10468 Mr. HERTER asked and was given permission to extend his remarks and include an article, Mr. HALLECK (at the request of Mr. CorseTT) was given permission to ex- tend his remarks and include an edito- rial on the Korean situation. Mr. POWELL asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in four instances and include newspaper clip- pings in each. Myr, McSWEENEY asked and was giv- en permission to extend his remarks and include the ceremonies at the awarding of an honorary degree by Trinity College upon the American Ambassador to Ire- land, Mr. BUCHANAN asked and was given permission to extend his remarks on the first quarter lobbying report of 1950. Mr. THORNBERRY (at the request of Mr. Priest) was given permission to ex- tend his remarks and include extraneous matter. Mr. HELLER asked and was given per- mission to extend his remarks in four instances, in each to include extraneous matter. Mr. ZABLOCKI asked and was given permission to extend his remarks and in- clude an editorial. Mrs. KELLY of New York asked and was given permission to extend her re- marks and include extraneous matter. Mr. RODINO asked and was given per- mission to extend his remarks in two in- stances, in each to include extraneous matter, Mr, JUDD asked and was given per- mission to extend his remarks and in- clude an article, notwithstanding the fact that it is estimated by the Public Printer to cost $191.34. Mr, TEAGUE (at the request of Mr. Priest) was given permission to extend his remarks and include extraneous matter. , ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED Mrs. NORTON, from the Committee on House Administration, reported that that committee had examined and found truly enrolled a bill of the House of the following title, which was thereupon signed by the Speaker: H.R. 8568. An act making appropriations for the government of the District of Colum- bia and other activities chargeable in whole or in part against the revenues of such Dis- trict for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1951, and for other purposes, The SPEAKER announced his signa- ture to enrolled bills of the Senate of the following titles: 8.441. An act to redefine the units and establish the standards of electrical and photometric measurements; 8.2046. An act to provide authority for certain functions and activities in the De- partment of Commerce, and for other purposes; S. 2201. An act to amend section 2 of the act of March 3, 1901 (31 Stat. 1449), to pro- vide basic authority for the performance of certain functions and activities of the De- partment of Commerce, and for other pur- poses; and 8. 2807. An act to authorize the Secretary of Commerce to grant to the East Bay Municipal Utility District, an agency of the State of California, an easement for the con- struction and operation of an interceptor sewer pipe line in and under certain Govern- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE ment-owned lands comprising a part of the Maritime Alameda Shipyard, Alameda, Calif. BILL PRESENTED TO THE PRESIDENT Mrs, NORTON, from the Committee on House Administration, reported that that committee had this day presented to the President for his approval a bill of the House of the following title: H.R. 8568. An act making appropriations for the government of the District of Co- lumbia dnd other activities chargeable in whole or in part against the revenues of such District for the fiscal year ending June 80, 1951, and for other purposes, ADJOURNMENT Mr. PRIEST. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn. The motion was agreed to; according- ly (at 6 o’clock and 18 minutes p.m), under its previous order, the House ad- journed until tomorrow, Tuesday, July 18, 1950, at 11 o’clock a, m. EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETO. Under clause 2 of rule XXVI, executive communications were taken from the Speaker's table and referred as follows: 1558. A communication from the Presi- dent of the United States, transmitting deficiency estimate of appropriation for the fiscal year 1950 in the amount of $10,000 for the legislative branch (H. Doc. No, 643); to the Committee on Appropriations and or- dered to be printed. 1569. A letter from the Attorney General, transmitting a letter requesting that the case of Irene Psaros nee Irene Evangelos Pagonia, fille No. A~6752224 CR 27225 be with- drawn from those cases involving suspension of deportation now before the Congress and returned to the jurisdiction of the Depart- ment of Justice; to the Committee on the Judiciary, 1660. A letter from the Archivist of the United States, tranamitting a report of lists or schedules covering records proposed for disposal by certain Government agencies; to the Committee on House Administration, 1561. A letter from the Chairman, United States Advisory Commission on Information, transmitting the semiannual report, pur- suant to the provisions of section 603, Pub- lic Law 402, Eightleth Congress; to the Com- mittee on Foreign Affairs, REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ON PUBLIO BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as follows: Mr. DOUGHTON: Committee on Ways and Means. House Joint Resolution 802. Joint resolution to suspend certain import taxes on copper; without amendment (Rept. No. 2563). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, Mr, SPENCE: Committee on Banking and Currency. 8. 2822. An act to amend the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (U. 8. C., title 12, seo, 264); with amendment (Rept. No, 2564). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union. Myr, SPENOE: Committee on Banking and Currency. 8.3108. An act to amend section 10 of the Federal Reserve Act, and for other purposes; without amendment (Rept. No, 2565). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union. Mr. COOLEY: Committee on Agriculture, H.R. 9109. A bill to amend the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1088, as amended; the. Sot] Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act; Public Law 74, Seventy-seventh Con- JULY 17 gress; the Agricultural Act of 1949; and for other purposes; without amendment (Rept. No. 2666), Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union. Mr. DAWSON: Committee of conference. H. R. 7477. A bill providing for the convey- ance to the town of Nahant, Mass., of the Fort Ruckman Military Reservation; without amendment (Rept. No. 2567). Ordered to be printed. Mr, DENTON: Committee on the Judiciary. H. R. 544. A bill to provide for terms of court to be held at West Palm Beach, and at Fort Myers, in the southern district of Flor- ida; with amendment (Rept. No. 2568). Re- ferred to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union. Mr. DENTON: Committee on the Judiciary. H.R. 6810. A bill relating to the furnishing of accommodations at Klamath Falls, Oreg., for the United States District Court for the District of Oregon; without amendment (Rept. No. 2569). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union. Mr. DENTON: Committee on the Judiciary. H. R. 7869. A bill to provide for the furnish- ing of quarters at Newnan, Ga., for the Unit- ed States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia; without amendment (Rept. No. 2570). Referred to the Commit- tee of the Whole House on the State of the Union. Mr. KEE: Committee on Foreign Affairs. H. R. 8944. A bill authorizing the Ogdens- burg Bridge Authority, its successors and as- signs, to construct, maintain, and operate & bridge across the St. Lawrence River at or near the city of Ogdensburg, N. Y.; without amendment (Rept. No. 2571). Referred to the House Calendar. Mr. PETERSON: Committee on Public Lands. H.R. 6807. A bill to provide for the expansion and disposition of certain national cemeteries; with amendment (Rept. No. 9572). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union. Mr. DELANEY: Committee on Rules. House Resolution 696. Resolution for con- sideration of and waiving points of order against 8. 3809, an act to amend the Mutual Defense Assistance Act of 1949; without amendment (Rept. No. 2573). Referred to the House Calendar. Mr, SMITH of Virginia: Committee on Rules. House Resolution 697, Resolution for consideration of 8. 2822, an act to amend the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (U. 8. C,, title 12, sec, 264); without amendment (Rept. No. 2574). Referred to the House Calendar. Mr. REED of New York: Committee on Ways and Means. H. R. 7303. A bill to amend section 120 of the Internal Revenue Code; without amendment (Rept. No. 2575). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union. PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS Under clause 3 of rule XXII, public bills and resolutions were introduced and severally referred as follows: By Mr. WOLVERTON: H.R. 9128. A bill to establish the South. ern Medical College, to assist in the estab- lishment of mental health clinics, to facili- tate the provision of medical care to areas insufficiently provided therewith, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Inter- atate and Foreign Commerce, By Mr. BOLLING; H.B.9129. A bill to amend the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1948, and for other purposes; to the Com- mittee on Expenditures in Executive De. ts. By Mr. McGUIRE: H.R. 0180. A bill to create the War Dam- age Corporation; to the Committee on Bank- ing and Currency.
1950 By Mr. RAMSAY: H.R. 9181. A bill to promote the national defense, and to insure against shortages of petroleum and petroleum products in the United States by promoting the production and stockpiling of synthetic liquid fuels; to the Committee on Banking and Currency. By Mr. STAGGERS: H.R.9132. A bill to authorize the Secre- tary of the Interior to prospect for manga- nese and other resources in certain lands in West Virginia; to the Committees on Public Lands. By Mr. BRYSON: H.R. 9138. A bill to revise and codify the laws relating to patents and the Patent Of- fice, and to enact into law title 86 of the United States Code entitled “Patents”; to the Committee on the Judictary. By Mr. NICHOLSON: H.R. 918¢, A bill to amend title 48, United States Care, section 251; to the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, By Mr. SHELLEY: H.R. 9135, A bill to amend the Career Compensation Act of 1949 to provide that certain service rendered by disabled retired Officers be computed as double time for re- tirement; to the Committee on Armed Services. H.R. 9136. A bill to direct the survey and repair of certain vessels in the national de- fense reserve fleet; to the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fishertes, By Mr. SHEPPARD: H.R. 9137. A bill to authorise the erection of an addition to the existing Veterans’ Ad- ministration facility, San Fernando, Calif.; to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs. By Mr. GAMBLE: H.R. 0138. A bill to amend certain pro- visions of Public Law 878, Eighty-first Con- gress; to the Committee on Ways and Means, By Mr. SIMPSON of Pennsylvania: H.R. 9139. A bill to amend section 107 of the Internal Revenue Code; to the Commit- tee on Ways and Means. By Mr. ELLIOTT: H.R. 9140. A bill to authorize payment of endowment policies of national service life insurance in the form of annuities; to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, By Mr. COOLEY: H.R.9141. A bill to encourage the im- provement and development of marketing facilities for handling perishable agricultural comm odities; to the Committee on Agricul- jure. By Mr. KLEIN: H. J. Res. 608. Joint resolution to restore to the President all powers of the Price Con< trol Act of 1942, including those of ration- ing or allocation; to the Committee on Bank- ing and Currency. By Mr. PLUMLEY: H. J. Res. 604. Joint resolution to provide that the housing developments known as Westview and Southview in the town of Springfield, Vt., shall for the purposes of the Seventeenth Decennial Census be treated as a part of the village of Springfield, Vt.; to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service. By Mr. MAOY: ‘ H. J. Res. 605. Joint resolution to provide for voluntary agreements with respect to pri- ority allocation and inventory control of ateel and steel products, and for other pur- poses; to the Committee on Banking and Currency. #1. Con. Res. 243. Concurrent resolution to favor a Pasific and United States ~ ticipation ; to the Committee on - eign Affairs. By Mr. KLEIN: FH. Res. 604. Resolution to authorize an ine ‘vestigation of profiteering and the cos’ Hving; to the Committee on Rules. By Mr. PETERSON: . H. Res. 606. Resolution authorizing the printing of the manuscript relative to ac- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE celerated mapping and water resources basic- data programs to be printed as a House docu. ment; to the Committee on House Admin- istration, PRIVATE BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS Under clause 1 of rule XXII, private bills and resolutions were introduced and severally referred as follows: By Mr. BAILEY: H.R. 9142, A bill for the relief of Mrs, Roste Lu Hall; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. CURTIS: H.R. 0148. A bill for the relief of Huml Nagano and her child; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. DINGELL: H.R. 9144. A bill for the relief of Mra. Olga Kowalik and Czeslawa Kowalik; to the Com- mittee on the Judiciary. By Mr. FEIGHAN: H. R.9145, A bill for the relief of Tomoko Yamaya; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. FURCOLO: H.R. 9146. A bill for the relief of George M. Sanger; to the Committee on the Judi- ciary. By Mr. HERTER: H.R.9147. A bill for the relief of Jan Kriztk; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. KLEIN: H.R.9148. A bill for the relief of Josef 8tuchal; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. MCDONOUGH: H.R. 9149. A bill for the relief of Dr. Colo- man 8. Perjessy; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. McGUIRE: H.R.9160, A bill to amend the act entitled “An act for the relief of Margarita Funa- kura”’; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. O’TOOLE (by request) : H.R.9151. A bill for the relief of Giulio Blengino; to the Committee on the Judi- cilary. By Mr. PETERSON: H.R. 9152. A bill for the relief of Arthur B. Kline; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. SADOWSKI: H.R. 9153. A bill for the relief of Janina Wojctechowska; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr, TEAGUE: H.R.9154. A bill for the relief of Mrs. Hana Bolton; to the Committee on the Judi- elary. By Mr. YATES: H.R.9155. A'bill for the relief of Masaka auteur; to the Committee on the Judi- ary. PETITIONS, ETO. Under clause 1 of rule XXH, petitions and papers were laid on the Clerk’s desk and referred as follows: 2259. By Mr. PLUMLEY: Resolutions of Chelsea Grange; Essex Center Grange, No.. 155; Lakeview Grange, Danville; Mirror Lake Grange, No. 398, Berlin; Prospact Grange, No. 381, Lincoln; Sutton Grange, No. 252, Sutton; Vermont and Lyndon Unit, No, 30, American Legion Auxiliary, opposing any form of com- pulsory health insurance or any system of political medicine; to the Committee on In- terstate and Foreign Commerce. 2260. By Mr. RABAUT: Resolution unani- mously by the Common Council of the City of Detroit at its regular formal ses- sion on July 5, 1960, relative to the Korean situation; to the Committee on FPoreign Af- 2261. By Mr. SMITH of Wisconsin: Reso- lution of Janesville Conservation Club, Janes. ville, Wis., opposing passage of H. R. 3843, @ bill providing for the transfer of some 18,000 acres of submarginal land which con- tain some of the finest trout streams and some of the best hunting land in the entire 10469 United States to the Stockbridge Indiana, be- cause the land is unfit for agriculture and incapable of supporting either red or white men and because the land is part of Wis- consin playground and summet-resort at- traction and the gift of sald land to the aaid Stockbridge Indians would close the area for hunting and fishing by the sportsmen of Wisconsin and work a hardship on both the sportamen and the resort and property own- ers who depend on the sportsmen for their business, and the State of Wisconsin has spent and is spending huge sums of money to protect the wildlife and plant trout and pro- tect such property from forest fires; to the Committee on Public Lands. 2262. By the SPEAKER: Petition of Dr. John M. Chang, Ambassador, Korean Em- bassy, Washington, D. C., transmitting an appeal from the Korean Government relative to the Korean situation and requesting in- creasing aid during their national crisis; to the Committee on Foreign Affaira, 2268. Also, petition of A. Borelli, secretary, Interparliamentary Travel Association, Genes, France, relative to an invitation to send a delegation from Congress to attend the Inter- parliamentary Travel Congress to be held in Paris toward the end of next November; to to Committee on Foreign Affairs, SENATE Tuespay, Juty 18, 1950 (Legislative day of Saturday, July 1,1950) The Senate met at 12 o'clock meridian, on the expiration of the recess, Rev. F. Norman Van Brunt, associate minister, Foundry Methodist Church, Washington, D. C., offered the following prayer: We bless Thy name, O Thou Almighty and Everlasting God, for the inspiring struggle which is the story of Thy people to find the way to truth and light. For those who have held high the torch of truth in perilous times and have brought it through to triumph at great costs, we give Thee thanks. Now at the cross- roads of history where decisions of mountainous proportions must be made, we pray for that stamina to stand in this hour. When the odds are high let us turn to Thee knowing that truth is rooted and grounded in Thy holy will. Thus, may we not falter, but, with great faith, go forward knowing that— “Though the cause of evil prosper, Yet ’tis truth alone is strong: Though her portion be the scaffold, And upon the throne be wrong; Yet that scaffold sways the future, And behind the dim unknown Standeth God within the shadow ‘ Keeping watch over His own.” Amen, - THE JOURNAL On request of Mr. Lucas, and by unanimous consent, the reading of the Journal of the proceedings of Monday, July 17, 1950, was dispensed with. MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT—~ APPROVAL OF BILLS Messages in writing from the Presi- dent of the United States were commu- nicated to the Senate by Mr. Miller, one of his secretaries, and he announced
