1596 the consideration of this bill coming be- fore us today, will pass it. I believe that failure to do so will have far-reaching ef- fects throughout the world adverse to the best interests of the United States. The SPEAKER. The time of the gen- tleman from Massachusetts has expired. Mr. HERTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentle- man from South Dakota (Mr. CasE]. The SPEAKER. The gentleman from South Dakota is recognized for 2 min- utes. Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr. Speaker, the colloquy between the gen- tleman from New York [Mr. CouDErT] and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McCormack! points up the inher- ent weakness in announcing a policy of containment. When that policy was an- nounced there was pressure at Trieste, then it shifted to Greece and to Turkey, and when we plugged that hole in the dike, got our finger down there, then the pressure came on in Berlin, and when sufficient commitments of American strength had been made to guarantee success of the airlift, the pressure starts in China, or in Korea, or in India, and who knows where next. Today it is Ber- lin again. Mr. Speaker, the basic fallacy in announcing a policy of containment is that it gives the initiative to the other side. In this instance the Soviet operates on an internal line; we operate on the periphery, and just as long as we fail to adopt a policy that will select for us time and place, Russia will continue to try to run us ragged all around the globe. Mr. DELANEY. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question. The previous question was ordered. The resolution was agreed to. Mr. KEE. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into the Com- mittee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (S. 2319) to promote world peace and the general welfare, national interest, and foreign policy of the United States by providing aid to the Republic of Korea. The motion was agreed to. Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the con- sideration of the bill (S. 2319) to provide economic assistance to certain areas of the Far East, with Mr. Bonner in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. By unanimous consent the first read- ing of the bill was dispensed with. Mr. KEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield my- self 12 minutes. Mr. Chairman, with some hesitancy today I undertake again the explana- tion of a bill for the relief of the Republic of South Korea. It will be recalled by all present that this bill in different form was before the House a short time since. We went along fairly well for 2 or 3 days, then the bill was defeated by one vote. A similar bill to this had, during the first session of the Eighty-first Congress, been passed by the Senate. However, that bill was quite different from the one we were at the time considering. The Senate bill provided for the authoriza- tion of an appropriation of $150,000,000 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE and also provided an advance on the part of the RFC of $50,000,000. It also set out @ policy statement of the United States toward the Republic of Korea. It made no provision whatever for any extension of the time in which aid could be ren- dered to China; neither did the bill that was considered in the House and de- feated, as I have stated, by a single vote. At the time we took the vote on the bill on the former House measure the Senate had passed the bill (8. 2319) of which I have spoken. That bill was then lying on the Speaker’s desk. It is that same bill, with amendments by the reporting committee, that is now before the House. Had the bill, then before the House, passed at that time instead of meeting defeat, it was my inten- tion to ask unanimous consent to take the Scnate bill from the Speaker’s desk, strike out all after the enacting clause, and substitute the bill we had passed. The bill failing of passage, of course, that could not be done. Therefore, shortly after we had con- sidered the House measure and it failed of passage, the Senate bill having been referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the committee in a few days took it up for consideration. We prepared a draft of a new bill. I am frank to say the suggestion that a provision be in- cluded in the bill extending the time in which we could expend the unexpended balance of the former appropriation made to China was made by the gentle- man now addressing you. I discussed the matter with the Secretary of State and he was agreeable. Shortly before the committee under- took consideration of this new bill my friend and beloved colleague the gentle- man from New Jersey [Mr. Eaton], the ranking minority member of the Com- mittee on Foreign Affairs, had intro- duced a resolution in this House author- izing an extension of the time for expend- iture of the China appropriation. The gentleman from Ncw Jersey was well aware of the importance of that action, because we had been very bitterly criti- cized because of a mistaken idea that the United States had entirely forsaken For. mosa and that it was no longer the inten- tion of the Government of the United States to render any further aid to For- mosa. That was a mistake, because, at the time we were discussing the bill on the floor of the House a few weeks ago, and before that time and since that time, our country, through the instrumentality of the ECA, has been steadily and con- tinually rendering economic aid to For- mosa. It is still rendering economic aid to Formosa, and if this bill is approved today it will continue to give Formosa aid as long as you extend the time for the expenditures of this unexpended bal- ance; and if further appropriations are made, that aid under our policy will be continued to Formosa as long as condi- tions in that island will permit the agency of the United States Government to pro- ceed with its program. As you know the appropriation for aid to China, when originally made, amounted to about $400,000,000, of which amount $125,000,000 was for military aid and $275,000,000 was for economic aid, FEBRUARY 7 Of that amount we have expended in China, and only in those sections not under Communist domination, all of that money with the exception of approxi- mately $104,000,000. That is the money that is now unexpended, and for which this bill will extend the time for expend- iture to the 30th day of June of the present year. At that time the exten- sion will expire. The entire matter will then be subject to review by the Con- gress. If Congress sees fit to further extend the time within which the money can be expended, it will do so; if it does not, then the unexpended balance will revert to the Treasury. In the meantime I can say this, that it is intended to continue this aid to Formosa under this extension until the 30th day of June, and it is expected that not exceeding, at the outside, $10,000,000 of this $104,000,000 unexpended balance will be spent for this continuing aid. It is really anticipated, however, that actually not over $5,000,000 or $7,000,000 can possibly be expended in Formosa to advantage during that time; therefore, that is the total amount of money in- volved in the measure before you today, so far as China is concerned. Now, turning to the question of Korea, I hardly think it is necessary for me to go into an extended explanation of the bill as it affects Korea. When you come to the reasons for the Congress adopting & measure of this kind, then I can say to you that the Republic of South Korea was a child not only of the United States of America, but of the United Nations. A commission was appointed by the United Nations which acted jointly with a com- mission appointed by the United States. States. The commission went into For- mosa at a time when the Russians had come in from the north and had taken the surrender of Japanese troops to a point far south of the thirty-eighth par- allel. The representatives of the United States Government protested this pene- tration of the Russians to the south, After insisting that the Russians return, at least to the thirty-eighth parallel, which they did, both commissions find- ing it was impossible to set up a gov- ernment over all of the country as we desired most earnestly, it was deter- mined that the only thing that could Possibly be done was to set up a demo- cratic government in South Korea, Therefore, with the United Nations, we proceeded to establish the Republic of South Korea along democratic lines and upon democratic principles. It will be remembered that when that government was established we placed an American alongside of every officer and of every lez- islator in the Korean Assembly or legisla- tive body to show them the know-how in the conduct of a democratic government} and within less than a year the Amerie cans were practically withdrawn from all action and from any actual partici- pation in the new Korean Government, It was turned over to the Korean people, and they have been administering it ever since. They have been and are today making a success of it. On the floor of this House doubt has been expressed as to the ability of the Government of South Korea to defend itself in the event of in-
1950 vasion from the north, that is, from that part of the Korean section lying north of the thirty-eighth parallel. I can say to you that the testimony before our committee was that the Re- public of South Korea is today in a con- dition where it has the power and ability to take care of that situation insofar as any invasion from the country north of it fs concerned. Of course, it is a matter self evident to all of us that if the North Korean Communist govern- ment should be joined by that much more widespread and greater power far- ther north, the Russian Government, and it should throw all its power into an invasion of Korea, that would be a dif- ferent proposition. But we havc no rea- son whatever to anticipate that Russia will join with the North Korean Commu- nist government. As long as it does not, we are assured that the present govern- ment, the only real, genuine democracy in that section of the world, to which we have pledged our aid, which we originated, which we established, and which we have assisted down to this time, will grow in strength and power. May I express the hope that the meas- ure before you today will meet with your approval. A fine people and a newborn but healthy and promising democratic nation are looking to us for further aid, encouragement, and guidance. So far it has been the United States in which this new government and its people have placed their faith. Let us not, at this critical time in world history, betray that trust. Let us by our action today give renewed hope to the peoples of Korea and Formosa. Mr. EATON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may desire to the gentle- man from New Jersey [Mr. WoLVERTON]. Mr. WOLVERTON. Mr. Chairman, I am in favor of the bill now before the House, 8S. 2319, as reported by the Com- mittee on Foreign Affairs. The purpose of the bill, as passed by the Senate, is to promote world peace and the general welfare, national inter- est, and foreign policy of the United States by providing aid to Korea. The scope of the bill ss it came to the House from the Senate has been enlarged, so as to include an extension of an existing authorization to use funds already ap- propriated for economic assistance in non-Communist areas of China. The title to the act has accordingly been amended so as to read ‘‘An act to pro- vide economic assistance to certain areas of the Far East.” The bill, as reported by the committee, contains two principal provisions, namely, extension of existing authoriza- tion of assistance to areas of China not under the dominance of Communist forces, and a new authorization for eco- nomic assistance to the Republic of Korea. Unless this legislation is adopted, the economic assistance pro- grams for both China and Korea will be without funds on February 16, 1950. The bill under consideration will extend the authorizations in each instance to June 30, 1950. It is expected that before this session of Congress adjourns, further legislation may be proposed based upon subsequent study of the situation. xCVI——101 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Notwithstanding this bill does not pro- pose anything other than economic aid, it nevertheless brings up for considera- tion the entire situation that now exists in the Far East with respect to what should be the American policy in that section of the world. The underlying reason for legislation of this sort has been the desire to stem the tide of communism. We have spent billions of dollars in the form of economic and military aid to the countries of west- ern Europe. We have done so for the sole purpose of rehabilitating the eco- nomic condition of those countries fol- lowing a disastrous war that severely weakened their economic structures, and, furthermore, to give some assurance of security against any aggressive military move that might be made against them by the Soviet government or its satel- lites, Insofar as this aid from our coun- try has enabled these countries to be- come stabilized and made stronger to re- sist the inroads of communism it has been money well spent. Even though we may feel that the accomplishments re- sulting from our aid have not been as great or far-reach.ng as we would like, yet the fact remains that up to the pres- ent communism has been contained to the countrics behind the iron curtain. However, though we have given sub- stantial aid to the countries of western Europe to withstand the ravages of com- munism, yet we have been exceedingly lax in pursuing the same policy in the Far East. We have stood by and per- mitted the forces of communism to sweep through China without a word of protest or the giving of the necessary aid to Na- tionalist China to resist. We seem to have forgotten that China was our ally who fought so valiantly against Japan during the last war. The policy of our State Department “to let the dust settle” before we do anything is tragic. It now is apparent that the Communist forces in China do not intend ‘‘to let the dust settle.” They are on the move not only in China, taking it over entirely, but are spreading out into the countries south- east of China. It would now seem to be only a question of time before all this part of Asia will be under the domina- tion of communism with satellite govern- ments under the control of Moscow. How long can the republican government of South Korea withstand the infiltration of communistic doctrine or, even worse, the onslaught that may come upon it from the North Korean government that is already under the domination of Mos- cow? I repeat that the policy our State Department has pursued in Asia is a tragic mess. If it is our concern as a nation to stop the spread of communism in western Europe, then it should be equally our concern to stop it wherever it shows its ugly head. Everyone is aware that com- munism is determined to spread its ideol- ogy throughout the world. It seeks world domination. We must fight it on every front. I give my support to this bill, insuffi- cient though its provisions may be, be- cause it is right in principle as far as it goes. It is my hope, however, that it will be no distant day when those who 1597 direct our foreign policy will awaken to the fact that it is important to Aght com- munism with all the vigor at our com~- mand. To do less is only to create dan- ger for America and the other democ- racies of the world. Mr. EATON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Wis- consin [Mr. SmirH]. Mr. SMITH of Wisconsin. Mr, Chair- man, I shall anxiously await this after- noon Members who will take the well of this House and plead with eloquence for the American taxpayer. It is strange how that individual is forgotten in all of these attempts to spread our dollars all over the world. I think the Members are becoming more conscious of the dollar shortage in this country. With a deficit of some $257,000,000,000, with no money in the Treasury, where are you going to get the money? Mr. Chairman, I am in complete sym- pathy with the people in Korea and with the free people of China. I think, how- ever, we ought to Keep our eye upon the doughnut and not upon the hole. We are wrestling with a matter of foreign Policy in this bill. The real effort that is being made in this bill today is to get aid for Korea. The State Department has changed its position. This bill was de- feated 2 or 3 weeks ago on the floor of the House. Now it comes back with the proposition that it will extend aid to China—oh, just a little, not very much— $4,000,000 maybe or $10,000,000. Now, the State Department does not like China any more today than it did 6 months or 2 weeks ago. It still hates the Chiang Kai-shek government Why? Because the State Department has done Chiang Kai-shek and the free people of China a grave wrong, a great injustice that it cannot retrieve. I was interested in the remarks by the distinguished majority leader a while ago when he spoke out against the hate philosophy of communism. We all agree with him. But is it not strange that the free people of China have been sold down the river because this same State De- partment was insisting that Chiang Kai- shek organize a coalition government with the Communists? Do not forget that this same State Department dur- ing the administration of the military government in Korea was sending di- rectives to the lieutenant general then in command insisting constantly that the South Koreans organize a coalition gov- ernment with the Communists. How do we reconcile that position with the posi- tion taken by administration leaders in this House today? Obviously there is a wide difference of opinion between Mr. Acheson and Mr. McCormack. Let us forget about Formosa. That is not the important part of this bill. The distinguished chairman of our commit- tee, who has worked hard on thi. legis- lation states there is not much danger that the South Korean Government will fall. I call your attention to a statement in the report which would seem to indi- cate there is great danger that the South Korean Government might fall because of the tie-up between the North Korean
1598 Government and the Soviet Republic. I read from page 12 of the report: The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, set up in the northern part of the peninsula, has develop.d its ties with coun- tries in the Soviet Union's bloc. Then it goes on to name them. When the Soviet deems the South Korean Gov- ernment ripe for picking it will move. And what a rich prize it will be. Now, what are we doing if we give this money to Korea? What kind of an inducement do we provide to the Com- munists to take it over? I am again re- ferring to the report. Here are the ob- jectives of the recovery expenditures for fiscal 1950, as indicated on page 19 of the report. This is what we are going to give them. We will provide money so that there may be coal-carrying ves- sels; the money is going to help estab- lish a fishing fleet; it is going to go into railroad construction, into the develop- ment of coal mines, irrigation, and rec- lamation projects, steam-gencrating plants, bridge construction, communica- tion equipment. What a temptation to take over South Korea by the Commu- nists. Are we going to take that chance? We are going to pour $60,000,000, be- tween now and the end of June, into those permanent improvements. Is that what the American taxpayers expect of us? I donot believe it. And, while there is no termination date in this bill, do not forget we are working on a 3-year pro- gram, and before you get through you will be appropriating $320,000,000. That is what this legislation means, and do not be fooled by other arguments that it is only $60,000,000. Sixty million dollars is a lot of money when you do not have it. It is a lot even when we have it. I say to you in all frankness that I think the risk we are taking is too great; that the improvements we make are too great an enticement for the Communists to take over. Oh, they will not take over tomorrow, after we pass this legislation. No. They will wait. They will wait maybe a year. But do we not set up a beautiful proposition for them? When the plum is ripe, and when the Commu- nists take it over all that we have done in behalf of a fine people will go for naught. Mr. ELLSWORTH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. SMITH of Wisconsin. I yield. Mr. ELLSWORTH. I would like to ask the gentleman regarding subsection (b) of section 3, on page 4 of the bill, wherein it states that in the event there is a coalition government, which includes one or more members of the Communist Party, or of the party now in control of the Government of North Korea. On what basis and how are we going to de- termine the political affiliation of indi- viduals who may appear as a part of the Government in Korea. Who makes that decision? Mr. SMITH of Wisconsin. I would not know, to be frank, and I think that provision was inserted by a member of the committee in an effort to avoid set- ting up a coalition government which the committee members knew was in the minds of the State Department. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Mr. ELLSWORTH. It seems to me, if the gentleman will yield further, there has been some confusion in the minds of some people in the State Department re- garding just who is and who 1s not a Communist over in that part of the world. Mr. SMITH of Wisconsin. I do not think there is any doubt about it. They are still changing every day. Mr. Chair- man, I am opposed to this bill and I shall vote against it. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr Smit] has expired. Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia |[Mr. Staccers]. Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I wish to comment on a statement made by the gentleman who just preceded me to the effect that, if we help Korea, sooner or later the Communists will come in and take over. To me that is an attitude of defeatism that we could take toward anything that America might at- tempt. If the men who fought in the armed forces had taken that attitude we would not have won the war. I be- lieve the facts do not warrant that state- ment. We find that our Government had something to do with making the thirty-cighth parallel the dividing line between North and South Korea, and since the Korean Government has been set up, hundreds of thousands of North Koreans have come into the southern part of Korea because they did not hke communism, and they did not want any part of it. I cannot understand the rea- soning of the opponents of this bill. We hear the statement made time and timc again that they desire aid for Formosa and China. Why under the sun do they not desire aid for Korea? The Korean people have proved themselves to be re- spectable, diligent people; and I just cannot understand it. So many of the Members speaking in opposition say they are in sympathy with these people, but I remind them that sympathy does not amount to a thing unless 1t is backed up by some ‘aid, and we must take this into consideration. I heard statements made several times about military aid and other types of aid. If those Mem- bers would take into consideration the fact that all the industry of Korea prac- tically is in the northern part they would realize that this bill is intended to help build up the industry of South Korea to make it self-supporting not only in the matter of fertilizer, as they have mentioned, but in the matter of practi- cally everything they use. Several times today I have heard statements made about the fight against communism, Is there a man here who opposes this bill who says that South Korea is not fighting communism? Are we going to aline ourselves with the forces that you say were against the democracies? I heard one speaker say that he hoped the argument of interna- tionalism and isolationism would not be raised today in conjunction with this bill, yet in the very next breath he made the statement that we should bring our forces back to this country and build up America and have just a few outlying bases. As I read the dictionary that FEBRUARY 7 means isolationism and nothing else. I do not see how they can escape that logic or how they can fail to know what has been our attitude along those lines in the past. I heard several other comments but i will not notice them at this time. I am compelled by my conscience to vote for this bill. From all the informa- tion I can gather our Government made a definite commitment to the people of southern Korea and if we are to keep faith with other nations we must stand by our commitments. As my banker at home once told me, if you have the. smallest obligation, to remain an honorable person, you must meet that obligation, even though it takes the shirt off your back, and that is the way I feel about America's relations with Korea today. This newborn small nation is fighting its battle for freedom under great and tremendous odds. It is now the hour of destiny for them. Shall we stand by and not Iend a helping hand knowing that a small amount of aid now will save these people from slavery—yes, even worse—by abandoning them to the four horsemen of Apocalypse—conquest, slaughter, fam- Ine, and death. We lent a helping hand to Turkey and Greece, two small nations fighting com- munism, why not Korea? We hear a lot of talk about our far-eastern policy so those who are genuinely interested in the east should keep this outpost of democracy strong and on guard. Industrial and social development has progressed tremendously since the gov- ernment of occupation has gone out of Korea. They have plenty of labor—all Korea needs is more equipment and ma- terial with which to work. We do not want Korea to go along the road the rest of the Asiatic countries have. I feel—and it is the opinion of men who should know—that if Korea is given this aid now, she will be able to withstand the onslaught of the Commu- nists and will be able to stand as a first line of defense in the far-eastern waters. Korea is industrious. She has proved her loyalty, and Korea is most apprecia- tive of the help which has been given. There is no sign of her weakening. With adequate aid Korea could be con- sidered a strong and secure frontier of freedom and decency in a chaotic world. I urge each and every Member of this House who believes in the inherent rights of mankind to enjoy the rights of liberty and freedom on this earth, the right to decent and humane living and a place under the sun, to vote for this bill. Mr. EATON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Vorys]. Mr. VORYS. Mr. Chairman, last month I told the House that launching @ permanent policy for continued as- sistance to Korea, while retreating every- where else in Asia, was a “strictly rat- hole-money” operation. I still think so. Today, however, I am supporting the bill S. 2319, a similar bill from the Senate, provided the committee amend- ment is adopted. This amendment strikes out the whole bill and proposes to amend the title. It is now the far- eastern economic assistance bill. It in- cludes both Korea and Formosa. It ex-
