership of land, its restrictions are untenable and indefensible,” the decision said. Lower courts had ruled that under Cali- fornia’s alien land law Sei Fujii, native of Japan, could not keep property he bought more than 40 years ago because he was in- eligible for citizenship. Whither the Railroads? EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. HERBERT R. 0’CONOR OF MARYLAND * IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, May 3 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. O’CONOR. Mr. President, a great segment of the national economy is dependent upon the well-being of the great railroad systems of our country. Unless they prosper and progress the adverse effects are felt throughout the length and breadth of the Jand. Among the most progressive railroads of the country, the Pennsylvania Rail- road system is typical of the most pro- gressive systems with regard to its ap- proach to the problems of the day. Its former president, now chairman of the board, M. W. Clement, has been a recog- nized authority in the field of railroad development and enterprise. Few railroad officials have had better opportunity to view comprehensively the problems facing the industry, certainly few such officials have brought to the task a more sound knowledge of matters that affect railroading in large or small degree. In an address delivered recently be- fore the chamber of commerce at San Francisco, Calif., Mr. Clement voiced the conviction, based on his long experi- ence, that sensible regulation permitting greater freedom of operations is an es- sential not only to the progress of the industry, but, indeed, to its very survival. The importance of the railroads -to the economy of our country is such that Mr. Clement’s views and proposals de- serve to be brought to the attention of as great a proportion of our people as possible. I ask unanimous consent, therefore, that the address be inserted in the Appendix of the Recorp, There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the Rrcorp, as follows: WHITHER THE RAILROADS?——SENSIBLE REGULA~ TION, GREATER FREEDOM Wovu.np Ai INDUS- Tey’s SuRvivau The best way I know to indicate my appre- ciation of your invitation to come here is to talk with you frankly. If ever there were a day when men should face frankly the facts of life, it is today. No man should fear to be regarded as a Jere- miah if he becomes thoughtful about what he sees going on and expresses himself ac- cordingly. Nor should he be deterred from using what have been derided as scare words if he believes they are the kind of words that accurately describe what he observes. It is only natural for businessmen to look at things—social, political, and economic— through the eyes of their own particular en- terprise. It is also very easy to see ghosts; it is tempting to argue from the particular to the general. It is human nature to think that what is important to ourselves should be important to others. These observations occurred to me in con- nection with what I proposed to say here because it starts with the railroad industry. And I mention them so that you may apply whatever discount you think appropriate in view of my interest in railroads. No thoughtful, responsible citizen— whether businessman or not—who is inter- ested in keeping alive for his children and his grandchildren the freedoms that he him- self inherited, can avoid wondering at least whether there is really any more important issue before the American people than the very form of our Government itself. Are we to continue as a Republic or are we going to have a centralized state—by ‘default? I say “thovghtful” and “responsible” be- cause there is altogether too little responsible thought being given to the subject, in what- ever state one finds himself; too little sense of individual responsibiliy. Too many are inclined to forget or disregard the princi- ples of freedom in favor of temporary self- interest. Too many do not know their own coin or cannot detect the counterfeit coin of others. Right now and for some years we have been in the midst of inflation, but who doesn’t like a little inflation? On every side there are subsidies, but who believes in pri- vate enterprise enough to refuse a little sub- sidy for himself? ABILITY TO EARN EXPENSES SIGN OF SOUND BUSINESS We are gliding into state socialism, which is the easy and alluring path from freedom to absolutism. This path is lined with at- tractive signs and deceptive words that do not mean what they say; that are meant to disguise and conceal, and to fool the unwary and gullible. What, you may ask, have the railroads to do with all this? I believe it is the railroads— perhaps more particularly the railroads in the East—whose situation suggests some of the processes which those interested in state socialism find it advantageous to use. Any business, any endeavor, to continue to exist must be economically sound. Any busi- ness to be sound must earn not only its oper- ating and maintenance costs but also its in- terest and depreciation and its taxes—social security, income, and ad valorem. That the railroad transportation business (which is the most o-ertaxed and overregulated indus- try in the United States) does this, is an out- standing tribute to the men who operate the American railroads. EXCESSIVE REGULATION LEADS TO STATISM We are not opposed to taxes, but they should be equitable and should not be used to subsidize, particularly our competitors. A3221 should be by law and not by emotion. Many of us in the transportation business realize full well that without regulation the rail- roads would have been government-owned long ago. It is my own belief that the Inter~ state Commerce Act of 1887 and the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 are the two most im- portant statutes of our time. These two acts properly administered are, in my judgment, staunch bulwarks of the freedoms our Re- public was founded to preserve. Without the Sherman Act a few large rail systems, possibly just one system, would have developed and eventually it would have be~ come government-owned. Without regula- tion under the Interstate Commerce Act we would likewise have had government owner- ship. And government ownership is so- cialism., If it was important in the past to protect the public and the railroads by regulation, it is equally important now to protect them from regulation. Regulation is gradually ceasing to be what it was intended to be. It is becoming a supermanagement (a form of centralized state operation, if you please) enforcing its owm business Judgment—or political judgment—upon railroad rates and practices, gradually undermining the ca- pacity of the railroads to provide the quality of transportation under'‘just and reasonable rates that managerial initiative, unham- pered, can provide. The whole approach to the problem of the after-war economy of the railroads has been devious. Procedural delay on the part of the regulatory authorities has cost the railroads vast sums of money—some $250,- 000,000 after taxes on the Pennsylvania Railroad in the last 5 years—yet prompt action, on the basis of the obvious, would have been beneficial all around. It would have meant no higher rates. It would have improved the economy of the railroads. It would have hastened the decrease in rates that always follows reconstruction after a period of economic upheaval and inflation such as we have been going through. GOVERNMENT OWNERSHIP MAY BE ULTIMATE STEP If regulation under the law is important to the railroads, it is even more important to the shippers at large and to the public as a whole that regulation shall adjust itself to the law. Today’s paradox is that while without regulation we would have had Gov- ernment ownership years ago, now—as @ result of regulation itself—Government . ownership is being made to seem inevitable. GROWTH OF SUBSIDIZATION IS BLOW aT SELF-RELIANCE I mentioned subsidy. This is another big factor in the transportation situation that has its significance to the thoughtful and responsible businessman who sees beyond his day’s work. It is almost impossible to find any large segment of the voting public today that does not enjoy some form of subsidy. Subsidy is gradually extending itself into all the rami- fications of business by one Means or an~- other. It is one of the insidious influences that is attacking the self-reliance of all the people. The upper and nether millstones between which the railroads are caught are the serv- ices which are performed at less than cost and the services which are performed at a profit but which are subject to inroads by subsidized competition. It is within these limits of the economy of the railroads that whether we shall have private ownership or the alternative of socialization will be de- termined. . The commuter believes in the free enter- prise system for everyone but the railroads. The airlines should exist without sub- sidy. Now they enjoy tax-built, tax-free air- ports, tax-maintained airways, and a big mail subsidy—many Millions a year. In We are not opposed to regulation, but it - connection with this mail subsidy to the
A3222 airlines, it is interesting to note that the Pennsylvania Railroad and the New York Central Railroad together, in 1949, lost about $40,000,000 in handling the United States mail—enough to pay the airmail subsidy, The rauroads, in other words, subsidize the Government and the Government sub- sidizes our competition, Then, under sub- sidy, our competitors charge less for their service, and the rauroads lose business, The private automobile owner pays more than he should in gas taxes so that the big trucker can pay much less than he should. The railroads want no subsidy. A rail subsidy could only mean Government con~- trol. Government control means Govern- ment ownership, and that is socialism. The railroads have a constructive problem of their own. It is to reduce the cost of their production and thus to reduce the cost of their service. The upper limit of rail rates is fixed, not only by competition but more so by another condition—the decentralization of industry to avoid transportation charges, The railroads produce nothing but service, They grew great through providing mass transporvction in volume at low rates. T.icir .uitire usefulness depends on the same thing. THREE PERIODS OF INFLATION POSE PROBLEMS IN TRANSPORTATION Personally, I have been through three periods of inflation, The first was at the turn of the century. It was one of even progress—spread over quite a few "years; a@ period of expansion and inflation that was generally wholesome in its effect. The Pennsylvania Railroad through that period made large capital expenditures for road and equipment. Mountain grades became low grades; sharp curves hecame easy curves or straight lines; engines and cars grew in size. Costs were generally held down and there were but slight rate increases. Com-~ bined with it there came a general im- provement in service and in wages and working conditions, Then it was that the short-haul package traffic became unprofit- able and the struggle with regulation com-~ enced. The next period of inflation was during and after World War I—a period probably all of you remember. Under Government administration railroad rates and expenses doubled. The director general of the rail- roads was unencumbered then by the delays of regulation and rate increases paralleled increased expenses—so that as the peak of inflation was reached, the peak of rates was reached, During the next decade the rail- roads of the country spent over $15,000,- 000,000 in improving their plant and equip- ment, and the period of the twenties and early thirties saw improvement in service, reduction in rates, and considerable di- version to the truck—particularly in the short haul. But, with the growth of the country, rail traffic—as measured by ton miles and passenger miles—grew during the twenties to exceed anything the country had known. before. RATE CONTROLS PUT BRAKE ON FREE FUNCTION OF RAILROADS Following the depression came World War II and the temporary period of partial price control; then inflation on a wide scale, That period is too close to need any review. While manufacturing and other industry, in the free economy in which they operate, moved thelr prices with their costs—and labor moved its rates at will, the railroads were prevented by regulation from functioning as they should under the free enterprise sys- tem and from changing their charges as their costs changed. Regulatory processes just could not keep up with economic events. Unfortunately, the processes of rate regus lation do not operate on a business basis, Regulation reflects the emotion of business< men and their representatives—shippers, producers, traffic leagues, chambers of com~< merce; and, while all these men in business make their own prices on a business basis, they object to the railroads pricing their services on the same basis. Each and every one of these groups or sections of the coun~ try wish to maintain some advantage over other groups or sections through their rate structure. So any attempt on the part of the railroads to make their rates on a busi- ness basis, here in the midst of the only free enterprise country of the world, makes slow progress. The only approach available is the one that we have taken—to raise all rates to get up the unprofitable and then eventually bring down the ones that are too high—and, through changes of practices or methods, keep them profitable. OPPORTUNITY TO MOVE FREELY IS TODAY’S GREAT NEED The railroads are going to have to spend as many or even more billions after World War II as they did after World War I. We will need greater capacity motive power; long trains of large capacity, light-weight high- earning capacity cars, with relative low rates for the long haul. Therein lies our salva- tion and industry’s salvation, and we need the help of each other if we are to make prog- ress and preserve a free economy. The country has doubled in size since any additional railroads have been built. The people consume more transportation every day. With the constant growth of transpor- tation we feel confident that to take the place of that unprofitable business which the rail- roads lose, there will come more profitable business. It will come if the country con- tinues to progress, and we—the railroads— will be restored to prosperity and will per- form to the benefit of the people as a whole if we are permitted to move in the free economy in which you all live and have your business being. If we don’t get that opportunity, then we will move right along with the socialistic drift of the day and become a creature of the state, supported by additional taxation which you will have to pay—if, of course, you manage to stay free yourselves. PROFIT MOTIVE IS SPARK PLUG OF THE AMERICAN SYSTEM As you watch developments in this country, note how many people talk against communism and against socialism. If it were not so tragic, it really would be amus- ing to observe these peopie in all walks of life denouncing socialism, denouncing Gov- ernment ownership, while at the same time they are fostering policies that are hastening the advent of the very thing they talk against. Capital is the product of effort in a free society. The greatest aggregation of capi- talists the world has ever known are the American workmen, and as they have become capitalists they have promoted prosperity. Only where the mass of the people have the courage to have capital have they the courage to love freedom. The citizen of the totali- tarian state has no property, he is property— state owned. He is a slave. Only the profit motive made us what we are. And the right to, and maintenance of, the profit motive in business or industry, or any other form of capitalist enterprise, is the only way we can maintain our freedom. AMERICANS CANNOT SUPPORT HALF-SLAVE, HALF= FREE ECONOMY At the time of the signing of the Constitu- tion someone asked Benjamin Franklin, “What have we got?” and he replied, “You have a Republic if you can keep it.” That was the Republic we kept for about a hun- dred years, and it was the Republic which subsequently a Minister of the United States to England said, ““ ™ ™* will endure so jong as the ideas of the men who made it APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD continue to be dominant.” Those are ideas that, in our time, are gradually disappearing or being circumscribed with other ways of thinking as we gradually slide from a re- public to a democracy and then to the social- istic state. One of the country’s really great men, Tllinois’ greatest, said that this country could not remain half slave and half free. If that were true in the agricultural economy of his day, it is just as tiue of the industrial econ- omy today. We just cannot continue to have America survive with part of its mdustry operating in a free economy and part oper- ating in a slave economy. Neither can we have any line of competitive endeavor, such as in the transportation field, half subsi- dized and half taxed, without eventually destroying it. The world suffers more from those whose intentions are good but whose thinking is warped than it does from those of bad pur- poses. The Government should not guaran-~ tee people an income from their occupation, but the right to pursue it unmolested by unwarranted intrusions of Government and regulation. The theory behind the Republic was that Government should mind its own business as long as the people minded theirs. It was the fear of want and the ambition to excel that brought the human race up from ignorance to irtellicerce from barbarism to eniinstion; div. vi. 'e compelling urge that brought this country from a wilderness to its high state of prosperity in so short a time. PROGRESS WAS GREATEST IN ERA OF FREEDOM Your forebears and mine, after the Revolu-~ tion, when this country was at its lowest ebb, did not have anyone to guarantee them a@ price for their crop. There was no hand- out from any*other couniry to keep them from going communistic. Nobody sent them food to bring up their caloric ration or to improve their vitamin intake. None of those things had ever been heard of. They went out into the far reaches of this country and survived or did not survive as they were able to make a living out of the soll they tilled. The Republic, in the very beginning, recog- nized that one of the ruling guides of human association was to guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the posses- sion of its products, and that agriculture, manufacture, commerce, and transporta- tion—the foundation of prosperity——are the most thriving when left most free to indi- vidual enterprise. Grover Cleveland, one of the strong Ameri- cans of my youth——‘‘Tell the Truth” Cleve- land—in his second inaugural address stated: “Paternalism is the bane of republican in- stitutions; it undermines the self-reliance of our people and substitutes in its place dependence upon governmental favoritism; it stifles the spirit of true Americanism and stupefies every ennobling trait of American citizenship.” AS THE RAILROADS GO-——-SO GOES THE COUNTRY Few people realize that the sixteenth amendment—the income-tax amendment— made over to the Government the whole power of an autocrat to take from one indi- vidual and not from another as it will, and to take in different proportion from different individuals as it will. People did not realize when it was adopted that it was not a power of constitutional taxation, but was—and still is—the power of confiscation. The power to tax is the power to destroy. The evils of subsidy are the taxes it re- quirés. They help the drift of the country toward the socialistic state, and the fact that the railroads and not your business may be involved is no lasting consolation to you. The country will go as the railroads go. And it is In your own interest to see that the rail- roads continue as free enterprise under sen- sible regulation, for if they do not survive— no other business will.