10470 that the President had approved and signed the following acts: On July 15, 1950: 8.3582. An act to authorize revision of the procedures employed in the administration of certain trust funds administered by the Veterans’ Administration. On July 18, 1950: 8.2086. An act transferring management of certain public lands from the Agriculture Department to the Fort Sill Indian School in Oklahoma for agriculture uses; 8, 2227. An act to amend the act approved July 18, 1940 (54 Stat. 766; 24 U. 8. C,, 1946 ed., sec, 196b), entitled “An act relating to the admission to St. Elizabeths Hospital of persons resident or domiciled in the Virgin Islands of the United States,” by enlarging the classes of persons admissible into St, Elizabeths Hospital and in other respects; 8. 2658, An act to establish rearing ponds and a fish hatchery in the State of Ken- tucky; and 8, 3635. An act to enable the governments of Alaska, of Hawail, of Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands to authorize public bodies or agencies to undertake slum clearance, urban redevelopment, and low-rent housing activities including the issuance of bonds and other obligations, to amend the low-rent housing enabling statutes for Alaska and Hawaii, and for other purposes. MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE A message from the House of Repre- sentatives, by Mr. Maurer, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House had passed the following bills and joint resolution, in which it requested the con- currence of the Senate: H.R. 10. A bill to facilitate the deportation of aliens from the United States, to provide for the supervision and detention pending eventual deportation of aliens whose depor- tation cannot be readily effectuated because of reasons beyond the control of the United States, and for other purposes; H.R. 5863. A bill for refund of customs duties to the Preparatory Commission for the International Refugee Organization; H.R. 6560. A bill to amend the National Service Life Insurance Act of 1940, as amended, to authorize provisions in national service life-insurance policies for increased monthly disability benefits; H.R. 7287. A bill to provide for the acquisi- tion of land and the construction thereon of buildings and appurtenances essential for forest-fire-control operations of the Forest Service, United States Department of Agri- culture, at or near Missoula, Mont., and for other purposes; H.R. 7260. A bill to provide for the holding of court and the furnishing of quarters at Rock Island for the United States District Court for the Southern District, Northern Di- vision of Illinois; H.R. 7667. A bill directing the transfer to the Department of the Interior by the Gen- eral Services Administration of certain prop- erty in Boise Barracks, Boise, Idaho; H.R. 8236, A bill to provide that on and after January 1, 1961, dividends on national service life insurance shall be applied in pay- ment of premiums unless the insured has re- quested payment of dividends in cash; H.R. 8619. A bill to amend the act en- titled “An act to establish a Department of Medicine and Surgery in the Veterans’ Ad- ministration,” approved January 8, 1946, to provide for the appointment of dental spe- cialists, and for other purposes; H.R. 8768. A bill to amend the Clayton Act with respect to the recovery of triple damages under the antitrust laws, and for other ‘purposes; H.R. 8706. A bill to provide for the pur- chase of bonds to cover officers and employees of the Government; and CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE H, J. Res. 602. Joint resolution to suspend certain import taxes on copper. CALL OF THE ROLL Mr. LUCAS. I suggest the absence of @ quorum. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Secre- tary will call the roll. The roll was called, and the following Senators answered to their names: Aiken Gurney Martin Anderson Hayden Maybank Benton Hendrickson Millikin Brewster Hickenlooper Morse Brioker Hill Mundt Bridges Hoey Murray Butler Holland Myers Byrd Humphrey Neely Capehart Hunt O'Conor Chapman Ives O'Mahoney Chavez Jenner Pepper Connally Johnson, Colo Robertson Cordon Johnson, Tex. Russell Darby Kem Saltonstall Donnell Kerr Schoeppel Dougias Kilgore Smith, Maine Dworshak Langer Smith, N. J, Eastland Leahy Stennis Ecton Lehman Taft Eender Lodge Thomas, Okla. Ferguson Lucas Thomas, Utah Flanders McCarran Thye Frear McCarthy Tydings Fulbright McClellan Watkins George McFarland Wherry Gillette McKellar Wiley Graham Magnuson Williams Green Malone Young Mr. MYERS. I announce that the Senator from California [Mr. Downey) is absent because of illness. The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. JoHNSTON], the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Lona], the Senator from Idaho [Mr. Taytor], and the Senator from Ken- tucky (Mr. WITHERS] are absent by leave of the Senate. The Senator from Tennessee [Mr. KeEravver] is absent on official com- mittee business. The Senator from Alabama I[Mr. Sparkman] is absent by leave of the Sen- ate on official business. The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. McManown} js absent on public business. Mr. SALTONSTALL,. I announce that the Senator from Washington I[Mr. Cain), the Senator from New Hampshire {Mr. TosEy], and the Senator from Michigan [Mr. VANDENBERG] are absent by leave of the Senate. The Senator from California [Mr. KNOWLAND] is absent because of a death in his family. The VICE PRESIDENT. A quorum is present. TRANSACTION OF ROUTINE BUSINESS Mr. LUCAS. Myr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators be permited to present petitions and me- morials, introduce bills and joint reso- lutions, and submit routine matters for the Recorp, without debate and without speeches. The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there ob- jection? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered, EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC. The VICE PRESIDENT laid before the Senate the following letters, which were referred as indicated: Avorr Rerort or Government Srevices, Inc, A letter from the Acting Comptroller General of the United States, transmitting, JuLy 18 Inc., for the fiscal year ended December 81, 1949 (with an accompanying report); to the Committee on Expenditures in the Ex- ecutive Departments, Report or Export-Import BANK OF WASHINGTON A letter from the Chairman of the Export- Import Bank of Washington, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report of the bank for the period January-June, 1950 (with an ac- companying report); to the Committee on Banking and Currency. Report or Unirep States Apvisory Commtis- BION ON INFORMATION A letter from the Chairman, United States Advisory Commission on Information, De- partment of State, transmitting, pursuant to law, copies of letters which have been ad- dressed to the President and to the chairmen of the Senate and House Appropriations Committees, which the Commission on In. formation desires to have serve as its semt- annual report to the Congress (with accom- panying papers); to the Committee on For- eign Relations. AMERICAN INDEPENDENCE—CABLEGRAM FROM PRESIDENT AND SECRETARY OF ARGENTINE SENATE The VICE PRESIDENT laid before the Senate the following cablegram from the President and Secretary of the Argen- tine Senate, which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations: JULY 4, 1950. To His EXcELLENCY, THE PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ALBEN W. BARKLEY: This new anniversary of your independ- ence finds a great nation true as ever to the ideals of liberty which characterize all the peoples of America. In witness whereof I beg Your Excellency in the name of the Argentine Senate and for myself to convey to your honorable body the sentiments of indestructible solidarity which bind our two countries, as well as our warmest. hopes for the definite triumphs of justice and right, J. H. Quisano, President, H. REALES, Secretary, the Senate of Argentina, EXPRESSION OF APPRECIATION FROM MEMBERS OF JAPANESE DIET The VICE PRESIDENT laid before the Senate the following communication from members of the Japanese Diet dele- gation to the United States, Tokyo, Ja- pan, which was referred to the Commit. tee on Foreign Relations: [Translation] Tokyo, JAPAN, May 31, 1950. Dear Sm: When we, 14 Members of the Japanese Diet delegation, went over to the United States some time ago, through the good will of Gen. Douglas MacArthur and your Government, in order to study democ- racy in action through the congressional sys. tem and State legisiatures, a hearty welcome and every facility possible were extended to us, for which we are deeply obliged to you, sir, As we have achieved our desired aims sat- isfactorily by obtaining minute knowledge on your Congress and State legislatures through your kind guidance and assistance, we are determined to use that precious knowledge for the further democratization of Japan, and eventually to contribute to the peace of the world. We have the honor to express hereby our deepfelt reapect and our profound gratitude to you, air, for all the troubles you have
1950 taken for us and the hospitality and guidance yon have so generously extended to us at the me. Yours sincerely, Takeshi Yamazaki, Chairman; Nobuyuki Iwamoto; Tatsuo Sakuraucht; Saburo Shitkuma; Hidejiro Onogi; Kanae Ha. tano; Inejiro Asanuma; Hiroshi! Ta- kada; Chusuke Imamura; Takizo Mat. sumoto; Makoto Oike; Hideaki Kondo; Selichi Shima; Tokujiro Kanamori; Members of the Japanese Diet Dele- gation to the United States. PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS Petitions, etc., were laid before the Senate, and referred as indicated: By the VICE PRESIDENT: A letter in the nature of a petition from Joe W. Looney, and sundry other members of the Cohobus Club of the Christ Methodist Church, Detroit, Mich., relating to the recom- mendations of the Hoover Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government, and 80 forth; to the Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Depart- ments. A resolution adopted by the Fifth Congres- sional Townsend Club Council of the State of Florida, at Orlando, Fia., relating to action by the conference committee on House bill 6000, to amend the Social Security Act; to the Committee on Finance. The petition of Harvey W Budd, of Balboa, C. Z, praying for the enactment of legisla- tion imposing an income tax on employees of the Canal Zone; to the Committee on Finance. Resolutions adopted by the National Or- ganization of Masters, Mates and Pilots of America, et Baltimore, Md., protesting against the attack on South Korea by Com- rmounist North Korea, and favoring the im- mediate mobilization of the merchant marine; to the Committee on Foreign Relations. A letter in the nature of a petition from the Detroit Citizens Council for a Demo- cratic Germany, of Detroit, Mich., signed by Bill Kemasley, chairman pro tempore, relating to the appropriation of sufficient funds for reorientation work in occupied Germany; to the Committee on Foreign Relations. A resolution adopted by the Pacific Southwest District Council of the Japanese American Citizens League, at Santa Monica, Calif., favoring the restoration to the Senate- amended joint resolution (H. J. Res. 238) the provisions extending equality in natural- ization to all resident aliens; to the Com- mittee on the Judiciary. A petition signed by Harry A. Vandt, and sundry other citizens of the State of Ken- tucky, relating to the establishment of as Dedication Day; to the Committee on the Judiciary. A letter in the nature of a petition from the Maui County Chamber of Commerce, Walluku, Maul, ‘T. H., signed by Victor L. Schaefer, Jr., president, praying for the en- actment of legislation providing statehood for Hawait; ordered to lie on the table. FORCIBLE DETENTION OF CERTAIN GREEK CHILDREN—CONCURRENT RES- OLUTION OF NEW YORK LEGISLATURE Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, I have just received from the Secretary of the New York State Senate a copy of a con- current resolution approved by both houses of the New York State Legislature calling attention to the kidnaping of 28,000 Greek children by Communist forces and labeling such kidnaping as genocide. I ask that the concurrent resolution be appropriately referred. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE The concurrent resolution was re- ferred to the Committee on Foreign Re- lations. (See text of concurrent resolution printed in full when laid before the Sen- ate by the Vice President on July 17, 1950, p. 10356, CoNcressIonaL RECORD.) FEDERAL AID TO FISH RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT, RESOLUTION OF WIS- CONSIN CONSERVATION CONGRESS, MOSINEE, WIS. Mr, WILEY. Mr. President, I have in my hand a letter and a resolution re-. ceived from the chairman of the Wiscon- sin Conservation Congress on the sub- ject of support of H. R. 6533, the Dingell bill for Fishery Aid and Management. I absolutely agree with the sentiments ex- pressed in the resolution and I am de- lighted to note that the Senate Com- merce Committee has reported the bill tothe Senate. The bill has already been approved by the House of Representa- tives. H. R. 6533 is now pending on the Sen- ate Calendar where I trust it will be coming up very promptly and passed by unantmous consent, to be thereafter sub- mitted to the White House and this time I trust that the President will not veto it. I have every reason to feel that it wi be enacted into public law at long t, I believe that Mr. Hemp's lettez ex- plaining the background of the Wiscon- sin Conservation Congress will be of in- terest to my colleagues, and so I ask unanimous consent that the text of his message as well as the text of the reso- lution adopted by the executive council be printed in the Recorp, and appropri- ately referred, There belng no objection, the letter and resolution were ordered to lie on the table and to be printed in the Rec- orp, as follows: Execurive ConsexvaTIon Counci. OF THE WISCONSIN CONSERVATION CONGRESS, Mosinee, Wia., July 14, 1950. Hon. ALExanprr WILEY, United States Senator, Senate Office Butiding, Washington, D. C. Deak SewatoR Writer: Attached you will find a copy of a resolution concerning the Dingell bill which was passed by the execu- tive conservation council of the Wisconsin Conservation Congress at its meeting held in Madison, Wis., on July 6 and 7, 1950. For your information I wish to point out that the Wisconsin Conservation Congress consists of 8 delegates from each of the 71 counties of the State of Wisconsin. These ‘delegates are elected at public meetings held in each county, and at the same time hear- ings are held on game and fish regulations. The regulations are considered at the county meetings as they pertain to each particular county, The delegates elected are instructed to attend the State-wide session, known as the Wisconsin Conservation Congress, 60 that the regulations may be fitted to the State as a whole, thus making for untformity and simplicity. As chairman of the Wisconsin Conserva- tion Congress, I respectfully submit this res- glutton for your information and considera. on. Very truly yours, Ricmarp A. Hemp, Chairman, Wisconsin Conservation Congress, 10471 Resalution Whereas the passage of H. R. 6583 known as the Dingell bill is a matter of great con- cern to the conservationists of Wisconsin; and ‘ Whereas H. R. 6533 has the unanimous approval of the conservationists of the State of Wisconsin; and Whereas the failure to place this bill on the calendar of the Congress to date is viewed with grave concern and apprehension by the conservationists of Wisconsin: Now, therefore, be !t Resolved by the Executive Council of the Wisconsin Conservation Congress, That the Wisconsin delegation in the House of Repre- sentatives and the Senate be urged to put forth every effort to bring this bill on the floor of the Congress during the current session and to diligently work for its en- actment; and be it further Resolved, That copies of this resolution be sent to the President of the United States and to every Wisconsin Member of the House of Representatives and the Senate. Larey 0. WHIVFINS, Chairman, Resolutions Committee. This resolution was adopted unanimously by the Executive Council of the Wisconsin Conservation Congress July 7, 1950. AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND MAR- KETING ACTIVITIES—LETTER FROM WISCONSIN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURE COOPERATIVE, MADISON, WIS. Mr. WILEY. Mr. President, one of the most vital pieces of legislation which we have enacted was the Research and Mar- keting Act of 1946 under which Uncle Sam, in cooperation with the States, per- forms this vital service for the benefit of farmers and ultimately the consumers of our Nation. It has been my pleasure to act to safeguard the adequate han- dling of this act by various appropria- tion bills since then. I yield to no man in my desire for Federal economy, but as I have often pointed out, economy is not a matter to be performed with a meat ax which will wipe out essential as well as nonessential services, I have in my hand a letter received from a dear friend and distinguished ex- pert, Milo K. Swanton, executive secre- tary of the Wisconsin Council of Agricul- ture Cooperative. I ask unanimous consent that the text of Mr. Swanton’s appeal for sufficient funds for marketing services be printed at this point in the Recorp, and appro- priately referred, There being no objection, the letter was ordered to lie on the table and to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Wisconsin Counc or AGRICULTURE COOPERATIVE, Madison, Wis., July 13, 1950. Hon, ALExanpgr WILEY, Senate Office Butiding, Washington, D. C. Dean Semaron Wier: We have been in- formed that the House has reduced the funds to the Department of Agrioulture for the Re~ search and Marketing Act of 1946. This 10-percent reduction would jeopardize the research in marketing activities. We have always felt that a man’s judgment ie no better than his information and re- search information is of vital tmportance and concern to the farmers in Wisconsin. Our State department of agriculture has been using these funds and a duplicating amount from the State to oarry on market information service activities. Recause of the importance of these funds to Wisconsin agriculture, we urge you to do
10472 all in your power to restore the full amount, Your support in this matter is solicited by the Wisconsin Council of Agriculture Co- operative, Bincerely yours, Mxo K. Swanton, Ezecutive Secretary. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES The following reports of committees were submitted: By Mr, O'MAHONEY, from the Committee on Interior and Insuler Affairs: H.R. 2768. A bill to amend section 2 of the act of April 26, 1904 (33 Stat. 527; 43 U. 8. C., sec. 218), relating to additional homestead entries; without amendment (Rept. No. 2092). By Mr. BUTLER, from the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs: 58,3129, A bill authorizing the issuance of a patent in fee to Mr. and Mrs. Charles Whit- ford, heirs of Anna Louise Whitford, de- ceased; with amendments (Rept. No. 2093). By Mr. GREEN, from the Committee on Foreign Relations: 8. 2638. A bill to give effect to the Conven- tion for the Establishment of an Interna- tional Commission for the Scientific Inves- tigation of Tuna, signed at Mexico City, Jan- uary 25, 1949, by the United States of Amer- fca and the United Mexican States, and the Convention for the Establishment of an In- ter-American Tropical Tuna Commission, signed at Washington, May 31, 1949, by the United States of America and the Republic of Costa Rica, and for other purposes; with amendments (Rept. No. 2004). By Mr. FREAR, from the Committee on the District of Columbia: H.R. 8055. A bill relating to the collection, payment, and dishonor of demand items, and to the revocation of credit for, and pay- ment of, such items, by banks in the Dis- trict of Columbia; without amendment (Rept. No. 2006). By Mr. McCARRAN, from the Committee on the Judiciary: 8. 1202. A bill to amend section 82 (a) (2) of the Trading With the Enemy Act; with an amendment (Rept. No. 2097); 8, 2707, A bill to authorize the appoint- ment of two additional district judges for the northern district of Illinois; without amendment (Rept. No. 2098); 8.3800. A bill to amend title 18 of the United States Code, relating to the mailing of obscene matter; without amendment (Rept. No. 2099), and 8.8021. A bill to provide for the tempo- rary appointment of referees in bankruptcy, and for other purposes; without amendment (Rept. No. 2100). By Mr. WILEY, from the Committee on the Judiciary: 8.3585. A bill for the relief of Dodge County, Wis., without amendment (Rept. No. 2101). By Mr. DONNELL, from the Committee on the Judiolary: 8.410. A bill for the relief of the former shareholders of the Goshen Veneer Oo., an Indiana corporation; with amendments (Rept. No. 2102). UNITED STATES-MEXIOAN BOUNDARY-- REPORT OF A COMMITTEE Mr. CONNALLY. Mr. President, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, I report an original bill to amend the act of May 18, 1924 (43 Stat, 118), as amend-~ ed, relating to the United States-Mexican boundary, and I submit a report (No. 2095) thereon. The VICE PRESIDENT. The report will be received and the bill will be Placed on the calendar. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE The bill (8. 3934) to amend the act of May 13, 1924 (43 Stat. 118), as amended, relating to the United States-Mexican boundary, was read twice by its title, and placed on the calendar, BILLS INTRODUCED Bills were introduced, read the first time, and, by unanimous consent, the second time, and referred as follows: By Mr. MURRAY. 8. $928. A bill for the relief of Fred Hess; and 8. 3929. A bill for the rellef of Conrad Xavier Charles Mauerer; to the Committee on the Judiciary By Mr. FERGUSON: 8 3930 A bill to provide for the issuance of a special postage stamp in commemoration of the two hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the city of Detroit, Mich.; to the Commit- tee on Post Office and Civil Service. S. 3031. A bill for the relief of Frank A. Gray; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. DOUGLAS: 8. 3982 A bill for the relief of Matet Chica- Cantacuzino, to the Committee on the Ju- distary. S. 3933. A bill for the relief of Sister Ber- tha Pfeiffer and Sister Elzbicta Zabinska; to the Committee on the Judictary. (Mr. CONNALLY, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, reported Senate bill 3934, to amend the act of May 18, 1924 (48 Stat. 116) as amended, relating to the United States-Mexican boundary, which was ordered to be placed on the calendar, and appears under a separate heading ) By Mr. LANGER: 8. 3935. A bill to amend the act approved August 4, 1919, as amehded, providing ad- ditional aid for the American Printing House for the Blind: to the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare. AMENDMENT OF INTERNAL REVENUE CODE—AMENDMENT Mr. FERGUSON submitted an amend- ment intended to be proposed by him to the bill (H. R. 3905) to amend section $121 of the Internal Revenue Code, which was ordered to lie on the table and to be printed. NOTICE OF MOTION TO SUSPEND THE RULE—AMENDMENT TO GENERAL AP- PROPRIATIONS BILL Mr. McCARRAN submitted the follow- ing notice in writing: In accordance with rule XI, of the Stand- ing Rules of the Senate, I hereby give notice in writing that it is my intention to move to suspend paragraph 4 of rule XVI for the purpose of proposing to the bill (H. R. 7786) making appropriations for the support of the Government for the fiscal year ending June 80, 1951, and for other purposes, the following amendment, namely: Page 448, line 7, after the word “specified” insert the following: “: Provided further, That of this appropriation, $100,000,000 shall be used only for assistance to Spain, to be extended upon credit terms as provided in section 111 (c) (2) of the Economic Coop- eration Act of 1948, as amended.” Mr, McCARRAN also submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to House bill 7786, making appro- priations for the support of the Govern- ment for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1951, and for other purposes, which was ordered to lie on the table and to be printed. (For text of amendment referred to, see the foregoing notice.) JuLY 18 HOUSE BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTION REFERRED OR PLACED ON CALENDAR The following bilis and joint resolution were severally read twice by their titles and referred or ordered to be placed on the calendar, as indicated: H.R. 10, A bill to facilitate the deportation of aliens from the United States, to provide for the supervision and detention pending eventual deportation of aliens whose de- portation cannot be readily effectuated be- cause of reasons beyond the control of the United States, and for other purposes; H.R. 6868. A bill for refund of customs duties to the Preparatory Commission for the International Refugee Organization; H.R. 7260. A bill to provide for the hold- ing of court and the furnishing of quarters at Rook Island for the United States district court for the southern district, northern division, of Iltnois; and H.R. 8763, A bill to amend the Clayton Act with respect to the recovery of triple damages under the antitrust laws, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary. H.R. 6660. A bill to amend the National Service Life Insurance Act of 1940, as amend~ ed, to authorize provisions in national service life-insurance policies for increased monthly disability benefits; H.R 8286. A bill to provide that on and after January 1, 1951, dividends on national service life insurance shall be applied in pay- ment of premiums unless the insured has requested payment of dividends in cash, and H.J Res. 602. Joint resolution to suspend certain import taxes on copper, to the Com~- mittee on Finance. H.R.7257. A bill to provide for the ac- quiaition of land and the construction thereon of buildings and appurtenances essential for forest fire control operations of the Forest Service, United States Depart- ment of Agriculture, at or near Missoula, Mont.,, and for other purposes; to the Com- mittee on Agriculture and Forestry. H. R. 7667, A bill directing the transfer to the Department of the Interior by the Gen- eral Services Administration of certain prop- erty in Boise Barracks, Boise, Idaho; ordered to be placed on the calendar. H.R. 8619. A bill to amend the act en- titled ‘An act to establish a Department of Medicine and Surgery in the Veterans’ Ad- ministration,” approved January 3, 1946, to provide for the appointment of dental specialists, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare. H.R. 8706. A bill to provide for the pur- chase of bonds to cover officers and employees of the Government; to the Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments. THE WAR IN KOREA-STATEMENT BY SENATOR SALTONSTALL [Mr. BALTONSTALL asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Rscorp a state- ment entitled “All-Out Effort To Back Boys in Korea Urged by SALTONSTALL,” written by him and published in the Boston Sunday Herald of July 16, which appears in the Appendix.] ADDRESS BY SENATOR LEHMAN BEFORE INTERNATIONAL LADIES’ GARMENT WORKERS UNION {Mr. PEPPER asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Rrcosp an address de- lvered by Senator Lercan before the In- ternational Ladies’ Garment Workers Union, at Atlantic City, N. J.,on May 29, 1960, which appears in the Appendix.] ILLINOIS EDITORIAL COMMENT ON _ BENATOR LUCAS [Mr. DOUGLAS asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorn two editorials, one entitled “Republicans for Lucas,” pub-
1950 lshed in the Illinois State Register of July 15, 1950, and the other, entitled “Washing- ton’s Toughest Spot,” published in the Quincy (Il.) Herald Whig of July 9, 1950, which appear in the Appendix.] CUT IN FEDERAL SPENDING—EDITORIAL FROM THE BALTIMORE SUN [Mr. WHERRY asked and obtained leave to have printed in the RecoRp an editorial entitled “Why a 8600,000,000 Slash in Non-~ war Spending Would Be Good,” published in the Baltimore Sun on July 16, 1960, which appears in the Appendix. ] SPENDING BY FARM FAMILIES—SURVEY BY FARM JOURNAL MAGAZINE (Mr. GILLETTE asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorp a survey by Farm Journal Magazine, regarding spending by farm families, which appears in the Appendix.] NONVOTERS AND CRIME--EDITORIAL FROM THE SOMERSET (PA.) AMERICAN [Mr. MARTIN asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorp an editorial entitled “Nonvoters and’Crime,” published in the Somerset (Pa.) Amertcan of July 6, 1950, which appears in the Appendix.] WE ARE STILL ARMING RUSSIA—EDITO- RIAL FROM THE WASHINGTON TIMES- HERALD [Mr. KEM asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorp an editorial en- titled “We Are Still Arming Russia,” pub- ished in the Washington Times-Herald of July 18, 1960, which appears in the Ap- pendix.) NOTICE OF HEARING ON NOMINATION OF THOMAS H. ROBERTS TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE, DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO Mr. McCARRAN. Mr. President, on behalf of the Committee on the Judici- ary, and in accordance with the rules of the committee, I desire to give notice that a public hearing has been scheduled for Tuesday, July 25, 1950, at 10:30 a. m., in room 424, Senate Office Building, upon the nomination of Thomas H. Roberts, of Rhode Island, to be United States district judge for the district of Puerto Rico, vice Hon. David Chavez, Jr., resigned. At the indicated time and place all persons interested in the nomi- nation may make such representations as may be pertinent. The subcommit- tee consists of the Senator from Nevada Liar, McCarran], chairman, the Senator from Kentucky {Mr. WirHers], and the Senator from Indiana [Mr. JENNER]. NOTICE OF HEARING ON NOMINATION OF EDWARD WEINFELD TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORE Mr. McCARRAN. Mr. President, on behalf of the Committee on the Judi- ciary, and in accordance with the rules of the committee, I desire to give notice that a public hearing has been scheduled for Tuesday, July 25, 1950, at 10:30 a.m., in room 424, Senate Office Building, upon the nomination of Edward Weinfeld, of New York, to be United States district judge for the southern district of New York, vice Hon. Simon H. Rifkind, re- signed. At the indicated time and place all persons interested in the nomination may make such representations as may be pertinent. The subcommittee con- sists of the Senator from Nevada [Mr. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE McCarran}, chairman, the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Wrruers], and the Sen- ator from Indiana [Mr. JENNER]. RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE HOOVER COMMISSION-—-STATEMENT BY SEN- ATOR McCLELLAN Mr. McCLELLAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Recorp a statement released by me to the press yesterday as chairman of the Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments announcing that the committee expected to complete action on all proposals effectuating rec- ommendations of the Hoover Commission referred to the committee, There being no objection, the state- ment was ordered to be printed in the ReEcorpD, as follows: STATEMENT BY SENATOR MCCLELLAN Senator JoHN L. MCCLELLAN, chairman of the Senate Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments, announced to- day that the committee expected to com- plete action on all proposals effectuating recommendations of the Hoover Commission referred to the committee, in order to per- mit action to be taken before adjournment of the Congress. An executive session of the committee has been set for Thursday, July 20, at which time it is expected action will be taken with reference to reporting out bills dealing with records management improvement in the General Services Administration (8. 3842), and with the bonding of Federal employees (H. R. 8706), the only remaining legislation carrying out Hoover Commission recom- mendations pending before the committee. The original bill establishing the General Services Administration was approved by the committee in June 1949 (Public Law No. 152). The Citizens Committee for the Hoover Report, in recognition of the first anniversary of its enactment, recently stated that: “The new General Services Ad- ministration, created from scattered agen- cies previously existing, already has devel- oped great efficiency in what the Hoover Commission called the ‘housekeeping’ func- tions of the Government. Substantial savings ore assured as a result of the inte- gration and reorganization of various activ- ities in line with the Hoover Commission recommendations.” The pending bill would extend the records and buildings manage- ment authority of the Administrator of GSA, and includes amendments which Sen- ator McCLELLAN stated would, in his opin- ion, permit the Administrator to place the GSA on the most efficient administrative level of any agency in the entire Federal Government, S. 3842 is endorsed by the General Account- ing Office, the Budget Director, and the Gen- eral Services Administrator. Mr. Emmett J. Leahy, Executive Director of the National Records Management Council, New York, who was Director of the Hoover Commission Task Force on Records Management and author of its report, wrote the chairman of the com- mittee on July 14, as follows: “I have carefully reviewed S. 3842 and com- pared it with the letter and spirit of our recommendations for the Hoover Commis- sion. It is gratifying to find that your bill is wholly consistent with our recommenda- tions. “You and your colleagues on the com-~ mittee are to be commended by all records Management specialists, your constituents, and the genera) public for the excellent progress you have made toward slashing red tape and clerical costs in the Federal Gov- ernment. At the same time, you are insur- ing greater effectiveness of records as tcols of Federal management and service, 10473 “It 1s significant that your action promises to forge the Federal Government far ahead of both private business and State and local governments in the improvement and reduc- tion of clerical operations including record making and record keeping. “We trust that you and your colleagues will not relent in your efforts to achieve these excellent objectives during the present session of Congress.” When final disposition has been made of this bill and measures relating to the im- provement of the fidelity bonding system of Government employees presently baing atudied by a subcommittee headed by S2n- ator Horry, the Senate Committce on Ex- penditures in the Executive Departments will have completed action on all matters pertaining to Hoover Commission recom- mendations which have been referred to it. In addition to these measures on which Senate action will be sought, the committee has reported favorably 8. 3850, the Budget and Accounting Procedures Act of 1950, and 8, 36&8, a bill providing for reorganization of the financing operations of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, Department of the Treasury, setting up a business-type budget and revolving fund method of financing for the operations of the Bureau, implementing Hoover Commission recommendations in its report on Budgeting and Accounting; and 8S. 3147, establishing a National Commission on Intergovernmertal Relations, recom- mended by the Commission in its report on Federal-State Relations, which are now pend- ing on the Senate Calendar. During the Eighty-frst Congress, 34 re- organization plans were referred to the com- mittee, A thirty-fifth plan (No. 8 of 1949, for the reorganization of the National Mili- tary Establishment), was incorporated in Public Law 216. Two of the 34 plans referred to the committee were duplicating in over- all purposes, No. 1 of 1949, and No. 27 of 1950, elevating the Federal Security Agency to Cabinet status; and No. 1 of 1950, and No. 26 of 1060, effecting reorganizations within the Department of the Treasury. The first two of these plans were rejected; and one (No. 26) will become effective on July 31, objec- tions to the original plan (No. 1) having been removed. The other five plans rejected (in addition to No. 1 of 1049, No. 27 of 1050, and No. 1 of 1950) were reorganizations in the Depart- ment of Agriculture (No. 4 of 1950), Inter- state Commerce Commission (No. 7 of 1950), and Federal Communications Commission (No. 11 of 1960), the abolition of the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (No. 12 of 1950), and the transfer of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation to the Department of Commerce (No. 2¢ of 1050). The net resuit is that in all, six of the total of $4 specific reorganization proposals, involving eight actions, were rejected by the Congress. The committee will release, soon after the end of the session, a complete résumé of ac- tions taken by the Eighty-first Congress in the implementation of recommendations of the Hoover Commission to supplement pre- vious reports prepared by the committee (8. Rept. No. 1158 and No. 1774), including ad- ministrative actions. THIRTY-THIRD SESSION OF INTERNA- TIONAL LABOR CONFERENCE AT GE- NEVA, SWITZERLAND—STATEMENT BY SENATOR O'CONOR Mr. G’CONOR. Mr. President, re- cently I had the pleasure of participat- ing in the International Labor Confer- ence held at Geneva. The report of the United States delegates has been filed for the information of the Senate, and I ask unanimous consent that a statement prepared by me covering the report be printed in the Reconp,
10474 There being no objection, the state- ment was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: SrATEMENT O¥ SENATOR Henzert R. O'Conor CovERING Report To Unirep Srates SENATE on THIRTY-THIRD Sxsslon oF INTERNA TroNaL LaBon CONFERENCE AT GENEVA, SwrrzeRLanpd, June 7-Juuy 1, 1950 It ig a welcome pleasure again to report to the Senate on the accomplishments of a session of the International Labor Oon- ference. At the 1950 ILO Conference I had the honor of representing the United Btates as one of its two Government delegates. The other Government delegate was the Honorable Philip M. Kaiser, Assistant Sec- retary of Labor. The United States employ- ers’ delegate was Mr. C. P. MoCormick, of McCormick & Co., Baltimore Md., and the workers’ delegate, Mr. Philip Delaney, of the American Federation of Labor. Congress- man Avcustrng B. Keitry, of Pennsylvania, and Mr. Arnold Zempel, of the Department of Labor, were alternate Government dele- gates, In addition, there were advisers to each of the Government, employer, and worker delegates. All members of the United States delega- tion took an active part in the session of the Conference which took place in Ge- neva, Switzerland, from June 7 through July 1, Mr. McCormick was highly honored by election as one of the three vice presi- dents of the Conference. The successful work of the entire delegation reflected credit upon the United States. The International Labor Organization is a spectalized agency of the United Nations and is unique among international organiza- tions because of its tripartite membership, its delegations being composed of repre- sentatives of governments, employers, and workers. Its function is to study and to undertake action on the international level to elevate labor standards and improve living conditions of workers throughout the world, through measures developed in cooperation by all three groups. Fifty-two countries were represented at the recent session of the Conference, including two newly elected members—the Republic of the United States of Indonesia and Viet- Nam. In addition, there were a number of observers—for the Allied High Commission for Germany and the supreme commander for the Allied Powers in Japan, as well as for the Western German Federal Republic and for Japan. The Conference was par- ticularly happy to welcome the representa- tives of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions, General Secretary Olden- broek, of the Netherlands, and Mr. Alfred Braunthal, of the United States, the chief of its econofnic and social department. This is the first general Conference of the ILO which it has been possible for representatives of the ICFTU to attend since its organization in London last November. This new free trade-union organization ts launching an aggressive constructive world-wide anti- Communist program. It is significant that all segments of American labor are affil- fated with this international democratic federation. In view of the troubled state of the world at this time, it was inevitable that this ses- sion of the International Labor Conference should have been disturbed by matters hav- ing to do with international politics which are outside its scope. Just after the nomi- nation of Mr, Jagjivan Ram, Minister of Labor for India, as president of this session, the government delegates of Poland, Czecho- slovakia, and Hungary challenged the seat- ing of representatives from the Chinese Re- public, insisting that the Conference should immediately decide that the representatives of the Communist government should be seated instead. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE The temporary president of the Confer- ence, Mr. Troclet, of Belgium, ruled that this protest should be referred to the cre- dentials committee. The delegations of Po- land, Crechoslovakia, and Hungary there- upon promptly withdrew from the Confer- ence. Mr. Philip M. Kaiser, Assistant Secre= tary of Labor in the United States Depart- ment of Labor, rose immediately thereafter to second the nomination of Mr. Ram as prest- dent of the Conference and pointed out very forcefully that the withdrawal of the Ozecho- slovak, Hungarian, and Polish Governments “obviously contradicts the claim of these governments that they are interested in solving the grave economic and social prob- lems, of primary concern to working men and women, which beset the world today ” The credentials committee recommended that the Conference should take note that under the circumstances, with two govern- ments continuing to contend for authority in China, the only possible solution for the difficulties which had arisen was to recog- nize that the government of the Chinese Republic had validly nominated representa- tives of that country to the present session of the Conference, The report of the cre- dentials committee on this subject was ac- cepted by the Conference without discussion. Toward the end of the seasion we were all shocked by the news of the invasion of South Korea by armies from the Communist North. There was, of course, no reason for the International Labor Organization to take formal action on thia violation of interna- tional peace, but I believe the whole United States delegation was very much heartened by the enthusiastic spontaneous reaction of the delegates toward President Truman's prompt support of the resolution of the Security Council of the United Nations to preserve the peace by providing military assistance to South Korea. The program of the Conference proceeded efficiently and a great deal was accomplished. Much credit is due to the excellent work of the staff of the International Labor Office. Prominent on the agenda were dis- cussions of methods of increasing productiv- ity and of maintaining full employment. These two subjects had been stressed in the comprehensive annual report of Mr. David A. Morse, formerly Under Secretary of Labor in our own country, and now the Director General of the International Labor Office, In my formal statement on the Director General’s report I was happy to inform the Conference of the improvement of the em- ployment situation in the United States since June 1949 and of the extent to which in- creases in productivity in the United States have been associated with increases in the goods and wages actually available to work- ing men and women and their families in this country. We have found in discussions with many of the delegates and thetr ad- visers from other countries that they still fear that increases in productivity per man- hour would not result in any gains to the workers in terms of higher wages and lower prices, and that one outgrowth would be in- creases in unemployment. It was possible to demonstrate that our ex- perience has been that real wages have risen as output per man-hour has gone up, that the work week has become shorter, and that the worker’s job has become less burdensome and safer because the newer types of machinery are not only more productive but safer to use. In expressing the hope that the ILO may play an important part in rais- ing labor productivity in countries where its assistance is needed, I suggested assiat- ance from governmenta to develop vocational training efficient organization of the labor market, and studies of job stand- ardization and simplification. Later in the Conference, our Secretary of Labor, Maurice J. Tobin, gave the delegates JULY 18 an account of the measures which were used in our country during 1049 and early 1050 to counteract the recession in employment which came about as a result of postwar in- ventory adjustments. Secretary Tobin also stressed the desire of the people of the United States for peace throughout the world, and our willingness as demonstrated by the Marshall plan and the point 4 program to make sacrifices to maintain peace. Secre- tary Tobin's visit strengthened immeasur- ably the position and influence of the United States in the ILO. The discussion of unemployment problems in reply to the questions raised in the report of the Director General of the International Labor Office was followed by the adoption of a resolution on the subject by the Con- ference, This resolution draws the attention of the United Nations, the specialized agencies governments, and employers and workers’ organizations to the types of action which the Conference considers should be vigorously pursued for the purpose of elim- inating the evil of unemployment. It urges governments to maintain, or to establish as rapidly as national conditions allow, unem- ployment bene and allowances; to take action to producé economic and social con- ditions conducive to full employment through employment services, as well as measures to promote mobility of labor, to train and retrain workers, to improve re- cruitment policies, and to encourage invest- ments in depressed areas from which it might be undesirable to move workers. Another new labor standard adopted in final form in this session was a recommenda- tion concerning vocational training of adults, including disabled pergons. Mr. Anse! Cleary of the Bureau of Apprenticeship of the United States Department of Labor acted as chair- man of the committee which developed the final draft of this recommendation. The expansion of vocational training programs is of enormous importance 1n many countries of the world where the consumption level of the workers is low not only because of lack of capital equipment, but also because of shortage of skilled workers. Uneducated and inefficient workers are very frequently dis- satisfied workers, and I am sure that this new standard will be of great aid to persons working on technical assistance programs in cooperation with governments wishing to ald thetr workers to reach higher levels of skill. In addition there were also discussions of & proposed Convention and recommenda- tion concerning minimum-wage fixing in agriculture; a proposed recommendation concerning collective agreements, and a Con- vention and/or recommendation regarding equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value. ‘When adopted, the Convention and recom- mendation concerning minimum-wage fixing in agriculture will set standards concerning minimum-wage-fixing machinery in agri- culture for governments wishing to set up such machinery. Tho proposed recommendation concerning collective agreements covers types of ma- chinery to be established by governments wishing to set up such machinery on collec- tive bargaining, voluntary conciliation, and voluntary arbitration. The committee on international standards in regard to equal remuneration for men and women workers for work of equal value, of which Miss Frieda Miller, Chief of the Wom- en's Bureau of the United States Department of Labor, acted as reported, held for further decision the question of whether the interna- tlonal standard should take the form of a convention or a recommendation until the final discussion of the standards at the 1951 session, ‘ The conclusions reached will be forwarded to governments for comment and new drafts will be prepared on the basis of these com-
1950 ments for consideration by the 1951 session where final agreement will be reached. There was considerable discussion at this conference of the Fact-Finding Commission on Freedom of Association, The governing body, the ILO Conference, and the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations may refer to the Commission for impartial ex- amination, allegations of infringement of trade-unlon rights. No complaint will be referred to the Commission without the con- sent of the government concerned, The Commission will report to the governing body on the results of its work and it will be for the governing body to consider in the first instance what action should be taken on the basis of the report. I want to assure the members of the Sen- ate of my renewed conviction of the value of the work of the International Labor Or- ganization. In bringing together workers, employers, and governments from so many nations, !t provides an opportunity for co- operative effort regarding one of the world's most important problems—that of finding democratic solutions for ignorance, ineffi- ciency, and poverty as they affect workers in industry and agriculture. It is my firm be- lief that we cannot relax for one moment our efforts on this front. I undertook to give positive assurance to the members of the conference in Geneva that in seeking through the ILO to bring about major improvements in working and lHving conditions of millions and millions of workers throughout the world, we are advancing along the surest course to world peace. Russia is seizing every opportunity to thwart the efforts of liberty-loving nations to advance toward the goal of world peace. Further, the Kremlin is deliberately selecting certain groups of human beings for their propaganda of false promises in furthering Communist expansion. This was plainiy evident at the recent General Conference (of International Labor Organization). All of the delegates with whom I conferred at the conference were well aware of the fact that workers are a prime target for Communist infiltration. More than this, the majority of the repre- sentatives attending seemed to understand that Communist tactics call for the exploita- tion of legitimate as well as unfounded work- er grievances for their own nefarious political objectives. In view oi this, everyone at the conference recognized the tremendous sig- nificance of the activities of the Interna- tional Labor Organization. As the satellite delegates were staging their walkout in protest againet the participation of Nationalist China at Geneva, the United States delegation, together with the repre- sentatives from the other democratic nations, threw their wholehearted support behind the activities of the ILO. They recognize that its activities, designed as they are to raise the working and living standards of men and women throughout the world, can make and actually are making a tremendous contribu- tion toward eliminating the causes of unrest and despair which, as we all know, are fer- tile breeding grounds for communism. It ts no surprise that the Soviet Union is con- tinually attacking the ILO. The Senate will be interested to know that the entire United States delegation—em- ployer, worker, and Government representa- tives—to this thirty-third International Labor Conference, was 100 percent united In matters of basic principles such as these. There were disagreements as to details, but ‘we presented a united front on our funda- mental objectives to the other nations of the world. We used the opportunity afforded by this conference of the Government, employer, and worker representatives of the world to demonstrate by word and deed that the un- derlying basis of American success 1s in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE ever-expanding area of cooperation between government, management, and labor for so- lution of the human problems of twentieth century industrial living, For this reason, if for no other, the In- ternational Labor Organization (except for the United Nations itself), is in my opinion probably the most significant international organization in which we hold membership. I consider it a rare privilege to have been nominated by the President to serve on the United States delegation, DIVISION OF WATERS OF WATERTON AND BELLY RIVERS BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA Mr. MURRAY. Mr. President, the in- ternational Joint Commission recently concluded field hearings at Shelby and Havre, Mont., on the proper division, be- tween the people of the United States and Canada, of the waters of the Water- ton and Belly Rivers, which originate in Glacier National Park, in Montana, and flow across the international border into Canada. The Honorable R. V. Bottomly, associ- ate justice of the Montana Supreme Court, has written letters to the Sena- tor from North Dakota [Mr. Lanorr] and to me which contain factual infor- mation bearing on this important ques- tion, and which constitute a real contri- bution to an equitable solution of the problem. I ask unanimous consent that Justice Bottomly’s communications on this vital- ly important subject be printed in the Recorp for the information of the Sen- ate. There being no objection, the com- munications from Justice Bottomly were ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: State or MONTANA, Surreme Court, Helena, June 1, 1950. Re Waterton-Belly Rivers. Hon, James E. Murray, United States Senator, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. Dear Jim: As you know, I have been work- ing for over 2 years on the matter of getting 8 reference before the International Commis- sion, American-Canadian Border, for a divi- sion and settlement of the waters of the Waterton-Belly Rivers. These two rivers originate in Glacler Na- tional Park, in Montana, flow north between two ranges across the international border into Canada. The approximate flow is 400,- 000 acre-feet. If all this fow could be put on land for irrigation it would mean that it would cover 400,000 acres 1 foot deep. About 1 to 2 inches is all that is needed for irrigation for row crops, but three to five applications are needed during the growing season. Now the Canadians started some 3 years ago to get going on putting this water on their land. They are now engaged in butld- ing a dam on the Belly. They have @ canal surveyed to bring the water of the Waterton into the Belly above said dam. Then they will divert the water as far east through Al- berta into Saskatchewan. Their Canadian Government has entered into the picture and has authorized expenditures for the whole project. Our Reclamation Bureau has made some surveys—the idea is to make a treaty with Canada. Then the Bureau, if authorized, would build a high dam on the Belly with Canada and store all this water, then divert our equitable share through a natural sag 10475 or draw, a gravity flow canal into Montana about where Sweet Grass 1s, then take the water both east and west from there onto the land. Mr. Sloan has said this is the most feasible program, I do not need to elaborate to you what an asset 200,000 acres of irrigated land would mean to Montana and the Nation in raise ing food and livestock. I am enclosing a copy of an editorial and news articles on that feature. Either Canada gets this forever and our acres parch forever or we get an equitable share and we have a producing asset forever. This matter has been before the Inter- national Commission for over a year. It has been charged by some that the Cana- dians are arbitrary in this matter; that they are dragging their feet and won’t agree to anything, hoping to delay the matter with- out action until they get this water on their land—then it would be practically impossible for the United States to ever get a drop. I don't think, at least I hope, that thie 4s not the attitude of the Canadians. We have always had the most friendly relations with the Canadians, and I am confident that when we make this matter clear to them they will be fair to us, and the good-neigh- bor relations between our State and the Canadians across the border will continue as they have in the past. The Commission is holding two meetings in Montana in June, at Shelby June 12, then at Havre June 17, and two meetings at Canadian points, It is to be hoped that we may be able to work out this problem with our Canadian friends in a spirit of justice and fair play. The other alternative for us to get this water is to drill an all-American tunnel through the mountains and also build a dam across Waterton Lake along the houndary line and bring the water to our parched land, but this is a very expensive proposi- tion. Nevertheless, it 1s well known that we do not stop at expense when we recognize that a program is indispensable to the pro- tection of our rights. A bill has been intro- duced in Congress to drill this tunnel, but I think we should delay action on that moas- ure while we undertake to convince the Canadians of the justice of our position. If the Canadians act fairly in this matter, it will avoid a heavy expense on us which we would have to bear in order to protect our interests. As you can see, Jim, time is of the essence, and a determination should be made soon if we expect any water, You know Mr. Valance, an attorney in the State Depart- ment who handles these matters, is here now gathering information and arranging for the meetings. He is keen and alert to the sit- uation. I hope you can contact him upon his return to Washington after these hear- ings. I told him that the time had come to act firmly in this matter and let our neighbors across the border understand that we intend to insist on a fair division of this water, and that unless they acquiesce we will be compelled to take such action ag is necessary to protect our interests. I think some speeches should be made in both the House and Senate, explaining this situation in detail so that the public may understand the problem. I have written Senator Lanarr as his State is interested in controlling the Red River, another bor- der stream, All these questions clear across the country along the border should be han- dled together as one problem, not piecemeal, Am enclosing copy of my letter to him. Thank you to give attention to this, Jim, as it appears to me to be not only an inter- ‘national question but one of the biggest mat- ters for the good of Montana in particular and for the country as 4 whole, Sincerely yours, R. V, BorroMyy,
10476 Mar 27, 1950. Re Tidelands and Waterton and Belly Rivers. Hon. Wiir1am Lancer, United States Senator, Senate Office Building, Washington, D, C. Dear Srnaror LaNogr: I am writing to you as I know you always recognize the equities in a case. You may not know but I was one of three attorneys general of the States who fought in every way I could the s0- called tidelands ateal, which you had a lot to do with in helping to defeat and in sus- taining the President's veto. I notice you will again have the matter before you. Two years ago while I was attorney gen- eral I prepared a brief on the subject and, thinking it might be of some use to you, I am enclosing a copy. I have just recently had a letter from Harold Ickes, to whom I had submitted a copy and asked him, If, as an administrator, he thought that my analy- sis was valid and correct as to the bill now in Congress. He answered, stating that it ‘was as valid today as when written, in his opinion. I would like your reaction to my brief at your convenience. Now as to the Belly-Waterton Rivers: These rivers arise in Glacier National Park, Mont., flow north into Canada between two ranges, and fett by the perpetual snows, glaciers, and rains, they flow into Canada at the crossing of the international boundary. There its a flow of approximately 400,000 acre-feet. Montana has hundreds of thousands of acres of arid land, superior soils, Just east of the Rocky Mountain range, which with this water would be converted into a per- petual, highly productive garden, producing row crops, fibers, alfalfa, and feed crops for Livestock for all time to come. The Bureau of Reclamation has reported that by building a high dam on the Water- ton near Lethbridge, Alberta, diverting the Belly into the Waterton by short canal, the equitable share flowing from the United States could be diverted back into the United States by gravity through a natural depres- sion at a very economical figure. The other alternative is to drive a tunnel through the mountains and bring the water onto the lands, but at a very high cost. This matter is now before the International Com- mission for adjustment but the Canadians are arbitrary and are working feverishly to perfect an irrigation works, construct dams, and divert and put all this water on their lands before a decision can be reached through the Commission. The Commission- ers are holding two hearings on this matter in Montana, one at Shelby, June 12, and one at Havre, June 17, and two in Canada. My. Valance, attorney for the United States Department in Oharge of United States- Canada Border Problems, is now here. I have known him for years, He is keen and knows the works. I have been working for over 2 years on this matter. The magnitude of this prob- lem is set forth in an enclosed editorial and article, The reason I am writing is that time Js of the essence herein. We don’t want to lose this water which is a great national asset as well ag a great benefit to Montana, as the editorial sets forth. Now the Red River in Canada and your State needs controlling. From this side of the tnternational line there isn't much that this country can do, but our Government could participate with Canada in building dams or other works to arrest the flood men- ace and as @ part of the consideration Canada should consent to an equitable division of our Waterton-Belly waters. In other words, It is my theory that all waters of the inter. national border should be considered as one problem clear across the board by the In- ternational Commission, instead of piece- meal and dealing with each matter sepa- rately. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE The Canadians have been very arbitrary in this matter, bluntly telling the United States that if we think we can get this water go ahead and take it. They know the only ‘way we can take it is by tunneling through the mountains. The cost would be terrific ‘unless figured on a hundred-year basis. But with their consent we could, if the Senate approved by treaty, assist in building the high dam near Lethbridge and divert the water to our lands with very moderate ex- pense. Mr. Valance will return to Washington after these hearings, and I hope you can get together and go over this matter, as both projects are of utmost tmportance to the States concerned and to the United States also. This has been written hurriedly; hope you get my idea. Y am also writing our Sen. ator, James E. Murmgay. Sincerely yours, R. V. Borromiy. JOHN J. MUCCIO, UNITED STATES AMBAS- BADOR TO KOREA Mr. GREEN. Mr. President, I desire to have printed in the Recorp a release which the Secretary of State has author- ized of a telegram sent by him, by direc- tion of the President, to the Honorable John J. Muccio, United States Ambassa- dor to the Republic of Korea. It gives me a special pleasure to ask for this inser- tion in the Rrecorp because of the fact that Ambassador Muccio is a personal friend of mine and a fellow Rhode Islander. There being no objection, the release was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: DEPARTMENT oF STATE, July 13, 1950. Secretary of State Dean Acheson has sent the following message to the Honorable John J. Muccio, United States Ambassador to the Republic of Korea: “The President has asked me to extend to you and to your staff his appreciation and commendation for your courageous and ef- fective performance of duty since the onset of the present emergency in Korea. “Your prompt and accurate reporting of the situation, the dispatch and efficiency with which you carried out the evacuation of the many American oitizens for whom you were responsible, and the confidence which you have inspired in the face of the unpro- voked aggression against Korea are in the fin- est tradition of the Foreign Service.” ORDER FOR RECESS Mr. LUCAS, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate finishes its business today it stand in re- cess until 12 o’clock noon tomorrow. The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there ob- jection? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered. SUGGESTED 10-PERCENT ADDITION TO TAXES FOR MILITARY PURPOSES Mr. ROBERTSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 5 minutes to make a suggestion concern- ing the war effort. The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there ob- jection? The Chair hears none and it is so ordered. Mr. ROBERTSON, Mr. President, the threat of becoming involved in a world war is now greater than the threat that confronted us in 1940. In that year the Congress authorized an expansion of our Military Establishment, provided for a draft of , and passed a spe- cial tax bill to help finance that pre- paredness program, JULY 18 That tax bill, which I helped frame, provided that commencing the first of the following calendar year and continu- ing for a period of 5 years all taxpayers should add 10 percent to their tax bills and that the funds so created should be placed in a special trust fund to be used exclusively for military purposes. In this emergency I suggest reenact- ment of that law to become effective January 1, 1951, but exempting this time all excise taxes since they are still at the full war rate. Such a tax, applied only to personal and corporate income would raise in special defense money ap- proximately $2,000,000,000 a year at the current rate of national income. It would not be retroactive on anyone be- cause provision could be made for those reporting on a fiscal year basis to apply the increase only to that portion earned in calendar 1951. At the present time the top effective personal income rate is 82 percent, but the 10-percent increase would not fall as heavily on those in the top brackets as might appear at first glance because of the law passed several years ago to per- mit husband and wife to divide the family income. That provision gave sub- stantial tax relief to married persons with joint incomes up to $400,000. For those in that category the present top effective rate of 82 percent applies only to that portion of income above $200,000 and the additional 10 percent would not be a 10-percent addition to the rate, but merely 10 percent of the computed tax liability. I have- received letters and have read editorials in the Virginia newspapers in- dicating that Congress should act promptly to put the Nation on a full war footing. In my opinion, such a step is not now required, and would be calcu- lated to do more harm than good. It was difficult enough to make OPA work during World War II. It was impossible to make it work a year after the war ended. There is an abundance of food, of clothing, and of many other consumer items, and no occasion to ration their distribution. It might be wise to give the President stand-by powers to allo- cate steel, which is so essential to the war effort, although I am confident that it can be accomplished by a voluntary agreement. It might be advisable to give the Federal Reserve Board stand-by powers to control consumer credit, which now is at an all-time high; but that like- wise, to a large extent, could be accom- plished by voluntary cooperation between banks and the merchants whose com- mercial paper they handle, Undoubtedly, the best and safest way to control the issuance of too much new money through deficit financing and the inflationary pressure of that new money is to absorb at least a part of it through taxation. Aside from that desirable re- sult, it will be inviting ultimate finan- cial disaster if we run the national debt to such large proportions that confidence will be lost in Government bonds. In the budget now pending, there is a potential deficit of four or five billion dollars; and that budget carries no appropriation for more than $5,000,000,000 of E bonds or savings bonds which will mature next year, the assumption being that those
1950 now holding those bonds will buy new ones. Should that. assumption not ma- terialize, a terrific strain would be placed upon the commercial ond market in re- financing that obligation. Although the time may come when we shall be forced to. put our entire econ- omy on 2 war footing, the first step in that direction undoubtedly is taxes; and many patriotic citizens will gladly pay additional taxes if the law imposing them provides that they shall be se- questered for military purposes only, and not made available for unnecessary do- mestic spending. GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS, 1951 The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (H. R. 7786) making appro- priations for the support of the Govern- ment for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1951, and for other purposes. The VICE PRESIDENT. The ques- tion now before the Senate is on agree- ing to the amendment, which was passed over yesterday, in the Department of Agriculture section of the appropriation bill, on page 221, beginning in line 19. ENDING THE COLD WAR-—IV Mr. FLANDERS. Mr. President, for many weeks past I have addressed the Senate on the subject of winning and ending the cold war. The cold war has now become a hot one, which is the way in which we had every reason to believe the cold war would end, in view of the fact that we never fought it with intel- ligence and energy. Had we done so, the Politburo would have been weaker at home than it is now, and the free world would have been stronger in this emer- gency than it now shows itself to be. We have ahead of us the long, grind- ing months of making up, by the expend- iture of billions of dollars and how many lives we cannot estimate, for the lack of engaging the enemy on the field where he was deployed—the field of the minds and loyalties of men, In concluding this series of observa- tions I wish to refer briefly to two recent opportunities for successful engagement with the enemy from which some advan- tage may yet be salvaged, although the full advantage of the opportunity has been lost. Let me first call attention to the semi- humorous but deadly serious charge of strewing potato bugs over the farms of eastern Germany, which charge, being practically uncontested, was later en- larged to include Czechoslovakia as well, I referred to this in a hearing on Senate Resolution 243 before the Foreign Rela- tions Committee, I said: Why should not this accusation bring from ‘us an offer to donate free of charge X tons of DDT to the potato growers of East Prussia? This chemical not only killed the bugs in Aroostook County, Maine, but it Mkewise destroyed other parasites and hindered the spread of most diseases the potato plant is afflicted with. We have nothing but good wishes and good will for the people of east Germany. Why not express it in this light-hearted and prac- tical way. Undertakings this sort shows be and 1 of the measures undertals en. under Senate Resolution 743. The serious and dangerous undertone to this silly accusation should be clear to XCVI-——-660 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE all. Potato bugs and disease germs are too closely parallel to be ignored. To have let the accusation go with a simple denial, and without taking advantage of the possibilities for human appeal in the thing, leads us one step further toward new savageries in modern warfare. But there is still another lost battle of even greater significance. Mr. President, I refer to a serious and effective offensive on the battle- field of ideas which was launched at the so-called World Peace Congress in Stockholm on March 15-19, 1950, held under the chairmanship of Frederic Joliot-Curie, the French Nobel prize winner. For the record, the American attendance at this so-called Peace Con- gress should be noted. The delegates were Mr. J. Rogge, former Assistant Attorney General of the United States and a vice chairman of the conference; the artist Rockwell Kent; the writer Albert Kahn; and Mr. Johannes Steel, vice president of the Progressive Party. The ingeniousness of the work done by this Peace Congress is to be found in the wording of the manifesto which they produced. I quote: We demand the unconditional prohibition of the atomic weapon as a weapon of intimi- dation and mass extermination of people. We demand the establishment of strict international control over the implementa- tion of this decision. We consider that the government which first uses the atomic weapon against any other country will commit a crime against humanity and shall be regarded as a war criminal. We call upon all people of good will! all over the world to sign this appeal. Why should not such a manifesto ap- peal to people all over the world, and why should not millions and millions of people attach their signatures to it? Mr. President, it was calculated some little time ago that something over 130,- 000,000 signatures have been attached to this manifesto. Since that time other millions have signed. A news item shortly before the invasion of South Korea indicated that one and one-half million had signed north of the thirty- eighth parallel. The Russians know how to devise a good idea, spread it, broadcast, and make it effective. We do not. Asa result, millions of people be- hind the iron curtain and in the mis- sionary areas where Communist propa- ganda is at work are led to class Russia as being a peace-loving country, and the United States becomes more firmly settled than ever in the popular mind as being the world’s warmonger. But now let us see where we can get hold of this Russian declaration whose possibilities we could turn to the advan- tage of the free world. The second paragraph of the manifesto reads: We demand the establishment of strict international control over the implementa- tion of this decision, Is not this an acceptance of the United Nations plan? Mr. President, let us take them up. Let us take them up. Let us take them up. Is not that exactly what we have been asking for? Talk about folly—how can we have the folly to w these millions of signatures to be attached to 10477 & petition for doing what we have been trying to pursuade the Russians to do from the very start of our negotiations over the use of the atomic bomb? What is the matter with us? Are we thinking about something else than war or peace? Have we gone into senile decay? It is not too late now for the State Department, by world-wide broadcast and direct diplomatic action, to take Russia up on her new and our old pro- posal for the control of the A-bomb. Mr. President, we wait to see whether that Department remains a dangerous lability or charts for us a new course of effective service to our national interest and to the safety of the free nations of the globe. So much for opportunities whose full possibilities have been missed but from which some advantage to the free world may still be drawn. In concluding, Mr. President, I wish to refer to earlier pro- posals of mine which become more time- ly, more necessary, now that the cold war has reached the boiling point. Let me first refer to a highly signifi- cant piece of information. A friend of mine has in his employ on his farm, a family of Latvian DP’s. Their history is incredible. The family itself escaped to Western Germanysome little time ago. The father, months before, had been seized and taken to a work'camp in far Siberia. From that work camp he es- caped and made his way mostly on foot over the thousands of miles of Russia, Poland, and eastern Germany until he crossed the border into Western Ger- many and rejoined his family. In all those thousands of miles he sought and obtained nightly food and shelter where- ever he might chance to find himself. In province after province of Russia itself as well as in Poland and eastern Ger- many he found everywhere families and farm folk who were willing to give shelter and aid to a fugitive. What a story this is, It means that all along these weary miles there was no one so convinced of the virtues of the Politburo that it was felt to be a duty to give up a fugitive to the authorities. Only a strong sense of hostility to the existing Russian Government could have persuaded these hundreds of citi- gens to have risked reprisals and punish- ment in giving that shelter. Is not this one story, this single incident, and eye- opener as to the mental and spiritual background of the people against which the Russian Government has to operate within its own territories? Another evidence is to be found in the great numbers of political prisoners which that government has found it nec- essary to put away from normal living. Reliable estimates have put these num- bers at 9,000,000, excluding women and criminals, When we consider that the total adult male population—between the ages of 18 and 55—is somewhere around 90,000,000, we come up with the astonishing figure that about 15 percent of those adult males are in prison camps. Does that indicate that the Russian peo- ple are solidly behind the Russian Gov- ernment? If it was advisable to get in touch with the Russian people by the Voice of Amer- ica and by other means while the cold
10478 war was still on, it is a thousand times more advisable now, when our only hope of getting out of this thing without great loss of treasure, lives, and liberties lies in giving the Politburo so much trouble at home as to seriously limit their ability to foment trouble abroad. From now on the Voice of America must direct itself narrowly and sharply to the present emergency. It must go on the spiritual offensive. It must tell the Russian people that whereas the Western World has been giving freedom to its colonies and conquered peoples, we see their Government rolling over nation after nation, never daring to trust its cause to the choice of the people, but always capturing territory by subversive minorities and force of arms. Against this, in its latest and most flagrant form, the invasion of South Korea, the free world has had to rise in defense of free men everywhere. The second point which must be ham- mered home is that there does not exist in the free world, any group anywhere which has anything but friendly feeling for the Russian people. Nowhere is there to be found a nation or a political party or any important individuals who want anything which the Russian peo- ple have. What we want for them is the blessings of freedom which we have been enjoying and of which their Government has deprived them and of which it now seeks to deprive the whole world. We are friends of the Russian people. The insane lust for conquest which pos- sesses their Government is going to im- pose on the Russian people new hard- ships, new dangers, new deprivation of the good things of life and of spiritual freedom. Their only enemy is their own Government, Hitler knew and the Politburo knows how to affect the minds and hearts of men. They did it by the simple telling of simple Hes over and over and over again. We can do as much. Rather, ‘we can do more by adopting their tech- nique but with a different message. We can tell the truth in simple, understand- able, and straightforward terms over and over and over and over again. The time has come for that. On this floor in the months past I have from time to time suggested the use of such unconventional means of reaching the Russian people as the employment of free balloons dropping messages of good will over the thousands of square miles of Russian territory. These mes- sages will not He rotting in the fields and streets, They will be passed from hand to hand. They likewise should be simple, primarily pictorial, and reiterate in varying form but with unvarying per- sistence the fact that we of the Western World have a common cause with the people of Russia. We are not against them. We are for them. Their hope for the future lies in our success. Our failure condemns them to permanent slavery. Mr. President, when I have made this suggestion in times past it has been inti- mated to me strongly that this is not a proper diplomatic procedure—that a Nation which undertakes this is violating the sovereignty of the holy preserves of the Politburo, We have passed the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE pertod of striped-pantie etiquette. When the North Korean armies and armament swept south over the thirty-eighth paral- Jel, these rules of formal procedure went into the ash can. Does the State De- partment know that yet? If not, some- ene should tell them. There is one final and tremendously powerful means of reaching the people of Russia, and of the satellite countries behind the curtain, which remains to be described. There are many thousands of liberty-loving patriots gathered oa our side of the curtain. They are biting their nails and eating their hearts out. They will not serve for pay as employees of our Government. They will, with sufficient support and with missions to perform, risk their lives and the lives of their wives and children on missions into the heart of the Politburo country. These men must be put to work. Mr. President, by means such as I have just described and by other means yet to be devised in the light of developments as they appear, we can shorten the hot war. We can save billions in treasure, and an unknown number of lives of men in our own country and abroad who know what freedom is and who have found its taste so sweet that they are willing to die for it. Mr. STENNIS and Mr. TAFT addressed the Chair. The VICE PRESIDENT. ‘The Senator from Mississippi is recognized. THE KOREAN CRISIS AND MEASURES TO AVOID WORLD WAR III Myr. STENNIS. Mr. President, we are being rapidly pushed toward a gencral war that will threaten our national existence. Neither diplomacy, negotia- tion, nor wishful thinking will avoid it. Our only hope is to show our utmost in strength, and a grim and unfaltering determination to see things through. In my opinion there are two definite steps that can be taken that will greatly Jessen the chances for a general world- wide war, and win it, should that war come anyway. Without these steps being taken, a general war of almost unbear- able length and suffering is certain. The first step is all-out support in men and materials in the Korean war by every member of the United Nations who opposes Soviet aggression. The second step is to go on a wartime production basis in the United States. These two moves are dependent one on the other and will present a force in the world never before known, The United States failed properly to support the League of Nations and we were thus charged with its failure, and the resulting debacle of World War II. Realizing our mistake, and also appre- cilating new world conditions, we Jaunched forth in an entirely new and strong position in world affairs, and helped formulate the United Nations, and from its beginnings we have supported this great world movement without stint and without trying to play a dominating role. For this we do not deserve, nor do we claim any special credit. Further, in recognition of the war- depleted conditions of many of our fel- low members in the United Nations, we have sponsored for several years, and still sponsor an economic recovery pro- JULY 18 gram that covers most of western Europe. This has been at a cost of billions of dollars to.us, Also, a like program has been extended,to other areas of the world. For thig we do not deserve, nor do we claim any special credit. Purther still, in recognition of their present need for assistance, and in re- Nance on their honor and integrity, we have sponsored and financed a huge military assistance program to all the Atlantic Pact nations and to other ex- tended areas, including Korea, For all of this we do not deserve, nor do we claim any special credit. At the call of the United Nations we immediately rushed men, planes, goods, and guns to far-distant Korea, to stop the brutal attacks of the communistic hordes. Our money is being spent, our material is being consumed, and more, our men are dying by the day, by the week. This is the test. Where is the actual support from our United Nations allies? Where is the ground support? Where are even the firm promises of something tangible and definite that can be counted on? Week has followed week, but little definitely has been done, and little has been furnished. The call has gone forth to the United Nations members by Secre- tary General Lie. What is the response? I know that over-all plans have to be made and then men and materials avail- able have to be fitted into this plan in the most effective manner and places. This requires time. But firm pledges can be forthcoming immediately. I am not unmindful of the absolute necessity of having strong forces available at other strategic and in highly important areas of the world. As to other members of the United Nations, the impossible is not expected; the unreasonable is not de- manded. However, in this world crisis, no mem- ber nation of the United Nations should be the final judge of the extent of their obligations, nor of their ability to per- form these obligations. Each member nation can at least sub- mit all the pertinent facts as to their ability and as to their surrounding situa- tion to the over-all governing authorities of the United Nations, and let this over- all group decide what is reasonable sup- port for each nation to furnish. Regard- Jess of danger spots elsewhere, there would be a tremendous world-wide psy- chological power behind an all-out, all- flag, united effort in Korea. Let the other member-nation flags be unfurled and take their places alongside the Stars and Stripes, with the blue and white flag of the United Nations. This is the test. We have met the call, Shall the United Nations continue as a reality, as an active force to be felt, or shall it continue only as a plan on paper? We, the people of the United States, are entitled to know. If we do not have an effective United Nations, then we are entitled to know that also. Then we'shall make other plans. In the realm of practical affairs, we shall have little or no choice, except to abandon the United Nations, withdraw our own commitments, and travel along the road, the hard road of mere seif-preservation.
1950 But even granting the most hopeful results from the developments from oth- er members of the United Nations, it is still a painful fact that we must go largely on @ war economy. Time saved now in doing so will mean blood and mis- ery and lives saved in months and years to come, We hate controls, we hate regimenta- tion. They hazard our freedom, I ap- preciate the fact that if we go into con- trols, it is possible we shall never come out from under controls. But if we do not go in, we may never come through as a nation. I appreciate the fact that in a long war, we could lose our form of government, even if we did not lose the war; and we could well lose the cap- italistic system even if we did not lose the war. However, it seems clear to me that in order to preserve this very per- sonal freedom, this capitalistic system, and this, our cherished form of govern- ment, it is absolutely necessary to have these hated controls, and the sooner, the better. By controls, I mean the effec- tive control of wages, of prices, of ma- terials, of manpower, and of production, and with an excess-profits tax that ac- tually chokes off excessive war profits. The industrial production of the United States is the most powerful war factor in the world today. It turned the tide in World War II; to put it in motion will perhaps prevent an all-out world war III, Our failure to meet the obligation of effectively using this pro- duction as our most powerful war weap- on will be nothing less than criminal negligence, GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS, 1951 The Senate resumed the considera- tion of the bill (H. R. 7786) making ap- propriations for the support of the Gov- ernment for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1951, and for other purposes. Mr. TAFT. Mr. President, I offer the amendment which I send to the desk and ask to have stated. The VICE PRESIDENT. The clerk will state the amendment offered by the Senator from Ohio. The Lecis,aTive CLerK. On page 221, line 22, it is proposed to strike out the word “authorize” and to insert in line 23 the words ‘‘authorized by Congress,” Mr. TAFT... Mr. President, last night I raised the question with the distin- guished Senator from Georgia [Mr. Rus- SELL] as to whether the committee amendment would permit the prepara- tion of motion-picture films and other propaganda in behalf of the Brannan plan. I was somewhat concerned about the words “relating to the authorized programs of the various agencies of the Department.” They might refer to a propaganda program authorized by the Secretary of Agriculture. It seemed to me that we should make it perfectly clear that what we propose to do is with reference to programs authorized by Congress, I may say that I have checked the statements made by the distinguished Senator from Georgia. It is true that this proviso has been in every appropria- tion bill for the past 4or 5 years. In my opinion, if the committee amendment were not adopted, the power to make CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE such motion pictures would exist in the Commodity Credit Corporation, anyway, in all probability, so that even if we strike out the amendment I doubt that we would change substantially the powers. But if the Senator from Geor- gia will be willing, by accepting my amendment, to make it clear, which I understand is his own position, that it is not intended in any way to authorize Brannan-plan propaganda, I myself should have no objection, Mr.RUSSELL. Mr. President, I stated on yesterday that it was my construction of the language that it permitted only the dissemination of information au- thorized by Congress. That is still my construction of the language. I have no objection to the amendment to the com- mittee amendment. I find that films which have been made are those which deal principally with the farm program, such as the dissemination of information through the Extension Service. I think the distinguished Senator from Ohio is unduly suspicious, but I am perfectly willing to accept his amendment. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. TAFT. I yield to the Senator from Miinois, Mr. LUCAS. The point which the Senator from Georgia made last is that to which I was going to refer. As I un- derstand, all these moving-picture films have been with respect to programs which have been authorized directly by the Congress of the United States. Mr. RUSSELL. I shall be glad to read @ list of the motion pictures which have been produced up to this time: Brucellosis, which portrays methods for eradicating the disease on the farms. Outbreak, a historical documentary film recording how previous outbreaks of this dread plague have been eradicated and sug~ gesting vigilence against the disease at all times. Today's Chicks, a film to show the farmer how healthy baby chicks are produced by cooperating hatcherymen under the national poultry improvement plan. Forest Fire Behavior, a film to convey knowledge of fire behavior and action which may be taken toward control. Black Stem Rust, a film to explain the na- ture of stem rust, how it damages small grain, and how it may be controlled through elimination of barberry bushes, It’s No Picnic, dealing with the nature and damage by forest fires, the various causes thereof, and specific ways in which forest fires can be prevented. Dead Out, a two-reel film on forest burn- ing in the Southeast, showing how to burn brush and grass safely. Blister Rust Control, a series of six pictures on this disease attacking the pine forests of the country, one picture dealing with the life history of the disease and its control in a general way, and one picture for each of five regions in the country on the value of the pine and the specific problems in each region, I may say further, Mr. President, that I have an extract from the House report on the Department of Agriculture appro- priation bill for the fiscal year 1943 which was passed in the calendar year 1942, It states that the consolidation was a part of the economies to be effected tn order to help the war effort, and that it was provided in the bill as an economy meas- ure and not to propagandize the Bran- 10479 nan plan or any other controversial ques- tion. However, I have no objection to the amendment, Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. RUSSELL. I yield. Mr, WHERRY. I should like to ask the distinguished Senator from Georgia if these moving pictures are made solely in the Office of Information. I should like to know whether or not any other moving pictures have been made by any other division besides the Office of In- formation. Does the Senator have the record on that point? Mr. RUSSELL. As I understand, up to now all the pictures have been made by the Office of Information. Mr. WHERRY. Can the Senator posi- tively state that as a fact? Mr. RUSSELL. No. That was my un- derstanding. I do not know it to be a fact. Mr. WHERRY. I am very much in- terested in this amendment. The House must have stricken out this provision for some reason. I agree it has been in the appropriation bill since 1943. However, this year the House deleted it. Mr. RUSSELL. The House did not strike it out. It went out on a point of order. One Member of the House made a point of order against a number of pro~ visions of the bill, and under the peculiar rules of the House of Representatives they were all subject to the point of or- der, and they all went out. We restored most of them. This is the only one as to which there has been any controversy up to now. Mr, WHERRY. At page 267 of the House hearings justification is given for these programs. The Department of Ag- riculture makes this statement: The primary functions of the Office of In- formation are (1) over-all coordination of all information work in the Department and (2) final editing and clearance of all publica- tions and releases of information to the public. The Office provides a service to the Department and its constituent agencies de- signed to assist farmers, organizations, and institutions interested in agriculture, and the public at large, by providing factual in- formation on results of agricultural research work, trends in agricultural production, prices, and consumption, the scope of agri- cultural programs and policies, and similar information which will assist farmers and the public to obtain useful Knowledge per- taining to the Nation's agriculture. It goes on to recount the work in- volved and emphasizes in detail some of it. It seems to me that the language is sufficiently broad to encompass not only the presentation of the Brannan plan, but any other plan which might be hatched by the Department of Agricul- ture, and it could be publicized not only by the Office of Information but mate- rial could be gathered and publicized by other divisions or bureaus, even though the Office of Information did not do so. yn does the Senator think about at? Mr. RUSSELL. I do not see anything dangerous in the language to which the Senator has referred. When the De- partment of Agriculture was established it was designed to be an agency for the purpose of disseminating information pertaining to agriculture, That was its
10480 primary purpose. All that has been added to it since then, by way of farm- action programs, has been merely sup- plemental, because the primary purpose of the Department of Agriculture is to disseminate information pertaining to agriculture. Mr. WHERRY. If the Senator will permit me to say so, I agree with him thoroughly in that statement. So far as research is concerned, I want to go as far as we possibly can. In fact, I should like to go even farther than we have gone. I think research results should be publicized throughout the country for the benefit of farmers. Mr. RUSSELL. They certainly are not worth anything if they are not pub- licized. Mr. WHERRY. This provision, how- ever, raises an entirely different ques- tion. From the language read, which is the justification by the Department, not only the Brannan plan but any other policy which might be advocated by the Department of Agriculture, though not authorized by Congress, could be pub- licized to the public generally. I should like to ask the Senator one more question. On page 358 of the House hearings appears a statement to which I should like to call attention. Has the Senator a copy of the House hearings? Mr. RUSSELL. I am sorry to say that Ihave not. My assistant is endeavoring to get a copy of them. Mr. WHERRY. I shall quote from page 358: “RMA project No. 205. Gen- eral Economics of Marketing.” In 1949 the appropriation was $13,000. In 1950 the appropriation was $134,850. I do not have the budget estimate or the amount allocated to 1951. This may be a@ perfectly legitimate appropriation. I should like to ask the distinguished Sen- ator the reason for the expansion. What is the justification for an increase from $13,000 in 1949 to $134,850 in 1950. Does it have anything to do with the in- formation we have been talking about? Mr. RUSSELL. Ido not believe it has the slightest thing to do with it. All re- search which is carried on by the Re- search and Marketing Administration must be approved by an outside commit- tee, which is appointed for the purpose of studying the whole research question. It has nothing to do with the Brannan plan, if that is what the Senator has in mind. All research projects which are being carried on in the Department of Agriculture are submitted to the com- mittee. I did not read them to the last detail, but I did scan through the gen- eral objectives of the research projects. None of them related to the Brannan plan. Mr. WHERRY. Will the Senator yield further? Mr. RUSSELL. Yes. Mr. WHERRY. I think this is very fmportant. Are these moving pictures brought up to date? Have any of them been made since those mentioned in the list the Senator read? Mr. RUSSELL. The motion pictures set forth in the list constitute the entire ‘mumber which have been produced since the information appropriations for the various Dureaus of the Department were CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE consolidated, as they were in 1942. I may say to the Senator that if we adopt the amendment offered by the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Tarr], which I have agreed to accept so far as I could as chairman of the subcommittee handling the appropriation, there would be a re- striction on all these items which would definitely prevent the publication of any propaganda for the Brannan plan. I have been suspicious that that was the purpose of my friend from Ohio. Secretary Brannan has defended his plan with great vigor and industry all over the Nation. He has made any num- ber of speeches for it, and there has been some question as to the manner in which some of the audiences were assembled. But I have never yet heard any specific charge that any of the films which have been made were in anywise connected with the Brannan plan. If they had been, when we consider how controver- sial the Brannan plan is, undoubtedly someone would have written to the Sen- ator from Nebraska or to the Senator from Georgia or someother Senator and said, “I saw a moving picture that is put out to publicize and to support the Bran- han plan.” I am not a supporter of the Brannan plan. I am opposed to the philosophy of that plan sponsored by the Secretary of Agriculture, but I concede to him the right to go anywhere he pleases in the United States and make a speech any time he chooses in support of his plan. It may build up some support for the plan in my own State, and it may heap cals on my back in an endeavor to drive me to support the plan. But that is one of the things we will have to face when we come to it. I am not apprehensive that these films will support the Bran- nan plan, because I do not think the Sec- retary of Agriculture would adopt that policy, in view of the amendment, and I believe that if he did it would back- fire on him. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, I am not contending that Secretary Brannan does not have a right to support any plan he desires to, on his own, and to go to the four corners of the United States and speak on it to the public. I am in total agreement with the Senator in that re- spect. But I do not want the Secretary to use the taxpayers’ money in any in- formational service to publicize a plan he sponsors, unless it is authorized by the Congress of the United States. Mr. RUSSELL. Neither do I. Mr. WHERRY. That is my only ap- prehension in this matter. I certainly have a right, I believe, to try to make it as clear as I can that we do not want him to do that. Mr. RUSSELL. No one challenges the Senator's right. I have merely pointed out that the amendment offered by the Senator from Ohio limits this expendi- ture to programs approved by the Con- gress, Mr. WHERRY. That leads to the next question. Does it limit it? It limits it, I think, only to the transfers, Mr. RUSSELL, Of course, that is all it limits it to, Mr. WHERRY. How about limiting it to the full amount. It seems to me that if we put a limit of $300,000 on the JULY 18 amount which might be transferred from the small agencies to the office of In- formation, it is just 28 important to limit the $1,265,800 which the Office of Infor- mation can use for the same purpose Mr. TAFT. Mr. President, will the Senator from Nebraska yield? . Mr. WHERRY. I yield. Mr. TAFT. My amendment deals only with the particular $300,000 of the com- mittee amendment. I was dealing with the committee amendment only. If the Senator wants a general limitation, I think it should be offered in an amend- ment to the bill itself. Mr. WHERRY. I was going to ask the Senator from Georgia another ques- tion. I understand the Senator is not worried about these funds, and I have a wholesome respect for his judgment, as he knows, so that I am inclined to go along with the Senator’s statement. But we are writing in an amendment to limit the authorization for these pur- poses to $300,000. If that is wise is it not equally wise that possibly an amendment to the general provision should be in- serted, affecting programs authorized by the Congress? Would there be any ob- jection to that? Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, I think that would be splitting hairs to the nth degree. If it would afford any great solace to the Senator from Nebraska, I would not oppose it, but I think it is utterly unnecessary. No instances have been brought forward where the Secre- tary has used these particular funds for the purpose of propagandizing for the Brannan plan. Mr. WHERRY. Will the Senator an- swer my question? If it is necessary for the $300,000, is it splitting any more hairs to apply it to the genera] provision? Mr. RUSSELL. I accepted’ the amendment in order to allay the fears of the distinguished Senator from Ohio and others. Mr. WHERRY. Would the Senator allay my fears by inserting——— Mr. RUSSELL. No; am not willing to say before we reach the point where an amendment would be in order. Mr. WHERRY. Will the Senator re- flect on it? Mr. RUSSELL. I certainly will. Mr. WHERRY. Does the Senator feel there is any difference, so far as the funds are concerned? Mr. RUSSELL. No; and to be per- fectly frank, my reason for accepting the amendment of the Senator from Ohio was to expedite the business of the Sen- ate. I do not think the amendment makes a particle of difference one way or the other, but I thought it would be better to accept a harmless amendment than to spend 3 or 4 hours on the floor of the Senate discussing this proposi- tion, and having ghosts raised, and the statement made that all this money was going to be used to propagandize the Brannan plan. I am not for the Bran- nan plan. I have been opposed to !t from the day it was announced, but I am not going around with my lance all set to joust with windmills or to attempt to slay dragons which do not exist. Mr. WHERRY! The Senator is bulld- ing up a pretty big bogeyman for me to slay. I ask, Is there any difference
1950 between limiting the $300,000 and the $1,265,000? Mr. RUSSELL. Technically, I do not see that there is. Mr. WHERRY. Then the dragon has already been slain, and I ask the dis- tinguished Senator if he will accept an amendment, when the proper time comes, to offer such an amendment to the bill Mr. RUSSELL. I shall be disposed to, if it would be any gratification to the Senator from Nebraska. Mr, WHERRY. I thank the Senator. I appreciate his statement. Mr. RUSSELL, I do not want to be committed to it now, until I have an op- portunity to read all the language, to see where it is to be in the bill. Mr. WHERRY, I thank the Senator, and I hope he will look with favor upon it, because my opinion is that if we are to try to limit the $300,000 which may be transferred, it is just as important to apply it to the $1,265,000. Mr. RUSSELL. I do not think it is necessary in either case. Mr. WHERRY. I understand the Senator, but if it is necessary in one case and the Senator permits the amendment there, I ask the distinguished Senator to accept it in the other case. Mr. RUSSELL, I shall be happy to look into it, but the amendment will not be in order until we complete action on the committee amendments. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. STEN- nis in the chair). The question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the Senator from Ohio [Mr. Tart] to the amendment of the committee. The amendment to the amendment Was agreed to. Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, I should like to ask the Senator from Georgia if he remembers whether there is a limi- tation on the amount the Commodity Credit Corporation may spend for pub- licity purposes, and, if so, what the amount is. Mr. RUSSELL. Answering off the cuff, without guaranteeing the correctness of the statement, I think the Commodity Credit Corporation is included within the $300,000 limit, and I think that funds could be transferred from the Commodity Credit Corporation up to that amount. Mr. AIKEN. Would the Senator say that if this amendment were voted down and the sound pictures were not per- mitted to be made in the Secretary's of- fice, he could direct them to be made through the Commodity Credit Corpo- ration? Mr, RUSSELL. They say as much. They say they have ample authority under the law. These funds are con- centrated into the $300,000 for the pur- pose of simplifying the bookkeeping, This is a limitation. If we vote this pro- vision out of the bill, they could spend any funds that were available for in- formational purposes. This amendment tends to achieve the result the Senator from Vermont seeks, in that it puts a limitation on the $300,000, on the funds which can be spent. Mr. . hope the Senator from Georgia will be proved to be correct in that view, and that the officials will not exceed the authority. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE I should like to call the attention of the Senator to just one other matter which I think he can clear up. It is in connec- tion with the provision on page 204, line 21, where the language reads: Provided further, That none of the funds “herein appropriated or made available for the functions assigned to the Agricultural Adjustment Agency pursuant to the Execu- tive Order No. 6069, of February 23, 1942, shall be used to pay the salaries or expenses of any regional information employees or any State information employees, but this shall not preclude the answering of in- quirtes or supplying of information at the county level to individual farmers. As I understand, the prohibition which was inserted in the law in 1944 prohibits this information for such services at the levels down through the county and the community levels. In last year’s ap- propriation bill, the references to the community and county were omitted. Does the Senator from Georgia under- stand that the proviso I have just read means that the community and county levels of the PMA are restricted to the answering of inquiries and the supply- ing of information which properly comes within the scope of their own work? Mr. RUSSELL. I think that is cor- rect. The Senator from Vermont knows well that that language has been in the appropriation bills for some 5 or 6 years. I do not recall exactly when it was first inserted, Mr. AIKEN. I think it was slightly changed last year. Mr. RUSSELL, I beg the Senator's pardon. Mr. AIKEN. I think it was changed last year, as I recall. Mr. RUSSELL. No; the Senate undertook to change it, but the House refused to yield, and I think it finally went out of the bill. I do not recall the year, but 5 or 6 years ago the PMA was setting up a great many so-called infor- mation centers in its regional and State offices, and a violent controversy arose as between two of the major farm organ- izations as to the propriety of those off- ces and the information they were fur- nishing, one of the farm organizations taking the position that some of the in- formation was designed to aid the other farm organizations. The general com- plaint was made that it was entirely too expensive. So that limitation was put in originally, as I recall, in the Senate, and it has been in the bill ever since then. Mr. AIKEN. ‘The Senator from Geor- gia is chairman of the Subcommitee on Agriculture of the Appropriations Com- mittee. It is not intended, is it, that this proviso should authorize the em- ployment of county information special- ists or propagandists, as they are com- monly called? Mr. RUSSELL, It certainly is not in- tended to employ any propagandists of: any kind, It is intended to limit it to actual information as to farming in- formation for the counties. Where they have the clear crop system in counties thousands of questions arise that are necessary to be answered, answers are compelled to be made, and we do not want to shut the farmer off if he will in- 10481 cur a penalty by overplanting by as little as 1 acre, Mr. AIKEN. I was sure that is what the Senator from Georgia intended. I am happy he has made that point plain. I also want to assure the Senator from Georgia that no one is more concerned in making the PMA and other good agri- cultural programs work than is the Sen- ator from Vermont. But we all know of instances of efforts being made to use local committees for political pur- poses, and I for one want to stop that practice so far as possible, regardless of in whose interests they may be used. Mr. RUSSELL. If any program should be kept on a nonpartisan and nonpolitical basis it is the farm program, In my judgment the use of any county committee or the use of any farm pro- gram for partisan political purposes would be highly reprehensible, whether it was done to help a Republican, or Democrat, or Progressive, or States Righter, I might add. Mr. AIKEN. I agree with the Sena- tor from Georgia. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the committee amendment, as amended. The amendment, as amended, was agreed to. Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, I un- derstand that concludes the committee amendments to this chapter of the bill. There are some three amendments which have been printed. I have discussed them with their authors and I should like to receive unanimous consent that the printed amendments to this chapter be considered at this time. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, reserv~ ing the right to object, would the Senator consider my amendment in that group? Mr. RUSSELL. I should like to ob- tain some information on the Senator’s amendment before accepting it. Mr. WHERRY. I do not want to ob- Ject to the Senator's request because I should like to help expedite action upon the bill. I wish to make a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President, The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it. Mr. WHERRY. All committee amend- ments must be acted upon first, unless unaniz.ous consent is obtained to take up other amendments out of order? The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the rule under which the Senate is now operating. Mr. WHERRY. Inasmuch as we have proceeded in that manner with respect to the preceding chapters of the bill, it seems to me we should continue to fol- low that course unless the amendments in question are very slight. What is proposed to be done by the amendments in question? Mr. RUSSELL. One of the amend- ments is to be proposed by the Senator from Oklahoma [{Mr. THomas]. The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Brices] has one, which hag been the subject of discussion, and I have ob- tained information with respect to it. The other one is to be offered by the Benator from Washington [Mr. Mac- wkuson], That is a printed amendment, Mr. WHERRY. Is that the amend- ment dealing with meat inspection?
10482 Mr. RUSSELL. Yes. I have had an opportunity to investigate those three amendments, I have not had an op- portunity to investigate the amendment which the Senator from Nebraska in- tends to propose. Mr. WHERRY. I do not know why my amendment would require very much investigation. Mr. RUSSELL. I do not think it will require much investigation, but I should like to read amendments before I accept them. I should like to read the Sena- tor’s amendment before accepting it. Mr. WHERRY. I should be glad to have my amendment offered last, and the Senator can withhold his consent to my amendment until he has had an op- portunity to examine it. Mr, RUSSELL. The Senator from Nebraska, has a perfect right to object if he desires. What I just proposed was merely to accommodate Senators. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the request of the Sena- tor from Georgia that, by unanimous consent, the Senate proceed to take up the printed amendments which will be offered from the floor. Mr. WHERRY, Mr. President, still reserving the right to object, I wish to say that I desire to be constructive about this matter. I am not acting in an ar- bitrary manner in order to have my amendment accepted. I should like to know, if I can be informed, what the first amendment would do. I know what the last amendment would do. I do not think it would be necessary to have s quorum call to let other Sena- tors know what is to be taken up for consideration. I should like to ask the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. THomas] what his amendment is, Mr. RUSSELL. If the Senator will permit me, I will explain all three print- ed amendments. The first amendment, proposed by the Senator from Okla- homa, does not in any wise affect the amount of the appropriated funds. It does permit the Soil Conservation Serv- ice, in areas where work is now being carried on, to operate in connection with some lands which are not now eligible because they lie between private lands on which they are doing work and pub- lic lands in the area of a stream. The amendment would permit them to com- plete some phases of the projects which are essential to the operation of the whole. It involves no increase in ex- penditures. It merely clarifies the au- thority of the Soil Conservation Service. Mr. WHERRY. Where are the proj- ects located? Mr. RUSSELL. I think they are lo- cated in Texas and Oklahoma. That is my recollection. Mr. THOMAS of Oklahoma. Mr. President, there are 11 States involved: the States of New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, Geor- gia, Tennessee, Mississippi, Iowa, Min- nesote, Texas, end California, Myr. WHERRY. Would this be the be- ginning merely, and would completion of the work entail some appropriations next year’ Mr. THOMAS of Oklahoma. Mr. President, if I may, I shall make a brief CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE statement. In the 1946 flood control act, section 13 authorized certain work on, I believe, 11 different projects. That included the projects recommended by the Department of Agriculture. In some of those projects they did not go far enough to permit of treatment of ditches and gulleys. My amendment gives the Department the right to treat ditches and gulleys. Mr. WHERRY. I have no objection to that amendment, Mr. President. What is the next amendment? Mr. RUSSELL. The Senator. from New Hampshire (Mr. Bripcss] has an amendment which will increase the ap- propriation for research by $35,000, so as to deal with an outbreak of a disease at- tacking the spruce and the beech trees in the White Mountains, as I understand. The Senator from New Hampshire does not have a budget estimate, but we have in the form of dead chestnut trees so Many monuments to the delay in pro- ceeding to attack these diseases at their source that I told the Senator from New Hampshire I was willing to accept his amendment and take it to conference. Mr. WHERRY. I have no objection, Mr. President, to the consideration of the three amendments which have been referred to. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent re- quest for consideration of the three amendments? The Chair hears none, and unanimous consent is given. Mr. THOMAS of Oklahoma. Mr. President, I submit my amendment. Mr. WHERRY. I should like to ask the Senator from Georgia if he will not confer with the junior Senator from Nebraska? I should be glad to show him where in the bill I wish the language of my amendment to be inserted. I should like to do that so he may decide whether he will accept my amendment after the three others have been con- sidered. Mr. RUSSELL. Mr, President, my differentiation between these three amendments and the Senator’s amend- ment is not due to any desire to resist the Senator’s amendment. It is due to the fact that these three amendments have been printed. If the Senator offers his amendment, other amendments will be offered from the floor, and if we are to accept any such floor amendments we should accept all of them at one time so as not to make fish of one and fowl of the other. Mr. WHERRY. The Senator did for the Senator from Ohio (Mr, Tart] exact- ly what he is speaking of now. Mr. RUSSELL. Oh, no. Mr. WHERRY. The amendment of the Senator from Ohio was not printed. Mr, RUSSELL. The parliamentary situation in respect to the amendment of the Senator from Ohio was entirely dif- ferent. His amendment was an amend- ment to a committee amendment which had to be passed upon. The Senator from Nebraska proposes to offer an amend- ment to the text of the bill. Mr, RUSSELL. Which is not in order; whereas the amendment of the Senator from Ohio was in order, and there was JULY 18 nothing the Senator from Georgia could have done to prevent the Senator from Ohio from offering his amendment. Mr. WHERRY. LIunderstand. But the Senator from Georgia has made a unani- mous consent request for consideration of amendments which he will take to con- ference. I simply ask that my amend- ment also be taken to conference, Mr. RUSSELL. I told the Senator from Nebraska I was disposed to accept his amendment, but I shoutd like to look into such matters and at least reasonably un- derstand what I am doing at the time I accept amendments. Mr. WHERRY. The Senator from Georgia needs no advice with respect to what he is doing. He is one of our most able Senators. Mr. RUSSELL, I suppose I should ac- cept the Senator’s amendment after that statement. Mr. WHERRY. Yes. I can see no dif- ference between the one and the others. I would deeply appreciate it if the Sena- tor would accept my amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The first printed amendment coming under the unanimous-consent agreement will be stated. The Lrorsiartve Crrrk. The amend- ment submitted by Mr. THomas of Okla- homa and Mr. Jounson of Texas is as follows: On page 200, line 14, before the period in- sert the following: ‘; Provided further, That of the funds available herein, not in excess of $7,880,000 may be expended in watersheds heretofore authorized by section 13 of the Flood Control Act of December 22, 1944, for necessary gulley control, floodwater deten- tion, and floodway structures in areas other than those over which the Department of the Army has jurisdiction and responsibility.” The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amend- ment. The amendment was agreed to. Mr. THOMAS of Oklahoma. Mr, President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed at this point in the Rec- orp a brief statement explanatory of the amendment which has just been adopted. There being no objection, the state- ment was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: 1, The amendment is recommended. 9. The Flood Control Act of 1936 provides that improvement of rivers and other water- ways for flood contro] shall be under the jurisdiction of the Corps of Army Engineers and that measures for run-off and water- flow retention and soil erosion prevention on, watersheds should be under the jurisdic- tion of the Department of Agriculture. Ob- viously {t was the intention of Congress at the time the Flood Control Act of 1936 was passed that work on main streams would be done by the Army Engineers and soil con- servation and erosion work on the water- sheds would be done by the Department of Agriculture. If this is true, the work author- ized in the above amendment is already cov- ered by general authorization. 8. In the Flood Control Act of 1944 11 watershed programs, Were specifically author- ized for the Department of Agriculture and survey reports were adopted on each of them. Bome of these reports such as the Little Sioux Watershed in Iowa, the Los Angeles watershed in California, and so forth, ape- cificially calied for authority ‘for gully con~-
1950 trol, flood water detention, and floodway structures. Some of the other reports such as the Coosa River watershed in Georgia and the Trinity River watershed in Texas did not provide for gully control, flood water de- tention, and floodway structures specifically, and these measures are now found to be necessary. The Solicitor of the Department of Agriculture has held that these survey reports have the force of law and since the authority for floodway structures, and so forth is omitted from them, the Department of Agriculture, even though it has general authority in the Flood Control Act of 1936 over the alluvial lands, does not have author- ity beyond that specifically written into the survey reports on the 11 programs set forth in the Flood Control Act of 1044. 4. Of the $9,880,000 included in the omni- bus appropriation bill for flood-control work of the Department of Agriculture, the de- partment intends to expend approximately @4,300,000 for gully control, flood water de- tention, and floodway structures in the alluvial lands. Some of the expenditures are already authorized in the survey reports cov- ering the projects, but unless this amend- ment 1s adopted money for this purpose will not be available for such work in the Po- tomac River watershed, Virginia, West Vir- @inia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania; Coosa River watershed, Georgia and Tennessee, the Middle Colorado River watershed, Texas; the Trinity River watershed, Texas; and the Washita River watershed, Oklahoma and Texas. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will state the next amendment coming under the unanimous-consent agreement. The Liecistative CLerK. The amend- ment submitted by Mr. Brinags is as fol- lows: On page 196, line 6, strike out “82,995,000” and insert in lieu thereof “$3,030,000, of which @55,000 shall be available for such in- vestigations and experiments at Bartlett Ex- perimental Forest only.” Mr, RUSSELL. Mr. President, unless some member of the committee objects, I am willing to take the amendment to conference. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amend- ment. The amendment was agreed to. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will state the next amendment coming under the unanimous-consent agreement. The LeaisLative Currk. The amend- ment submitted by Mr. Maanuson is as follows: On page 179, line 15, strike out $7,950,000” and insert in Meu thereof “$7,962,500.” Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, the dis- tinguished Senator from New Mexico [Mr, ANDERSON], formerly the Secretary of Agriculture, has stated that he thinks adoption of this amendment is necessary. I was of the opinion that it was not. In the absence of full information, I am willing to take the amendment to con- ference. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agréeing to the amend- ment of the Senator from Washington. Mr. CORDON. Mr. President, let me inquire what the amendment will do. Mr. RUSSELL. The amendment will add $2,500 to the..$22,800,000 provided for meat inspection, to allow a part-time CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE inspector at Seattle, Wash., where there is no meat inspector at the present time, according to the Senator from Washing- ton and the Senator from New Mexico. Mr. WHERRY. The amendment also relates to transfers of livestock. Mr. RUSSELL. Yes; it relates to the transfer of cattle brought in from Can- ada; in other words, it relates to the in- ternational trade in cattle from Canada. Mr. CORDON. Mr. President, it seems to me that the additional amount pro- vided by the amendment is not sufficient. Furthermore, it seems to me the sub- ject matter of the amendment should have been handled by the committee in the course of its consideration of the bill in the first place. If the necessary amounts are not studied and recom- mended by the committee in the course of its consideration of the bill in the first place, then we are mistaken in every- thing we do in connection with the bill. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the amendment? Mr. CORDON. Mr. President, reserv- ing the right to object-—— Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, if I may make an observation at this point, let me say that it seems that under the amendment the inspection service re- lates to cattle in international shipment, for which it is claimed that sufficient au- thority is not available. Of course the amendment will not cure the difficulty if there is a lack of statutory authority. Mr. CORDON. Of course not, Mr. RUSSELL. The Senate would have to recede under the circumstances, when the amendment came before the conferees. However, the Senator from New Mex- ico [Mr. ANDERSON] formerly the Secre- tary of Agriculture, has said that he thinks adoption of the amendment is necessary. Mr, CORDON. Mr. President, I have no objection to the addition of $2,500 to the appropriation for meat inspection in order to make possible the employment of meat inspector at Seattle, Wash., or at any other place, so far as that ts con- cerned, where it is necessary. However, it is perfectly apparent to all Senators on the floor of the Senate, I think, that the addition of $2,500 for that purpose does not carry any statutory authority that is not available in the bill at the present time. The amendment would simply add $2,500 to the $12,800,000, as I recall, which already is available. It seems to me that, if there is going to be any presumption in favor of any committee and its work in attempting to reach logical conclusions with respect to appropriations, the time to commence to do so is now. If the amendment was necessary, it should have been presented to the committee, and the committee should have been given an opportunity to consider it and to act upon it. So I object to adoption of the amend- ment by unanimous consent. Mr. AITKEN, Mr. President, will the Senator withhold his objection until I can make an explanation? Mr. CORDON. I am glad to withhold the objection. 10483 Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, the short- age of inspectors for animals and also for plants imported into this country is not confined to the State of Washington alone. Trouble has been encountered in many sections of the country as well. It is due primarily, I would say, to the limi- tation on the number of hours during which an inspector can work. So, along the borders, instead of perhaps going out after supper and inspecting a truckload or @ carload of cattle coming into the country, the inspectors are prohibited from doing so at the present time. There has been a great deal of trouble along the Vermont border and along the coast of Florida in this respect. The Sen- ator from Florida [Mr, Houtanp] and I introduced a bill which would permit the Federal Government to allow the inspec- tors to work overtime, and, I suppose, to give them overtime pay, and then to re- cover the cost from the importers, who originally made this complaint, and who seemed willing to pay the additional cost incurred in that way. It was not a mat- ter of cost, but a matter of accommoda- tion, because sometimes the shipments would reach the border a few minutes after the inspector was required to stop work, according to the law; and the re- sult would be that the cattle would have to be kept there all night until the in- spector came on duty the next day. The Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry unanimously reported the bill favorably the other day, and it is now on the calendar. The bill was previously approved by the Department of Agri- culture. So far as I know, there ts no opposition to this proposal. Its enactment would alleviate much of the trouble which has been referred to by the Senator from Washington, so far as the shipment of cattle across the border is concerned. Mr.RUSSELL, Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. AIKEN. Yes; if I now have the floor. Mr. RUSSELL. I thank the Senator. Mr, President, I wish to correct a state- ment I made a few moments ago, The Senator from Washington in discussing his amendment referred to it as a meat- inspection amendment. I thought he was referring to meat inspection at a stockyard; and yesterday I stated that I could not possibly understand how !t made any difference whether a cow came from the moon or from Canada or from elsewhere, once the cow was slaughtered. However, apparently the Senator was speaking of part-time inspectors on the border, rather than meat inspectors at slaughtering houses, because I find that the amendment does not relate to the $12,800,000 which is available for meat inspection, but relates to the $7,950,000 for the control and eradication of animal diseases, which means the inspection of animals on the hoof as they come across the border, to see whether they are free from disease. Mr, AIKEN. That is correct. No amount of appropriation would permit inspection after hours, so long as the inspectors cannot work after 4 o'clock in the afternoon. Even if 20 inspectors
10484 were available at a certain point, if they had to stop work at 4 o’clock in the aft- ernoon, the difficulty would continue, Mr. CORDON. Mr. President, I indi- cated my objection to adoption of the amendment by unanimous consent. I was under s wrong impression, also, with reference to the identity of the portion of the bill proposed to be amended. Inas- much as this amendment relates to the eradication and control of animal dis- eases, it ts acceptable to me; I have no objection to ft. However, I should like to inquire of the distinguished Senator from Georgia as to how the legal authority to act in the way suggested, if that authority does not now exist, can be conferred by means of this amendment. Mr, RUSSELL. I do not think it can. In my own judgment, I doubt very seri- ously that itcan. My doubt is increased by the fact that the committee clerk has handed me a statement from the De- partment of Agriculture, which I shall now read: [U. 8. Department of Agriculture, Agricul- tural Research Administration, Bureau of Animal Industry] The amendment offered by Senator Mac- NUBSON increasing by $2,500 the item “Animal disease contro] and eradication” under the head “Salaries and expenses, Animal Indus- try.” would provide for part-time service of an inspector at Seattle, Wash., for public stockyards inspection work. Under present import regulations, cattle imported from Canada for slaughter may be consigned to a public stockyard for sale, otherwise they must be consigned directly to a slaughtering establishment, Public stockyards are those yards covered by Federal inspection of live- atock received at such yards. Seattle is not now 4 public stockyard. . If Seattle is not a public stockyard, I have very grave doubt that the Depart- ment could assign an inspector to it to enforce Federal regulations. Mr. CORDON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Georgia yield to the Sena- tor from Oregon? Mr. RUSSELL. I yield. Mr. CORDON. Can the Senator from Georgia advise the Senator from Oregon as to how a stockyard can become a pub- lic stockyard? Mr. RUSSELL. I think a stockyard becomes a public stockyard when it is posted and brought under the operation of the inspection item. Mr. CORDON. Is there a Federal law on the subject? Mr. RUSSELL. There is. Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr, President, if the Senator from Georgia will yield, I might clear up the statement of the Department of Agriculture in regard to a public stockyard. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Georgia yield to the Senator from Washington? Mr, MAGNUSON. I merely wanted to clear up that matter. Mr. RUSSELL, TI yield, if I do not thereby lose the floor. Mr. MAGNUSON, It is not a public stockyard in the sense that it is operated by a public body. It is operated by the slaughterhouse which is adjacent to the stockyard, though all other slaughter- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE ing houses in the area use the stock- yard. It is operated technically and jointly by all of them, but it is under the management of the slaughterhouse which is adjacent to the yard, and it is calied the Union Stockyards. Anyone may ship to it. It is a sort of coopera- tive undertaking, managed, however, by the one slaughterhouse which is adja- cent to the yard, because it happens to be located on the raflroad sidings. Mr. AIKEN. Did I not under- stand the Senator from Washington to say there was a shortage of border inspection? Mr. MAGNUSON. No, this has noth- ing to do with border Inspection. Mr. AIKEN. It is not located on the border? Mr. MAGNUSON. I desire to read a Jetter I have received from the persons affected. I placed it in the Recorp yes- terday. The letter is very short, and if the Senator from Georgia will permit, I should like to read it. It poses a prob- Jem, similar to the question here. The letter was addressed to me under date of June 30, by the Seattle Packing Co., which operates the yard in question, and it reads as follows: My Dear Senator: Although the Depart- ment of Agriculture recognizes the need for restoring Federal inspection at the Seattle Union Stockyards, it is unable to do so be- cause of a shortage of funds. The Depart- ment estimates, however, that only $2,500 is needed to restore the Federal inspection at Beattie as only the part-time services of one veterinarian is required. It 1s, therefore, suggested that you obtain an appropriation of $2,600 for this purpose. This is impor- tant to the Northwest for the following reasons: Increased control of livestock diseases is ® protection to the general public. With Federal inspection the Seattle Union Stock- yards would be assured that a veterinarian would be in charge and that adequate in- spection with regard to communicable dis- eases would be in effect. Livestock producers will be better served under Federal inspection. At the present time the Northwest is served by only two federally inspected yards. These are located at Spokane and Portland. Under State law, health requirements are enforced by the brand division, which require that all female stock be tested and tagged when sold, except when sold to a packer for slaughter or for resale at a federally inspected yard. Since a federally inspected yard has a vet- erinarian on duty, the additional expense and delay required by testing female cattle is avoided. Inasmuch as the Seattle Union Stockyards are not now inspected, livestock producers tend to make their shipments either to Spokane or to Portland. Slaughter in the Northwest area would in- crease. Since reductions in the tariff on meat from Canada to the United States from 6 to 8 cents per pound, effective January 1, 1948, and the termination of shipments from Canada to the United Kingdom, meat impor- tations to the United States have been great- ly increased, Due to higher wage rates, ex- penses, etc, in the United States, most of this importation is now in the form of meat that is dressed. It would be desirable to have it come in the form of Livestock #0 that the slaughter and processing could be performed here. Federal inspection at the Seattle Union Stockyards would therefore greatly facilitates the movement of livestock trom Canada. The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the ‘Senator will suspend a moment, the JuLY 18 Chair observes that there is no opposi- tion, apparently, to the pending amend- ment. The chairman of the subcom- mittee has accepted it. As the Chair understands, the Senator from Oregon has withdrawn his objection. The ques- tion ts on agreeing to the amendment. Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, a judge once said to me, “When the court is with you, sit down.” I shall now fol- low that very wise counsel. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment of the Senator from Washington (Mr. Maawv- son) on page 179, line 15. The amendment was agreed to. The PRESIDING OFFICER. That completes, for the time being, the amendments to chapter VI, and brings us to chapter VII, the Department of the Interior. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to return to chapter VI, the agricultural bill. I stepped off the floor of the Senate a moment, and while I was gone the chapter was evi- dently finished. My understanding from the distinguished Senator from Georgia had been that, if I requested unanimous consent, he would not object to the consideration of an amendment which I desired to offer, on page 220, in line 22, after the word “work”, to insert “and programs authorized by Congress.” The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous-consent re- quest of the Senator from Nebraska. Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, I do not think the proposed amendment would add to or take from the provision. I have no objection to it. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and the Senate will temporarily return to the consideration of chapter VI, and will consider an amendment to be offered from the floor by the Senator from Nebraska? Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, I pro- pose the following amendment: On page 220, line 22, after the word “work”, to insert “and programs authorized by Congress.” The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment offered by the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. WHerry]. The amendment was agreed to. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, I de- sire to thank the Senator from Georgia. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will now proceed to the con- sideration of chapter VII, and the Sen- ator from Arizona (Mr. Harpen] is recognized. Mr, WHERRY. Mr. President, I will want to impose upon the patience of the distinguished Senator from Arizona. We are now taking up the chapter on the Department of the Interior, are we not? Mr. HAYDEN. That is correct. Mr. WHERRY. Several Senators wanted me to notify them when this chapter was reached. If the distin- guished Senator will permit me, and if he will yield for a quorum call, I think we at least ought to have @® quorum call. Senators will then be on notice. Mr. HAYDEN, Very well, ‘
1950 The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ab- sence of a quorum is suggested. The clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk called the roll, and the following Senators answered to their names: Aiken Gurney Martin Anderson Hayden Maybank Benton Hendrickson Millikin Brewster Hickenlooper Morse Bricker Hill Mundt Bridges Hoey Murray Butler Holland Myers Byrd Humphrey Neely Capehart Hunt o'Conor Chapman Ives O'Mahoney haves Jenner Pepper nnally Johnson,Colo Robertson ordon Johnson, Tex. Russell ‘by Kem Saltonstall nnell Kerr Schoeppel Douglas Kilgore Smith, Maine Dworshak Langer Smith, N. J. Eastland Leahy Stennis Ecton Lehman Taft Eliender Lodge Thomas, Okla. Ferguson Lucas Thomas, Utah Flanders McCarran Thye MoCarthy Tydings Pulbright McClellan Watkins George McFarland Wherry Gillette McKellar Whiley Graham Magnuson Williams Green Malone Young The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quo- rum is present. The Senator from Ari- zona is recognized. Mr. HAYDEN. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Michigan. RECOGNITION OF COMMUNIST CHINA Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, I have before me a scholarly study dealing with the Recognition of Governments, with special consideration of the current problem with regard to governments in China. The paper was written by Stan- ley K. Hornbeck and was presented at the forty-fourth annual meeting of the American Society of International Law in Washington, on April 29, 1950. The paper will be printed in the proceedings of the society, but its application to re- cent action in the United Nations Secu- rity Council on the Korean situation makes the study particularly timely now. To make it available to Congress now, I shall ask unanimous consent to have it printed at the close of my remarks. ' Myr. Hornbeck is well known for his long service in the Department of State as Chief of the Division of Far Eastern Affairs and as United States Ambassa- dor to the Netherlands. After presenting the main prinoiples of recognition of governments as devel- oped by authoritative scholars, Mr. Hornbeck makes a reasoned and valu- able application of them to the specific question of how the United States ought to deal with the attempt of Communist China to have its government recog- nized in the place of the Nationalist Re- public of China. In the course of his paper Mr. Hornbeck gives strong reasons and argument why the United States need not and should not recognize the Communist Government of China at this time. Mr. Hornbeck developed this material before the recent outbreak in Korea. Proceedings in the Security Council on the Korean situation offer powerful sup- port to the wisdom of Mr. Hornbeck’s conclusions, If the United States had recognized Communist China when we were pressed to do so, and if Communist CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE China was then seated in the Security Council as Russia has tried to bring about by a form of parliamentary blackmail, the Security Council would have been prevented from taking the prompt and decisive action it did take in the Korean situation. As far back as January 17 of this year I developed this question of recognition in great detail. On this floor I stated: Recognition of Red China by any country which has been engaged in the fight to con- tain world communism is surrender on an- other front of the cold war. (CONGRESSIONAL Recorp, Jan. 17, 1950, p. 471.) Had we recognized Red China at that time, the tragedy would have proved to be a double one. First, it would have been a spiritual blow to the hopes of all people of the world, particularly those in southeastern Asia, who look to us for leadership in the effort to resist the in- roads of communism. Second, it would have made it possible for Red China to paralyze the Security Council by veto while the North Korean Communist in- vaders achieved another territorial out- post in the advance of communism. All the reasons I advanced against recognition of Communist China are re- inforced by Mr. Hornbeck's excellent pa- per and by the crucial events in recent world history. It is to make this record complete that I have asked to have fianley Hornbeck’s paper printed at this ime, There being no objection, the docu- ment was ordered to be printed in the RecorD, as follows; For the purposes of this part of this morn- ing’s discussion we shall consider only one of the various situations in which the ques- tion of according recognition arises; namely, that in which declaration and claim are made that there has come to power in place of an old government a new government. A particular case is presented currently with regard to China, and to that particular case we shall in due course give particular attention. From and by developments in China there has been and ts presented the question: Shall or should the United States accord recognition to the government re- cently proclaimed at Peking as the Govern- ment of the People’s Republic of China? (For convenience, as we proceed, that Gov- ernment will be called China's Communist Government, and the Government which the United States recognized in 1928 and still recognizes will be called China's Nation- al Government.) It is important that the phenomenon of taking cognizance of be clearly distinguished from and be not confused with that of according recognition. Recognition is a mat- ter of affirmative official action, involving an exercise of judgment and affecting status and relationships. Consensus of legal opinion runs to the effect that there exists no absolute legal ob- ligation on the part of any government to accord recognition to another; and, con- versely, no clearly defined legal right on the part of any government to receive recognition from another. There is some dissent, but none in which it is contended that there exists an unqualified duty or an unqualified right, In practice, decisions to accord or to withhold recognition are made by the Executive and are based largely on political (including economic) as distinguished from legal considerations. Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1792: “It ao~ cords with our principlea to acknowledge any government to be rightful which is 10485 formed by the will of the nation, substane tially declared.” (Moore: Digest, I, 120.) This sounds very simple. But think of its implications in practice. What is meant by the words “formed by’? What are the testa of the “will of the nation’? What consti- tutes “subsantial” declaration? In some cases, all very easy; in many cases, more than dificult. Those words of Jefferson were written a long time ago. They were not Jefferson's only words regarding recognition. Jefferson spoke of “our principles,” not of a duty or @ right In practice, the seemingly simple test of origin by the substantially declared will of the people has seldom been deemed con- clusive; there have been applied along with or even without it other tests. The tests most often mentioned relate to: (a) effece tiveness of authority; (b) ability or capacity to fulfill international obligations; and (c) disposition or willingness to adhere to inter- national obligations, both of treaty and of aw. Professor Lauterpacht, affirming existence of a duty, says: “When [the new government] enjoys, with @ reasonable prospect of permanency, the habitual, willing obedience of the bulk of the population, outside states are under a legal duty to recognize it in that capacity.” (Lauterpacht: Recognition in International Law, 1947, pp. 87-88.) There its a good deal of qualification in that statement. Secretary of State Cordell Hull, in the course of a communication to Mr. Tinkham, Member of Congress, May 16, 1936, wrote: “It is the rule of the United States ‘to defer recognition * * * [of a new government] until it shall appear that it is in possession of the machinery of the state, administering the government with the assent of the people thereof and without substantial resistance to its authority, and that it is in position to fule fill all the international obligations and re- sponsibilities incumbent upon a eovereign state under treaties and international law.’ You will appreciate that the length of time necessary for a new government to satisfy our government upon these points will vary to a great extent as cases vary.” (Hackworth, Digest, I, 174, quoted in Hyde, 2d revised ed., 1947, pp. 159-160.) Professor Hyde says: “No difficulty presents itself when a change is wrought through normal processes and the result is accepted as a mere incident in the life or growth of the state concerned. The situation may be obscure, however, when a contest for governmental control is waged by force of arms or by other processes not contemplated by local laws; the completeness of the success of a contestant may be fairly open to doubt for a protracted period, and even after its adherents assume to exercise the functions of government. In such cases foreign states may, and oftentimes do, with- hold recognition until they are themselves ase sured where the victory really lies. The suf- ficiency of such assurance depends obviously upon the circumstances of the particular case. * * * As international law imposes no obligation upon a state to accord recogni- tion to a new government * * * at any particular time, the bare withholding of it {recognition} is a matter of policy.” (Hyde, 2d ed., I, pp. 159-160.) Where there exist, as in China today, two contending regimes, one long since recognized and for many years in good standing, the other merely and newly claimant, it stands to reason that the problem presented to other countries ia more complicated than is that presented in cases where an older regime has been destroyed or has disappeared and a new regime exercises nation-wide and unchal- lenged authority in ita place. Toward an old regime still extant, third parties have more of obligation than they have toward a new
10486 regime not wholly and undisputedly estab- lished. Lauterpacht says: “go long as the lawful government offers resistance which is not ostensibly hopeless or purely nominal, the de jure recognition of the revolutionary party as a government constitutes premature recognition which the lawful government is entitled to regard as an act of intervention contrary to international law. * * * Premature recognition is a tortious act against the legal government; it is a breach of international law. * * Buch abuse of the power of recognition is vividly illustrated by the recognition by Ger- many and Italy of the Spanish insurgents in the early stages of the Spanish Civil War in 1936. * * * It is not for outside states to administer to the de jure government the coup de grace by transferring full sover- eignty to the victorious opponent.” (Lau- terpacht, 1947, 04-96.) Judge John Bassett Moore stated in the Digest (vol. I, p. 78): “Premature recognition constitutes an act of intervention, commit- ted in favor of insurgents or of a conqueror ” Recognition may or may not be, to use a British phrasing, “a mark of approbation,” but an according of recognition to a new regime, with a corollary withdrawal of recog- nition from an old, certainly constitutes a choosing as between the two. It may not signify moral approval of the new, but it certainly signifies transfer of legal approval from the old to the new: it takes from the Old and gives to the new the stamp of political acceptability and a certification of legal ac- ceptance. In the situation which now prevails in China, an according of recognition to the Communist regime involves withdrawal of recognition from the National Government. As the Chinese Ambassador to Great Britain stated to the Foreign Office official who in- formed him of the British Government's In- tention to recognize the Communist regime, the according to that recognition amounted to a “burying-alive,” In British-Chinese rela- tions, of the National Government. Such action should under no ctrcumstances be taken without a very thorough weighing of all available facts and all conceivable im- plications and possible consequences, Recognition ts not an essential for matn- tenance of contact and carrying on of business, nor does it, when given, ensure or insure either of these. Merchants of many countries carried on business with the Chinese, and “foreign” missionaries worked in China long before there were effected between their Govern- ments and the Government of China ar- rangements constituting or implying recip- rocal recognition. Later, after formal diplo- matic relations had been established, the existence of these relations and the agen- cies thereof by no means sufliced, in numer- ous instances, adequately to safeguard the rights, including even that of Hfe, of “for- eigners” in China or of Chinese nationals abroad, When the United States of America came into existence, the Russian Government re- frained for many years from recognizing this country. When the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics came into existence, we refrained for many years from recognizing its govern- ment. There was, however, in each case, contact and carrying on of business. In 1920, Secretary of State Colby wrote: “That the present rulers of Ruseia do not ruie by the will or the consent of any con- siderable proportion of the Russian people is an incontestable fact. * “e © © the existing regime tn Russia is based upon the negation of every principle of honor and faith, and every usage and convention, underlying the whole struc- ture of international Jaw; the negation, in short, of every principle upon which it is possible to base harmonious and trustful CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE relations, whether of nations or of indie viduals. “In the view of this Government, there eannot be any common ground upon which it can stand with a power whose conceptions of international relations are so entirely alien to its own, so utterly repugnant to its moral sense. * * * Wecannot recognize, hold official relations with, or give friendly reception to the agents of a Government which is determined and bound to conspire against our institutions; whose diplomats will be the agitators of dangerous revolt; whose spokesmen say that they sign agreements with no intention of keeping them.” (Colby, letter to Italian Ambassador, May 10, 1920: Foreign Relations, 1920, ITT, 463ff ) In 1923, Secretary of State Hughes wrote: “When there is a question as to the will of the nation it has generally been regardc’ as ® wise precaution to give sufficient time to enable a new regime to prove its stability and the apparent acquiescence of the people in the exercise ot the authority it has as- sumed. * * “In the case of the existing regime in Russia, there has not only been * * tyrannical procedure * * * which nes caused the question of the submission or acquiescence of the Russian people to re- main an open one, but also a repudiation of the obligations inherent in international in- tercourse and a defiance of the principles upon which it alone can be conducted. “What is most serious is that there is conclusive evidence that those !n control at Moscow have not given up their original purpose of destroying existing governments throughout the world * * “While this spirit of destruction * * * remains unaltered the question of recogni- tion by our Government * * * cannot be determined by mere economic considera- tions * * * or simply by a consideration of the probable stability of the regime in question. There cannot be intercourse among nations any more than among in- dividuals except upon assumption of good faith. * * * The sentiment of our peo- ple is not deemed to be favorable to the acceptance into political fellowship of this cegime so long as it denies the essential basis of intercourse and cherishes, as an ul- timate * * * aim, the destruction of the free institutions which we have labo- riously built up, containing as they do the necessary assurances of the freedom of la- bor upon which our prosperity must de- pend. * * “We are unsble * © © to find any rea- sons for separating (1. e., differentiating) the regime and its purpose from those who animate it and control it and direct it so as to further their aims.” (Hughes letter to Samuel Gompers July 19, 1923. See Hyde, 2d edition, I, 170-1.) The United States withheld recognition of the Soviet Government until a new ad- ministration here had become convinced that that government met most of the standard testa of what constitutes a recog- nizable government and that it would be reasonable and advantageous to accord it recognition. Then we laid down conditions; we asked and we were given pledges. And, even at that, we were deceived. The Russian Soviet Government has disregarded both its Beneral legal obligations and its particular pledges, including those made then to us and those made before end since to us and to other countries. There is little if any warrant for an ex- pectation that, with or without recognition and with or without pledges, the perform- ance of the Communist regime in China will differ very greatly from the performances of the Communist regimes tn Russia and in other Communist countries. All Commu- nists are committed to the destruction of persons and peoples, institutions and agen- ciés which stand in the way of world dom-~ JULY 18 ination by communism. The Chinese Com- munists, whether they are or are not con- trolied by the Kremlin, are allies of the Moscow regime. They imitate the Russian Soviet system, 'they use its methods and they follow the made-in-Moscow party line. There is seldom need for hurrying to rece ognize. Occasionally, there may be an ad- vantage or a fancted advantage to be gained by quick action. There was a chance of advantage in our prompt recognition of the Kerensky regizne in Russia. Our resent rec- ognition of the Bao Dat regime in Indochina may or may not prove to have served use- ful purposes. Generally speaking, however, the more hurried is recognition, the more speculative ts that action. There was pressure a few months ago, both in official and {n unofficial quarters, for quick recognition of the Communist regime in China. When that regime declared itself & government, the Soviet Union gave it rec- ognition at once and 10 other Communist countries promptly followed suit There ‘was pressure for early and concerted recog- nition by several non-Communist States. Burma, India, Pakistan, and Ceylon svun fell in line. After them, the United Kingdom. Of the 25 governments which have thus far (up to April 29, 1950) accorded recognition, 12 are Communist, 7 others are Asiatic, 6 others are European. The Government of the United Kingdom is the only one that represents an English-speaking people. Latest on the list, chronologically, are Viet Minh, Switzerland, and the Netherlands. Conspicuously absent from the list are the United States, Canada, and all other coun- tries of the Western Hemisphere, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, the United States of Indonesia, Ireland (Eire), France, Italy, Spain, and Portugal. Reasons publicly given by high officials of the United Kingdom for that government's action ran to the effect that by prompt rec- ognition they expected to gain commercial, political, and cultural advantages ‘Thus far there do not seem to have accrued any such advantages. Arguments advanced in the United States by advocates of early recognition have been similar to those which prevailed in the United Kingdom but with emphasis on points to the effect that the Communist government represents the people of China; that, toward befriending that people, we must recognize and assist that regime; and that, by so doing, we will drive a wedge between China and Russia. During recent months the Chinese Communist leaders havo, by their own acts and utterances, sub- stantially undermined these contentions. * * s a ° There is little that the United States might with any warrant expect to gain by a pre- cipitate recognition of a regime which, come mitted to the destruction of freedom, h&s de- clared the United States next in line after Chiang Kai-shek among the objects of its political enmity. There also is little that we need expect to lose by pursuing in this con- nection a policy of wait and see. Our finan- cial investment in China is not large, Our trade with China is not vital. Our cultural investment is substantial and our influence has been of consequence. But, with or with- out recognition, the Communist regime may be expected to deal arbitrarily with all of these. There exists, however, a situation which makes the question of what to do about the National Government and the Communist regime in China a lively and a thorny iesue; controversy has developed regarding repre- sentation of China on the Security Council and elsewhere in the United Nations. The Chinese Communist regime demands that it be admitted and the representation of the National Government be expelled. The So- viet Union supports that twofold demand and is trying, with ite walkout and boycott
1950 tactics, to blackmail] the United Nations into compliance with it. The United Nations, embarrassed firat by the Chinese National Government's preferring of charges against the Soviet Union, and embarrassed further now by the Chinese Communist Govern- ment's demands and the pressure applied by the Soviet Government in support thereof, is greatly concerned about the menace to it of this Soviet pressure, nrore concerned, it would seem, than it has thus far shown iteelf to be about the menace to the world of Soviet pressures of the past 5 years in China and against a government there which the Soviet Government had expressly pledged itself, in special agreements, to support. In and regarding this situation, the Gov- ernment of the United States has taken an affirmative position toward sidetracking con- sideration of the Chinese Government's charges against the Soviet Union and has taken an essentially negative position toward the question of representation of China in the United Nations. Its spokesmen have de- clared that its delegation will vote against recognition by the United Nations of the Communist regime but will not resort to the veto and will accept such verdict as may be arrived at by the votes of the majority. The Secretary General of the United Nations has formulated and has actively propagated a proposal that the United Nations pass upon the question of Chinese representation to and within it without reference to the policies or action of its member states individually in regard to recognition, and that the United Nations make its test that of exercise of ‘‘ef- fective authority within the territory of the state” and “habitual obedience by the bulk of the population.” Adoption of that proposal by the United Nations would presumably lead to unseat- ing the representation of the National Gov- ernment and seating a representation of the Communist Government, Notwithstanding the fact that the National Government still has complete control over the whole of For- mosa, which long was and presumably now is Chinese territory, with an area greater than that of Maryland and Delaware com- bined and a population almost equal in numbers to that of Australia, and that the Communist regime’s authority is still dis- puted at various points on the mainland, it mathematically true that the Communist regime does now exercise authority, exten- sively speaking, over most of the territory of China. The principle of seating on the basis of mere possession of power would be consist- ent with policies of neutrality, noninterven- tion, and noninvolvement, but not with pur- suit of the objective of maintaining peace with justice between and among nations. The test of effective control is one part, but only one, of the three-part standard test of qualification for recognition. