Page images

whimper, and he even offered to act as an intermediary between the United States and North Vietnam. Tito will undoubtedly soon submit a bill for his services for a cool several hundred million dollars in aid.

After 20 years of Tito's rule, economic chaos: Senator FULBRIGHT claims that if Americans judge Tito's dictatorship by its performance "we are bound to concede that it has been a successful government." The Senator apparently got his "facts" about the Yugoslav economy directly from Tito and the other "men of unusual competence" who entertained him during his Yugoslav stay. It is regrettable that the Senator was not able to talk with Tito's unfortunate subjects, the workers in the factories and the farmers in the fields, for if he had he would have come back home with quite a different view of the "successes" of the Communist dictatorship. In fact Senator FULBRIGHT does not seem to have ever read George Bailey's article in the Reporter (July 1) describing the dismal chaos raging in the Yugoslav economy and the failure of Tito's foreign policy of so-called nonalinement. Even more surprising, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee does not seem to have read the New York Times dispatches in recent months, or perhaps he does not give them much credence. For instance on August 1, the New York Times reported that the Yugoslav cost of living went up 72 percent over the past few months, and that at present 200,000 "unskilled workers" (7 percent of the employed labor force) face dismissal. This is in addition to 500,000 workers already unemployed or underemployed, and the 140,000 Yugoslavs (mostly Croats) who have been compelled to seek employment in West Germany, the country which Tito constantly reviles. According to top Yugoslav Communists, Yugoslav industry operates at a dismal 54 percent of capacity. But all Senator FULBRIGHT needed to do was to find out what Komunist, the official organ of the Yugoslav Communist League, is saying about the economy. Last September, Komunist front-paged the speech of Vladimir Bakaric, Croatia's top Communist, in which he said that in Communist Yugoslavia the workers are worse off, and are more exploited, than were the slaves in Homer's Greece of 3,000 years ago, or the Central American Indians after the Spanish conquest. This then is the success achieved by the Communist regime, after 20 years in power. But even while Komunist concedes the dismal failures of the regime, Senator FULBRIGHT assures his colleagues of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that "the Yugoslav economy has made impressive strides" and that "rapid growth continued in 1964."

Is Congress to blame for Yugoslavia's economic chaos? Arguing as he does against the facts, Senator FULBRIGHT is caught in a succession of contradictions. While lauding the impressive successes of Yugoslavia's Communist regime, he at the same time blames the U.S. Congress for the disastrous deficit in Yugoslavia's balance of payments. Says Senator FULBRIGHT: "The Yugoslav economy has been adversely influenced by inconsistent American policies." And a little later, he is even more explicit in blaming his congressional colleagues of problems of Tito's own making: "A new threat to the Yugoslav balance of payments has resulted from the unfortunate decision of Congress in October 1964 to deny Yugoslavia the right to purchase surplus American food products for local currency under the food-for-peace program." These so-called "sales" for local currency were in effect a form of subsidy to Tito's Communist regime, for the U.S. Government returned to Yugoslavia about 90 percent of the dinars to finance various projects in Yugoslavia. In reality Senator FULBRIGHT'S attack on Congress' decision to terminate U.S. grain sales for worthless dinars (but to continue sales for dollars) may presage a reCXI- -1419

newed campaign to resurrect the now defunct newed campaign to resurrect the now defunct program of subsidizing Tito's dictatorship. program of subsidizing Tito's dictatorship. Let it be said that since 1945 Yugoslavia has received about $3.5 billion in U.S. assistance, more than Germany, France, or Italy received under the Marshall plan. Yet, today these countries enjoy unprecedented prosperity. countries enjoy unprecedented prosperity. The Yugoslav standard of living remains dismally low, and has in fact plummeted further over the past year, notwithstanding Senator FULBRIGHT's claim that "the standard of living of the Yugoslav people has risen steadily" under communism. The Yugoslav currency is almost worthless, to the point where farmers are refusing to sell their produce for dinars, and are instead demanding payment in German marks, dollars, and other foreign currencies (see the Belgrade publication Ekonomska Politika, June 5, 1965). At the same time the Government seeks to extract tax payments in foreign currencies from people with relatives working abroad. This is the state of the Yugoslav economy after 20 years of Tito's "extraordinary leadership" and after $3.5 billion in U.S. taxpayers' money has gone down the sewer which is Tito's economy. Clearly, Tito, and not the U.S. Congress, is to blame for Yugoslavia's economic chaos.