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD We want no Government subsidy, no Gov- ernment aid. No government is strong enough for everybody to lean on, nor rich enough for everybody to live on. Within the limits of the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Interstate Commerce Act we want only eco- nomic freedom to develop and prosper to operate in the best interests of the free in- dustry and the free people that we serve. The Road to Socialism EXTENSION OF REMARKS fo) HON. HARRY FLOOD BYRD OF VIRGINIA : IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, May 3 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to insert in the Ap- pendix of the Recorp a very fine address made by the attorney general of Vir- ginia, the Honorable J. Lindsay Almond, at Madison College, Harrisburg, Va., on April 19. There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the Rrcorp, as follows: Tue Roan To Socialism I would like to discuss with you some vital issues which confront all who are concerned with the survival of the institution of American representative democracy. That loyalty and devotion to our country which lies dormant and cankers in lethargy, to awaken in the stupor of drowsiness under the impact only of an international emergency, is a virus which saps the energizing vitality of a Nation rendering it impotent to respond to the call of survival when the dark days of armed conflict descend upon us. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty in peace as well as in war. “The ramparts we watch” are a challenge to our patriotism in the pur- suit of @ sane and constructive course in domestic as well as in foreign policy. In the world of today domestic and interna- tional issues are interwoven in breadth of scope and depth of importance. The enduring character of every structure, moral, spiritual, physical, ideological, is commensurate with the stability of the foundation upon which it rests. The archi- tect and builder dare not defy the laws of gravity, nature and nature’s God. He will subscribe to, adhere to and follow tried, tested, known, proven, and practical funda- mental principles and formulae. Whatever deviation there may be in his commendable reach for progress and improvement he will not overreach, abandon, or undermine the foundation upon which the superstructure must rest. When he does so he knows that there lies ahead the inevitable crash of calamity and catastrophe. I wonder how many of you realize that our country is reaching, or may have reached, and is enmeshed in the turning point of its his- tory and that the decisions relating to domestic policy now being made, and those that will follow as an inevitable consequence, will determine the character of our political and economic life for a long time to come. We are at the fateful crossroads of our national development and destiny. Until recently the political and economic roads that we traveled gave ample opportunity for the successful exercise of the proven and tested virtues of individual initiative, self reliance, independence, and responsibility. The paths we are now taking lead only to emphasis upon self security, governmental ownership of basic industry; regimentation - of the people through collectivist controls, abrogation of the free market principle, sabotage of the law of supply and demand and the death Knell of the free enterprise system. They are the deep and devastating inroads of socialism upon the American way of life. They are the paths to the authori- tarian and welfare state. We are at grips with socialism under the fraudulent and de- ceptive guise of national planning. Social- ism is the intervening and deviating step between capitalism and that antithetical and hideous ideology Known as communism. Beckoned by the siren call of the false assumption that we are getting something for nothing, we are bartering our most pre- cious heritage of liberty. Anyone who dares warn his fellow citizens of our mad and reckless rush into the em- brace of socialism is called a reactionary. He is told that he is refusing to face the real issues and is resorting to bugaboo and scare procedures. But let us see who is facing the genuine issues, Certainly, not the welfare state boys. Not the indolent, the idle care- free crowd who seek a redistribution of the national wealth, those who would penalize the frugality and industry of those who have, to reward the indolence, indifference and inertia of those who have not, simply be- cause they seek not to improve their own condition by the exercise of ambition, initia- tive, and enterprise. Can it be those who seek to create a centralized government in Washington strong enough for everybody to lean on and big enough for everybody to live on, not realizing that the vitality of the entire social and economic structure is sapped in proportion to the increase of the political powers of such a government? Can it be those who seek to destroy the individual zest and initiative, the inventive genius and progressiveness of those who invest their energies, substance, and resources in the stability, growth, and expansion of tech- nology, science, industry, commerce, busi- ness, and agriculture, under the impetus of free enterprise, thereby creating the fiber of life and sustenance for the entire body politic, augmenting the strength of the Nation and meeting in full the increasing demands of employment and individual security? The answer is so obvious as to render its state- ment unnecessary. That which we now witness springs from the inherent nature of man. Humankind is innately selfish and grasping. Areas, sects, and classes organize to seek advantages limited to their own special groups. The impact upon the commonweal is a matter of no concern. Special privilege with its in- evitable encroachments upon the relative rights of others has become the order of the day. Political and economic philosophy has changed to political and economic strategy. We are losing the glorious democratic trin- ity of “government of the people, by the people, and for the people.” Through the welded, compact response of minority pres- sure groups to the dangling bait of political promises we are descending into government of the many by the few. We are rapidly con- taminating and distorting the virtue of an- other basic and fundamental trinity, “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” We are eschewing the essence of the democratic concept of life, bartering liberty and placing profligate emphasis upon a reckless and cost~ ly pursuit of happiness. Instead of improv- ing, securing, and transmitting untarnished to posterity the heritage which came to us through blood and sacrifice we are consum- ing it in riotous living. The flames on the altar of socialism, unless we reverse the trend, will be its funeral pyre. From days of old men have yearned to be rid of the uncertainties of a world charac- terized by change, risk, and want. Faced by the uncertainty of his food supply because of vagaries of weather conditions primitive man resorted to magic to propitiate the gods. Modern man is the counterpart of A3223 his cave-dwelling brother. Confronted by limitations on the supply of goods and serv- ices modern men dream of utopias and the Santa Claus state. If your resources and production do not permit us to satisfy all of our desires, then, instead of relying on our own initiative and the dint of hard un- sparing effort, it is more pleasant and mo- mentarily comforting to follow the lines of least resistance. No matter how degrading to self respect and how derogatory to in- dependence, we indulge the fond thought and hope that there is a kind father in Washington to whom we can look for help in the mendicant role of a supplicant and not go away disappointed. It matters not that the father in Washington produces nothing, that the Government will have to pyramid tax upon tax, further devaluate the currency, increase inflation, and add to the crushing weight of an already appalling debt. These practices are so soothing that their adverse effects are not immediately appar- ent. They lull us into a state of sonambu- lism. It is the caressing simplicity of the line of thinking, or total lack of it, that regards Government spending as a cure-all that makes it so dangerous. They tell us that we need not worry about unbalanced budg- ets, recurring deficits, a stupendous national debt and and increasing taxation, because the rising national income will take care of that. That is becoming the comforting but dangerous and fallacious dogma of the mod- ern age. It is nothing but a convenient doctrine for refusing to face our inescapable responsibilities. It is whistling in the dark as we pass by the proverbial graveyard. It was not through the application of such a doctrine that we have succeeded in the past in achieving an increase of national production at the average rate of 4 percent per year. The well-known research agency, the National Bureau of Economic Research, in a study of manufacturing productivity, has shown that by the end of the fourth decade of this century manufacturing out- put in the United States was four times that achieved at the turn of the century. This increase was accomplished with only one- third as many man-hours of factory labor per unit of output as was the case 40 years earlier. New industries that were created gave employment to our increasing man- power and at the same time these industries turned out products which increased the standard of living for the average man. Why change from such a system or even contaminate it with the virus of socialism which has brought despair to the people and bankruptcy to every nation which has em- braced it? Our economic strength and progress was not the result of seeking salvation through the gospel of social security at the hands of a paternalistic government. Nor can we associate our economic growth with the idea of Government spending. Our growth and our greatness are the direct and undeniable result of risk taking, investment, and the freedom of the businessman to take chances with his resources because he knew he could own and use a fair proportion of the fruits of his genius and labor. Risk and uncer- tainty, which were feared by the static so- cieties of the past, were met head on and face to face by the dynamic forces of the free enterprise system. The businessman was the initiator of change and progress and the willing bearer of risks under the natural laws of a free economy. The profit-and-loss statement was the barometer of the forces of competition. Paternalistic socialism up- sets the barometer by destroying profit. Without profit the risk of venture and in- vestment is gone, initiative is destroyed, pro- duction recedes and unemployment rises, with want and penury stalking in the wake. The handout state with its philosophy of-spending aims at providing bread and ~-
A3224 circuses after the Roman fashion. Under the socialistic system the Roman Empire, shorn of all of 1ts glory, power, and prestige, found its last resting place on the scrapheap of oblivion. We follow the same road when each group, hat in hand, turns to the benevolence of a paternalistic state in a competitive grab for favors in the name of the general welfare. The philosophy extent in the land that the state must guarantee a minimum of security to every individual against all sorts and kinds of hazards not only weakens the moral fiber of the people but is productive of economic stagnation. It not only makes more and more taxes inevitable but 1t ren- ders necessary, aS a consequence, more and more controls over the economy, reaching down to the grass-root level of the entire society in abridgment of the liberties of all of the people. High and confiscatory levies upon individual and corporate income and inheritance dry up savings necessary for the formation of capital and rob state and local government of the scurces of revenue neces- sary to the performance of their essential functions. The key to our economic progress has been the fect that the savings of the people have been directed to the manufacture of the in- struments and the expansion of production. In the Socialist state the government ab- sorks the savings of the people. Technologi- cal changes, many of them of a revolutionary character, have been brought to fruition and use by innovators—men of 1magination, dar- ing, incentive and initiative—who carved their own way of invention, discovery, and success. This spirit of adventure, the crea- ture of freedom of enterprise, is fast giving way to the psychology of dependence upon @ paternalistic state. The fundamental question which we must late—is answer now—and the hour is whether we are more likely to promote eco- nomic welfare and individual freedom through governmental measures designed to redistribute income and level all classes and conditions of men or our destiny is to con- tinue to be forged through a competitive system unhampered by bureaucratic controls and free to increase national production. Proponents of the philosophy of spend- ing maintain that they are the champions of a free competitive economic system. Their actions not only cast suspicion on the pro- fessions of their faith but flatly contradict every concept of the free-enterprise system. It may be that many of these persons are sincere, but misguided through ignorance of the workings of the free, competitive market. They seek to foist controls on the economy the inevitable result of which is to cripple or destroy the system. There are others, of course, who are less innocent and really know better. They are legion, and are the disciples of the Marxian theory, and Socialists at heart. They are the planners who advocate our following amaster plan. They are the integrators and the coordinators who strive for unification of our multifarious economic activities ac- cording to a neatly formulated plan worked out by a centralized, self-perpetuating Gov- ernment bureau or department. They soft- pedal statism, the welfare state, and Govern- ment ownership. Like so many of their So- cialist confederates of pinkish hue they call it the planned economy. Adroitly, they realize that the idea of nationalization does not strike a responsive chord in the minds of the American people. Planning is a much more attractive term since millions of per= sons from the housewife to the businessman are engaged in daily planning of their ac~ tivities. The snare is that it seems to be a very rational procedure to base one’s conduct upon a careful weighing of all alternatives and to have a clear understanding of your goal. It seems to be the scientific way of doing things. You clearly formulate your objectives, and then you seek for the best means to accomplish. It is all very simple. They ask the question, if the individual is wise in following this procedure why can- not the Nation follow a similar pattern through Government planning and controls? Unfortunately, collectivist planners sub- stitute pseudo-science for the genuine arti- cle. One characteristic of the scientific at- titude is to respect the medium with which the scientist is dealing. In matters per- taming to society the medium that must be respected consists of human beings and the cultural environment in which they func- tion. During a century and one-half we have developed a constitutional form of govern- ment, democratic political machinery, giv- ing voice to the wishes of its citizens, and an industrial system which registers the de- sires of every family through their daily ex- penditures on a wide variety of goods and services. Political democracy and the free market have gone hand in hand. One has been the concomitant of the other. We can- not ignore the fact that the nineteenth century, which made the greatest strides in establishing universal suffrage, freedom of speech, of assembly, and of the press, was also an age in which free enterprise and the prineiple of self-help prevailed in economic affairs. It is also significant that in recent decades those countries where a highly cen- tralized government controls production and distribution, initiative is dead, the people verge on robots, thought is muzzled and the labor prison camp is the destination of the political dissenter. The collectivist-minded should ponder these historical developments. Those bent on driving this country into the slough of socialism might consider the des- perate plight of our British cousins. If the pseudo-science of the planners re- sults in ignoring historical facts about our culture, it also does violence to the facts of human nature. The atmosphere created by Government controls and regulations does not encourage the undertaking of risks, of venturing into untried territory. Ask your- self whether centralized planners would have selected a young Virginia farm boy to mech- anize agriculture. Yet that is what Cyrus H. McCormick did. Would a centralized planning bureau have picked an ex-newsboy and railroad telegraph operator by the name of Thomas A. Edison to invent the electric light, the phonograph, and the motion-pic- ture industry? Would they have chosen a mechanic by the name of Henry Ford, who brought about the revolutionary changes associated with the automobile? These are only a few names in the glorious history of modern technology. Innovation, which was responsible for our great material prog- gress, could only flourish in an environment devoid of the authoritarian principle. The interventionist denies that he is a Socialist and that socialism is the last step before communism. When faced with the facts of history he denies that he is aiming at centralized planning. He claims that he wishes to eliminate the weak spots in the competitive market. He does not desire to interfere with the price system, but hopes rather to stabilize our economy through fis- cal and monetary policies. Actually, what we find him doing is attempting to perpet- uate price controls, propounding fly-by- night schemes for allocation of materials and rationing, and granting more and more subsidies for a rapidly increasing lst of welfare services. The more forthright among the planners, such as William H. Beveridge in his book, Full Employment in a Free Society, have pointed out that deficit spending will not of itself accomplish the objective of attaining economic stability. It will, in addition, necessitate centralized government controls over prices, production, wages, transfer of workers against their will from one job to another, the location of industry and the se- lection of private investment, . APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD As I see it, such nebulous schemes can only result in the loss of our liberties. Substi- tuted for your freedom of choice will be the caprice of government officials in deciding what is good for us all. To have the fate of the economy depend upon the ability of a central government agency to forecast eco- nomic changes is a deplorably dangerous matter. Errors of judgment, when we are dealing with the over-all economy, must lead to the impcsition of further controls and resirictions and to the state taking over the ownership of the key industries. There is no half-way stopping point be- tween a free market, where the price system regulates production and distribution, and a collectivist economy. The two will not blend. They are irreconciliable. Those who assert that they are for a mixed economy, a combination of private enterprise and gov- ernmentally regulated or sponsored indus- tries, can only produce a situation that is very much mixed indeed and where the term economy would surely be a misnomer. The recent elections in New Zealand, Aus- tralia, and Great Britain indicate that their people have called a halt to authoritarian controls. They have had the opportunity of sampling the ways of those who have extolled the glories of socialism and have found that the realities were far less attractive than the utopian promises. History is full of the tragedies of well-in- tentioned, zealous advocaics who brought down upon their people injury and misery not anticipated in the visionary schemes orig= inally propounded. We know that there are shortcomings in our economy. We must control the growth of monopolies; we must learn to avoid reckless speculative behavior that results in business depressions, and we must render assistance to the needy and af- flicted. But in correcting abuses and inade- quacies we must not rush to embrace o sys- tem of controls that can only lead to the col- lectivist economy and the authoritarian state. Americans have a strong idealistic bend in their national character, but it has been tempered by an ever stronger sense of the practicalities of life. We are not given to rushing in “where angels fear to tread.’”” We wish to know the means by which our ends are to be achieved. While we may welcome change, we desire to sce whether or not the programs advanced by the enthusiast or brain-truster may not bring about evils that were not expected or may force us to give up things which we have long cherished and which we continue to jepard as essential to the American way of e@. No matter what storm may descend upon us, let us gird our loins with truth and jus- tice, and protected by the shield of an un- wavering faith in God give our all in the pres- ervation of the fundamental veritles upon which this Nation was founded, upon which she has steadily and soundly grown to her present position of eminence and power and upon which she must endure. Proposed Sale of Westchester Apartments in Washington, D. C. EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. JOHN J. WILLIAMS OF DELAWARE IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, May 3 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, in the April 19, 1950, issue of the Evening Star, ‘Washington, D, C., there appeared an
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD article outlining a plan which is being developed by the Randall H. Hagner Co., a Washington real estate firm, for the sale of the 553-unit Westchester Apart- ments, which is the largest elevator apartment development in Washington. The article pointed out that among the tenants are the Nation’s top housing official, Housing and Home Finance Ad- ministrator Raymond M. Foley; Secre- tary of the Interior Mr. Chapman; Sec- retary of Agriculture Mr. Brannan; and seven Senators; five generals; three ad- mirals; six judges; and many other civilian and military officials. Here is just one more instance of the current trend of private corporations to transfer their operations from that of a private corporation to a cooperative for the purpose of obtaining tax exemp- tion under a law which was originally intended to benefit farmers only. This is another glaring example of how it is possible under our existing tax laws to obtain tax exemption in the name of the American farmer, and unless Con- gress takes action to correct this trend soon, we are going to have no one left in private industry to pay taxes. I ask unanimous consent to have in- serted in the Appendix of the Recorp this article in its entirety. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the REcorp, as follows: HacNer PLaAns Co-op SALE or WESTCHESTER— 5538-UNIr APARTMENT BUILDING May BE OFFERED THIS SUMMER (By Robert J. Lewis) A plan is being developed by the Randall H. Hagner Co., Washington real-estate firm, for the cooperative sale of the 553-unit West- chester Apartments, largest elevator apart- ment development in the Washington area, it was learned today from George N. Ray, president of the Hagner firm. Mr. Ray said details have not been worked out. Samuel R. Walker of New York, vice pres- ident of the City Investing Co., which con- trols the Realest Corp., owner of the develop- ment since 1947, said the company would consider selling the apartments. “There is no written agreement involved, but we have been informed that 2 plan is being developed in Washington, and if it is good then we will discuss it,” he said. LAW CURBS EVICTIONS “We are very happy with ownership of the property and whether there is any sale is a matter for the future to determine.” Under the District Rent Control Act, con= sent of 65 percent of the tenants to a co- operative sale would be needed before any evictions could be undertaken, though Mr. Ray said there was no intention to evict any families. The rent law expires, however, on June 30. After that date, unless the 65 percent re- quirement is reenacted, cooperative sales could be made without other than normal restraints against evictions. Mr. Ray said he understood about 60 tenants already had expressed willingness to purchase apartments. He added that he hoped to discuss details of the sales pro- gram with a tenants committee. FOLEY IS AMONG TENANTS The Hagner Co. president added, “we will have a very fair plan and there will be no effort to force people out.” He said he expected completion of the co- operative sale during the summer. The Westchester’s 553 apartments have a total of 2,171 rooms, plus 686 hathrooms. The apartments are in four buildings on a 2714 acre site at 4000 Cathedral Avenue NW. The development was purchased from Dutch interests by the Realest Corp. Among tenants are the Nation’s top hous- ing official, Housing and Home Finance Ad- ministrator Raymond M. Foley; Secretary of the Interior Chapman, and Secretary of Agri- culture Brannan; seven Senators, five gen~ erals, three admirals, six judges and many other civilian and military officials. The Kerr Natural Gas Bill EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. ROBERT S. KERR OF OKLAHOMA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, May 3 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. KERR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp an editorial published in the Tulsa Tribune of April 22, 1950, regarding the natural-gas bill recently passed by the Senate. There being no objection, the editorial ‘was ordered to be printed in the Rrecorp, as follows: Way SucH Furor Over KERR BILL WHICH WouLDn’t CHANGE ANYTHING? (Rowley on oil) For a time, I wrote politics on a newspaper back in Pittsburgh. I thought I knew most of the tricks of the game—devising propa- ganda and selling the public a bill of goods. But I take off my hat to the master mind behind the opposition to the Kerr natural gas bill. I may be entirely wrong, but I have a strong hunch that Leland Olds, former chair- man of the Federal Power Commission, has been patting himself on the back since Presi- dent Truman vetoed the bill last Saturday. Olds was appointed by President Truman to another term on the Commission, but the Senate refused confirmation. Writings of Olds, presented to Senators at the time, made many believe Olds was communistic in his views about the United States and its insti- tutions and traditions. . Seldom in recent history has so much agi- tation developed about any measure as that over the Kerr bill. This furor was not con- fined to Congress. Farm groups, labor organ- izations, the mayors of 18 large cities, and other civic and political bodies throughout the Nation bombarded Congress to defeat the bill and then put pressure on President Truman to veto it. All, including radio commentators, had one argument. They said passage of the bill would increase the prices of natural gas to consumers by $100,000,000 a year or more. According to records I have, Olds was the first person to make the claim that exempt- ing independent natural-gas producers (those who do not own or have any interest in natural gas pipe lines) from jurisdiction of the Federal Power Commission in the mat~ ter of arm’s length sales of natural gas (sales to purchasers at the well) , would increase the price of gas to consumers. He told a con- gressional committee in April 1949 the raise would be $80,000,000 or so a year. I am told Olds supplied memoranda relat- ing to the Kerr bill to radio commentators. If I had been active enough in efforts to defeat the bill to get up memoranda for radio commentators, I would have supplied the data, also, to mayors of large natural-gas consuming cities and other consumers of gas, A3225 What was not brought out by radio com- mentators or others was the fact the Kerr pill did not seek to change any condition or situation which has existed for years. The Kerr bill did not seek to take from jurisdiction of the FPC independent gas pro- ducers for the FPC had never exercised juris- diction over them. Hence, so much agita- tion over a bill which would not change any= thing naturally makes one suspicious. The Kerr bill was designed solely to main- tain the same condition and situation which has existed for years. It simply clarified the Natural Gas Act of 1938 by specifically ex- empting independent natural-gas producers from jurisdiction of the FPC in the matter of arm’s-length sales of gas. That exemp- tion was intended by Congress when it passed the Natural Gas Act of 1938, and the FPC had abided by the exemption. Olds himself admitted such was the in tent of Congress and joined with other members of the FPC in so stating in an order issued by the Commission on August 7, 1947, That order, or rule, stated: “It seems appropriate and desirable at this Juncture for the Commission to adopt and promulgate the rule contained herein, which is designed to relieve any existing uncertainty regarding the Commission’s position that it will not seek to assert jurisdiction over the sale of natural gas to interstate pipe lines by independent producers or gatherers. “The Federal Power Commission is of the opinion that it was the intent of the Con- gress that the control of production or gath- ering of natural gas should remain a func~ tion of the States and that the Natural Gas Act should not provide for regulation of those subjects. “For the purpose of administering the Natural Gas Act, the Commission will con= strue the exemption contained in section 1 (b) to the effect that the provisions of the act shall not apply to the ‘production and gathering’ of natural gas, as including arm’s- length sales of natural gas by independent producers and gatherers, made during the course or completion of production and gathering. “The Commission, consistent with this construction, will not assert jurisdiction over such producers and gatherers who might be subject to jurisdiction solely because of such sales.” Despite this rule by the FPC and its ad- mission as to the intent of Congress to ex- empt independent natural-gas producers, the Commission, following a United States Su- preme Court decision in a gas case involving a producer who owned a natural-gas pipe line, decided it had authority to regulate prices of natural gas sold by independents and that it intended to assert that authority or jurisdic- tion. Hence the reason for the necessity of the Kerr bill to clarify the matter, and to maintain conditions which have existed for years. The utter fallacy of claims of opponents of the Kerr bill that its passage would in- crease gas prices to consumers is so easily proven I can’t understand why radio com- mentators and others fell for such misrepre- sentation of facts. Up to this time, independent producers of natural gas have not been under jurisdic- tion of the FPC. The Kerr bill would have simply continued that situation. Instead of natural gas prices being raised because there was no jurisdiction over independent producers by the FPC, prices, both at the well and for consumers, have been reduced. Prices of natural gas at the well head de~_ clined from an average of 11 cents a thou- sand cubic feet in 1922 to about 4 cents in” 1940. They have increased since 1940, due to increases in costs of operations, but right now are lower than they were in 1922. Also, Government figures show that, due to larger pipe lines and larger volumes of.
A3226 natural gas sales, the average price of gas to the consumer in the United States has actually declined during the past 10 years. Yet, during that same period, when gas prices were being reduced, prices of all commodities and labor increased approximately 80 per- cent. That is the actual record of natural gas prices over the past years when independent natural gas producers were exempt from jurisdiction of the FPC. So, how in the name of all that is holy can opponents of the Kerr bill claim that unless this exemp- tion were removed these same natural gas producers would increase prices to con- sumers by $100,000,000 a year or more? Personally, we can only figure they either did not seek or want facts and that they were influenced by the statements made by Olds that the Kerr bill would result in the big increase in price to consumers. As to Olds, Congressman Joun E. Lyte, of Texas, in a statement to the subcommittee of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce of the Senate, which was consider- ing Olds’ reappointment as Commissioner to the FPO, said he had checked Olds’ writings in publications now deemed as favoring commu- nism. He said in those published articles Leland Olds: “Urges comrades to enroll in Communist training courses so as to equip themselves for greater usefulness in the movement; “advocates the elimination of private prop- erty in productive enterprise; “Hails the decay of the church as a reli- gious institution and its transformation into a handmaiden of the capitalistic system; “Sneers at the Fourth of July as the day set apart by the world’s greatest exploiters to glorify their rise to power; “Reveals his fundamental opposition to the American system of private enterprise; “Foresees the elimination of competitive private capitalism; “Extols the virtues of the Russian system as contrasted with conditions of the United States; and “Praises the Russian system as the coming world order and as a model for the United States.” We feel false information was supplied radio commentators and others about the Kerr bill, and that most of us who knew the facts, including this columnist, were extreme- ly derelict in seeing that they obtained accu- rate information. One well-known Tulsan said yesterday: “Many operators fear the application of juris- dictional authority of the FPC to fix the price of natural gas at the well is no red herring put is a part of a shrewdly planned com~- munistic effort to develop lack of confidence in the consuming public of the ability of gas, steel, oil, automotive, and other Ameri- can industries to regulate prices of their products.” Passage of Rivers and Harbors Bill EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. J. WILLIAM FULBRIGHT OF ARKANSAS IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, May 3 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to place in the Appendix of the Recorp a very interest- ing article on the subject of the recent passage by the Senate of the bill author- izing rivers and harbors and flood-con- trol projects, written by Mr. C. F. Byrns, published under date of April 27, 1950, There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: OFF THE RECORD (By C. F. Byrns) Newspaper and radio commentators have had a Roman holiday over the recent pascage by the Senate of the bill authorizing rivers and harbors and flood-control projects all over America. With almost unanimous voice, they have cried “pork.’ They have bemoaned the fact that men in the Senate who have been insistent upon economy in Government spending supported the water- ways authorization bill and beat down every amendment designed to cut its total. The $1,600,000,000 total estimated cost of the projects this bill would authorize is matched up with the expected $5,500,000,000 deficit for the present fiscal year, and the impression is created that the waterways bill adds to the current deficit. Most of the criticism of the waterways pill comes from people who have had little if any personal experience with the resource development projects which are involved in this measure. It’s easy to apply the “pork” epithet and to ridicule men who try. to trim down the high expenses of government and at the same time, support programs for con- trol and development of rivers and the im- provement of harbors. It’s especially easy if the critic doesn’t know much about the matter he is discussing. It happens that I have had rather intimate contact with river-development programs for the last 30 years. Anyone who has spent a fraction of the effort I have spent in river development will be slow to charge that any project is sheer waste of the public funds unless he knows the facts about it. And if he Knows the facts, he will usually find thet “pork” is a word that doesn’t fit. There may be some projects in the au- thorization bill which are not economically justified. I don’t know about all of them and neither do the other commentators. But I do know out of long experience how these projects get into the authorization pills. I know how tough are the tests which the Corps of Engineers applies to every pro- posal for river control and development. I know how these projects are born, be- cause I have been in at the birth of some of them. I know that there must be an economic need before they are even consid- ered by the Corps of Engineers. I know about the minute investigations of the engineering problems, the cost estimates, and the eco- nomic benefits which are made and have to be made before any project wins approval by the district office. Then I know it has to go through all the channels of the Corps of Engineers and win approval first from the division engineer, then by the Board of Engi- neers for Rivers and Harbors, then by the Chief of Engineers, before it can even go to Congress. I know about that because I have been through it repeatedly in the Arkansas Basin program. Flood-control reservoirs, for example, are recommended by the Corps of Engineers only if the benefits over a 40-year period are greater than the cost of construction, amor- tized over that 40~year period, plus main- tenance and operation. If a proposed reser- voir won't pay for itself in that time, then it’s out, and Congress never sees it. A simi- lar rigorous test is put to power and naviga- tion projects. Control of rivers to stop their destruction and harnessing of rivers to make them use- ful for power, for irrigation, for navigation is wise use of natural resources. What is spent for projects that are economically sound is not expense but investment—investment that must pay out in less than the life of the works or else the project never gets to Congress, APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD The authorization bill is not appropriation. It is the basis for future appropriation when the Corps of Engineers and the Budget Bu- reau and the committee and Members of the two Houses of Congress and the President of the United States approve such appro- priations. This bill doesn’t add a dime to the present deficit. It’s merely the founda- tion for future resource development. “Pork” has a plausible sound. The loose application of the word to every authoriza- tion or appropriation for waterways is a popular pastime. It may please a lot of people who like to see somebody denounced for something. But it doesn’t ring the bell with people who have been through the long grind of work and worry that is neces- sary to develop a river-development program. Tribute to Admiral Thomas C. Kinkaid EXTENSION OF REMARKS Or HON. HARRY FLOOD BYRD OF VIRGINIA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, May 3 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 ; Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unan- imous consent to insert in the Recorp a very fine editorial written by Mr. Harry H. Schlacht, which appeared in all of the Hearst newspapers, and which is a just tribute to Admiral Thomas C. Kinkaid on the occasion of his retirement from the Navy. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Rrcorp, as follows: , ADMIRAL THomas C. Krn«atp, Navan Warrior OF THE Paciric (By Harry H. Schlacht) Today America honors Admiral Thomas C. Kinkaid upon his retirement from the Navy. Today, America makes grateful acknowledg- ment of duty well done. We honor ourselves when we honor this great admiral. We honor our country when we honor him, None of the glorious tributes we tender him can add one star to his crown of glory, can add one leaf to his laurel wreath. The glory of his achievements is an epic. The story of his gallantry will go down in history. The historians of the future who will re- cord the events of our day will linger in rev~ erent admiration over the majestic career of this great admiral. Every American should know the glory and the story of this valorous man. He was the naval warrior of the Pacific. He was the hero of Leyte Gulf which as- sured the reconquest of the Philippines, which destroyed the Japanese maritime power, which guaranteed our Pacific triumph. It was he who supplied the transport and protection which made possible General Mac- Arthur’s return to the Philippines, It was he who planned and directed the naval war phases which made possible the liberation of those islands. Admiral Kinkaid showed a bravery and an inspiration which raised him to the immortal peerage of naval heroism. His victories in the Pacific will take their place side by side with the naval victories in world history. In victory he gave glory to God. The hero of the Pacific is as proud of his gallant officers and men as they are proud of his dauntless leadership.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Those who seek the noblest attributes in man will receive their inspiration from his life and achievements. Admiral Kinkaid will ever be a symbol of the highest traditions of the Navy. He is a modest gentleman. He is a Christian gentle- man. He is a great American. His glotious record made in the fight for our treasured ideals will ever be the precious heritage to our posterity. His name will ever live in our history with the names of Farra- gut and Dewey. As long as men love liberty, as long as men love daring, as ln~c re t*e hattles of the Coral Sea, Midway, te Sclomen Islands, Guadal- canal and others claim memory in our his- tory, so long will the name of Admiral Kin- kaid be revered. Beyond the seas where men enjoy liberty, beyond the ages wherein men will live as free men, there will descend upon Admiral Kin- kaid the benedictions of their heartfelt prayers. May God give him health and happiness in the years of his retirement. His place in history is secured. Niagara Redevelopment Act of 1950 EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. F. D. ROOSEVELT, JR. OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, May 3, 1950 Mr. ROOSEVELT.: Mr. Speaker, un- der leave to extend my remarks in the RecorD, I include the following bill and analysis: A bill to preserve the scenic beauty of the Niagara Falls and River and to authorize the construction of certain public works on that river for power and other pur- poses, and for other purposes Be it enacted, etc., That, in order to ful- fill the obligation of the United States to preserve and enhance the scenic beauty of the Niagara Falls and River and to provide for the most beneficial use of the waters of that river for devc'onmen+ cf vower, naviga- tion, and the ¢.." oi 4, loud, it is hereby deciared to be the.policy of the United States that the share of those waters avail- able to the United States for power pur- poses upon ratification of the treaty between the United States of America and Canada, dated February 27, 1950, shall be used to de- velop power in the public interest by a public agency as hereinafter provided. Sec. 2. To implement that policy, there are hereby edoried ard authorized to be prosecuted, subject to ratification of said treaty, under the direction of the Secretary of the Army and the supervision of the Chief of Engineers, works of improvement for redevelopment of the Niagara River in substantial accordance with the project plans outlined in the report of the Bureau of Power of the Federal Power Commission, dated September 28, 1949, entitled ‘‘Possibil- ities for Redevelopment of Niagara Falls for Power—Niagara River—New York,” subject to such modifications not inconsistent with this act as may be found advisable by the Secretary of the Army upon investigation and.recommendation by the Chief of Engi- neers and the Federal Power Commission, and after consultation with the Governors of New York and other interested States and with other interested Federal agencies: Pro- vided, That the necessary plans, specifica- tions, and preliminary work shall be prose- cuted as soon as funds shall be available from appropriations hereinafter author- ized, in order to provide for rapid inaugura- tion of a construction program. Such works of cS mov-em* are hereinafter referred to as ihe ace.” Sze. 3. (a) The President is hereby author- ized and directed to transfer the power fa- cilities of the project to such public agency cf the State of New York as its government may Ces’gnate end praneriy authorize for that purpose: f . all three of the following panditions are ‘gatisfte d in full be- fore power is available from any generating unit of the project: (i) An agreement between the United States of America and the State of New York shall have been negotiated by the President or his designated agent with such agent of the State of New York as its government may designate and authorize for that purpoce, and such agreement shall have been ap- proved by the Legislature of the State of New York and the Congress of the United States cf America. The President is hereby author- ized and directed to initiate negotiations for such agreement as soon as any funds for the project are made available under ap- propriations hereinafter authorized. (11) Such agreement shall include, but not be limited to, provisions for ultimate repay- ment of all costs vroneriy allocable to power as determined sy tne Federal Power Commis- sion after consultation’ with such agency of the State of New York as its government may designate and authorize for that purpose, and provisions for maintenance and cpera- tion of the project in the public interest, in- cluding especially the interests of the State of New York and other States within eco- nomic-transmission distance, which provi- sion shall assure, among other things, that: (A) No part of the United States’ share of the waters of the Niagara River made avail- able for power purposes to the desicrated agency of the State of New York sha’: be di- verted by it to any person or private com- pany; nor shall the use of any part of said waters or the rights pertaining thereto be sold, leased, or oiheriise alienaica by such agency to any person or private company for the generation of hydroelectric power; nor shall the power facilities be sold, leased, pledged, mortgaged, or otherwise alienated to any person or private company: Provided, That nothing in this act shall be construed as affecting any valid existing rights under license heretofore issued pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Power Act (49 Stat. 838), as amended or as now or hereafter af- fecting the applicability of the provisions of that act in the case of waters of the Niagara River presently authorized to be diverted for power purposes under license heretofore issued under that act, (B) Full recognition shall be given to the interests of national security. (C) In contracting for the disposition of project power, (1) preference shall be given to States, counties, and municipalities, in- cluding agencies or instrumentalities of any of them, and to cooperative or other organi- gations not organized or administered for profit but primarily for the purpose of sup- plying electric energy to their members as nearly as possible at cost, and (2) arrange- ments shall be made sufficiently flexible that the foregoing recipients of preference, now or hereafter authorized by law to engage in the distribution of electric energy, may se- cure a reasonable share of the project power, (D) Such transmission lines and related facilities shall be constructed, or acquired by purchase or other agreement, as may be nec- essary in order to make project power avail- able in wholesale quantities for sale on fair and reasonable terms and conditions to fa- cilities owned by the Federal Government, public bodies, cooperativés, and privately owned companies. (E) Project power shall be sold and dis- tributed primarily for the benefit of the peo- ple as consumers, and particularly for the benefit of domestic and rural consumers, to A3227 whom it shall be made available at the low- est possible rates and in such manner as to encourage the widest possible use. (F) In the event project power is sold to any purchaser for resate, contrects for such sate shall include adequate provisions for es- tablishing resale rates which shall be fixed by the seller and which shall not only pro- vide for passing on to the consumer savings in costs of generation, but shall also be pro- motional in character and designed so far as practicable to result in periodic rate reduc- tions. Such contracts shall be for a period of time not exceeding 20 years, including renewals. (G) If and when a northeastern power pool or other agency for the coordinated operation of power facilities in the North- eastern States shall be created or provided for by legislation hereafter enacted by the Congress or pursuant to a compact adopted by the States concerned and approved by the Congress, arrangements shall be made for co- ordinated operation of the power facilities of the project with those of such pool or other agency. (H) In contracting for the disposition of project power, commitments shall be so made as to provide and allow for a determination of disputes as to apportionment of project power among States: within economic trans- mission distance whereby the governor of any State, believing that his State is or may be denied its fair share, may make complaint to the Federal Power Commission, which, after due notice to all States which may have an interest in the availability of project power and opportunity to them for hearing under the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, shall determine reasonable and practicable arrangements whereby and the extent to which project power shall be made available in the public interest to pur- chasers in States within economic transmis- sion distance of the project: Provided, That such determination shall be final and bind- ing in the operation of the project except as it may be thereafter revised in further proceedings before the Federal Power Com- mission as herein provided. (ui) The public agency designated and authorized by the government of the State of New York to accept transfer of the power facilities of the project shall have made proper -~*Tieaticn fen, and shall have ac- cepted, 2? icrse .2ces the provisions of the Federal Power Act (49 Stat. 233), as amended, which license the Federal Power Commission is hereby authorized and directed to issue after consummation of the agreement re- ferred to in conditions (i) and (i1) above: Provided, That to the extent of any conflict, the provisions of this act and of said agree- ment shall supersede the provisions of the Federal Power Act and of “he heerse so far as the project herein authorized is concerned. (b) Eighteen months after the beginning of construction of the project the President is directed to transmit a report to the Con- gress on the status of negotiations for an agreement as provided for 1n subsection (a) hereof. (c) When power is available from any gen- erating unit of the project, if transfer of the power facilities of the project shall not have been consummated in accordance with the provisions of subsection (a) hereof, the proj- ect shall be maintained and operated, and project power disposed of, by such agency of the Government of the United States as may be hereafter created for such purpose: Pro- vided, That, if such agency shall not have been created when construction of the proj- ect is complete, it shall be maintained and operated under the direction of the Secre~ tary of the Army and supervision of the Chief of Engineers, and project power shall be delivered and disposed of in accordance with the provisions of section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1944 (58 Stat. 890).
A3228 Src. 4. There are hereby authorized to be appropriated out of any money in the Treas- ury not otherwise appropriated, such sums as may be required to carry out the purposes of this act. Src. 5. This act may be cited as the “Niag- ara Redevelopment Act of 1950.” ANALYSIS OF NIAGARA DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1950 (Bill introduced’ by Senator Herserr H. Lean in the Senate and in the House by Representative FRANKLIN D. ROooOSEVELT, JR.) PURPOSE To provide for a public development of water power made available to the United States under the terms of the Canadian- United States Niagara Treaty and to insure at the same time the preservation of the scenic beauties of the Niagara Falls. WHAT THE BILL DOES 1. Authorizes the United States Corps of Engineers to plan and construct the neces- sary project works, 2. Authorizes and directs the President of the United States to turn over the project works to whatever agency the State of New York may designate by law for this purpose, provided that certain conditions protecting the interests of the people of the State of New York and the interests of the people of the adjacent States and the Federal Govern- ment are met. 8. Provides for the repayment by the State of New York to the Federal Government of such construction costs as are properly allo- cable to the power development. Costs for works designed solely to preserve the scenic beauty of the falls are to be borne by the United States Government, 4. Provides that amount and terms of re- payment as well as other pertinent condi- tions shall be covered in an agreement to be negotiated between the United States Gov- ernment and the State of New York, subject to approval by the Legislature of New York and the Congress. 5. Provides that if the State of New York does not choose to acquire and operate the project, or if no agreement is reached by the time the project is ready to deliver power, the power is to be distributed by the United States Government either through an agency authorized by Congress for the purpose or by the Federal agencies authorized to develop and distribute power under the terms of the Flood Control Act of 1944. ANALYSIS OF BILLS BY SECTIONS Section 1: Statement of national policy and of purpose of the act, Section 2: A. Authorizes construction of the works in accordance with project plans outlined in report of the Bureau of Power of the Federal Power Commission (September 28, 1949) subject to modification not inconsistent with the act and found advisable by the Chief of Engineers and the Federal Power Commission after consultation with the Governors of New York and of other interested States and with other interested Federal agencies. B. Provides for start of construction as soon as funds are appropriated. Section 3: A. Authorizes and directs the President to transfer the project facilities to an agency of New York State, when such an agency shall have been authorized to accept and operate these works by the State of New York and when three major conditions will have been met: 1. An agreement shall be negotiated be- tween the United States Government and the government of the State of New York and such agreement shall have been approved both by the Legislature of New York and the United States Congress. 2. (a) The agreement shall include provi- sions for— (1) Repayment of costs allocable to power; and (2) For the maintenance and operation of the project in the public interest—including especially the interests of the State of New York and of other States withing economic transmission distance. (b) Agreement shall prohibit the aliena- tion of any of the waters to any private per- son or company other than waters over which private persons or corporations already have existing rights. (c) Agreement shall give full recognition to the interests of national security. (ad) The agreement shall provide for the granting of preference to local government units or their instrumentalities and to co- operatives and other nonprofit organizations. (e) The agreement shall provide for the construction or acquisition of necessary transmission lines in order to make power available in wholesale quantities to facilities owned by the Federal Governnrent, public bodies, cooperatives, and privately owned companies. . (f) Agreement shall provide that project power shall be sold primarily for the benefit of the consumers of electric power at the lowest possible rates (and in such a manner as to encourage the widest possible use). (g) Agreement shall provide that contracts for resale of project power shall include pro- vision for establishing resale rates to be fixed by the seller (State of New York) so as to pass on the savings to the consumers. (h) Agreement shall provide that if and when a northeastern power pool or some other agency for the coordinated operation of power facilities in the Northeast shall be created, either by future Federal legislation or by compacts between the States, arrange- ments shall be made by the State of New York for the coordinated operation of the Niagara power facilities with those of the pool. (i) Agreement shall provide that other States within economic transmission dis~- tance may obtain needed power from Niagara by contract with New York State; if any State is denied what it believes to be its fair share, the Federal Power Commission, after full and open hearings, shall have the power to determine the arrangements whereby the power shall be sold to these States within economic transmission dis- tance. 3. (a) New York State will apply to the Federal Power Commission for a license for operation of the project; the Federal Power Commission is thereupon directed to issue the license, provided that all the conditions referred to above have been satisfied, (b) In case of any conflict between the licensing provision of the Federal Power Act and the provisions of this act, the provisions of this act shall pertain. B. Highteen months after the beginning of construction the President is directed to send a report to Congress on the state of negotia- tions with the State of New York. C. If transfer of the power facilities to the State of New York has not been com- pletely accomplished in accordance with the above provisions by the time power is avail- able from any generating unit of the project, the project shall be maintained and power disposed of by any agency which Congress may have meanwhile created for the pur- pose; if no such agency has been created, the project shall be maintained and operated by the Chief of Engineers and the power shall be disposed of in accordance with the Flood Gontrol Act of 1944 (by the Secretary of Interior). Norr.—In this analysis, section 2, A and B correspond to section 2 in the bill; section 8, A corresponds to section 8 (a) in the bill; section 3, (A) (1) corresponds to section 3 (a) (i) in the bill, etc, APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Morality as a Basis for Political Action EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. LAWRENCE H. SMITH OF WISCONSIN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, May 3, 1950 Mr. SMITH of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, the Cleveland Plain Dealer on Tuesday, April 4, 1950, posed a very important question. It was: “Can a government be- have in an immoral manner toward its own people? Can it deceive them, rob them, cheat them, plunder their re- sources, and infringe on their liberties?” Under leave to extend my remarks, I am including the editorial in question, which is a very interesting one: QUESTIONS oF MoRALITy Can a government behave in an immoral manner toward its own people? Can it de- ceive them, rob them, cheat them, plunder their resources, and infringe on their lib- erties? We know how a community would con- demn a man who ran up charge accounts, went on a binge every Saturday night and didn’t pay his bills. What would the neighbors say about a housewife who carted home large quanti- ties of food from the grocery and butcher shop every day and then, instead of prepar- ing it for her family, let it spoil? How long could a respected citizen bor- row money from his friends and, when the time came to pay it back, require them to settle on the basis of 60 cents to the dollar? How lenient would the community be with a door-to-door salesman who insisted at the point of a gun that every householder buy his preducts? Or with a smooth-talking promoter who tried to force his neighbors to turn over a large percentage of their incomes to him on the promise that he would take care of their insurance, their medical and hospital bills and send their children to college? Surely any community would frown on a nerson who indulged in these practices and at least call for the police or the men in the white coats with the strait-jacket to come and get him. But when a government does these things, is its conduct any less immoral? The United States Government is on a big spending binge. It is ving beyond its in- come, not accidentally or because of mis- fortune, but deliberately. The United States Government has ar- ranged to have more food delivered to the markets than the people can constime and the surplus is cither spoiling or is in storage, which merely delays the process of spoilage. This didn’t happen accidentally, either, but was done deliberately. The United States Government has bor- rowed money from its citizens, promising to pay $100 after 10 years for every $75 that was loaned through the purchase of savings bonds. But when the time comes to repay, the lender get back only $60 in actual pur- chasing value, in terms of the value of the original $75 loan. Then, to add insult to injury, the Government requires him to pay a tax on the fictitious $25 protit he has collected. The United States Government forces its citizens to buy things they don’t need or don’t want or can’t afford, at the point of the tax collector’s gun. Every subsidy paid out by the Government to some special interest or pressure group is a forced purchase by all the citizens of the products or services of that interest or group. Since the citi- zens do not or will not of their owa volition