1950 tends the extensions to the China Aid Act of 1948 until June 30 in non-Communist dominated areas, and that means For- mosa, I think that the continuation of friendly Chinese control of Formosa ts very important to our security. If we are to stand in Formosa, it would be un- fortunate to fall back now in Korea. This is not a commitment. In today’s Washington Post is a letter by a Mr. Joseph G. Colgan, formerly Chief, Visual Propaganda, Office of Civil Information, United States Army Forces in Korea. In this article it is stated: Representative Vorys’ contention that there is no promise, no commitment, no obli- gation, is bewildering. One can only assume that Mr. Vorys, in some strange way, has been denied knowledge of the American lib- eration and occupation of southern Korea. He says further: Anyone conversant with these events must agree that there were promises, there are commitments and, above all, there is a moral obligation Well, all I know on that ts what I learned from the State Department. This is what Mr. Philander P. Claxton, Jr., of the State Department said, and you will find this on page 182 of our hearings: Mr. Cuaxton There is not a commitment in the sense of an international treaty or international agreement or anything that could be enforced in any world court or otherwise Mr. Vorys Or with the Government of Korea, either, there is no such commitment? Mr. CuaxTon. No, sir. Mr. Jupp. I think I used the word “prom- ise.” Mr CLaxToNn. promise Therefore whatever we do here is not based on any prior commitment, promise, or obligation, according to the Depart- ment of State. As to military aid, the President al- ready has available almost all of the $102,640,000 appropriated last October for military aid to China and Korea and the Far East generally, including some- thing for Iran and the Philippines. The Joint Chiefs of Staff are out there now, s0 is Jessup, our trouble-shooting ambassador at large. With this bill the adminustration’s high command can im- plement anticommunistic resistance while they arc making up their minds on a far-eastern policy. This is a stopgap measure. It only runs for less than 5 months. It is broader, but shorter, than last month’s bill. If administered along with other existing laws, it will be of di- rect security benefit to us. It is not strictly rat-hole money, not solely for charity, not any commitment for any- thing after June 30. In fact, it is not much of anything, but it seems to be the best we can do at this time toward get- ting this administration to make a stand against Communist aggression in the Far East. Secretary Acheson came before our committee last week on this bill. I was not present. What I say today on this bill is not based on anything he told the committee. I do not want action on this bill to depend upon a vote of confidence or lack of confidence in Secretary Ache- son for what he says or fails to say. It 1s not as much as a CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE I want to tell the House very seriously what I think about the Acheson situa- tion. In spite of differences in party and many disagreements on policies, Dean Acheson has been a personal friend of mine for many years, but his statement on Alger Hiss has made mec search my conscience, too. I believe in standing by friends, but I think loyalty to the Gov- ernment we have both sworn to uphold and defend comes ahead of my friend- ship for Dean Acheson, and should come ahead of any other friendship he has. I think any friend of mine who is proven disloyal to his country betrays my friend- ship and has turned his back on me. I hope Dean Acheson feels this way, too, but he has not said so This raises a question of his judgment as to when to talk and when to keep silent on questions of loyalty. He is not a private citizen; he is a very high official of this Govern- ment. His slightest word, the way he say. it, is searched for meaning and for omissions by people all over the world. The Hiss statement was deliberate, at an official press conference. Secretary Acheson is the supreme administrative officer of his Department, with vastly in- creased powers under the State Depart- ment Reorganization Act passed last year. He has ultimate responsibility for security in the State Department. How much proof of disloyalty does he need before he reacts? What does he do or say when he learns about disloyalty? Does he think he can be silent on all this now and still have us lsten when he speaks on security questions that involve his judgment, his conscience? Mr Ache- son owes something to his other friends besides Alger Hiss. Meanwhile I am not turning my back on Dean Acheson, but I am turning a deaf ear on much that he says. Meanwhile we must Iceislate for the best interests of the country, bearing in mind the type of administration we have now and are hkely to have for 2 years more. I do not know what this admin- istration will do with this bill. They have said they will keep Korea and For- mosa going. This is a fragmentary start on the mutual aid policy for the free peo- ples of the Far East laid down by Con- gress last October in the Mutual Defense Assistance Act. I hope a real plan is de- veloped by next June. At best this is a stopgap. At least it is a continuation of the bipartisan congressional policy for the Far East. At least it means that Congress is not retreating Asia. Mr. KEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Mon- tana |[Mr. MANSFIELD]. Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. Chairman, the subject before us today is not the per- sonal feelings of any one man, no matter what position he may hold. The ques- tion is, what are we going to do in Korea primarily, and incidentally in China or Formosa, I have been very interested in some of the observations made here today re- garding the cost of this program and the possibilities of its success or failure. Un- der the bill now before you, we are ask- ing for $60,000,000 to carry on the pro- gram for aid to Korea to June 30, 1950. The total amount which will be used in this fiscal year if this bill is passed will be 1599 $120,000,000. Sixty million dollars has already been appropriated and obligated. Some question has been raised as to where this $60,000,000 came from. I call to the committee's attention the perti- nent information covering that question. Congress provided $12,500,000 by a joint resolution in June 1949, an additional $5,000,000 in August, $12,550,000 made available in a deficiency bill passed on October 12, 1949, and $30,000 001 provided on October 23, 1949, making a total of $60,000,000 which had been requested, appropriated, and allocated to date. You all know that as far as Korea is concerned we have a commitment to the Republic of South Korea. It does not make any difference whether it {s down on paper or whether or not a promise has been made. The real facts are that we moved into Korea up to the 38th parallel, that we encouraged the estab- lishment of the present government, that we have there at the present time a mili- tary mission, and that it is to the best interests and the security of the United States that we do everything we can to see that the Republic of South Korea is maintained. Of course we know we are teking a chance. Maybe the gentleman from Wisconsin is correct when he says that it may cost us much but we must recog- nize the fact that {f South Korea falls it will bring communism in that country right. up to the shores of American-occu- pied Japan. The only barrier, then, will be a narrow Strait, the Strait of Shimo- noscki, between South Korca and west- ern Japan. We have a commitment there. If we let this Government down, I think we will be coing back on that commitment. The gentleman from Wisconsin said, I believe, that it was stated in the com. mittee and in the record that South Ko- rea could defend itself against any kind of an invasion from the north. I think the record will clearly indicate that what was said was that if it comes to a conflict of any kind between north- ern and southern Korea that the south- ern Koreans will be well able to take care of themsclves, but if the U.S. S. R. enters into the conflict on the side of the North Korean Republic, the so-called people's republic, then of course it will be a horse of another color. So we can sec that in- sofar as the Republic of South Korea is concerned, an American-supported and American-approved republic, a republic in which we have invested a good deal in the way of money and which in turn has staked its future partly upon our heip that in that area we do have a commit- ment even if it is not written down in black and white. I wish this bill was purely a Korean aid bill so that we could discuss and vote on the question of Korean aid by itself. I am sorry certain individuals have seen fit to include in this measure sec- tion 2, which provides continued assist- ance to Formosa, because I believe that likewise should be considered by itself. Mr. KEATING. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MANSFIELD. I yield. Mr. KEATING. Not being a member of the committee, I ask this question as
1600 a matter of information. The gentle- man has referred to certain persons in- cluding section 2. Was not that the rec- ommendation of the Secretary of State, Mr. Acheson? Mr. MANSFIELD. I may have used the wrong word there. Let me put it this way. I think it was put in as & sop to people who are more interested in our China policy than in what we are trying to do in Korea. What it constitutes is the result of bills which have already been introduced by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Eaton! in the House, and Senator SmirH and Senator KNow- LAND in the other body. My contention is, may I say to the gentleman from New York, that both of these subjects should stand or fall on their own merits and they should not be included here in an effort to get votes for a project which should be considered on its merits alone. Mr, KEATING. I am interested in knowing who is trying to get these votes. Did the Secretary of State recommend the inclusion of section 2, or did he not? Mr. MANSFIELD. I believe the Sec- retary of State did. However, about 2 or 3 weeks ago the Secretary of State told the Foreign Relations Committee of the other body, and perhaps our own com- mittee in the House, that it was the in- tention of the administration to con- tinue assistance to China. My point is that this should have been considered by itself. Mr. KEATING. If we pass the bill with section 2 in it, is it your understanding that the administration will implement section 2 by actually extending aid to Formosa? Mr. MANSFIELD. There is no ques- tion about that, as the gentleman knows if he has read the report. It is the in- tention of the ECA, I am informed, to spend somewhere between five and one- half and ten and one-half million dollars to carry on the ECA aid program in For- mosa primarily in the rural reconstruc- tion program until June 30 of this year. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Montana has expired. Mr. EATON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. LEMKE). Mr, LEMKE. Mr. Chairman, let us reason together. I feel when we vote for this bill today we will vote for Our na- tional defense—for our home and the protection of our Nation at a point where we are most vulnerable and where de- fense is most essential and required for our entire west coast defense and Pacific possessions. I wish to state I was in Korea as late as December 1. Before we went to Korea we were in Tokyo. I also wish to state that while in Tokyo we were informed by General MacArthur’s head- quarters that Formosa and Korea were the key to the defense of our Pacific possessions and our mainland on the Pacific coast. While I am not quoting any gencral, I will say that 50 of the generals and officers who will have to defend this great Nation of ours if we get into war with Russia are of the opinion that Formosa and Korea must be defended by Amer- ica. We were informed that Formosa must never be permitted to fall into the hands of an enemy and that it is and CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE should remain part of Japan until the peace treaty is signed. Let us go a little further. As far as surrendering Formosa is concerned, that is still an open question. Just because Dean Acheson wants to give it to the Communists is no reason that the Amer- ican people will stand for 1t. I am sure the President will finally find out what the facts are. I am sure the President is considering the question of Formosa very seriously and I hope if our commit- tee goes to see him he will consider it far more. We owe a moral responsibility and obligation to Korea. We, the American people, divided her and gave the north- ern part to Russia, and with it the hydro- electric power and their coal mines. Korea is self-sustaining as far as food and clothing is concerned, but she needs help to reestablish these hydroelectric plants and coal mines that we, the Amer- ican people, gave away when we divided her. I have consistently opposed all author- izations and appropriations to any in- efficient and sponging European nations infested by communism; but we have no such situation in Korea. Their people are patriotic and united against com- munism, and they can defend them- selves unless Russia steps in. They are our friends. When Russia steps in, if she ever loses her head to that extent, then the conflagration, the world fire, will start, and we will be lucky to have Korea withstand them or withhold them even for a few weeks so that we can get ready, because it is in the Pacific where the conflagration is going to start, if it does start. At Tokyo we were further told by Gen- eral MacArthur's headquarters that we have General Roberts in Korea with 500 Army officers of the United States of America drilling the southern Koreans. We were told that Russia was arming North Korea and that we were keeping pace in South Korea. Get that. We have 500 officers under General Roberts training the Koreans. Then, while I was in Korea—and I was there later than my friend Miller; and if Mr. Miller got the correct impres- sion of what General Roberts said, then General Roberts had changed his opin- jon, because when I was there General Roberts asked us not to withdraw from Korea, but to give him more top officers from the United States Army with which to train the Korean army for the possible conflict. In Tokyo we were told that that conflict may not be too far distant, unless there is a change of public opinion in Russia. Again we were told that Sakhalin was being fortified by the Russians; that they were working night and day. What for? That is the island half of which we gave to Russia together with the Kurile Is- lands. Every act of Russia shows that she is preparing not only to take Korea but to subdue the civilization of the world. Korea and Formosa are two of the strategic points that we need badly in case of this conflict. I still hope that Russia has brains enough to avoid it, but you cannot make peace with a man- eating tiger nor with a tiger that is eating up nations. We must take a firm stand, FEBRUARY 7 Again, in Honolulu I met Admiral Radford. Our committee had met many admirals and other officers under him before that. He and the other admirals and officers were in perfect accord with the position of General MacArthur's headquarters that both Formosa and Korea are key positions and necessary for our defense on the west coast. But my friends say that Russia can take Korea overnight. They will do nothing of the kind; but if they try to, then world war III is on. Then we can be happy if we have somebody to defend or to help us in the Pacific. About the only friends we have in the world today are perhaps the Japanese, the Koreans, and Filipinos. Admiral Radford did a great deal of fighting in World War II. Are we going to dismiss as lightly as Mr. Acheson does the opinion of the men who will defend this Nation on the water and on the land in case of trouble? I will say that the American people and this Congress will not so lightly take the views of Acheson. As far as General Roberts is concerned, let me say that we reviewed the Korean Army on parade with the general and the President of the Re- public of Korea. General Roberts expressed no fear that North Korea even if helped by Commu- nist China, would be able to take South Korea overnight. Of course, if Russia stepped in, that would change the situ- ation. If she does, then I repeat world war III is on. I hope this will not hap- pen, but if it happens and it will happen if we keep running away, then we will have to face the issue and we will need not only Korea but Formosa as well. Let me assure you also that it is not too late to save both Formosa and Korea. The American people have the final say in that, and why should we be so niggardly with Korea when just re- cently—get this, now—the ECA and the RFC financed the Kaiser-Frazer Corp. with the taxpayers’ money to build a new car to the extent of $44,400,000. More recently still, the same Federal set- up, the ECA and the RFC, promised the Ford Motor Co. $22,600,000 of the tax- payers’ money for its subsidiary plant in England. That alone makes up the $60,- 000,000 that Korea is entitled to have, and those two big corporations ought to be able to take care of themselves; they have got enough American dollars. Again, the ECA has recently handed $5,963,000 to the Reynolds Mining Co. for bauxite-mining operations in Ja- maica. Here again helping out the British whom we have already given something more than _ $60,000,000,000 since World War I. In addition Great Britain is asking for another $8,000,000,- 000. Most of you who are so critical of this $60,000,000 for which we owe a moral obligation to Korea I am sure will be found voting for that $8,000,000,000 for Britain. There is no reason for deserting Korea now; she is our ally, she is our friend. I repeat we are under a moral and a legal obligation to support a nation that we set up and whose deplorable condi- tions we have created. Again if we are intelligent we will listen to the defenders of our Nation, General MacArthur and