Why Yugoslav farms do not produce enough food: Senator FULBRIGHT praises Tito for abandoning collectivization in 1953. But if he had talked to the farmers or had read such books as Ernst Halpern's "The Triumphant Heretic," Senator FULBRIGHT would be aware that the regime has been driving the farmers off the land and into the cities by destroying them economically with confiscatory taxation. This is one of the reasons why Yugoslavia, which was formerly a food-exporting country, now must import every year large amounts of grain from abroad. To make the irony complete, the regime is currently dismissing from the factories the "unskilled workers" (i.e., the farmers previously driven off the land), and is forcing them to return to the villages, starve in the cities, or flee abroad.

More freedom, or less? One of the gravest mistakes Senator FULBRIGHT makes in his analysis of the Yugoslav situation is in asserting that "the long-term trend has been greater than less freedom." Admittedly, between 1948, following Tito's break with Moscow, and 1953, when Stalin died, Yugoslavia made notable steps in the direction of liberalization. But this trend was arrested after Stalin's death made it possible for Tito to mend his fences with Moscow. This, in fact, is what Milovan Djilas' dispute with Tito and the Yugoslav Communist Committee was all about. While Djilas demanded that the Communist dictatorship gradually evolve into socialist democrat, the leadership of the Yugoslav Communist Party held fast in its determination to maintain the dictatorship. Djilas was duly arrested, brought to trial and jailed in the Sremska Mitrovica prison. From then on, the Yugoslav leadership has carried on a determined struggle to prevent a further liberalization of the system. How much intellectual freedom there actually is in Communist Yugoslavia was amply shown by the arrest, imprisonment, and trial of Mihajlo Mihajlov, an assistant professor at the Croat University of Zagreb, at Zadar. The subsequent suspension of Mihajlov's jail sentence by the Croat Supreme Court is an indication of the power struggle going on within the Communist party between the "liberal" Croat and Slovene Communists and the "Stalinist" proSoviet Serbian wing of the party.

For a sane U.S. policy toward Communist Yugoslavia: The economic situation in Yugoslavia is so grave that the Communist regime may be forced to radically liberalize the system. Apparently, Senator FULBRIGHT is one of those representatives of the people who entertain doubts about the capacity of the people to find an alternative to dictator

ship. He quotes to this effect from the book "Yugoslavia and the New Communism," by George W. Hoffman and Fred Warner Neal. According to this familiar line of thinking, there is no realistic alternative to dictators such as Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Tito, and Trujillo; dissidents like Djilas, who advocate the establishment of a socialist democracy, are befogged utopians. The Croat people, as well as the other nations which live under Tito's terroristic regime, oppose the granting of further U.S. assistance to prop up the Tito regime. While such programs as the Fulbright-Hays Act, under which an exchange of students is carried on between the United States and Yugoslavia, may be of positive value; the granting of further economic assistance to Tito's regime can only hamper the struggle for freedom within Yugoslavia. The United States should, at the present time, pursue a policy of noninvolvement in internal Yugoslav affairs. First and foremost, this means that the U.S. Government should withhold further aid to Tito's crumbling dictatorship, either directly, through the food-for-peace program, or indirectly, through United States and World Bank loans.

THE 26TH ANNIVERSARY OF GERMAN INVASION OF POLAND Mr. MORTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. DERWINSKI] may extend his remarks at this point in the RECORD and include extraneous matter.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Maryland?

There was no objection.

Mr. DERWINSKI. Mr. Speaker, 26 years ago today the Nazi forces invaded Poland, and the World War II officially erupted.

Of special significance to all of us is the continued determination of the people of Poland and the other captive nations of communism to resist the Red tyranny to which they were assigned by President Roosevelt at the Yalta Conference.

In commemoration of this historic day, I place in the RECORD as part of my remarks a message from the President of the Republic of Poland to the Polish nation:


His Excellency August Zaleski, President of the Republic of Poland, has issued in London the following message to Poles all over the world to mark the 26th anniversary of the German invasion of Poland on September 1, 1939, and the 25th anniversary of her participation in the defense of Western Europe:

"On September 1, every Pole recalls with horror that terrible time when Hitler's Germany allied with Stalin's Russia began the war in order to carry out another partition of Poland. Both these inhumane autocrats, masking their imperialistic aims with the ideology of a pseudo-Socialism-one qualified as 'national' and the other as 'Sovietknew in advance that the Polish Armed Forces would be unable to withstand their combined more powerful armies despite the heroism of the Polish soldiers and the great effort made by the whole nation. Furthermore, they knew the attitude of our allies who did not even intend then to help us in the hope that they would manage to end hostilities by a compromise at Poland's cost. "But it was unexpected for Poland's enemies that, despite defeat on the field of battle,

the Polish nation would continue to fight in the homeland and beyond its frontiers.

"The beginnings of the Polish Home Army date from immediately after the capitulation of Warsaw in 1939. Within a few months, there arose in France a fresh Polish army of nearly 100,000 men ready to fight for the indisputable right of the Polish nation to its own independent state. The greater part of this army consisted of Poles who had lived on hospitable French soil for long past. Wherever Poles happened to be, they also hastened to join the colors.

"As early as April 1940, the Polish Highland Brigade was fighting the Germans in Norway; off her coasts, fought Polish warships which had broken out from the Baltic whilst part of the Polish merchant fleet carried out auxiliary duties.

"Toward the end of August and in September of the same year, the Polish Air Force signally contributed to the victorious outcome of the Battle of Britain. Testimony to this was given by the then British Ambassador to the Polish Government, Sir William Howard Kennard, who wrote to the Polish Foreign Minister as follows on September 8, 1940:

" "I should be grateful if you would convey to the President of the Republic and the Polish Government my congratulations on the brilliant feats of the Polish Air Force during the past few days. I feel sure that they must inspire all Poles with heartfelt pride and know that they are regarded with great admiration by all English people.'

"The current year, therefore, marks the passage of a quarter of a century since the fight for Poland began beyond her frontiers. I am convinced that although we cannot at the present juncture wage armed struggle for the freedom of our homeland, we will exert every effort to bring home the indubitable truth that there can be no word of freedom in the world until the Polish nation recovers its independence. And God Almighty will aid us in this, our struggle.


Mr. Speaker, as another indication of the determination of the Polish people to regain their freedom, I submit a resolution adopted at the Polish Soldiers Day on August 15, 1965, by the Polish Army Veterans Association of America, District 2, the New York Wing of the Polish Air Force Veterans Association in the U.S.A. and the Polish Underground Army Association of New York:

Whereas the stable and unswerving line of our activity and purposes has been and will continue to strive toward the restoration of full freedom and independence to Poland under a democratic system; and

Whereas the existing Communist system imposed on and forcibly maintained in Poland by Russia is not only far from being free and independent, but even does not show a tendency toward softening of the dictatorial regime, as was the case with other countries behind the Iron Curtain: Now, therefore:

1. We brand the hypocritical policy of the Communist regime as far as the recognition of Poland's western boundaries on the Oder and Neisse Rivers by the United States and other countries is concerned. Both the declaration of the regime as well as the policy pursued by the latter indicates that they are merely interested in a Soviet monopoly in this territory. This only incites us to double our efforts, so that the frontier be finally recognized by the United States and other countries of the free world.

2. We also endorse Poland's rights to the western frontiers with Lwow and Vilna, which were grabbed from Poland by force and lawlessness.

3. We reiterate our annual demand that the case of the Katyn Forest genocide be investigated by the United Nations Organization, and we brand the tactics of the regime to prevent an open and frank discussion on this subject both in Poland and on the international arena.

4. We solemnly protest against the increasing persecution of the Catholic Church in Poland. We demand that the Commission on Human Rights look into the continuous violation in Poland of the principle of religious tolerance, which was guaranteed by the United Nations Charter, as well as investigate the practice of depriving the Polish population of such citizen's rights as is freedom of speech and assembly, and primarily freedom of the press.

5. We also protest against the regime's persecution of the Polish writers, scientists and artists who strive for an ever-increasing

freedom of their creative work. We shall alarm the Western World whenever the Communist regime will commit new violations which so far disgraced it in the opinion of the civilized world.

6. With regard to the so-called "Moczar Program" which under the pretenses of fraternal collaboration tends to perpetrate Communist infiltration into Polish veterans organizations in the United States and in the Western World by means of the "Association of Fighters for Freedom and Democracy" (ZBOWID)-we can only express contempt. If Moczar and ZBOWID really desire closer ties with our veterans organizations

and Americans of Polish descent-let them abolish visas in the tourist exchange with Poland and let them allow free access into Poland of our publications and newspapers printed by both the veterans and Polonia, as well as Polish books printed in exile.

7. We promise to do everything in our power to assure splendor and success to the Millennium of Poland's Christianity observance in 1966 in the United States, which will remind the American Nation of the 1,000-year existence of Poland as a Christian, civilized, and independent state.

8. While rejecting the idea of an atomic war for the liberation of Poland and other countries under Communist occupation, we fully support an American policy which will help the Polish nation liberate itself and recover independence; in particular we favor the "bridge-building" policy of President Johnson, provided, however, that these bridges will connect the United States with the Polish nation and not the Communist regime.

9. We support the Government of the United States in its determined fight against the aggressive Communist front.

Long live the United States. Long live the persevering people of Poland in their fight for freedom.

Mr. Speaker, we must develop a foreign policy that will be based on the eventual restoration of freedom to the captives of communism. In this foreign policy we must use economic, diplomatic, and propaganda weapons to roll back communism and to place the Communists on the defensive, as they properly should be. Unless we avow this type of foreign policy, continued deterioration of the free-world position will unfortunately follow.

It is my hope that the stirring message of the President of the Republic of Poland to the oppressed Polish people and the resolution adopted at the convention of Polish-American veterans will carry with them significance to all of us in the free world who recognize that

there cannot be true peace until legitimate freedom and self-determination are guaranteed all peoples of the world.


Mr. MORTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Montana [Mr. BATTIN] may extend his remarks at this point in the RECORD and include extraneous matter.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Maryland?

There was no objection.

Mr. BATTIN. Mr. Speaker, while traveling across country not too long ago, I stopped with my family in a restaurant for our evening meal. After reading over the menu, I noticed a printed card was attached and I was somewhat shocked. The card read:

Recent, rapid, ravaging food costs makes it necessary for an increase of 50 cents on all steaks. We hope this situation is only temporary.

The impression is left that the price of the steak is the cause of the increase. Coming from an area that produces the finest beef in America I thought I should press my inquiry further.

I then asked the waitress and later the assistant manager of the establishment if they had put a similar card on the menu when the price of beef was abnormally low about a year ago advising their customers that because their cost of beef was less than expected it was "necessary to reduce the price of steaks by 50 cents." The answer was, of course,


After returning to Washington, I began to make some inquiries about food prices and you do not have to be a housewife to realize there has been a substantial increase in cost.

I then went to a friend of mine here in Washington who is in the restaurant business and checked on his food prices to find out if there was a justification in placing the blame on the high cost of meat. The answer I received was no. The cost of fresh vegetables, lettuce, tomatoes, and so forth, and potatoes had risen substantially compared to the price of meat, in some cases over two and three times the cost of a year ago. This, then, is the area of blame and not the cattle producer, who a little over a year ago was on his way out as a result of the importation of cheap foreign beef.

My only point in bringing this to the House's attention, Mr. Speaker, is to set the record straight. The restaurant people have their problems and they seek redress in these legislative halls but if they want a fair audience and a fair hearing I suggest they play the ball game according to the rules.

There is an old maxim in equity cases that declares that persons seeking judgment must "come in with clean hands."

The person who blames increased costs of food on one group alone and actually profits by increased prices, should, I would think, be fair with the public and reduce prices when the costs they have to pay for food is reduced.

How long has it been since you looked at a menu in any restaurant and saw a reduction in the price of a meal?


Mr. MORTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentlewoman from Ohio [Mrs. BOLTON] may extend her remarks at this point in the RECORD and include extraneous matter.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Maryland?

There was no objection.

Mrs. BOLTON. Mr. Speaker, this morning's mail brought me a letter from Vice Adm. H. G. Rickover from our 30th Polaris nuclear submarine, the U.S.S. Benjamin Franklin which has just successfully completed its sea trials.

The admiral told me something about the ship and also about our Founding Father for whom it was named. It is good for all of us to review the life of Benjamin Franklin. The plans he made and the program he followed to improve his own life and to serve his country are a challenge to all of us.

Under permission to extend my remarks I include the letter from Admiral Rickover.

(SSBN 640).

At Sea in the North Atlantic,

August 30, 1965. DEAR MRS. BOLTON: We have just successfully completed the first sea trials of the U.S.S. Benjamin Franklin, our 30th Polaris nuclear submarine. We also have in operation 22 attack-type nuclear submarines, making a total of 52. The Benjamin Franklin was built by the Electric Boat Division, General Dynamics Corp., Groton, Conn.

This ship is named for Benjamin Franklin (1706-90), one of the most illustrious of our Founding Fathers. A plain man of the people, his life was the American success story writ large. In his autobiography he speaks of his lowly beginnings and notes with quiet pride that he emerged from the poverty and obscurity of his birth to a state of affluence and some degree of reputation in the world. He did so purely on merit for he was, in every sense of the word, self-made man, owing little if anything to luck or the assistance of others, never pushing ahead at the expense of a fellow man.

Franklin was the youngest son of a poor tallow chandler who had migrated to Boston from England and married as his second wife the daughter of a former indentured serving maid. With 17 children to raise, he could give Benjamin only 2 to 3 years of schooling, but he encouraged him to study on his own, a habit which was to remain with Franklin all his life. At 10 the boy went to work in the family shop; at 12 he was apprenticed to his half brother to learn the printing trade, this being considered a suitable vocation for one whose love of books was already manifest.

In later life Franklin often remarked that he could not remember a time when he did not read. Books were his teachers. Through them he made himself a well-educated man. Taking the best authors as his models, he worked hard at perfecting his writing, eventually achieving a simple, lucid style. His thirst for knowledge never ceased. Since he wanted to read foreign books, he decided at 27-a busy young merchant to teach himself to do so. "I soon made myself so much the master of the French," he remarked, "as to be able to read the books with ease.

I then undertook the Italian." Later on, "with a little painstaking, acquired as much of the Spanish as to read their books also." He read not only for instruction but for enjoyment. His taste was catholic. All his life, men of learning and position, who would ordinarily not bother with an artisan, it was because "reading had so improved sought Franklin's company. He supposed it was because "reading had so improved my mind that my conversation was valued."

At 17 Franklin had learned all his brother could teach him and was ready to make his own way in the world. He went to New York but could find no work there, so continued on to Philadelphia. This is how he describes his arrival there after a long and uncomnearly shipwrecked, and helping to row a fortable trip-walking 50 miles, getting boat part of the way: "I was dirty from my journey; my pockets were stuffed out with shirts and stockings; I knew no soul, nor where to look for lodging. I was fatigued with traveling, rowing, and want of rest. I was very hungry and my whole stock of cash three large bread rolls. Wandering about consisted of a Dutch dollar." He bought town, munching, he met a fellow traveler. He gave her and her child two of his rolls. Thus did Franklin enter the town that was to become his permanent home, where he would rise to wealth and fame.

Seven years later he owned his own print He had in the meantime perfected his art by shop, a stationery store, and a newspaper. working for 18 months in England and could do the most intricate and difficult print jobs. At 26 he began the highly profitable annual publication of Poor Richard's Almanac. He managed his affairs so ably that at 42 he retired with an income equivalent to that of a royal governor. Though he was good at it, moneymaking never interested him, except as a means to obtain leisure for the things he really enjoyed: reading, study, scientific experimentation, social discourse, and correspondence with men of similar interests.

While still a journeyman printer, he had founded a club for sociability and self-improvement, called the Junto, of which he later said that it was "the best school of philosophy, morals, and politics" then existing in Pennsylvania. Its membership of about 12 consisted of alert, intelligent young artisans, tradesmen, and clerks who liked to read and debate. They met Friday evenings to discuss history, ethics, poetry, travels, mechanic arts and science (then called natural philosophy). It has been said of this group that it "brought the enlightenment in a leather apron to Philadelphia."

Franklin, who was full of ideas for improving life in Philadelphia and the Colonies in general, submitted all his proposals to the Junto where they were debated. Once accepted, members worked hard to get them put into effect. As a result, improvements were made in paving, lighting, and policing the town; a volunteer fire department and militia were formed; a municipal hospital was established; the foundations were laid for what became the University of Pennsylvania and the American Philosophical Society. ciety. Of most lasting importance, perhaps, was Franklin's plan for a subscription library, the first in the Colonies. Access to books, he felt, meant that "the doors to wisdom were never shut." The idea caught on. He noted with satisfaction that the numerous libraries springing up everywhere "have improved the general conversation of Americans, made the common tradesmen and farmers as intelligent as most gentlemen from other countries, and perhaps have contributed in some degree to the stand so generally made throughout the Colonies in defense of their privileges." The value of knowledge to man and society has never been put more succinctly.

When he was 40, Franklin discovered electricity. It was then a sort of magic, a par

lor trick. Franklin-ably supported by his Junto-threw himself into experimentations and developed a workable theory which he proved in his famous kite experiment. In the 6 years between 1746 and 1752 his contributions to electricity changed it from a curiosity to a science, and in the process made him world famous. His writings on electricity were compared with Newton's Optics; he became the friend of most contemporary scientists, was made a member of virtually every scientific society and received honorary degrees from 20 universities. He was the first American scientist to win universal acclaim; the first American author to have his books translated and read as When he widely in Europe as in America. was sent to Paris, as America's first Ambassador to a major power, the admiration of France for Franklin's scientific achievement in catching lightning and putting it to man's use contributed not a little to the success of his mission: winning the help of France to the revolutionary cause.

As a man of leisure, Franklin found himself more and more drawn into public service, this being expected of anyone who had the time and ability to serve. He became a member of the Pennsylvania legislature, the Committee of Five charged with drafting the Declaration of Independence, the Second Continental Congress, and the Constitutional Convention. In one way or another, he represented America abroad a total of 25 years, becoming an exceedingly skillful diplomat. His statement, in hearings before Parliament, of the case of the Colonies against the hated Stamp Act was masterly and helped bring about the repeal of this act. He was among the first to recognize that not merely "taxation" but "legislation in general" without representation could not be borne by Englishmen, whether they lived at home or abroad. The bond uniting England and its Colonies, he argued, was the King, not Parliament. Had his "dominion status theory" been accepted, the war might have been prevented but, as he sadly remarked, "there was not enough wisdom."

At 65, Franklin began his autobiography, intending it for his son. When pressure of public duties interrupted work on the book, one of his friends pleaded with him to complete it. All that had happened to Franklin, he urged, was of great historic interest since it was "connected with the detail of the manners and situation of a rising people." Moreover, the way he had planned and conducted his life was "a sort of key and explained many things that all men ought to have once explained to them, to give them a chance of becoming wise by foresight."

His philosophy of life, the virtues he cultivated-competent workmanship, honesty, industry, and frugality-are within everyone's grasp; they are as important to a good and successful life today as in his time. No American child ought to grow to adulthood without having read the autobiography of this talented, wise, and good man, who personified all that is best in America. "Merely by being himself," wrote Mark van Doren, "he dignified and glorified his country." Respectfully,



Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to vacate the order previously entered to the effect that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 11 o'clock tomorrow.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Oklahoma?

There was no objection.



The SPEAKER. Under a previous orUnder a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. EDMONDSON] is recognized for 30 minutes.

Mr. EDMONDSON. Mr. Speaker, it is my sincere hope-and I know it is a hope which is shared by thousands of workmen and investors in the sheet glass industry across the country-that President Johnson will put to an early end the uncertainty and deep concern which prevail in the domestic sheet glass industry by declaring his intention to continue existing tariff rates.

The past few days have brought to my desk a large number of messages from business leaders, labor leaders, community officials-all expressing the very gravest concern about the possibility that the President might follow the implied advice of a portion of the Tariff Commission and reduce the tariff levels that were established by President Kennedy in 1962 following a report by the Tariff Commission that it was imperative, if we were going to have a domestic sheet glass industry, that tariff rates be increased.

I believe it would be highly dangerous to the stability of this important industry to reduce these tariff rates now.

Mr. Speaker, I have before me a number of messages from some of the major officials of the producing industry stating that any cuts in the tariff rates would be disastrous to the country.

Mr. BETTS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. EDMONDSON. I will be glad to

yield to the gentleman.

Mr. BETTS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the gentleman that some time ago I received a telegram signed by all of the employees of the Pittsburgh Glass Co. in our district who share the same concern as those that the gentleman from Oklahoma just referred to.

I certainly want to commend the gentleman for bringing this matter to the attention of the House and I would like to associate myself with his remarks.

Mr. EDMONDSON. I thank the gentleman very much.

Mr. Speaker, I have before me a message which was received just a short time ago in my office from President Mr. Jimmie C. Wittman, of the United Glass & Ceramic Workers of America, Local 163, at Okmulgee, Okla., stating the position of that local on this question. I ask unanimous consent that the text of that letter might be made a part of the RECORD at this point.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Oklahoma?

There was no objection.


Okmulgee, Okla., August 3, 1695.

Representative ED EDMONDSON,

SIR: We the members of local 163 would like to go on record against the importation of foreign-made glass.

We do believe that this importing of foreign-made glass is detrimental to trade between American glass manufacturers, retailers, and consumers. We do believe this im

portation will injure, and possibly force out of business, many small glass manufacturers and jobbers. We also believe that this importation of foreign-made glass will result in the loss of many jobs.

As this administration has gone on record against unemployment, we feel that the importation of foreign-made glass would be a refutation of this policy.

We therefore wish to go on record against the increased importing of foreign-made glass.

A reply would be appreciated.
Respectfully yours,

Jimmie C. Wittman, President; Farrell
Lee Clements, O. C. Goodwin, L. E.
Vaughn, Joseph Rice, J. C. Tyler,
Robert Ketcher, C. E. Peckinpaugh,
Charles J. Hicks, Troy Winkle, George
S. Cosen, August Vercelli,
Vercelli, Ernest
Bussey, Bobby Lindsay, Odie Brown,
Jimmy Sickeny, Eugene Van Meter.
Mr. EDMONDSON. Mr. Speaker, I
also have a message from the plant man-

ager of the American-Saint Gobain Corp., Factory No. 3, at Okmulgee, Okla., Mr. James A. Arford, expressing the very grave concern of that great corporation about the possibility of a tariff rate reduction on sheet glass. I ask unanimous consent that that might be made a part of the RECORD at this point.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Oklahoma?

There was no objection.

AMERICAN-SAINT GOBAIN CORP., Kingsport, Tenn., August 6, 1965. Hon. ED EDMONDSON,

U.S. House of Representatives.
Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. EDMONDSON: As an employer of 380 people in your area and a manufacturer

under increasing pressure to operate profitably, we are deeply concerned over the recent Tariff Commission recommendation to reduce the tariff on imports of foreign sheet glass. Our concern-and that of other sheet glass manufacturers and their employees is expressed in the attached advertisement. It appeared in the Okmulgee Daily Times on Tuesday, August 3, 1965.

Foreign sheet glass took 25 percent of our domestic market last year. In an effort to increase that share, foreign producers reduced already depressed sheet glass prices in the last 30 days. Now we are faced with further price depression and market loss if President Johnson accepts the Commission's

3-to-2 recommendation.

I know you want these facts brought to your attention since any tariff reduction will deeply affect many people in your area.


[blocks in formation]

in an area where approximately 33% percent of the residents are unemployed. Reduction in duties will undoubtedly add to the number of unemployed. Takeover or even more substantial share of the domestic market by foreign manufacturers would have detrimental effect on any future plant expansion and capital investment. Further expansion of European and Japanese glass industries at the expense of the higher wage American industry would be disastrous to communities such as ours. Can anticipate possibly 20percent reduction in our employment as result of reduction in tariffs. Loss of payroll dollars would have staggering effect on community.


Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co.

Mr. EDMONDSON. Mr. Speaker, I have a letter also from the mayor of the city of Henryetta, Okla., Mayor W. E. Richeson, in which he brings to my attention the feeling of the city council of that city that all in our power should be done to oppose any reduction in tariff rates on sheet glass. I ask unanimous consent that that letter may be made a part of the RECORD at this point.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to

the request of the gentleman from Okla

[blocks in formation]



Mr. EDMONDSON. Mr. Speaker, the problem exists not only with reference to the major producers and to the workmen, but it has been pointed out that we could have a very grave effect on the small manufacturers and also on the jobbers who handle glass. As an illustration of a further impact we might bring about, we have word received from the raw materials suppliers for the sheet glass industry. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from Mr. William I. Weisman, president of the Ozark-Mahoning Co., at Tulsa, Okla., be made a part of the RECORD at this point.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Oklahoma?

There was no objection.

OZARK-MAHONING CO., Tulsa, Okla., August 24, 1965.

Hon. ED EDMONDSON, House Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN EDMONDSON: It is our understanding that early in September, President Johnsor will review the temporary tariff granted to the sheet glass industry on June 17, 1962, by the late President Kennedy. As a raw material supplier to the sheet glass industry, we earnestly solicit your help in maintaining or increasing the existing tariffs. It is our belief that through the continuation of these tariffs the domestic sheet glass industry will be able to compete on an equal basis with the lower priced foreign glass. Reduction or elimination of these tariffs could materially weaken a vital part of our national economy.

It is difficult to believe that the Tariff

Commission might consider the thought of

lower tariffs while the U.S. Government is beginning the multimillion-dollar Appalachian project. This area employs about half of the 7,300 sheet glass workers in the United States. Any help you can give in maintaining or increasing the tariffs would be very greatly appreciated.

Very truly yours,



Mr. EDMONDSON. Mr. Speaker, we have also heard from the press on this subject, from the editor of the Henryetta Daily Freelance at Henryetta, Okla., Mr. Leland Gourley, who has written me expressing the concern of that fine newspaper about the situation and predicting that there would be a loss of at least 1,500 direct jobs in depressed eastern Oklahoma alone with a possible 5,000 additional jobs being lost across the country with subsequent serious effects on our economy if a tariff reduction were to be put into effect by the President at this

[blocks in formation]

Majority decision in 3-2 split opinion from U.S. Tariff Commission concerning glass imports is serious if recommendation is followed. It would cause loss of at least 1,500 direct jobs in depressed eastern Oklahoma alone. Loss of direct employment would result in 5,000 additional jobs being lost with subsequent serious effects on our economy. LELAND GOURLEY,

Editor, Henryetta Daily Freelance. Mr. EDMONDSON. Mr. Speaker, I think there is no question about the fact that the loss of many jobs and injury to many small glass manufacturers and jobbers would very likely be the result if the President were to disregard the warnings in the minority opinion of the Tariff Commission and if he were to conclude that the increases placed in effect in 1962 were no longer necessary. Increases in glass imports are almost certain to follow a tariff cut. The glass imports already consist of over a quarter

of the American market in the sheet glass field. I earnestly hope that the President of the United States will heed the voice of the workmen and producers across the country and continue in effect the tariff rates that were established by the President in 1962.

Mr. MORTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. MOORE] may extend his remarks at this point in the RECORD and include extraneous matter.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Maryland?

There was no objection.

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I join with the gentleman from Oklahoma in expressing my utter amazement at the recent sheet glass decision of the Tariff Commission and particularly with respect to the rationale which was used by the majority of that body in their opinion, which in substance would recommend the President to reestablish the tariff rates on sheet glass which were in effect prior to June 17, 1962.

If one were to spend much time in reading the opinion of the majority in this particular case, he can find the very basis for which the present tariff rate should be continued and no little, or any should be continued and no little, or any thought be given to reestablishing highthought be given to reestablishing higher rates.

From time to time, I have pointed out on this floor several reasons why I believe that the President should not aclieve that the President should not accept the suggestion of the Tariff Comcept the suggestion of the Tariff Commission, but in fact, should give serious consideration to further increasing the tariffs. In order that I might share these thoughts with the House, I ask consent to include in my remarks the letter which to include in my remarks the letter which I addressed to the President on this subject on August 13, 1965.

The letter follows:

AUGUST 13, 1965. President LYNDON B. JOHNSON, The White House Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: On June 11, 1965, the Tariff Commission made its report to you recommending by a 3-to-2 vote that the increased escape-clause rates of duty imposed on foreign sheet glass as of June 17, 1962, be removed, saying that this would have only a slight effect on the domestic sheet glass industry.

Commissioners Talbot and Sutton in their minority opinion stated, however, that a reduction in tariff would exert a downward pressure on sheet glass prices; lead to an increase in the share of consumption supplied by imports; contribute toward a decline in employment and profits; and idle productive facilities.

It would appear to me that the best evidence that the present tariff structure should be retained is the fact that even at the adjusted higher rates foreign imports of sheet glass continue to increase. Therefore, the higher rates have in no way prevented them from competing in the American marketplace. In addition, the adjusted higher rates have not been in effect for a sufficient period of time to actually determine whether or not higher rates of tariff on imported sheet glass should be considered rather than any suggestion that they be lowered.

Obviously, the recommendation of the majority was clearly based on a lack of information and erroneous assumptions, and its appraisement of the probable effects of its recommended action on the domestic sheet

glass industry was not supported by its own findings of fact.

lack of knowledge or information concerning the problems and difficulties facing the sheet glass industry. Almost all of the sheet glass produced in the United States is produced by 7 companies in 14 plants. Six of these plants are in areas of persistent unemployment.

The Tariff Commission's action indicates a

The destruction or the deterioration of the

sheet glass industry would bring about further economic havoc to the State of West Virginia. The economy of the city of Clarksburg, W. Va., would in my opinion be totally destroyed and the jobs and well-being of thousands of people in the Clarksburg area would be placed in jeopardy. In my opinion, it is high time that the leadership in this Nation begin to concern themselves with the problems confronting American industries and its employees from the onslaught of unfair foreign imports. In my own district in West Virginia, the sheet glass industry is a large and important industry. In Clarksnishes employment to over 2,000 employees burg and Harrison County, this industry furat 3 local plants.


The American sheet glass industry generally, and especially the plants located in West Virginia, have been and are waging a desperate fight to compete with cheap-laborproduced foreign sheet glass from Japan and mid-European countries. American sheet glass plants are already in many instances operating at less than full capacity and on a narrow margin of profit, if any, because about 25 percent of the sheet glass market in the United States has been captured by low-cost foreign labor competiby foreign sheet glass if the present intion. Naturally further inroads will be made creased escape-clause rates of duty are removed as recommended by the Tariff Com


The removal of the tariffs on sheet glass would impose great hardships and losses upon the owners and employees of sheet glass plants in West Virginia and elsewhere. Production would have to be further cur

tailed and some plants would probably have to go out of business, thereby imposing great losses and hardship on the owners and employees of other industries which furnish services and supplies to the sheet glass plants.

The six large sheet glass plants, including the three in or near Clarksburg, W. Va., are located in Appalachia. Congress and you, Mr. President, have authorized expenditures of almost $2 billion to help bring new industries to the area, to relieve unemployment, and to improve living standards. Maintenance of these protective tariffs which already have helped stabilize the American glass industry would definitely be more in line with the economic development objectives put forth by you and the Congress than would a reduction in duties.

Of course I am deeply concerned about the conditions of this industry in West Virginia. Job opportunities are scarce in West Virginia. Without the employment offered by the glass companies, our State would have an even more serious unemployment problem. It would be far better, considering the unemployment problem, if tariff rates on sheet glass were increased, rather than reduced or maintained at current rates.

The great damage that lies in store if these rates are reduced can be forestalled and instead the sheet glass industry can be given an incentive and a freer rein to make its own way back uphill, to the top where it belongs.

I therefore call for an increase in the protective tariffs on flat glass. Sincerely yours,

ARCH A. MOORE, JR., Congressman, First District of West Vir ginia.

« PreviousContinue »