1950 his staff, and General Roberts, who is in Korea, and also Admiral Radford and his staff. In conclusion, permit me to express the hope that we will vote today for our own national defense. This is a bill for our national defense; it is a bill that will protect us in case of attack in the Far East, and there is where it is going to start if we ever get into world war III. I now yield to the gentleman from Ohio. Mr. VORYS. I merely wanted to say that I am glad the gentleman has clari- fied his position and as to why he voted. I am sure he did not try to vote both ways last time. Mr. LEMKE. I will say that unfortu- nately I was away to attend my brother’s funeral, and that I was paired for the bill while I was here; and I voted ‘‘No” on recomniittal and I do not believe there is any question as to how I voted or where I stand on this issue. Mr. KEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Krusel. Mr. KRUSE. Mr. Chairman, I shall speak for just a few minutes in support of this bill. I had not intended to spcak at all in view of the fact that I expressed my support of this legislation when it was before us a few wecks ago. Insofar as the question of economic assistance generally is concerned, we have been spending billions of dollars to assist nations all over the world. For various reasons I cannot subscribe to all the expenditures that have been made while, at the same time, I do subscribe to the laudable purpose behind our assist- ance. Among justifications for our as- sistance, insofar as our foreign-aid pro- gram is concerned, there is one which I feel stands out clearly over and above all others, a principle or criterion which should be clearly established prior to any such aid. I am referring to the necessity for an absolute determination and will- ingness in all respects of the recipient nations to help themselves; in short, let us thoroughly examine the character of the people whom we propose to aid. If there is no such willingness or deter- mination on the part of the recciving nations, then certainly we can hope for little results no matter how good may be our own intentions. I am also con- strained to say that I do not believe that some of the people who have been recelv- ing our aid have been cooperating as they should have in order that they might put their own houses in order and there- by also help to reheve the American taxpaycr. However, I like a fighter and I am willing to help those who will fight for themselves. I can assure you that the Korean nation is a nation that is willing to firht its own battles and to help itself to the best of its ability. While I was in Korea recently I made a trip to the thirty-eighth parallel, the Communist battlefront, with a member of our Military Advisory Commission, a colonel from the State of Ohio. Isaw the Korean people in the countryside and in the trenches. We traveled in a jeep with no previous announcement of our trip so there was certainly no prearranged plans to give us a false impression. May I say CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE to the American people that we have no greater friends anywhere, at least in the Far East, than the Korean people. Even the little children along the countryside waved at us and recognized us as Ameri- cans. The Korean troops were well trained and their morale was high. They reminded me of a group of American marines and to me there is no greater tribute that can be paid. A few weeks before we arrived at the thirty-eighth parallel, several of the Korean troops had strapped dynamite on their backs and plunged headlong into Communist pill boxes and destroyed them. That is typical of the spirit in Korea today. These people are ultra-nationalistic; they believe in freedom, a democratic form of government and are ready and willing to sacrifice and fight toward achieving their goal. This legislation deserves our support, and I trust and hope that we will demonstrate by our action that we are willing and determined to stand by this gallant nation, a nation of fighters and a nation willing to help itself. Mr. EATON. Mr. Chairman,I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Javits}. Mr. JAVITS. Mr. Chairman, the House is taking a second thought on Korean aid and from all appearances it is fixed in its determination and will pass this bill. Perhaps the occasion can be improved, because we have debated the Korean aid matter pretty thoroughly already, by taking a look generally at where our foreign policy is taking us and understanding that this particular bill is fitted into a very much larger framework and is not quite as isolated as some would have us believe. We have heard a lot of expressions here, including “pouring money down a rat hole,” and about our policy of con- tainment. Not too often has American foreign policy been put in terms of a word which people could feel. I would say now that American foreign policy as we see it developing, and as this Korean aid bill demonstrates it to be developing, is a human policy. It is a fact that in Korea as in Berlin, in Korea as in Trieste, in Korea as in any other place in the world where 4 mer- 1ca’s interests are concerned and where the forces of freedom fight, the Sovict Union could if it desired, if it wished to mount all of its power by air and on land, roll back the forces of freedom right there on the spot, crush them and take over, As it could also take over western Europe, we might argue that there should be no European recovery program, that there should be no Mutual Defense As- sistance Act, because the Russian legions could rol] over these areas any time they wished to. Indeed, they probably can do so. But the Soviet Union knows that the minute it does that, it is taking on an- other world war. So, we have one of two choices: Either we do nothing about those areas and Iet the totalitarian forces of what we consider to be the reaction, which is communism, triumph in those areas by default, because the people in them are starving, because they are in despair, because they have been completely in- filtrated—just exactly what would be 1601 true in South Korea if we do not pass this bill—and we lose them by default, or we help them, and if we do that and take the chance, if the Communists want war, they must come and ask for it. We will have to first lend these people our s\lp- port based on the human policy by re- habilitating their countries and their institutions, and that is the fundamental decision we come to. But we do not make it blindly. We already have had a precedent in the Atlantic Pact, and I believe it must necessarily be followed by a Pacific Pact, our precedent is this: We say that until these countries are built up to the point where they can ron thir own military policy, to the point were they can maintain their in- ternal defense against the present land might of the Soviet armies, until that time we will cover them with our pledge, with our commitment, with our armies, with our air force, and that our armies will come to their defense if the Soviet should attack. Now, that is a very wise policy. We are already committed to a great mili- tary establishment, and we can undecr- take to utilize that great military estab- lishment, in the defense of the Atlantic, and I believe we must do it in the Pa- cific as well. We know very well that if the Soviet Union should move into the Pacific, we would have to oppose, so that we might as well say so, and give the Pacifiic nations this commitment. Having given them this commitment, which is the best we can do, we leave free the necessary resources which we are not using to militarize them, but to rehabilitate them and give them both the moral, political, and economic ad- vantages from which they can grow to a stature which will enable them to participate adequately and effectively if need be in their own military defense. It is a cohesive world policy. We may falter, we may make many mistakes, as we did in China, but we must, first and foremost, recognize the totality of our policy and see that it is going in one direction in an organized and orderly way. In my opinion, the reason the House is having a second thought on the Ko- rean aid bill is because many a Member who voted against the bill before now sees that he was voting against the policy out of context; that we could not go in any other direction; that we were so firmly committed in this direction; and, what is more, that this direction had been successful—that we could not devi- ate. And let us never forgct that the policy of helping economic recovery has been successful. Western Europe is in better shape today than it has been since the war ended; and if we pass this bill and also go forward on the point 4 policy, we will continue to find the free world in better and better shape than it has ever been before. Mr. LODGE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. JAVITS. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut. Mr. LODGE. The gentleman is mak- ing a very interesting statement. I wonder whether it does not follow from what the gentleman has said in regard to Berlin, for instance, and Korea, that
1602 the reasons we were given for withdrawal of our troops from Korea do not now hold up; in other words, we were told that it was an indefensible position and therefore we should retire. Obviously, the gentleman is quite correct that our forces in Germany could be overwhelmed also. Would it not have been rather helpful to the Koreans if we had left some of our troops there, as we did in Germany? Mr. JAVITS. The difficulty with an- swering that question is that the United Nations asked that troops be withdrawn, and I say that though the gentleman may be right, our policy in following the lead of the United Nations I believe should even be paramount to the con- sideration which the gentleman has named. I think we face a unique situa- tion, and I believe we must get to the point where we will have a Pacific Pact. I do not think there is any question about the fact that the whole world must know that if the Soviet Union is going to move ageressively with her armed forces, that we would react in kind. That is the best we can give the free peoples of the world now, We must realize that under pres- ent circumstances they must have mili- tary cover. They must know, too, that our policy is a human policy; that we intend to build up the lives and fortunes of people to the point where they can defend themselves, and that our respon- sibility in the world, as we sce it, 1s not to drive them, which is what the Sovicts do, and keep them poor for our own benefit and aggrandizement. Thatis the whole and consistent policy in which this Korean aid bill fits, as a necessary and essential part, and therefore I believe that 1s the fundamental rcason for the House's second thought about it. Mcm- bers of the House have finally realized just how important this was to the whole future of our Nation and to the whole future of the freedom which we are fighting for in the world which 1s leit to us. Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. JAVITS IL yicld to the gentleman from Nilssissippi. My. WILLIAMS. The gentleman made @ very significant statement a moment ago when he said that western Europe was in better shape than it had ever been before. Did the gentleman mean that literally? Mr. JAVITS. Europe is in better shape than it has becn since the end of the war in 1945, is what I mean to emphasize; in fact, since the beginning of the war din 1939. Mr. WILLIAMS. I was sure the gen- tleman had misspoken himself. Mr. JAVITS. I thank the gentleman. The reality of the situation remains a fact, however. We are not face to face with the glories of Europe in the days before Napoleon, we are face to face with the misery and the decay and the diffl- culty and the destruction of Europe which resulted from World War II, and which faced us in 1945. Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. JAVITS. I yicld to the gentle- man from Michigan. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Mr. CRAWFORD. Under what con- ditions or what pressure did the United Nations ask that we w.-hdraw our troops from Koren? Mr. JAVITS. It was not pressure. On the contrary, it was a very wise pc‘it- ical decision, for this reason: The only part of Korea which had free elections for the election of a democratic govern- ment was South Korea. The United Na- tions, which had urged and which had fought for and worked for free elections, felt that in all good faith it had to fol- low through on the sequel of free elec- tions. Having recognized that the gov- ernment in South Korea was a free and democratic government, it was only right that occupying troops be withdrawn from there. The United Nations asked as well that troops be withdrawn from North Korea. Of course, for all prac- tical purposes the forces in North Korea remain the direct agencies of the Soviet Government and obey its orders. In my opinion, our withdrawal from South Korea served as grist for our mill, to show to all the people of Asia, who are constantly worried about the good faith of the great powers hke the United States, that we do have good faith, that we do mean what we say, that we do not intend to be a colonial power, and that when the conditions for withdrawal are right, indeed we do withdraw. Mr. CRAWFORD. We. still treops in Germany? Mr. JAVITS We do. Mr CRAWFORD. Have they had any free elections, so-called, in western Ger- meny? Mr. JAVITS They have. Mr. CRAWFORD Why did not the United Nations ask that we withdraw our troops from there? Mr. JAVITS. Because Germany ifs a conquered country which has on three occasions been the aggressor and broken the peace of the world, and she still has a very long way to go to assure those she almost destroyed of her future, no one in the United States or the United Nations yet knows just how the situation in Germany will turn out. Mr. GORDON. Mr Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman frem West Virginia [Mr BuRNSDE]. Mr. JONAS Mr, Chairman, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present The CHAIRMAN. Obviously a quo- rum is not present. The Clerk will call the roll. The Clerk called the roll, and the fol- Jowing Members failed to answer to thelr names: [Roll No. 38] have Abbitt Carroll Grosa Allen, TI. Case, N. J. Gwinn Andresen, Celler Halleck August H.  Chilstopher Hand Andrews Cole,N Y. Hébert Bailey Cooley Heller Barrett, Pa. Dague Herter Barrett, Wyo. Davies, N.Y. Holifield Bates Dawson Hope Biomiuller Dingell Jennings Bland Dolliver Keogh Bolling Engel, Mich. Kirwan Bolton, Ohlo Engle, Calif. Kunkel Brooks Fogarty Lichtenwalter Brown, Ga. Gary Lovre Bucklev, N.Y. Gathings McDonough Rulwinkle Gilictte McGrath Camp Gilmer McSweeney FEBRUARY 7 Monroney Potter Smathers Morton Powell Smith, Ohio Nixon Reed, N. ¥. Smith, Va. Pace Sabath Towe Passman Sadowski Vursell Patnian 8t. George Wadsworth Pattorson Scott, Hurdie White, Idaho Plumley Short Wilson, Ind. Poage Simpson, Pa, Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed the chair, Mr. Bonner, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill S. 2319, and finding itself without a quorum, he had directed the roll to be called, when 352 Members responded to their names, and he submitted herewith the names of the absentees to be spread upon the Journal. The Committce resumed its sitting. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. BurnsipE] is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. BURNSIDE. Mr. Chairman, I was one of a committee of five from the Committee on Expenditures in the Ex- ecutive Departments that examined the use of Government funds in the Far East. This committee was especially interested in checking the economy and the polit- ical conditions as they affect the mili- tary situation in the Far East. I wish now to answer with that background some of the questions that have been raised. A few of the men that have been op- posing this bill would give us the only altcrnative of immediate war. As to the military positilon in South Korea, it is decidedly sound, unless Russia should throw the whole weight of her force agaist South Korea, In South Korea they have 60.900 well-trained troops. We reviewed those troops. They have 60,000 second-line troops. They have 2.000,000 in the Youth Corps They have more than 10,000 in the cilies who are well trained to handle arms. Still another question has been raised, as to cotton. The southern Members mirht be interested to know that $14,000,000 has been assigned to pur- chase cotton, an item that is very much needed 1n South Eorea. Some $10,000,- 000 1s needed for oi], and that is also in this list. I might say here that the most God- fearing nation in all of Asia is vitally affected by this program that we are trying to get passed here today. Mr. Chairman, the issue of Korea is not a distant issuc. Korea may be thousands of miles away, but it is close to the interests of evcry American. It is close to our interests because it is one of the many complicated situations which affect the peace of the world, and whether we are to have peace in cur time, or war in our time, is a question that no Amcrican can treat with indif- ference. In previous debate on aid to Korea we heard some gentlemen cof the House argue that the money asked for Korea could be better spent for worth-while projects in the United States. Their argument seems to be that no money should be appropriated to back up our foreign policy until enough moncy has
1950 been appropriated at home to take care of everyone’s pet domestic project. The fallacy in that argument is obvious. How much good would any of our do- mestic policies do us if war should come, with all the horrors that recent scientific advances can produce? If war comes, none of us will escape the dangers of bullets and bombs, H-bombs and biologi- cal warfare, and perhaps other weapons not yet dreamed of. We cannot ignore the possibility of war, withdraw into a shell of ignorance, and concern ourselves only with our internal affairs. One of our first considerations must be how to conduct ourselves so as to prevent the outbreak of war and at the same time preserve our ability to live our own lives the way we want to and conduct our own affairs without dictation from a conquer- ing superpower. The question is, then, will aid to Korea help us attain our twin objectives of peace and freedom? Those who oppose the bill under con- sideration will probably say “No,” point- ing to the obvious fact that Korea could not defend itsclf in the face of an attack from China and Russia, But these pco- ple seem to forget that we are trying to preserve the peace, and talk as though we were already at war and are only trying to establish military positions. That attitude is entirely wrong, and it is danzerous. Military positions are not the only consideration. When we are trying to preserve the peace, other factors are just as important or even more im- poitant. I do not belicve the argument should end with the military value of Korea, though I believe it will be of some as- sistance to have these 21,000,000 loyal, intensely patriotic people on our side in any struggle. The argument is, Can we withdraw and throw this nation to the arms of a waiting Russia, or shall we take a stand for people who still believe in peace and not in aggression? The southern Koreans are friends of ours. They trust us because we have befriended them and encouraged cvery effort they have made to establish a true democracy. On May 10, 1948, more than 90 per- cent of the voters went to the polls and voted to elect their national assembly, despite a Communist campaign of ter- rorism designed to keep them from the polls. From a slate of 942 candidates they elected 192 members to the as- sembly. An ancient nation was reborn. Here is an example of true democracy that we would like to see become an ex- ample to all the people of Asia. How can we justify a blow to their morale such as the defeat of this aid bill would be? Korea is the farthest outpost in the world-wide struggle of democracy and liberty against communism and tyranny. What effect would it have on the rest of the world—and on the countries of Asia—if we were to abandon this strug- gling young nation to internal chaos and external pressures and threats? The non-Communist nations of the world CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE would feel that they could not expect any help from us, and would lose the will to resist the advance of communism. We would soon find ourselves isolated and unable to resist Russian aggression anywhere, It is true that we probably could not hold Korea in event of an overt attack by Russia. But if such an attack oc- curred it would be such a breach of the law of nations that it would mean total war. It is not likely that Russia would risk such @ war in the near future—at least not until she felt that the rest of the world was so weak that she could conclude it quickly and successfully. The danger to Korea comes more from Com- munists within the country itself, and perhaps from the Communist troops of North Korea. These are the dangers that economic aid to lxorea is designed to combat. A strong republic in south- ern Korea with a stable economy will have a good chance of withstanding these dangers successtully. Without economic aid from the United States, it is doubt- ful thet it could do so. President Rhee himself told me that he could not build a parliament building, but he could blow it up. The reason communism has been so effective in Asia is that it is much easier to tear down than to build. That is why the task of Korean leadership is so difficult. They must build and we must assist. The question, Mr. Chairman, fs not one of altruism and idealism; it is a ques- tion of vital concern to every one of us. Our own interests are at stake, for it is in our interests to see that free, peace- loving nations can maintain their inde- pendence in the face of internal Com- munist terrorism and external Commu- nist threats. If such nations can remain free, our position in the world will be much more secure and the chances for peace will be much brighter. Mr. Chairman, we cannot abandon Korea without betraying ourselves and the entire world. 1603 Mr. EATON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Penn- sylvania [Mr. VAN ZANDT]. i Mr. VAN ZANDT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection, to the request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania? There was no objection. Mr. VAN ZANDT. Mr. Chairman, I represent the Twenty-second District of Pennsylvania where some 300,000 resi- dents depend wholly on an economy based cn two large industries, coal and railroads. Frankly, we who reside in central Pennsylvania are very much wor- ried over the future of coal mining and our anxiety extends to related industries. We are worricd because the coal mar- ket is losing ground to other fuels such as oil and natural gas. With each work stoppage in the coal flelds the industry loses customers some of which are never regained. According to the National Coal Association in the last 10 months of 1949 the coal industry lost better than 15,000,000 net tons of railroad fuel and nearly 7,000,000 net tons in the produc- tion of electric energy. These losses make a total of 22,000,000 net tons of coal. In wages the loss of 22,000,000 net tons of coal represents a loss in wages to coal miners of $56,000,000, which is equiv- alent to 15,000 coal-mining jobs at about $3,800 a year. Looking at the consumption of coal in general, in addition to the loss of rail- road fuel and electric energy, many in- dustries have converted from coal to nat- ural gas and thousands of private homes have likewise converted to natural gas with the result that in the past 10 months bituminous coal has lost in round figures about 100,000,000 tons of its markcts. For example, let us consider the re- placement of coal as a fuel on class I railroads. The following table tells the story of the gradual decline in the con- sumption of coal on the class I railroads. TaBLE 1—Fucl and power for locomotives (class I steam railways)* [Total coa) equivalents (net tons)] 1939 1448 August 1940 nm Tercent Percent Pereent Tons of total Tons of total Tons of total Coal oo ene e ee eee ene ee een e ween 85, 182, 845 76,7 | 102, 180, 437 36 4, 876, 199 38 8 Fuel of)... .------.- ee eee eee eee 15, 559, 865 W7 30, 282, 370 64 1, 665, 600 12.5 Diesel fuel.....----------------+ 2,318, 430 21 AO, 408, 013 204 8,477, 148 4B 6 Electric power 4, WBS, 785, 45 7, 820, 300 41 634, 942 51 ‘Total... 111, 000, 435 100 0 190, 6X6, 120 100 0 12, 554, 166 100 0 1 Includes al] quantities purchased and produced whether for loconiotives, station, shop, or other uso, Bource: Interstate Commerce Commission You will note from the table above that in 1939, 76.7 percent of fuel and power for steam locomotives of class I rail- ways was obtained from using coal; while in 1949 the percentage dropped to 38 8 percent or in actual tons a decrease of more than 80,000,000 tons of coal. I also call attention to the fact that Diesel fuel which in 1939 represented 2.1 percent of the fuel used by class I rail- roads, increased in 1949 to 43.6 percent. In other words Diesel fuel has been sub- stituted for coal to an alarming deerce. In the fleld of electric energy it is in- teresting to note that the consumption of coal decreased 15 percent during 1949 over 1948; while consumption of natural gas increased 15.4 percent and fuel oil increased 46.4 percent. The total production of electric energy yet 3.3 percent during 1949 over
1604 The following table will give some idea of the consumption of coal for the pro- duction of electric energy: Taps 2—Consumption of fuel for produce tion of electric energy Jan tto Oct 31 Tinto ———-— —| 1949 to 148 1919 14s Percent Coal (net tons) 2222] 82, 184, 0° | 69,852, 690 870 Fuel of db rred+) $4, 877, 686 51,047, 720 1404 Natural gas) (ME cubic feel) oo... 401, 16h, 175 463, 070, G24 y15 4 Source Federal Power Commission Your attention is called to the fect that the table shows a loss of about 12,- 500,000 tons of coal for the per‘od from January 1, 1948 to October 31, 1949. Dur- ing this same period the increase in the use of fuel oil and natural gas resched new heights. When speaking of the substitution of fuel 01] and natural gas for the produc- ticn of electric energy, let us consider what has happened in 38 public-utility plants in the United Statcs where conver- sion from coal to other fuels has occurred. The following table shows the quanti- ties of the various fuels uscd in the 38 plants where there has been either par- tial or compicte change from coal to other fuels during the first 9 months of 1949: Tarte 3-—-Fuel consumption in 38 electric utility plants in the United Slaics where conversion from coal to other fuels has occurred Jan lto Sept 30 Ratlo, TT 19 to 1918 1049 Mb Percent Coal (net tons). ...} 10,060, 636 | 18, 570, 110 680 Fuel oil (barrels) 2] 9, Sb, 428 | 23,547, 158 245 Gas (AL cubte teet) | 44,719, 520 | 70, 601, 446 liv y Bource Federal Power Commission The table also shows the amount of coal consumed at these 38 plants hus de- creased 32 percent, while natural gas in- creased 579 percent and fuel oi] in- creased 1435 percent during 1949 over 1948. In net tons better than 6,000,000 tons of coal have been replaced by fuel oil and natural gas. The cement industry provides another example of what is happening to the use of coal as a fuel. In the first 8 months of 1949, as compared to the same period in 1948, coal decreased 4.1 percent, fuel oil decreased 25 percent, and natural gas increased 20.7 percent. The following table provides further information on the consumption of fuels in the cement industry: TaBLeE 4.—Consumption of fuels tn the cement industry Jan. J to Aug 31 Ratio, 1949 to 1948 1949 148 Percent Coal (net tons)... 5, 484, 426 5, 261, 022 96.9 Fuel o1! (barrels). _. 3, 061, 566 2, 0865, 316 07.5 Natural gas (M cubic feet) .-.. 2... 45, 780,157 | 85, 250, 519 120.7 source, U, 8. Bureau of Mines, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE So far our discussion has confined it- self to the consumption of fuels by rail- roads, by the cement industry, and the production of electric cnergy. Now let us discuss the trend with re- spect to converting from coal to oil and naiural gas on the part of industry and domestic consumers. A check with the Census Bureau shows thot from Jan- uary 1 to Sepvember 30, 1949, total ship- ments of oil burners in umits were 353,- 756. A break-down of this figure shows $76,404 residential burners and units and 17,352 burners and units tor commerc:al users. Comparable figures for the same period in 1948 are total shapments 235,- 537 of which 273,199 were for residential use and 20,338 for commercial use. While shipments of oil burners and units show a substantial incr>ase in 1949 over 1948 consumption of fuel oil for the first 10 months of 1849 amounted to 651,- 000,009 barrels, a decrease of 32,000,080 barrels from the 683,000,000 barrels used in 1948. This decreuse is attributed to mild weather, and conversion to natural gas. If you convert the 651,000,000 barrels of oil to coal, it represents a loss of 109,- 009,000 tons of coal market. A study of the 1949 Report of the Amer- ican Gos Association reveals that natural gas enjoyed its greatest year and looks to 1550 io spark the greatest advance in the industry’s history. According to the report natural gas pipe lines, which now approximate 260,- 000 miles, furnish gas to the heavily pop- ulated northern and eastern sections of the United States in a volume of 3,000,- 000,000,000 cubic feet of natural gas an- nually. For the calendar year of 1950 the industry plans to spend $1,890,000,000 for an extension of its pipe lines. It may be well to mention at this point that the pipe-line network of the gas in- dustry is now longer than the Nation's point-to-point railroad lines. As the re- sult of this amazing expansion of the gas industry, the report shows that 6,600,009 American families are now using gas for space and house heating. It is esti- mated that 693,000 new gas-heating cus- tomers will be added in 1950. During the past year, according to the Report of the American Gas Association, gas-furnace sales were 35 percent great- er than in 1948, gas-heating boilers 30 percent greater than in 1948, and gas conversions were 500 percent greeter than in 1948. At the moment unfilled orders for conversions from coal to gas are 20 times greater than in 1948. In summarizing this analysis of the American Gas Asscciation report, the total number of customers in 1949 was 23,746,000, or an increase of 75 percent over 1948. In revenues the industry enjoyed a 7.3- percent increase over its income of 1948. Using the industry’s delivery of 3,000,- 000,000,000 cubic feet of natural gas dur- ing 1949, and converting it to coal we have the equivalent of 123,000,000 tons of coal. The expansion of the gas indus- try in 1949 as compared to 1948 has de- stroyed in 1 year’s time 123,000,000 tons of coal market. In my opening remarks I stated it was safe to say that in the past 8 or 10 FEBRUARY 7 months bituminous coal has lost in round figures about 100,000,000 tons of its markets. One hundred million tons of coal rep- resents $257,000,000 in wages of 67,632 coal miners, whose average wage is $3,800 a year. The effect on railroad employment, because of the conversion to gas and oil, is revealed by the fact that the 84,722 jobs of railroaders have been destroyed. The loss in wages to these railroad em- ployees, who earn on an average of $300 monthly, amounted to a total of $305,- 080,000 annually. Those of us who live in the great bitu- minous coal flelds of Pennsylvania truly understand what the loss means of $257,000,000 in miners’ wages and the loss of $305.000,000 in the wages of rail- roaders. Frankly, the loss of these earn- ings on the part of the coal miner and railroeder is so destructive that the fu- ture of our communities alarms all of us. Using my home town, Altoona, Pa., as an example, let us see thet effect of the loss of the wages of coal miners and railroaders. The table which follows shows the monthly earnings and the number of employees of the Pennsylvania Railroad at the Altoona Works during the year 1949. ‘TABLE 5.—Number of employees and pay roll, Altoona works, 1949 Number of > Month employees Earnings January lo... 22.---------- 12, 299 | $3, 403, 712 26 February 22. ~ nee 1,563 | 2, 924, 380 40 Moreh. 22... - J1,120 | 1,801,179 46 Amul a 11,101 | 3,043,143 80 May. 11, 081 2, 288, 188 00 June 6, 808 | 2, Od5 20 July. 5, G26 1, 378 68 August... 7, A444 2, 136,925 77 September. ---.222--------- 7, fabs 1, 724, 041 76 October. _ 1,751 OAT, OTS 14 November... 22-2... _— 2, 425 790, 956 63 December 2. 2 2. 22 eee 6, O12 1, 985, 350 44 You will observe that in January 1949, 12,297 employees were on the pay roll earning $3,403,712.26. In succeeding months the number of persons employed decreased greatly until October when only 1,751 employees were on the pay roll carning $547,673.14. At the close of the calendar year 1949 about 50 percent of those working in January were on the pay rolls. The loss of earnings to Penn- sylvania Railroad employees in Altoona during 1949 naturally was reflected in the economic life of Altoona. Accord- ing to the general business indicators compiled by the Bureau of Business Re- search of the Pennsylvania State Col- lege the retail volume of business in Al- toona for the first 11 months was far from being normal as evidenced by the following table: General business indications from the month of January through November 1949 Septomber__-.-.-------------------- —34 Octohe" .. 220.22 2- eee eee eee 44 November -__.-.------.-.----------- —35
1950 What I say about Altoona can be ap- plied to other communities in my con- gressional district and to Pennsylvania in general. During the course of my discussion I have tried to point out how coal is losing its market. I feel I would be remiss in my duty if I did not try diligently to find a solution to this press- ing problem. In my study of the problems that con- front the coal industry I found that there are three principal factors that have led to present-day conditions, These factors are as follows: First. A natural trend on the part of consumers to convert from coal to sub- stitute fuels. Second. The lack of dependability on the production of coal due to continued work stoppages in the industry. Third. Increased cost of coal due to wages, transportation, and so forth, is responsible for commercial and residen- tial users to convert to oil and natural gas. Fourth. Government subsidization of substitute fuels such as hydropower furnished by the Tennessee Valley Au- thority commonly called TVA. In addition to the above factors, we have the menace of the proposed St. Lawrence seaway. If this project is con- structed, it will permit the shipment of foreign-mined coal to inland cities of the United States, including Buffalo, Erie, Cleveland, Toledo, Detroit, Chicago, and several other cities. As part of the St. Lawrence seaway project, the hydroelectric plant proposed to be constructed at Messina, N. Y., will furnish hydroelectric energy that will displace the coal now used by industries in various cities in up-State New York. We cannot forget the thousands of railroaders who will lose their jobs as the result of foreign ships carrying to inland cities freight now handled by American railroads from such coastal ports as Nor- folk, Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York, and Boston. The factors I have outlined present a real challenge to the coal industry. It is my hope that this discussion will awaken the present administration, Con- gress, coal operators, coal miners, and the American public to the menacing future of this bituminous-coal industry. Unless coal regains its markets, Pennsyl- vania is destined to have many ghost towns and thousands of coal miners, rail- roaders, and employees of related indus- tries face the destruction of their jobs and the means of earning their livell- hood. Mr. KEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Marcantonio], Mr. MARCANTONIO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to both sections of this bill: both section 2, which continues aid to Chiang Kai-shek, and section 3, aid to the rulers of South Korea. On page 8 of the report we are told. by the committee that the expenditure that may be involved here will be any- where from five to ten million dollars in aid to Chiang Kai-shek. Let us con- sider that a moment before we go to the section on Korea. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE We have spent more than $3,000,000,- 000 since VJ-day to save Chiang Kai- shek when Chiang Kai-shek was on the mainland of China. We spent over $3,- 000,000,000 when Chiang Kai-shek had full control of the Government of China, its resources, and held tyrannical rule over its people. Three billion dollars failed to save Chiang Kai-shek on the mainland of China. Now it is proposed that, with $10,000,000 at most, we may save Chiang Kai-shek on the island of Formosa. It seems to me that we fail to realize the real causes for our failure. We failed to save Chiang Kai-shek be- cause the people of China, people every- where in Asia, are throwing off the shackles of foreign control, exploitation, and tyranny, and are establishing for themselves, through their own native revolutions, if you please, their own gov- ernments. I say that this Congress has failed to recognize fundamental prin- ciples; that the people of China are en- titled to their revolution just as much as the people of the United States were en- titled to thcir revolution back in 1776. What has been the result? The people of China have established their revolu- tion and are now consolidating it. We are not going to halt it. We are not going to stop it either with hydrogen bombs or with the $10,000,0u0 to Chiang Kai-shek on the island of Formosa. The corrupt, tyrannical government of Chiang Kai-shek is something of the past. It is finished. It has been done in by the people of China. We in the United States must not forget what his- tory has taught us, that never has the defense of tyranny and corruption any- where in the world been in the interest of the people of the United States. We here are continuing the defense of tyranny and corruption by going to the aid of Chiang Kai-shek. In doing so we continue to ally ourselves with a crooked Fascist dictator against 400,000,000 Chinese people, their nation, and their friends all over Asia. What I have said about China is equally applicable to section 3 of the bill. We have heard talk about the defense of democracy in Korea. We are told that this $60,000,000 must be used for the rulers of South Korea in the defense of democracy. First of all, what is the sit- uation with respect to the people of Korea? I wish the Members of this House, before voting on this so-called Korean aid bill, would read both volumes I and II of report of the United Nations Commission on Korea. That Commis- sion had for its aims and was established to bring about the unification of North and South Korea. That purpose was in complete conformity with the will of the people of all Korea, for you can well rec- ognize that you cannot just go into a country, draw a line, and divide the country in two; the United Nations rec- ognized it, and they recognized that what the people of North and South Korea wanted was independence and a unified nation. This Commission therefore went into Korea. It has made a report con- sisting of two volumes. I read to you just what it found with respect to the at- titude of the present government that we 1605 are here now seeking to aid toward the fundamentals that the people of Korea want, namely, unification of their coun- try and independence. They said: The government— Referring to the government of South Korea— has not only made {it clear that they would not participate in official discussions with the north looking to unification, but has also indicated that it frowned on unofficlal efforts in this behalf. It has made clear that it views any suggestions for north-south dis- cussion, even of an unofficial and most tenta- tive kind, as a form of disloyalty. Then, on page 34 of the report, volume 1, under D— The people of Korea * * * havea pas- sionate longing for unity and independence and have a profound desire for the peaceful unification of their country. The division of Korea has resulted in adverse economic consequences in the south. The aftermath of World War II would have made the need for outside aid urgent in any case. But if the country were united, the south would not require such aid in the same degree. This is the United Nations Commission speaking. But are we aiding democracy in Korea? Are we not doing the same in Korea as we did in China, aiding tyranny and corruption? Let me at this time cite an article from the very conservative New York Times, an article that appeared as recently as February 1 in the New York Times by an on-the-spot reporter of the New York Times, a very eminent reporter, Walter Sullivan. The article reads: Pontcr BRUTALITY Im KOREA ASSAILED—TOoR~ TURE, WHOLESALE EXECUTIONS OF REDS HELD DRIVING PEOPLE INTO ARMS OF COMMUNISTS (By Walter Sullivan) Srovut, Korea, January 25.—Some observers here believe the police of South Korea are the chief obstacle to the success of the Govern- ment—that they are driving the common people into the arms of the Communists. Many Americans are horrified by the deaths by torture and wholesale executions of Com- munists. ‘Yet the police must be viewed within the perspective of Korea. Forty years of oppression by the Japenese taught the Koreans the ways of a police state. It is an oversimplification to say that most able Koreans who remained here during those years either collaborated or joined the Com- munist underground. But there is some truth to this, and the South Korean regime leans heavily on the leadership—even in the army and the police—of those who held posi- tions of rank under the Japanese. EXPERIENCE RELATED A case in point is the experience told this correspondent by a well-educated Korean now working for the American Military Ad- visory Group. He had been imprisoned and tortured during the war for his anti-Japanese activities. One day, on his way to work at American headquarters, he saw the police officer who had presided at his inquisition. He now wore the uniform of a police captain. The chiefs of staff of the Army have, in general, been officers who gained their ex- perience under the Japanese. The United States advisers report, however, that some of the younger American-indoctrinated of- ficers are reaching sufficient maturity for high command. The police in this land of about 18,000,000 number 50,000, while the fighting army is put at 100,000. In 1948 more than half the
1606 Officers above the rank of Meutenant had served in the Japanese police. Generally, the top Government leaders are former exiles who were free of any tiles with Communists or Japnnese. They have been awey from Korea so long, however, that some of them speak Korean with a foreign accent. This makes it easier for their enemies to link them with foreign domination Torture appears to be an accepted prac- tice, although President Syngman Rhee has publicly attacked it as barbaric In Decem- ber, however, the Home Minister warned that “the torturing of Communists by the police is not to be criticized,” according to the local press. Tho police come under the jurisdic- tion of this Ministry. A few weeks carlier the National Assembly had raised a hue and cry over the number of prominent people who were dying under police and army torture. Cases cited in- cluded a former professor of law at Chosun Christian College, who died in a Seoul police station a few hours after arrest. Cause of death was given as electric shock. A professor of botany at the Normal Col- lege died at the police station. The provost general said it appeared he had been beaten to death According to United States observers here there is considerable ill-will between certain assembly members and the police. The former have on occasion demanded that the police be purged to elements who served under the Japanese. On January 17 several assemblymen brought their grievances against the police into the open—an action that today de- mands courage One referred to what critics of the police call the human-flesh-distri- bution case that occurred last September at Mokpo, scaport at the southwest corner of Korea. Escaped and recaptured prisoners allegedly were shot on the doorsteps of various citizens and leit there, apparently os an object lesson. “EVERBODY SCARED" “Assemblyman Kang Sun Myung discovered one of the prisoners on his doorstep,” the speaker said, “But everybody was so scared of the police that none of them could speak up publicly.” A pro-Government speaker declared: “What is the idea of calling this case the human-fiesh-distribution case without ask- ing what kind of people these dead are? They are the most vicious Communists ” Another assemblyman said that in his dis- trict the son of a blind farmer had been shot during an armed rice collection by the police. The official explanation, he added, was that the policeman had meant to shoot the farm- er’s dog. The press was warned by the Government Information Office not to publish an account of the debate, according to Korean reporters. Wholesale arrests have caused the jails to overflow and forced the Government to es- tablish “reeducation camps” The official capacity of South Korea jails is listed at 15,000. On August 15, 1948, there were 14,000 prisoners. Last month the official figure was 40,000. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York has expired. Mr. MARCANTONIO. Mr. Chair- man, will the gentleman from New Jer- sey yield me a little time? Mr. EATON, Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman 2 minutes. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York is recognized for two additional minutes. Mr. MARCANTONIO. Forty thou- sand people in jails intended to accom- modate fifteen thousand. This Govern- ment of Fascist Korea cannot long en- dure as our $60,000,000 are not going to CONGRESSIONAL REFCORD—HOUSE save it from the wrath of the Korean people. All civil liberties have been completely suppressed. Let me read to you what the chairman of the Assembly of Korea said recently about democracy in Korea, as reported in the New York Times of January 26, 1950. He holds a position which is similar to that of our Speaker. He said, accusing the Gov- ernment: Our Government here has no conception of democracy. The same story as Chiang in China is repeated in South Korea by its Fascist rulers. Corruption on top of corruption is the basis of the South Korean Govern- ment. I shall place in the REcorD press reports as to what has been done with articles that have been sent to 1t by us. To five you an idea of what is happening to their currency let me remind you that in 1945 the national currency, the won, was 400 to a dollar; today it 1s 4,000 to a dollar. Won in circulation were 4,000,- 000,000 in 1945; 40,000,000,00 in 1948. So that the story of South Korea is a repetition of Chiang Kai-shek’s tyranny in China. It is the story of tyranny, 1t 1s the story of corruption, it is the story of suppressing the national aspirations of the people for a united and independent country. We tried to help this tyranny in China. We failed. We are now repeating the same interference in Korea. We are going to fall there too. I oppose this bill not only because the program is a failure but because it 1s contrary to the best interests of the American people in sup- porting tyranny and corruption. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York has expired. Mr. EATON. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman from New York two ad- ditional minutes to be interrogated by the gentleman from Pennsylvania. Mr. MARCANTONIO. Mr. Chairman, I do not object to accepting this time. It is so rarely yielded to me that I will accept it even under the onerous con- ditions of being interrogated by such an interrogator as the one who desires to interrogate me. Mr. FULTON. I did not know the gentleman was on our Side of the ques- tion. I understand that in South Korea one of the gentleman’s com- plaints is that under the Japanese the South Koreans learned the methods of a police state. If that is the gentle- man’s criticism of the South Korean Government does he not have the same criticism of the Soviet Government and of their satellite states because they are certainly police states? Mr. MARCANTONIO. We are not asked here to appropriate moncy for the satellite states or for the Soviet Gov- ernment. We are asked to appropriate money for a nation which the gentle- man is ready to admit is now a police fascist state. That is the issue before the House. Let us stick to it. Mr. FULTON. The next question is this: When the Greek-Turkish aid bill came up for consideration and passage, and even the Marshall-plan Dill, the gentlemen was one who stood in the Well of the House and said: “Why do you not turn this over to the United Nations s0 FEBRUARY 7 that the United Nations can handle it instead of doing it on a unilateral or bi- lateral basis?” If that is so, why does not the gentleman say with respect to Formosa that the United Nations should establish a trusteeship over there and then there would be no supporting of Chiang and the gentleman would not have any complaint in reference to the Chiang Government? Mr. MARCANTONIO. I think the gentleman has distorted my position so much that even he has become confused. I at no tame advocated taking territory away from any nation and establish it as a trustceship under the United Nations. Never have I advocated the violation of any country’s territorial integrity. The record bears me out. You may stand up here and argue all you please, but the fact, nevertheless, remains that Formosa js Just as much a part of China as Staten Island is a part of New York. You can- not come around and either directly or by indirection take Formosa away from the Chinese people, and then stand up here and try to proclaim your friendship for democratic rights and for the princi- ples of independent nations. It is a false argument and you know it. Mr. FULTON. Would the gentleman agree to a plebiscite in Formosa, finally? Mr. MARCANTONIO. Iagree in sup- porting the people of China and their territory in their revolution just as much as we expected France and other countries to support the United States and our territory when we had our revolution. Here are some more facts on South Korea which demonstrate that we are giving aid not to a democracy but to Fascist corruption against the interests of the people of Korea and against the interests of the American people: The New York Times reported on Jan- uary 24, 1950: United States officials here have been con- cerned over the unchecked printing of money and inflationary expenditures without the authority of the legislature or of the Premier, Again, from the New York Times we learn that the trend toward authorita- rianism has deprived the National As- sembly and even the Premier Lee Bum Suk of much of their power. As for the freedom of the press, it is to be remembered that President Syng- man Rhee warned newspapermen he would close newspapers printing rumors “harmful to the Government.” According to the New York Times re- port of January 13, 1950, even our Am- bassador Jessup is reported to have stated to the Korean officials, “There are cer- tain other things which are within your power to accomplish which have not been done.” He had in mind the Korean financial situation which the United States ex- perts described as ‘‘deteriorating” in the face of unchecked deficit spending as well as the suppression of civil rights. Again, from the New York Times of January 7, 1950, we find that during the first 8 months of the fiscal year 1949-50, deficit expenditures of the Government exceeded the entire budget for the year. Chief spenders were the Ministry of Na- tional Defense and the Home Ministry.
1950 The latter pays for a police force of army proportions. The office of the Prime Minister spent more than three times its entire budget on intelligence activities alone. Most of the deficit money was obtained either from printing presses or overdrafts on the Bank of Korea. There has been an abrupt rise of currency cir- culation during the last few months. December 31, forty-three billions; on January 7, 1950, seventy-four billions, The New York Herald Tribune of January 21, 1950, reports that spending is being done without the approval of the legislature and without normal procedure of accounting. The Korean Government’s fear that the world might learn the facts is evi- denced by the Korean ruler’s actions to- ward the United Nations Commission on Korea. This Commission was put off limits by the Korean Government. No citizens were permitted to approach the Commission except through the foreign office. Rhee and his henchmen were fearful that Korean nationals might have told the Commission the truth. Employment conditions in Korea are deplorable. According to the New York Times of September 14, 1949, there were between 889,000 to 1,500,000 unemployed. Farm population of Korea is 11,500,000 out of a total population of 19,000,000. In foreign trade the total imports of the first half of 1949 as against exports of $79,624. Here is what one of the Korean papers stated editorially as to conditions pre- vailing in South Korea. The newspaper, Donga Ilbo, is an anti-Communist publi- cation: “Despite the necessity of controlling the Soviet-inspired subversive elements, uncasi- ness is increasing rather than abating. The people and the Government must cooperate more closely than ever.” Asserting that secu- rity authorities are imprisoning or shooting law-abiding citizens, the newspaper declared: “Sometimes even those known as passionate patriots are accused as leftist subversive ele- ments without material evidence.” Incidentally, according to the United Nations Commission over 89,000 people were arrested from September 4, 1948, to April 30, 1949. Here is an example of what happens to some of the goods we send to Korea. It is merely a sample of the gross graft and corruption that exists there. I quote from an editorial in the Kuk Che Shin Mun—the International Times—which contends that United States Army relief goods became the object of profiteering during September 1948: On September 8, 1948, the United States Civil Affairs Section handed over 2,745 pairs of boots, 1,206 pairs of shoes, and a great amount of aluminum, some 200 items. The Bureau of Industry and Commerce of the Provincial Government of Kyonggi-do sold them to the New Korea Industrial De- velopment Co. at 810,000 won, on the supposi- tion that the relicf materials amounted to about 81 truckloads and that one load was worth 10,000 won. The company sold 2,235 pairs of boots and 15 different kinds of goods to the Yongwol power plant for about 1,500,- 000 won and later got 3,500,000 won for the goods distributed to the Department of Home CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Affairs and other Government agencies. It is hard to understand— Said the paper— why the Provincial Government decided to sell the goods at 10,000 won a truck. Further it 1s a matter of regret that the Government agencies bought them at a higher price than they sold them to the company. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York has expired. Mr. EATON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minne- sota [Mr. Jupp]. Mr. JUDD. Mr. Chairman, I should like to make one comment on the re- marks of the gentleman from New York. Too often in dealing with the Far East, Americans tend to judge peoples and governments there by our standards. Because they seldom come up to the standards of honesty, efficiency, compe- tence, democracy, and civil rights that we have or at least hope and work for in our own country, we conclude those governments are hopelessly bad and we denounce them accordingly. We do not realize that our choice in Formosa and Korea, for example, is not between the existing governments and something bet- ter; it is between those governments and seizure by Communists, which is infinitely worse. I talked to a man this week who has just returned from North China, and he reports there are twice as many politi- cal prisoners in jail now as there ever were before. Thus, regardless of how many there may have been in jail under the Nationalist Government, which the gentleman called a corrupt tyranny, the number in jail increases rather than decreases under the peoples’ democratic dictatorship—which is the Communist regime’s description of itself. The Chi- nese Government, weakened and ex- hausted at the end of the war, was not a good government by our standards, but in refusing to help effectively and thereby helping the Communists to de- stroy that Government, we got something infinitely worse, not only for the Chinese but for ourselves. The first was a proved friend of the United States; the Com- munists a proved enemy. In a choice between friend and enemy it ought to be easy to decide where our own inter- ests lie. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Minnesota has expired. Mr. EATON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Mich- igan (Mr. Horrman]. Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, earlicr in the day attention was called to the need for the immediate passage of this legislation. On page 2 of the report, at the bottom of the page, I find this statement: Without the legislation here proposed, both the Chinese and the Korean economic- assistance programs would be without funds as of February 16, 1950. That is pretty soon now. You will all recall that we met at 11 o’clock in order to get about our business and get this bill through. Then later on the Speaker exercised his discretion, as you will remember, just denied to the Republicans the opportunity to call the 1607 attention of the Members on the right— the Democratic Members—to the grand success of that party last night—that $1 box social. You have been bragging all the time about your $100-plate din- ner. We just had that little $1 plate where the people were so anxious to come that they not only filled the hall but they sat on the steps and on the floor. There was only one thing that you could have found wrong with that party. I was there; the building was crowded; they could not all get in. Some accus- tomed to high diplomatic life might have found fault because there was not the slightest evidence that anyone had been drinking champagne; nor any liquor of any kind. What do you know about that, now? Was not that too bad? Not at all like some of these official doings in high Government circles. So you cannot take it. The Speaker was in so great a hurry he could not have the usual l-minute talks, The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Jacobs] was handing it out here, giving it to us the other day, and he had time aplenty. But when it comes along and we get a chance—it only comes to us, my friends, once in a long, long time—when we get a chance to celebrate or brag about something, the Speaker, in his discretion, using his judgmcnt, saying we are pressed for time, he cuts out the 1-minute speeches. But you have an agreement, as you have today, to adjourn earlier to go up to New York to one of those big parties. You are in no hurry today to gct the aid to Korea if the program interferes with your little party. Oh, say, are you not ashamed of yourselves now, gentlemen, for what you did to us today? The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Michigan has expired. Mr. KEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Ricwarps]. Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. Chairman, I lis- tened a little bit ago to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Marcantonio]. I listened very carefully, and though he condemned roundly the action that Amcrica is taking in the field of forcign relations and international cooperation to preserve the peace, condemned our policy in Europe and in the Pacific, as usual I did not hear one word of con- demnation of the activities and the machinations of the Russian Govern- ment in the tragic arena of the world today. The gentleman from New York, who believes so strongly in democratic government and freedom and democratic processes, claims and contends that we have no right to aid the Korean people, because the government there does not represent the people. He mentions the United Nations position and responsi- bility in the premises, but he does not say that the existing government in Korea today is a child of the United Nations. He does not say that the United States first sponsored the existing government in Korea. He does not say that a com- mission was appointed by the United Na- tions over the opposition of Russia to conduct a fair, democratic election in Korea. He does not tell you that 75 per- cent of the eligible voters in South Korea registered for this election nor that 95.2
1608 of these cast their ballots. It seems that neither the gentleman nor Russia ap- proves of this kind of election. He does not tell you that over 2,500,000 of the peo- ple of northern Korea—there are left only 10,000,000 there—fled the confines of that Russian-dominated section of Korea and came to South Korea, where there are already 20,000,000 people, to en- joy the blessings of the free, democratic government, that the United States has sponsored and the United Nations has sponsored. He does not tell you that the Koreans under this government have actually fought the North Koreans for their liberty. The gentleman from New York and others here freely predicted only last year that the Korean Government could not stand up more than 6 weeks. It is standing today. The South Korean Government has turned back the army of the North Korean Government, spon- sored by Russia, the nation in which, I assume from his remarks, the gentleman from New York has great confidence. The Korean Government, without the aid of American troops, has turned back the troops backed by Russta in northern Korea, and Russia has not had the nerve to come in. I am not trying here to argue that if Russia brought her own army into northern Korea and attacked southern Korea, they would not succeed. Prob- ably they would. They might succeed some other places in the world where the cold war rages. But they dare not take the chance. The underlying principle of American aid abroad in this cold war is to help those who believe in democratic institu- tions and who exhibit an inclination to help themselves. We might just as well admit there is no use spending good money for bad. Money spent that way is wasted. But here in Korea we have the one point in the whole Asiatic picture where we can reasonably expect success for democratic government and democratic forces against the Communist-backed forces. The evidence is here. The Koreans are willing to do and have done something for themselves, Given a chance, it is a self-sustaining country. It is a patri- otic people, fiercely devoted to the kind of liberty in which we believe. I know that sometime, somewhere, somehow, the United States Govern- ment, facing the financial difficulties with which we are confronted, must cur- tail our expenditures abroad. We must only continue to spend where we can ex- pect a reasonable return on the invest- ment. That investment must be in our own national interest. I think Korea today is a good field for long-range in- vestment in sound Asiatic policy. So far as Formosa is concerned, I want to be frank with you about that. I have grave doubts that there will be a return on the investment there. It has already been testified that out of the $103,000,000 authorized and appropriated by the Eightieth Congress for the Pacific area not more than $10,000,000 of this money can be spent on Formosan aid for the period February 15 to July 1. That is the extension period. This money has already been appropriated and author- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE ized. It is just a question of extending the time in which it can be spent. There may be some hope that the Chiang Kai-shek government will suc- ceed in Korea. I hope it does. Cer- tainly geographical conditions there are just as favorable for success as can be found anywhere in the China area. Chiang has an island there of 6,000,000 people with over half a million of the democratic forces, the Nationalist forces, the cream of the crop, as the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Jupp] said, to help him. They have a large, well-equipped army, They control most of the Chinese Navy and Air Force. If the Chiang Kai- shek government is ever going to make a successful stand against the rising tide of communism, they have the chance to do it right there. I favor allowing them to use $5,000,000 or $10,000,000 of the remaining $103,000,000 appropriation in an effort to show the world whether or not this branch of the great Chinese race under these favorable circumstances will rally behind the Nationalist Govern- ment. If they do not, then we must look for a new leader of the democratic forces in China. Mr. EATON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Penn- sylvania [Mr. Ric]. Mr. RICH. Mr. Chairman, here we are at it again. Here comes our Com- mittee on Foreign Affairs with this leg- islation, when 2 or 3 weeks ago they were against it. Today they turn around and are for it. Sometimes I cannot under- stand how in the world we go in through one door and come out the other. It is just about as much sense as the situa- tion in the State Department under Acheson, Hiss and Hiss. If you are go- ing to continue to give the money of the taxpayers of this country away, as you have been doing, and as you propose in this bill to give $60,000,000 away, from now until the 30th day of June, which means $400,000 a day, which you are going to waste, then you will drive the country into bankruptcy. I shall tell you what you can do. The other day I had the pleasure of listening to Frank Laubach, a Congregational missionary. He said that he can stop communism in any country in the world if you just give him aid and assistance in trying to con- vert these people to the realization that communism is wrong and unwise, by Christian deeds and teachings. Give him $400,000, and he will do more than Acheson, Hiss and Hiss will do with $60,000,000; and he will do it in just as short a time. I want to help the Koreans, because I have always been taught, ever since my mother took me to Sunday school, to try to support missionaries in Korea and China and other countries. I am a be- liever in that. But if you want to help these people and keep them from starv- ing, this is not the way to doit. This ad- ministration is the greatest squandering administration in the world. Instead of taking some $80,000,000 worth of pota- toes and throwing blue vitriol on them and destroying them, send them to Ko- rea and China and try to help those peo- ple in that way. Another thing, you Members on the other side of the House can learn a lesson from our dollar lunch- FEBRUARY 7 eon, which we had yesterday. It was a dollar luncheon where we had chicken and all the things that go with it. And we paid 20 cents on the dollar in the form of taxes to help run this Govern- ment of ours. You New Dealers come along, and you are going to have a $100 plate dinner, and you are not going to pay any taxes, because you have enough pull with the administration to get out of paying your taxes, which would amount to $20 on every ticket for that dinner of yours. You ought to be ashamed of yourselves. I would with- draw this legislation and try to go about it in the right way, in a common-sense way. The missionaries of America— Protestant, Catholic, and Jew—can do the job for a million dollars and do it in the right way. Mr. HALE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. RICH. I yield for a question. Mr. HALE. The reason their dinner is tax-exempt is that it is not enter- taining. Mr. RICH. Well, they had some entertainment. They had some songs. They have a right to pay taxes on the dinners that they have. They are only short-changing the American taxpayer. They are only taking the money from the American taxpayers and making them believe that they have to pay the taxes and that they will enjoy the dinners. Get rid of the New Deal or America is lost. America will go Socialist with any more New Deal or any Fair Deal. It will be a raw deal. Mr. KEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsyl- vania [Mr. Gavin]. Mr. GAVIN. Mr. Chairman, it is always a real pleasure to follow my dis- tinguished friend my very able colleague from Pennsylvania {Mr. Ric]. I wanted to talk for a moment about the report that I submitted to the chair- man of the Armed Services Committee the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Vin- son] on my return from Europe. This is what I said about economic recovery and the ECA: While matters in these fields are more clearly within the purview of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, I believe that the other members of this committee are, like myself, interested in the results which our numerous and very substantial programs of aid have obtained. Since the end of hostilities in Europe Congress, by means of UNRRA, in- terim aid, United Nations welfare and relief organizations, funds for the government and relief of occupied areas, loans and credits to Britain, and the Economic Cooperation Act have made available very large sums for the relief, rehabilitation, and recovery of the European economy. According to 2 Com- merce Department report carried in the press on January 3, the United States has laid out nearly $30,000,000,000 in postwar aid to for- eign nations, including $3,385,000,000 sub- scribed to the World Bank and Monetary Fund, and $24,802,000,000 in aid furnished directly to foreign countries. For a moment I want to talk about Austria, which is a comparable situation, because that is within the Russian sphere or Russian orbit: Despite the spirited and efficient efforts of the Army and the Department of State, in the rehabilitation of Austria and the recovery thus far achieved, the future of that country
1950 as an independent nation, it would seem, de- pends on continued United States subsidies. Austria lost her empire in World War I and is now located within the Russian orbit. While United States funds for economic re- covery will alleviate distress, they can scarcely alter the basic situation. The Russians have taken over the Danube River shipping and control the only oil field in that country, which they are exploiting in a manner which is certain to reduce its life. From the oil production they take a significant proportion prior to refining and a large output from the refinertes. They also requisition substantial amounts of wheat and beet sugar. In addi- tion, they claim as an extraterritorial status for a number of industries and plants as Ger- man assets. The relative amounts of Rus- sian requisitions as compared to United States aid is not known; but I fall to see how we can ever place that country on its feet, no matter how much money we pour in, so long as the present drain continues. Now in view of the fact that these areas which are being considered in this legislation are within the Russian sphere, I cannot see how you can possibly im- prove conditions in these countries, no matter how much money you pour in. The question before the House is, how long can the economy of this country stand this terrific drain on our finances and our natural resources, without eventually going into bankruptcy. Let me impress upon the Members of the House that no bankrupt countries ever won a war. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania has ex- pired. Mr. EATON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Penn- sylvania |Mr. Hue D. Scort, Jr.]. Mr. HUGH D. SCOTT, JR. Mr. Chair- man, if we are going to continue expendi- tures abroad, as I suppose we must—and I have an open mind on the bill, I am not yet convinced that the additional sugar coating designed to convert some of my colleagues here, on the Republican side of the House, is more than just bait or whether it is actually a sufficient reason for changing one’s opinion on the entire bill—of one thing I am certain, that we must find means to effect some savings in our economy, and we must strengthen our economy at home if we are going to continue to pour out these millions all over the world. Therefore on Thursday last I introduced a bill, H. R. 7135, which would direct the Secretary of Agriculture, Mr. Brannan—who as is well known, has done everything he could to sabotage the Anderson bill—recognize that situation. This bill would direct the Secretary of Agriculture and the Commodity Credit Corporation to dis- tribute the surpluses which are accumu- lating over the country to Federal welfare agencies, the school-lunch pro-~ gram, State welfare agencies, private welfare agencies at home, and then in later priority to welfare agencies abroad, and to advance as against the cost of transportation a sum equivalent to not more than 6 months’ storage. The cost of storing these commodities is running between 10 and 15 millions a month. The Secretary claims that he cannot dis~ tribute them because he cannot pay transportation. This bill would remove that obstacle, would cause him to stop faking on the application of that section CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE in the bill, would give him an oppor- tunity of getting the food to the needy and to those who are in greatest dis- tress. It would lower the tax bill to the American people, would reduce the cost of storing the commodities, of crating, cooperage, and additional personnel. I am very happy to say that 28 Members on the Republican side of the House have joined in support of the proposals con- tained in this bill, We solicit your ear- nest attention to it on both sides of the House. But if you are going to pay this Korean aid bill you will need tax money to help you much as we helped you last night at the Lincoln Day box supper. We only charged a dollar for entertainment that was worth a lot more, but we added 20 cents on every ticket, to pay to the Fed- eral Government. That 20 cents paid by each one of 10,000 or 12,000 people goes to the Government of the United States. We did not invite people down here un- der false pretenses. We told them about the tax and we will pay it. You Demo- crats do neither when you charge $100 a plate for your evening’s entertainment, Each $100 ticket should have paid an ad- ditional $20 into the Federal Govern- ment. When you folks invited people to come down here as guests of the Govern- ment, as you called it in the letters in- viting them, when they were in reality guests of the Democratic Party, you were guilty of hypocrisy. When you invited them as guests of the Government you meant as guests of your party, as guests of the Democratic National Committee. Then, as I say, on each $100 admission there should have been a $20 tax paid to the Government. Otherwise, you are gypping the taxpayers $20 on each admission paid. Mr. KEATING. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HUGH D. SCOTT, JR. I yield. Mr. KEATING. The gentleman will remember that the Democrats tried to do the same thing with regard to the inau- guration, escape taxation. Mr. HUGH D. SCOTT, JR. As the gentleman knows, there is apparently one tax law for Republicans but another one for Democrats. This is known as the Fair Deal. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania has ex- pired. Mr. EATON. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time remains on this side? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 8 minutes remaining. Mr. EATON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may desire to the gentle- man from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fo.ton]. Mr. FULTON. Mr. Chairman, I be- lieve it must be obvious that Pennsyl- vania is interested both in Korea and in economy. Mr. GAVIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. FULTON. Gladly. Mr. GAVIN. I want to thank the dis- tinguished gentleman from West Vir- ginia for granting me a little time, be- cause I was unable to secure time from my own side. I am very grateful to the gentleman from West Virginia. 1609 Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. FULTON. I yield. Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts. Does not the gentleman suggest that aid to Korea be administered as effectively as the dollar dinner last night was admin- istered? It was a wonderful job. Mr. FULTON. Yes; if Korean aid is administered as effectively as the dinner was, Korea will be safe and the economy will be’sound, Mr. RICH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. FULTON. I yield to the gentle- man, my good friend from Pennsylvania with whom I sometimes disagree. Mr. RICH. Let us see whether the gentleman does or not. Why is it that you would turn over $60,000,000 to the Chief Executive of the United States through the Department of State to spend in order to help any nation in the world, I do not care what nation it is, when we are trying to save and when the gentleman knows that the ad- ministration is as extravagant and reck- less in its expenditures as the gentleman knows them to be? Now answer that one. Mr. FULTON. May I say that the President of the United States, although I did not vote for him, is my President too, and the Secretary of State and the Department of State, although I did not put them in office, represent me and I am going to try to see that they carry out any policy efficiently, if the policy is needed. If the gentleman from Penn- sylvania were on his feet asking for real economy and saying to all the subsidy seekers including the wool] growers of this country, “Do not come in here and ask us for your subsidy,” I would have more confidence in the correctness of his present opposition. Mr. RICH. Does the gentleman think for a moment I asked for a subsidy for woo] growers and manufacturers? Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. FULTON. I yield to the gentle- man from Michigan. Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Permit me to say to the gentleman from Penn- sylvania that while we very seldom agree in our votes, I hope that the next time he goes home he will express the ap- preciation of the Republicans on this side of the aisle to those people who elected him, because we would rather have him down here than any Democrat in his district. Mr. FULTON. Thank you. I happen to be a Republican representing a very large industrial district in south Pitts- burgh and Allegheny County, Pa. Mr. RICH. Does the gentleman re- member the time he and I had a con- versation in which he said that if I were representing his district they would ride me out on a rail? And I said, “I would rather stay on the raf! in order to get out'’? Mr. FULTON. Yes, we laughed a good bit over your quick turn of the com- ment. Now, may we go back to the subject of Korea and Formosa? The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania has ex- pired.
1610 Mr. KEE Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman 3 minutes. Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. FULTON. I yield to the gentle- man from South Dakota. Mr. CASE of South Dakota. In view of the gentleman’s comment to the gen- tleman trom Pennsylvania [Mr. Ricu] about a protection on wool, I am won- dering if the gentleman 1s 1n favor of a little protection for steel produced in the United States? Mr. FULTON. In this time of neces- sity for drastic economy, I am in favor of cutting subsidies on everything, sub- sidies on wool, high subsidics on every kind of food and agricultural products, and reexamining the reciprocal trade agreements in the light of current busi- ness and budgetary conditions. Iam in favor of an optional or a discretional bill which will give the Secretary of Agri- culture a discretion on these agricul- tural price-support programs for the pro- tection of the farmer instead of what we have today. In the last session of this particular Congress five of us wanted to speak against the present farm-subsidy pro- gram, saying the same thing would hap- pen to the potato-subsidy proposition as is now happening ‘There were 59 minutes given for the proponents and only 1 minute against the agriculture lobby. That is lobbyism at its heirht and running roughshod over the Ameri- can people, including many farmers who likewise felt the present bill was not correctly written. Mr. SUTTON. Mr. the gentleman yield? Mr. Chairman, will Mr. FULTON. I yield to the gentle- man from Tennessee. Mr. SUTTON. Is the gentleman also against a subsidy for the merchant ma- rine, airplanes, and so forth, which amounts to more than the agricultural subsidy? Mr FULTON. Anything that is rea- sonably necessary for the national de- fense, 1n order to keep a good national defense, I will try to help along for de- fense purposes, but it must be done as a defense measure purely. But I think unless you gentlemen here on the floor start balancing the budget and cutting where it hurts, you will never balance the budget and that applies to Members on both sides of the House. Now, may I go back to Korea? Mr. CASE of South Dakota. The gen- tleman made reference to the wool situ- ation. Any declaration so far as the farmers are concerned should be on a Nation-wide basis Mr. EATON. Mr. Chairman, may I ask if there will be a half minute left after this gentleman gets through? The CHAIRMAN. All time will have expired at the conclusion of the sentle- man’s remarks. Mr. EATON. Will the gentleman per- mit me to interject a remark? Mr. FULTON. Yes, I will be glad to yield to the distinguished gentleman, my friend from New Jersey. Mr. EATON. I would like to recall to the House that we are supposed to be engaged in discussing relief and help to CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Ixoren and Fermosa, if the gentleman will deal with that for a few minutes. Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. FULTON. I yield to the gentle- man from Mississipp1. Mr. WILLIAMS. I have listened to 1 hour's debate on the rule and 2 hours of general debate this afternoon, and nobody has yet told me what our Amer- ican foreign policy is in this regard. The question I want to ask, which I think is the whole crux of the American foreign policy, is how far are we willing to go beyond economic aid to support the dem- ocratic government of Korea. Mr. FULTON. We are not at this time going beyond economic aid, because we have withdrawn our military forces. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania has ex- pired. All time has expired ‘The Clerk will read the committee substitute. (The Clerk read the first section of the bill.) Mr. KEE. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise. The motion was agreed to. Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed the chair, Mr. Bonner, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bil (S. 2319) to promote world peace and the general welfare, national interest, and foreign policy of the United States by providing aid to the Republic of Korea, had come to no resolution thereon. FIFTH ANNIVERSARY OF YALTA CON- FERENCE Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. Mr. Speak- er, I ask unanimous consent that my collcague the gentleman from Delaware IMr. Boccs! be permitted to extend his remarks at this point in the Recorp. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Wis- consin? There was no objection. Mr. BOGGS of Delaware. Mr. Speak- er, we are now marking the fifth anni- versary of the conference of the Big Three at Yalta, where they confened from February 4 through February 11, 1945. Neither this anniversary nor any other anniversary of the Yalta Conference is anything which the American people care to celebrate. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the fervent and unfulfillable thought of most Americans at this time is that the world would have been infi- nitely better off had such a conference never taken place. When the Yalta Con- ference took place in February 1945, we were on the brink of winning World War II. And it was also at Yalta at the same time that we unnecessarily bartered away the peace. The truth of the matter is, Mr. Speak- er, that since 1945 we have not been nearly so much engaged in the making and maintaining of peace as we have in trying to undo the secret agreements en- tered into at that small Crimean seaport. One of the results of the Yalta Confer- ence came very near fulfillment at the end of 1949, with the loss of China to a Communist government. FEBRUARY 7 Another result of the Yalta agreement was the dismemberment of Poland and the subjugation of her freedom-loving people to a foreign totalitarian state, It should be recalled, too, that it was to pro- tect the territorial integrity of this same Poland that Great Britain and France went to war in 1939. Thousands upon thousands of the sons and daughters of Poland fought and died for the principles of freedom and a democratic form of government. Such principles might rea- sonably have been achieved except for the agreements reached at Yalta. It is for these and many other reasons that I state today that most Americans, and certainly all of those who are of Polish descent, wish without hope that this conference had never taken place. Consequently, we must continue to strive to overcome and to rectify the grave in- justices which resulted from the Yalta Conference and which deprived millions of people of the freedom which they cherished and for which they fought so vahantly. EXTENSION OF REMARKS Mr. BROWN of Ohio asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the Recorp and include a statement by Dr Edgar Fuller. Mr. MARTIN of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the REcorp and include an address delivered by his colleague the gentlewomen from Ohio [Mrs. Botton]. Mr. REES asked and was given per- mission to extend his remarks in the Record in two instances and include editorials Mr. JUDD asked and was given per- mission to extend his remarks in the Recorp in two instances and include extraneous matter. Mr SHAFER asked and was given per- mission to extend his remarks in the Recorp in two instances Mr SHORT (at the request of Mr. SHATER) Was given permission to extend his remarks in the Recorp and include a newspaper article. Mr. GAVIN asked and was given per- mission to extend his remarks in the Recorp and include a report submitted by the chairman of the Armed Services Committee. Mr. HALE asked and was given per- mission to extend his remarks in the Recorp and include extraneous matter Mr. EDWIN ARTHUR HALL asked and was given permission to extend his re- marks in the Recorp and include a letter. Mr. ANGELL asked and was given per- mission to extend his remarks in the Recorp and include a radio address by Mr. Don Eva. Mr. DONOEUE asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the ReEcorD and include an editorial. Mr. NOLAND asked and was given per- mission to extend his remarks in the RECORD. Mr COX. Mr. Speaker, on yesterday I obtained unanimous consent to extend my remarks in the Recorp and include a speech delivered by Mr Donald Rich- berg in my district on Thursday of last week. The speech was returned to me by the Government Printer because it was one-third page longer than the rules
1950 allow. The cost {s $191.34, but I ask that it be printed notwithstanding that fact. The SPEAKER. Without objection, notwithstanding the ccst, the extension may be made. There was no objection. Mr. GRANGER asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the Recorp and include an editorial. Mr. SHELLEY asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the Recorp and include an address made by Hon. HELEN GAwAGAN Douctas dealing with the water situation in California and paying tribute to his predecessor, the late Richard Welch. Mr. KLEIN asked and was given per- mission to extend his remarks in the Recorp in two instances and include ex- trancous matter. Mr. SMITH of Wisconsin asked and was given permission to extend his re- marks in the Recoro in three instances and include excerpts. Mr. MURRAY of Wisconsin asked and was given permission to extend his re- marks in the Recorp in two instances and include extraneous matter. Mr. JACKSON of California asked and was given permission to extend his re- marks in the Recorp and include re- marks of Mr. WERDEL. Mr. HINSHAW asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the Recorp and include a newspaper article. Mr. JENSEN asked and was given per- mission to extend his remarks in the REcorbD. SPECIAL ORDER GRANTED Mr. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN asked and was given permission to address the House for 10 minutes on tomorrow, at the conclusion of the legislative program of the day and following any special orders heretofore entercd. The SPEAKER. Under previous or- der of the House, the gentleman from New York f{Mr. Marcantonio] is recog- nized for 20 minutes. TAFT-HARTLEY LAW Mr. MARCANTONIO. Mr. Speaker, President Truman yesterday dropped the Taft-Hartley hell-bomb on the heads of the coal miners and their families By it he will spread the hunger and starva- tion that exists in the coal fields. With it he has announced that. he joins with the coal operators and the steel trust in their campaign to smash the unions. With it he has made a mockery of his campaign pledges to outlaw Taft-Hart- ley. Four hundred thousand coal miners were pushed to the Taft-Hartley wall to be sprayed with all the lead at the com- mand of Truman, Denham, and the coal and steel magnates. And though the miners today are the immediate target of the giant financiers and their political valets, it is the wreck- ing of the entire labor movement that is their end objective. It is to sound a dire warning of this gigantic plot to break the American labor movement that I take the floor today. Only because United States Steel, Na- tional Steel, and their controlled coal companies refuse to bargain with the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE United Mine Workers are the miners and the country faced with the situation which exists today. Only because United States Steel and its billionaire owners are determined to smash the mine work- ers union are the miners on a 3-day, and no-day week. And only because the mine workers union refuses to bow its head before this vast financ:al power is there still time for the 15,000,000 other members of the American labor movement to save their unions and the miners. For 8 months the miners and opera- tors have been locked in this titantic struggle—the power of organized, unified strength of workingmen on the one hand, and the power of money and prop- erty and the greed for more profits of bloated money bags on the other. Plain and simple, the men who dig coal out of the darkness and danger of the earth, want 95 cents more pay for their Gay’s labor. They want 15 ccnts more for thelr welfare fund, for the w.dows and orphans of the miners, for old-age benefits, and for medical care in the event of the inevitable accident. And they want to maintain their union free of any and all restrictions imposed on them by the mine operators through Fed- eral and State laws. To this, the mine operators, sitting as dummies on the knees of the steel finan- ciers, have said ‘“‘No” for 8 months. This is the same chorus the steel workers heard last fall. It is the same “No now being intoned to the telephone workers, and the Chrysler auto workers. And why should it not be the same chorus? It is the policy of the J. P. Morgan Co., the du Ponts, the Mellon banking family, the vast Cleveland bank holding chain, the auto works. It is they who decreed in their directors mecting months ago that John L. Lewis and the mine workers’ union must be ground to dust and the rest of the labor movement, the A. F. of L. and CIO, must be split, ripped, and chipped to pieces by any means. They had the perfect weapon at their command—the Taft-Hartley law. They had a Denham as overseer for the law. And they had a President who would crder use of the law. Today, months after their plan was adopted, hunger and starvation have been wrought in the coal fields, to the miners, their wives and chil- dren. The plan has brought increased suffering to the thousands of broken miners who today should be receiving medical care through the welfare fund. It has increased the misery of aged miners subsisting on pennies because the coal operators have reneged on their pay- ments to the welfare fund. It is the most calloused, deliberate cam- paign to torture, sicken, and destroy one group of people this Nation has seen since the great depression. It is akin to the mass-murder chambers created by Hitler. And along with this rule-or-ruin plan of the financiers against the miners, is the concomitant financial ruin to small, independent mine owners, inde- pendent storekeepers, and professional people depending on miners to exist. It has meant the loss of jobs to thousands 1611 of railroad workers and other distributive workers. It has injected the germ of paralysis into every blood stream of American life. This is the result of the relentless de- termination of the Wall Street money bags to smash the miners’ union and all unions, to make every mine and mill an open shop, a sweatshop. It is Ben Fair- less and Irving Olds, of United States Steel and J. P. Morgan Co. who are to blame for the Nation’s coal dispute—not John L. Lewis and the United Mine Workers. Lewis and the miners behind him sol- idly are fighting to increase the $14.05 minimum wage to $15 a day. No one can say that even $15 is enough for the miners. No one can dispute the neces- sity of the welfare fund, and the fact that the miners would never have gotten the fund or anything like it, just through the great love the operators are now pi- ously proclaiming for the miners. No one can dispute the right of the miners to strike, and have thcir only weapon at ther command at all times. Some 1,700 mine operators have already signed agreements with the United Mine Workers, according to John L. Lewis. The contract adds about 15!4 cents to the previous cost of a ton of coal, after all tax deductions. These opera- tors have found that the 1514 cents added cost can be abl.orbed without any loss of profit to them. Yet United States Steel, which just announced its highest profit in 20 years, pleads poverty to the public as it con- tinues to reject the miners’ demands for living wages. In 1949, United States Stee] made $165,958.806 This was di- vided among stockholders at $5.39 a share, several months after this giant corporation split its shares three for one. In other words, the dividend amounted to $1617, as compared to the $4 dividend in 1948. In addition to being the largest steel producer in the world, United States Steel is one of the biggest mine operators. The captive mines owned by the steel companies produce over 52,000,000 tons of coal a year, over 10 percent of the coal produced a year. Tied up directly with the steel companies is the giant Pitts- burgh Consolidation Coal Co., the largest commercial producer. Together they produce over 100,000,000 tons a year. Another large mining group is con- trolled by the Island Creek Coal Co., which in turn is controlled by the Cleve- land Trust Co. This control is extended to the entire Southern Coal Producers Association. The Mellon banking family, thrcugh the Koppers Co., operates mines producing 14,000,000 tons of coal a year. The Stone and Webster engineering com- bine, owned by the steel trust, owns large mines in Illinois. A number of other large mines in Indiana and Illinois is owned by Hubert Howard, now chairman of the Munitions Board in the Depart- ment of Defense and a Close personal friend of Secretary of Dzfense Louis Johnson. Thus the control of the Nation’s coal mines has been taken over by a handful of financial tycoons. This handful has enlisted the aid of President Truman and
1612 the Taft-Hartley board against the min- ers and all labor. This financial combine has for years made known its callous disregard of the lives and safety of the men who work in the mines. In 1949, exactly 593 men were killed in the mines, and 38,200 were injured. This is a low figure in the munes and is due to the reduced work- week in effect since July. In 1948, there were 1,013 men killed, and 54,045 in- jured, But in all the years, the financial moguls have fought every attempt to improve the conditions in the mines. ‘They have deliberately consigned men to horrible deaths. In the last 5 years, more than half of the men who work 1n the mines, 262,372, have been injured, and 4.797, killed. Is it any wonder that the miners fight for what they believe is right? Is it any wonder that the men who face death every day are not afraid of the dollar- backed power of the steel plutocrats, and the Taft-Hartley-backed power of their willing servant in the White House? The miners have Justice and right on their side. Now they need the backing and support of all people, especially the officers and members of the A F. of L. and CIO who have in the past benefited from the miners’ struggles. If ever there was a time for the unity of labor, the time is now. The coal and steel magnates have created their own kind of hell-bomb and Truman has dropped it on the coal fields. A. F. of L. and CIO members joined with the miners can pull the fuze and prevent the bomb from going off to destroy the labor movement. I call upon A. F of L President Wil- liam Green and CIO President Philip Murray to cast aside their differences to Jead this necessary movement in support of the miners. Icall upon them to urge a Nation-wide movement to demand that the Taft-Hartley hell-bomb be stopped, not dropped on the miners. I call upon them. to use their strength of offices to insist again and again until it is accom- plished that Simon Legree Denham be fired. And I call upon them to renew their demands that the Taft-Hartley law be repealed in this session of Congress. The law can be repealed in a matter of days with their help. It can be repealed if every professed friend of labor in this House joins in signing discharge peti- tion No 2 which can bring up the bill to repeal the Taft-Hartley law in a short time. Certainly there are 218 friends of labor in this House. It is about time these friends came forward. All working people know that Presi- dent Truman can no longer be counted as a friend of labor. All working people now know that his kind of friendship breeds hunger and starvation in the coal fields and steel towns. All working peo- ple now know that Truman serves the steel oligarchy. Labor will remember this in 1950 and 1951. UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, Washington, D.C., February 4, 1950. Hon Harry 8. TRUMAN, President of the United States, White House, Washington, D. C. Drar Mr. PRESIDENT: We represent great numbers of men. They are citizens and tax- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE payers. They are men with family responsi- bilities. They perform an essential service. They serve a harsh and brutal industry. Its toll of broken men and its usage of human flesh are without parallel in modern in- dustry. Their employers are, ina controlling sense, greedy, grasping, and devoid of or- dinary compassion. The mine workers have the same ideals and dreams as other Americans. They wish to provide for thelr families and serve their God and their country without reserve. To do so, they must eat and have shelter to face the menace of the years and to retain the courage to combat the terrifying vicissitudes of their toil. The industry contract expired June 80, 1949. For 8 months, the organized coal op- erators have refused to execute a successor agreement For 8 months, the operators have gloried in the protection given them by an oppressive Federal statute. For 8 months, Mr. President, they have boasted that the abomination, known as the Taft-Hartley Act, rendered it unnecessary to concede anything, and that in the end your high office, wielding Taft's club, would beat the mine workers into submission. So now it comes to pass, Mr, President, that as a penalty for refusing the coal op- erators’ dictated terms your office offers arbi- tration by three strangers, who know not of the industry nor the human beings who delve in it. With due respect, Mr President, the mine workers do not wish three strangers, how- ever well-intentioned but necessarily ill-in- formed, to fix their wages, decree thetr work- ing conditions, define their living standards, and limit the educational opportunities of their children. Such strangers cannot see into a mine worker’s home, nor peer into the hearts of his loved ones. The mine workers believe that as free citizens in a free country they have an inherent right to pass upon these vital considerations themselves, and that no stranger, however situate, should be given such power over their lives. It is no answer, Mr. President, to suggest that your plan, as set forth in your telegram of January 31, permits acceptance or rejec- tion by either party, after rendition of judg- ment by your agents The mine workers know that any rejection of your agents’ find~ ings, after issuance, would cause them to face the oppressive legal sanctions of Taft’s bill of attainder against labor unions. The mine workers know also, Mr. President, that the heavy hand of Government would not be Jaid concurrently on the shoulders of the coal operators as they make wassail in the privacy of their exclusive clubs. For 7 months since the expiration of the agreement, the mine workers have made per- sonal sacrifices to insure the country suf- ficient coal It is a travesty upon justice that they should now be slugged by a legal blackjack to satisfy the overweening avarice of their reactionary employers. To use the power of the state to drive men into the mines, on the terms and for the profit of private employers, is involuntary servitude, violative of the spirit, and per- haps of the literal text, of the thirteenth amendment. It is questionable whether one could postulate that such mass coercion would insure enthusiastic service from grate- ful men. Respectfully submitted. NEGOTIATING REPRESENTATIVFS, UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, By Jown L. Lewis. (Mr. MarcanToNio asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks and include letters sent to the President by John L. Lewls.) The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the previous order of the House, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. LanE] is recognized for 15 minutes. FEBRUARY 7 THE PRICE SUPPORT PROGRAM FOR POTATOES Mr. LANE. Mr. Speaker, our Govern- ment calls it a price-support program for potatoes Sounds good. We are led to believe that something constructive will come from it. After all, hundreds of experts and hundreds of millions of dollars are tackling the problem. But how does it actually work out? We know that 5,000 potato farmers in Aroostook County, Maine, are getting an average of $13,000 each from the United States Treasury for raising more tubers than we can consume. The general idea is to keep these farmers happy at all costs. The Government started out on the theory that the price of spuds must be kept up to guarantee the farmers a fair return for their labor and investment so that they would continue to be good customers of industry. But even Einstein cannot figure out how you can reduce a surplus by reward- ing the growers for raising an even greater surplus. Meanwhile, several milion Americans are unemployed. Their unemployment compensation checks, in many instances, have run out. Unfortunately, they cannot postpone their appetites They could use these surplus potatoes in the way that God isntended that they should be used—primarily to sustain hu- man life But they have not the money to buy them. And they famish in the face of bulging harvests. Now one would think that a benevolent government like ours, so bountiful in its payments to the farmers, would give away the 50,000,000 extra bushels to the needy in distressed areas. But the Government is horrified by such a simple and humane solution. Lost in a maze of artificial rules and afraid to offend the fattening growers, the Government would rather see these potatoes rot than feed them to the needy. Five hundred million dollars have been thrown away on the price-support pro- gram for this one commodity alone dur- ing the past few years and what do we have to show for it? The bankruptcy of a plan founded on preferential treatment for the growers as against the consumers. Let us abandon this extravagant fail- ure and replace it with a program that will meet the needs of both city dwellers and farmers before the American public loses what lingering faith it may still have in the whole agricultural] set-up. Here is the sorry situation: Eighteen hundred growers on Long Island collected checks averaging $13,000 each from the Government. In Connecticut they did better, to the tune of $15,625. In Rhode Island they raised the take to $25,000 apiece. Because Uncle Sain guarantees the price, growers are choking their flelds with plants. In their zest for overproduction, they might try lighting up the fields at night
1950 to accelerate growth or subject the poor struggling potatoes caught in a traffic jem to hurry-up injections. Who knows? When Government encourages the surplus it is trying to curb, everyone wants to get in on the pay-off. Even Canadian growers, envious of the gold in ‘them thar spuds,” are smuggling theirs into Maine in order to get lush profits while the getting is good. Meanwhile, up and down the Atlantic seaboard, we have a number of industrial cities and towns classified as, distressed areas, because of unemployment con- ditions. No jobs, no paychecks, no unemploy- ment compensation, no relief. Hungry mouths and surplus potatoes, with the Government standing in- between. And what does the all-wise and kindly Government do at this critical time? It begins to dump the unwanted spuds back on the farm. It paid $1.25 a bushel for them, but is going to sell them for 1 cent per 100 pounds to the very farmers from whom it bought them. Strange business, no matter how you look at it. When the round robin is over, the Government is the loser by many mil- lions of dollars, while the farmer wel- comes back his prodigal potatoes to be used as fertilizer and livestock feed. The rest will be dumped into the ocean or left to rot just to get rid of them. But wait, wait a moment, the Gov- ernment steps in to offer a part answer to the problem. It will help to distribute some of the surplus through the school-lunch pro- gram. But whoever heard of children eating a substantial food like potatoes for a light lunch. The grown-ups, the unemployed bread- winners of the family, will not have a chance to get this sustenance because the Government will dye the potatoes to prevent their sale for human con- sumption. Because the Government prefers to kecp them away from the needy and to let them go to waste just to keep prices up. Fantastic? Criminal? Sinful? These and other words have been used to describe an experiment in the field of economics which has been expensive, in- effective, and inhuman. In plain words, the average American is disgusted with, and resentful of, such tragic failure. He demands a change in the Agricul- tural Act of 1949, which considers the feeding of surplus potatoes to livestock as more important than distributing them to unemployed human beings who are in need of food. In the winter of 1947, the Government buried—yes, buried—millions of bushels of choice U. 8. No. 1 potatoes because it did not know what to do with them. Last year, Ralph Trigg, key figure in the price-support program, minced no words when he spoke at the Maine po- tato-blossom festival. xCVI——102 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE He warned that— and I quote— The whole farm price-support program 1s threatened by the extravagance of Govern- ment potato purchases. We simply cannot go on indefinitely with any program which results in excessive waste and which costs the taxpayers of the country too much. The trouble seems to be that potatoes are being grown for the Government, and not to meet market needs. In view of the fact that over-all de- mand for this commodity has been de- clining for years, the Government is now on the hook. It is supporting a parasite group which should no longer be encouraged to live off the Public Treasury. Potato farmers should turn their ef- forts toward the production of useful crops for which there is a demand in the free market. If the potato mess opens the eyes of the American people to the fact that over $7,000,000,000 are involved in the whole agricultural price-support pro- gram, then urban housewives, workers, and the unemployed throughout the Na- tion may well rise up in protest against any subsidies to farmers. In some ways that would be unfortu- nate, but the blame for it could be placed squarely on the hideous waste revealed in the operations of the potato price- support plan. A major surgical job must be per- formed without further delay if we are to save the potato industry itself from its own excesses. My immediate concern, however, is to save the present surplus from destruc- tion and to make it available to the needy people of our country. Conscience and common sense leave us no other choice. At present, welfare outlets can secure this surplus commodity by paying trans- portation costs from shipping points. Most cities and towns in Massachu- setts, for instance, could obtain such stores at an average shipping cost of 30 cents per 100 pounds. It is obvious that a preponderant num- ber of communities in the United States do not have welfare or unemployment problems of a size where extra allotments of potatoes are needed to meet local re- lief demands. There are some industrial areas which are hard-hit, and it is the problem in such localities that I have in mind. In discussing the matter with Secre- tary of Agriculture Charles F. Brannan last week, he indicated his disapproval of the willful destruction of this com- modity and expressed an interest in any plan that would divert potatoes to those human beings who are in need. It is my belief that dried eggs and dried milk from surplus stocks should also be distributed to worthy cases. How? By legislation to amend the Agricul- tural Marketing Administration and re- instate those functions of the old Surplus Commodity Corporation whereby surplus foods would be given free to needy peo- ple instead of the worms. The Federal Government would pay transportation costs to the local public 1613 welfare outlets or to those private relief agencies duly approved by the welfare departments of the individual States. Provided that such allotments be made only those distressed employment areas as designated by the Department of Commerce. Of 33 classified as such in October 1949, New England had 15. In view of the fact that a majority of these substandard areas, plagued by un- employment, are in or near the princi- pal potato-producing region, transpor- tation costs would be held to a minimum. Local wholesalers or retailers who sell to State institutions or to the welfare departments of the cities and towns need not raise the cry of “unfair compe- tition” on this score. In the first place, the needy are seldom able to buy potatoes in the free market. Secondly, under the terms of the bill I am introducing, allotments will be ap- proved only in excess of the monthly rate of purchases made by State, muni- cipal, and private agencies to meet their normal welfare loads as averaged over the past 13 years. In some quarters it is suggested that we ship our surplus overseas, but I am firmly opposed to this as impractical, and as ignoring the needs of our own people. It is sickening to think of the millions of bushels of potatoes being wantonly destroyed when so many unemployed could get temporary life-support from them right here in the United States. The problem as I see it is not how to get rid of them but how to put them to the good use for which they were in- tended. And I think that the question of a per- ishable surplus food should have priority over other issues. The American people want to share in the goods and commodities which they produce. They will not excuse those who throw them away. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under previous order of the House the gen- tlewoman from Massachusetts [Mrs. Rocers] is recognized for 10 minutes. VETERANS’ LEGISLATION Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to re- vise and extend my remarks and include an address delivered by Mrs. Timothy A. Buckley, department vice president, de- partment rehabilitation chairman, Amer- ican Legion Auxiliary, Massachusetts. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentle- woman from Massachusetts? There was no objection. Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, last night I heard the com- mander of the American Legion, George N. Craig, deliver a very powerful protest at a rehabilitation banquet against the Hoover suggestions. I agree with him thoroughly in everything that he said. If this Hoover report should go into effect we would have a socialization of many activities of the people of the United States. It would be a decentralization and a recentralization into different de- partments, and very expensive, and all at the expense of the veterans.
1614 I am going to read a part of Com- mander Craig’s address: I regret to say that the campaign that has been conducted by the citizens’ committce has attempted to bring into disrepute the veteran. And while it has only been a few short years since the last shots were fired, which terminated the slaughter of our friends, an attempt is being made to villify the veteran, to charge him with being a ‘Treasury raider. Why even in the press if a crime is committed it’s not a lawyer who committed assault; if he has had service it is as a veteran that he ts charged. If civil suit is brought against a person it isn’t & truck driver who is being sued, it is a vet- eran who ts being sued, an attempt to defile the status. For those who did their best in time of emergency to preserve our Govern- ment, I ask the American people in your name not for special privilege, not for pre- mium, I only ask them for that which is equitable, right, and just. I told Commander Craig when he ap- peared before our Committee on Vet- erans’ Affairs that I wholeheartedly agreed with him. By the way, the other veterans’ organizations are united in opposition to the Hoover Commission Report. It is an insult to the veterans, and there would be no possible economy that I can see to the taxpayer. MIDDLESEX COUNTY COUNCIL TALK BY MRS. TIMOTHY A, BUCKLEY, DEPARTMENT VICE PLE SIDENT, DEPARTMENT REHABILITATION CHAIRMAN, AMERICAN LEGION AUXILIARY, BATURDAY, JANUARY 28, 1950, MEETING HELD IN LOWELL, MASS. Madam Director, district officers, depart- ment officer, county commander, post com- mander, distinguished guests, and membcrs of Middlesex County, it is indeed very nice for me to be with you, the members of my own district once again after having had to be absent from the past district meetings this year. I have attended all district meet- ings throughout Massachusetts and today is my last. I am always happy to be with you a@ll once again. As chairman of rehabilitation, I am going to speak to you today on a legislation pro- gram which is a part of rehabilitation known as the Hoover Commission pertaining to veterans. First, I should like to remind units and hospital chairmen to keep records of hospital service hours and send them along to me as soon as possible 60 that I may have them to incorporate in my report for the area A conference which will be held on March 8 and 9, 1950, at the Bond Hotel, Hartford, Conn. The opening session of this confer- ence will be at 10 a. m. devoted to a panel discussion for department rehabilitation chairman. The afternoon session will be devoted to volunteer hospital worker pro- gram in Veterans’ Administration hospitals. A bulletin giving information relative to reservations will be mailed to all unit presi- dents during the coming week. Maximum service for those who served is the rehabilitation goal of the American Legion Auxiliary. Our purpose is to improve, expand and expedite American Legion Aux- iliary service to veterans of World Wars I and II, and their dependents, who are sick, dis- abled, or in need. I have here for all to see, the new uniform which will be worn by all volunteers of the American Legion Auxiliary throughout the Nation. I realize very well, that inasmuch as we all started our volunteer service by wear-~ ing the orchid uniform, it will be hard for many of us to get accustomed to the new color. However, just as the Red Cross volun- teers wear the gray uniform throughout the Nation, so shall we of the American Legion CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Auxiliary wear the blue uniform, regardless of State. We are not serving as volunteers because we wish to be glamorous, our service is one for the sole purpose of bringing just a little of the outside world to those veterans who are still fighting the war, those young lads who left home as they were about to com- plete high school educations or about to en- ter college, and others who had completed their education and were on the threshold of a business career or some profession. They served this grand Nation of ours will- ingly, because they felt that by their service, America would be a better place in which to live. Those who came back whole or other- wise, know now how mistaken they were, how little the general Mr. and Mrs. Public care of their condition. In all business firms, in all States, cities, or towns, the people are governed by those elected to a particular office, either because they are popular or because the public feel they have the necessary leadership ability necessary, or because they have proven their fitness for such an office You and I must obey the laws as they are presented to us or suffer the consequence. So it is with the new blue uniform of our volunteers, Re- gardless of whether or not we like the color, which I personally feel is becoming to every- One, we should accept the new uniform as given to us by our national officers. There is nothing that I as rehabilitation chairman for Massachusetts can do, nor can any other department officer change the ruling made by our national organization And now we come to the Hoover Commis- sion of which the part pertaining to veterans 1s of interest to us. Our beloved Mrs. Envir Nourse Rocers has just arrived and I feel sure that she will have an inspiring message to present to the members of this council today. We all know that she has always been a most sinccre friend to all veterans and has always stood ready to be of service in the best interests of our veterans. We are very honored hav- ing her with us today. I attended the conference of the American Legion held 1n the Gardner Auditorium of the statehouse and was privileged to hear John Thomas Taylor speak on the Hoover Commission. His talk was inspiring as well as educational and I believe I may say that it was the first time I have heard a speaker on legislation make clear every phase of the legislative program. I only wish that each and everyone of you here today might have been {here to have heard him. Our interest in and concern about the Hoover Commission report, as it affects our veterans, must now become the major phase of the rehabilitation program of the Ameri- can Legion Auxillary throughout this Na- tion. It is the obligation of the American Legion and Auxiliary to fight for the rights and proper privileges of our disabled and needy veterans. Many of us remember that disgraceful condition after World War I when veterans were forced to stand on street corners sell- ing apples, polishing them while there and also selling pencils. Never again should our veterans be subjected to such a condition. After World War I totally disabled veterans received only $30 per month. A 50-percent- disabled veteran received $15 per month. Widows and orphans received nothing. Nor until the American Legion brought about a bill to give widows a small amount did they receive $40 per month. Today, because of the continued interest and hard work, dis- abled veterans receive $150 per month. Un- til the last Congress, this amount was $138. Paraplegics receive as much as 6360 per month. World War II veterans are particu- larly affected by the Hoover Commission re- port which is now before Congress. The Veterans’ Administration administers all laws relating to benefits or services to FEBRUARY 7 former members of the armed forces and their dependents. These benefits are as follows: . Disability compensation. . Death compensation, . Disability pensions. . Death pensions. Medical hospital service, . Domiciliary care. . United States Government and national service life insurance. 8. Vocational rehabilitation and education. 9. Guaranty of loans for purchase of homes, farms, business properties. 10. Unemployment allowances. The last three named services apply exclu- sively to World War II veterans. Following is how the Hoover Commission would split up major functions of the VA among the Federal agencies: 1. All hospital medica) attention would be under a United Medical Administration; 1. e., the Hoover Commission proposes that the hospital care and medical treatment present- ly available to veterans under direction of VA be taken over by a new colossal Federal agency, this to be known as the United Medi- cal Administration. This is definitely the beginning of an attempt to divide the vct- eran from his identity as a veteran. Because many other branches of service, civil and Government, personnel and their families would be included in this medical treatment. Atter World War I veterans were placed in poorhouses, almshouses, and even in jails until the VA hospitals were constructed Do any of you here today feel that after a young man serves his country in time of war to protect those left at home should be sub- jected to a jail when he is ill? I don’t think 50 2. All hospital construction would be un- der the Department of the Interior, which means hospital construction of all Govern- ment agencies. Only one ts familiar with the needs of veteran hospital construction. The one experienced in this work is the Vet- erans’ Administration. If recommendations of the Hoover Com- mission pertaining to veterans were followed this all important and specialized work would be transferred to the Department of the Intertor. As I understand it, this committee is say- ing that there are empty beds in our VA hospitals, At the present time let us con- sider Cushing VA Hospital: As of December 12, 1949, the capacity of the hospital was 1,100 patients. The number housed as of this date was 801, with 186 World War I and 596 World War II, Spunish-American 16, and 2 peacetime veterans. There are 23 women patients and 1 other not classified, There are 68 TB patients, 349 GMS, and 884 NP. At the present time there are 8 se: vice-connected patients waiting admission aud 408 nonservice connected waiting admis- sion At Bedford, the capacity is 1,651, but at the present time as of December 27, 1949, the patients were numbered 1,868 with 1.006 World War I and 655 World War II; 46 Span- ish-American and 161 peacetime; 76 women patients. All patients are N. P. condition with a waiting list of 30 service connected and 201 nonservice connected. These figures will show whether or not our Veterans’ Administration hospitals have empty beds as is claimed by the Hoover Com- mission. 3. All insurance matters would be under a veterans insurance corporation, which means briefly that the Hoover Commission states that the Insurance Division of the VA is inefficient. Yet it proposes to correct this alleged inefficiency by creating an additional experimental corporation to handle this tre- mendous job—a new Veterans Insurance Corporation, 4. All home loans and veterans housing would be under a Housing and Home Finance Agency. The Hoover Commission wants to AQMAAWON =
1950 take from the VA the handling of all home loans made possible under the GI bill of rights which the American Legion fought so tirelessly to enact The Commission fails to mention administration of farm and busi- ness loans which remains unexplained. 5 All other benefits, it there are any, would be under the VA. The Veterans’ Administra- tion would be merely a shell. If this bill goes through pertaining to vet- erans, the “pushing around" plight of our veterans in 1920 would be only a circum- stance to the bewildering chaos into which our veterans of today and tomorrow would again be plunged. A veteran could not go to one place, but would be forced to go from one agency to another. He might have to visit 4 or 6 agencics and go through the same red tape time after time. Not a pretty pic- ture for sick veterans. There would eaist competition for beds, then the question, What if veterans were un- able to afford private hospital treatment? There should be no competition Must our veterans once again be the tar- gets in a vicious attack similar to the heait- less Economy Act of 1933? The Hoover Com- mission report as far as the section pertain- ing to veterans is concerned is a ruthless campaign to send our veterans down the river. As membeis of the American Legion Aux- illary, we must support the American Legion in its stand regarding this Hoover Commis- sion bill pertaining to veterans We must not sit back and let Johnny do the writing. Numerical stiength is what counts. Send letters, cards, and get members not present here todxuy to do the same Tell your Senators and Representatives, Congressmen, in no uncertain terms that you as a member of the American Legion Auxili- ary are emphatically opposed to the Hoover Commission Report pertaining to veterans We all realize that we must economize, but why single ont our Ametican veteran who cffeied his life for his country as the target In 1820 and 1930, the American Legion thwarte:t a tull betrayal of American veterans. Let us all get behind the American Legion and help them put over this bill to the benefit of our veterans who offered their lives for thei: country, for those who paid the supreme sactifice and for those who still ale suffering the ravages of war Let each of us offer up a prayer and ask God’s help in guiding the citizens who vote to so use the privilege of voting im the right and just way What better way to show and demonstrate our appreciation to those who have piven £0 much for this grand country of ouls We all want good, sound and honest econ- omy, but we do not want dishonest econ- omy such as the part of the Hoover Commis- sion as pertains to veterans Write, write, write, und tell your repre- sentatives in Washington that you are op- posed to any changes in the present law affecting the rights and benefits to ve.crans, Write and tell them that you feel that the Veterans’ Administration is effictent in han- dling veterans’ affairs, Write and ask them to vote against the so-called Hoover Commis- sion bills wherein they affect veterans Write also and tell them you are opposed to vet- erans losing thcir prefei1ence in civil service. Then sign your name and address. In closing may I just say: “Life is a story in volumes three, The past, the present and the yet to be The first is finished and laid away The sccond we are reading day by day Third and last of the volumes three Is locked from sight. God keeps the key.” For past deeds and kind services, history has been made recording the happiness and comfort you have brought into the lives of others The present volume, we are living day by day and giving continucd seivice to thuse CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE who have known and still are suffering the ravagcs of war. And for the yet to be, only God can fore- see, so let us all put our trust in Him and ask Him to give us the health and guidance to carry on for God and country. LUTHER E. ELLIS Mrs RCGERS of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, last week an employee of the Veterans’ Administration relired after 30 years of faithful service. ‘That in itself is a noteworthy event, but it is not un- usual, for there are many workers in that Government agency who have labored steadily in the interests of vet- erans since the First World War and now are reaching a point where they must make way for younger and stronger, if not more capable, successors. I want to call attention to the retire- ment of Luther E. Ellis, who was the director of the Veterans’ Administration coordination service, a position of im- portance and trust, and only one of the many he has occupied during the 30 years of his service. Ellis was a brave soldier in World War I. He was the holder of the Distinguished Service Cross for bravery while serving as a captain and company commander with the Twenty-sixth Division, the Na- tional Quard outfit from our New Eng- land States. He 1s a very modest and reticent veteran wiien it comes to talk- ing about his service. He simply will not taik about himself I wanted to say something here about his accomplish- ments before the enemy, but the only way I could obtain the facts was through the Adjutant General at the Department of Defense. There I received the fol- lowing very sketchy, very curt, account of a aecd of vaior that was outstanding: Ellis, Luther E, captain, One Hundied and Second Infantry, Twenty-sixth Division In Bois d'Ormont, France, Octoher 23, 1918. He personally led his company against a strongly held enemy muchine-pun position, During the advance he was shot through the lung. When wounded his men halted to render flist aid, but he ordered them torward. His example of gallantry con- tilbuted gieatly to the success of the attack, Prior to this he had received a citation for bravery in the Battle of Belleau Wood. The wound he received in the Bois d’Ormont engagement was a very scrious one, a machine-gun bullet passing through his body. That wound has never healed. All through the 30 years of de- votion to veterans and their needs 1t has been open and has required almost daily dressing. The condition brought about comphcations that required frequent op- erations. Through all this pain and suf- fering Ellis has worked on his nerve, per- forming his daily tasks in spite of handi- caps that would have stopped a man of Iesser courage and determination. He is an old friend of mine. I recall the long hospitalization he had at Walter Reed Gencral Hospital in 1919 and 1920, when so many of our boys were fighting to get back to normal health and living. He was a favorite among the disabied men; his cheerfulness and his willing- ness to help the other fellow made him an ouistanding figure in the hospital. After his discharge from the hospital Elis had several tours ot duty as a train- 1615 ing officer for the Federal Vocational Education Board in Chicago and Grand Rapids, Mich. In 1921 he transferred to the newly organized Veterans’ Bureau in Detroit, where he became manager of that office. On August 1, 1931, he was transferred to the central office of the newly organ- ized Veterans’ Administration in Wash- ington, as administrative officer in the Solicitor’s office. On January 1, 1939, he became executive officer of the regula- tions and procedures division of the So- licitor’s office, and on July 1, 1945, he be- came executive officer of the coordination service, from which position he was pro- moted to director of the service on Feb- ruary 6, 1949. Ellis was born September 29, 1889, in Butler, Ky. He attended grade school in Liberty Center, Ind., and high school in Bluffton, Ind. Then he went to Wabash College, at Crawfordsville, where he re- ceived his A. B. degree after starring in athletics. From 1914 to 1915, he was an instructor in Lafayette (Ind.) High School, and from 1915 to 1917, he taught mathe- matics and coached athletics in Ham- mond High School, where he met his wife-to-be, Dorothy H. Gorman, also a teacher there. When World War I broke out in 1917, he entered an officers’ training school and was commissioned a first lieutenant. After serving 21 months overseas as ljeu- tenant and captain—10 months at the front—he was separated from the Army on December 17, 1920. Ellis married Miss Gorman January 14, 1920, in Chicago. The couple have two children, a daughtcr, Mrs. William T. Lane, Jr., of Richmond, Calif., and a son, Kent, now a senior student at Yale Medical School. Both children are mem- bers of the Phi Beta Kappa for scholastic excellence. Mrs. Lane is a graduate of Northwestern University. Mr. and Mrs. Ellis reside at 1621 Montague Street NW., Washington, D. C. Mr. Ellis is a member of the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Disxbled American Veterans, the Order of the Purple Heart, the Legion of Valor, the Military Order of the World Wars, and several Masonic orders It 1s my hope, and I know that it is the hope of all his friends, that the future will be good to him and that he will finally, through rest and change of atmosphere, gain a little of the comfort and recreation he is entitled to enjoy. Just now he is having one of those ire- quent sojourns in the hospital, out at Mount Alto, but we Know that his cour- age will assure for a long time to come the possibility of continued association with the many friends he has made. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the balance of my remarks may appear in the REcorp as a separate specch. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. MCSWEENEY). Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Massa- chusctts? There was no objection. THE WALTHAM WATCH CO. Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I could not help but think as
1616 the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. LANE] spoke of the enormous sums that are being spent to pay the growers for potatoes that will be just thrown away, and I listened to his very fine suggestion as to what could be done with these pota- toes so that they could be put to good use: as I said, I could not help but think of the thousands of hard-working people who are now unemployed. I refer to the workers, the highly trained precision workers, of the Waltham Watch Co. That company has made a remarkable record through the years. It made a re- markable record through the war. It is a company which is vitally needed today, I am told by people who ought to know about our national defense. They are needed to make precision instru- ments which are necessary for our na- tional defense more today than at most times during the past years. I could not help but think that the Government which has spent so much in subsidizing potatoes which are not used is not going to spend money to keep these workers employed in the Waltham Watch Co. Why the Reconstruction Finance Cor- poration refused to lend the necessary money to the Waltham Watch Co. I do not know, because I am positive that the Waltham Watch Co., under the terms of legislation which we have enacted, could secure Government orders which would keep these precision workers employed. Mr. DONOHUE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield? Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts. I yield. Mr. DONOHUE. I compliment the gentlewoman from Massachusetts for her untiring efforts in trying to keep the Waltham Watch Co. open as well as for her efforts to preserve the watchmaking industry of our country. Is it not true that during the war these watch manu- facturers were devoted entirely to the making of precision instruments for the successful prosecution of the war? Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts. That is absolutely correct. Mr. DONOHUE. And is it not also true that during that time the Swiss watch makers imported practically all of the watches which were sold in this country, thereby cornering the market of watches in this country? Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts. That is correct. I would like to remark at this point how tirelessly the gentle- man from Massachusetts [ Mr. DonoHvE], in whose district the Waltham Watch Co. is, has worked. When I came back to Congress this session I really did not know the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. DONOHUE] because he looked s0 serious—he almost never smiles. Mr. DONOHUE. Is it not the consen- sus of opinion of all those in charge of our national security and our national defense that the domestic watchmaking industry is most vital? Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts. Yes. If this company is not kept open and if our watchmaking industry fs not kept alive, the workers will go away and we will lose these precision workers. I would like to say that in this whole picture there has been a foreign con- nivance toward shutting down in some way or another, I cannot find out, but CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE it seems there has been connivance that shut down the Waltham Watch Co. The attacks on the Waltham Watch Co. and the people employed there have bcen ex- tremely vicious by the foreign countries. I understand that the Government has not been cooperative either, in demand- ing that foreign countries send their ma- chinery to the Waltham Watch Co., or at least sell it to the Waltham Watch Co. so that they could make theSe pre- cision instruments. I feel very sure that something will be done. Something must be done. As the gentleman knows, of course, he and some of the rest of us tried very hard to get a much better division of imports from Switzerland than we were able to secure. A complete stoppage of all of our watch companies will take place if this is not done. I will not mention names, but I understand other American watch companies will have to close their doors if the Swiss importations continue. Mr. DONOHUE. I wholeheartedly agree with the gentlewoman in her ob- servations. Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts. I know what the gentleman has done, and I know his great anxiety. Mr. McCORMACK. Mr, Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield? Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts. I yield. Mr. McCORMACK. There is no ques- tion but what in time of emergency, such as war, in particular, the country on one side of the conflict that does not have a watch industry and workers who can produce precision instruments, is at a severe disadvantage. It is my under- standing that the only two countries that have watch industries are the United States and Switzerland. If it were not for the three American watch companies, Elgin, Hamilton, and Wal- tham, during the last war, our country and our allies would have been at a very serious disadvantage, Not only are those precision workers of vital impor- tance in connection with the manufac- ture of accurate watches, but they are also important in making the instru- ments used in bombs, submarines, and such things. A watch industry is of vi- tal importance in the national defense of the country, particularly a large coun- try. I understand that England recog- nizes it and is trying to build up a watch industry. I understand that the Soviet Union, difficult as it is to get any infor- mation, is developing a watch industry. So that the watch industry in a nation is important not only in time of peace, to give employment, but it is vital in time of war, and it is amazing how important it is as a part of the national defense. We had three watch companies, Elgin, Hamilton, and Waltham. It seems to me, from the angle of national defense, that the matter should be very carefully inquired into, to ascertain just how im- portant the American watch industry is, I was talking with our colleague the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. DonoxveE! only a few minutes ago, and he suggested to me that this is a matter that the Armed Forces Committee should look into. I think that is a very excellent suggestion. The gentleman suggested that we take up with the chairman of FEBRUARY 7 that committee the appointment of a subcommittee to look into the impor- tance of the American watch industry in the national defense of our country. I was also talking to our colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. PHILBIN], who is a member of the com- mittee, and he is wholeheartedly enthu- siastic about that suggestion. Iam sure that the gentlewoman from Massachu- setts will concur in it, that it is a matter of vital importance that complete infor- mation be obtained as to the importance of the American watch industry, not only during the last war but, in case of any future conflict, in our national defense. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman from Massa- chusetts has again expired. Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speakcr, I ask unanimous consent that the lady may continue for five additional minutes, because we have taken up all of her time. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts? There was no objection. Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts. I would like to say to the gentleman that for months I have been working on that angle. The National Defense has told me that it was very vital. I have been very much puzzled and baffled because more requests from the Waltham Watch Co. have not gone to the National Defense. I talked to them even yesterday. Some of the persons told me there that they are vitally concerned in having the Wal- tham Watch Co. continue, for the very reason of making these precision instru- ments. I have talked to the White House. I have talked to Dr. Steelman a number of times about it. Under the law it is perfectly possible for the Na- tional Defense and the Munitions Board to give orders to these vital industries. Why this is not done before the doors of the Waltham Watch Co. are closed, Iam at a loss to understand. My feeling is that the RFC will do something about it, but it should have been done long ago instead of putting these workers out on the street. Mr. McCORMACK. A subcommittee holding public hearings would establish @ record and the public could be ac- quainted with the importance of the American watch industry in time of emergency. Does the gentlewoman agree with that? Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts. I think that is a splendid idea. My only desire is to see immediate action so that these workers in desperation will not go somewhere else for employment. Mr. McCORMACK. Immediate ac- tion, of course, is contemplated. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Dononve] made what I thought was a very excellent suggestion and I shall co- operate with him to the fullest extent, as I know will the gentleman from Mas- sachusetts [Mr. PHILB1n]. Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts. Then later on if the RFC chooses to recognize the reorganized Waltham Watch Co., or the present company for that matter, there will be these addi- tional facts to go on. Mr. McCORMACK. It might develop that we should consider legislation to in-
1950 clude the watch industry as one of the factors of our defense. Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts. I think that is very important. If I might make another suggestion {t would be that our Committee on For- eign Affairs investigate the State Depart- ment as to its attitude toward national defense, because at times it has seemed very positive that the State Department has gone contrary to our national de- fense interests, yet they are as much con- cerned with national defense as the mili- tary. I think the gentleman should in- troduce a resolution asking the commit- tee to look into the State Depariment and find out the reason they have not done more to protect the watch industry of our country, why they have been so very favorable to the Swiss interests. I commend the gentleman from Mas- sachusetts |Mr. DONOHUE]; and I see the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. PHILBIN] sitting there. I know how much interested he has been in helping the Waltham Watch Co. In fact, the entire Massachusetts delegation has done a lot of work on it. If the administration would arouse its interest or become con- scious of the realities of the situation I am sure relief would be forthcoming. The State Department, in connection with the reciprocal trade agreements, has the responsibility to protect our na- tional defense and our vital defense in- dustries, and I believe they have been entirely negligent concerning the United States watch companies. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman from Mas- sachusetts has again expired. THE HOOVER COMMISSION RECOMMEN- DATIONS REGARDING THE VETERANS’ ADMINISTRATION Mr. SECREST. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 5 minutes. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Ohio? There was no objection. Mr. SECREST. Mr. Speaker, the Hoover Commission, composed of 12 members, met first on September 27, 1947. For almost 2 years they worked to develop plans for the reorganization of the executive branch of the Government. About 400 experts, in and out of the Government, assisted the Commission in preparing 18 reports containing 277 spe- cific recommendations for changes in governmental organization. Over 100 of these changes could be made effective by administrative action. Over 100 required Jegislation by the Congress and the bal- ance were to be submitted by the Presi- dent, subject to a veto by Congress. No doubt the most important of these recommendations was the unification of the armed forces, which has largely been carried out. It is agreed that in 1951 we will have the best military force that we have had in any year since the war and the cost will be more than a billion dollars less than in 1950. Six large reorganization plans have already been submitted to Congress and approved. The reorganization programs already in effect should save about $2,000,000,000 in the coming fiscal year. No doubt many other recommendations CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE will be adopted and many are now being installed by various executive agencies. VETERANS’ ADMINISTRATION For many years the veterans of the United States worked hard to get their activities centered in one organization to which they could turn with thelr many problems. As a result, the Veterans’ Administration was established. Every major veterans’ organization in the United States has full-time representa- tives at the central office here in Wash- ington and at the many offices through- out the United States. These repre- sentatives handle millions of individual cases, often in cooperation with the veteran's Congressman. The Hoover Commission made 4 rec- ommendations out of 277 which every veterans’ organization and the great ma- jority of veterans oppose. The objection is based on the fact that these changes will cost more and will give the veteran less cfficient service. Mr. McSWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. SECREST. I yield. Mr. McSWEENEY. Is it not true that this proposed reorganization of the Vet- erans’ Administration would not tend toward greater efficiency? I am very conscious of the gentleman’s great work and interest in veterans’ affairs, that he is one of the best friends the ex-service- man has in Congress. I am sure he is going to fight to take care of the interests of the veterans even if it does cost just a little more, because it will result in economy in the end. Mr.SECREST. The gentleman is cor- rect, and I will deal with that subject Just a little later. No one in America Js more anxious for a reduction of the national debt than the veteran because every pension of every veteran is dependent, in the future, upon the financial condition of the United States Government. So is hospitaliza- tion and other needs of the veteran. The first vote I ever cast in Congress was against the so-called economy bill. Because of their experience with this legislation, veterans feel they may he called upon to bear an unfair share of the burden in a future depression. With the objectives of the Hoover Commission and with the great majority of its recom- mendations any veteran, who has had the opportunity to study them, will agree. Of the many recommendations, the veterans’ organizations are principally concerned with four: First. The Hoover Commission recom- mends that hospitalization and medical services be taken from the Veterans’ Ad- ministration and placed in a great new medical bureau to be called the United Medical Administration. Those familiar with the situation are convinced that this is an attempt to make the veterans a pawn in the effort to establish complete socialized medicine in the United States. Furthermore, veterans’ hospitals in general are entirely different from other hospitals. In an Army or Navy hospital a soldier is treated for a limited time. The vast majority are returned to active duty, the rest are given medical dis- charges. Some return home, others go to veterans’ hospitals, Army hospitals 1617 as well as private hospitals are con- structed to serve the temporary needs of patients. Tens of thousands of the patients in veterans’ hospitals will spend their lives there. Many are helpless. They must have movies and other enter- tainment to make the years endurable. They must keep their minds occupied and, where possible, their hands. Re- habilitation is an essential part of the treatment. To merely furnish X-ray facilities, operating rooms, medical treat- ment, and beds would be downright cruelty to permanently hospitalized vet- erans. When it comes to need or pur- pose, comparing the average hospital with a veterans’ hospital is like com- paring a pumpkin to a plum. We can make a good pie out of both, but we cannot grow them on the same tree. Second. The Hoover Commission would have the Department of the Inte- rior construct veterans’ hospitals. Under the present arrangement the Army engi- neers build many hospitals for the Veter- ans’ Administration. In time of peace we have to maintain a corps of engineers in order to be ready for war. I have always believed that economy will result if we work these engineers instead of compelling them to loaf between wars. For this reason the Army engineers have been given the peacetime duty of con- structing flood-control dams, veterans’ hospitals, and many other types of pub- lic works. To have them continue will not only bring economy but will give them experience vital to greater effi- ciency in war. The Army has just closed several large hospitals. It may be pos- sible to convert some of these for the use of veterans. Third. The Hoover Commission has recommended the creation of a Veterans’ Insurance Corporation. The creation of the Corporation is not the issue, but veterans fee] that it should continue as a part of the Veterans’ Administration. Fourth. The fourth recommendation opposed by veterans is the proposal to transfer the home-loan program set up under the GI bill of rights to the Housing Administration, an agency that has been, and wiil continue to be, a political foot- ball. ECONOMY If these four activities are left with the Veterans’ Administration, I believe that as much economy will result as if they are transferred. I know that the veterans will be given better service. Today there is a representative of the Veterans’ Administration in Zanesville, Cambridge, and Marietta. Veterans in my district can go to one of these offices if he wants to be admitted to a veterans’ hospital, or needs medical care. He can go to one of these offices to discuss his veteran’s insurance or a loan on his home. Every individual veteran can bring any problem to one of these repre- sentatives of the Veterans’ Administra- tion. If the four activities are trans- ferred to four separate agencies of the Government, each, at tremendous ex- pense, would have to set up a local office in most of the counties of the United States, or deprive the veterans of some- one reasonably close to home to whom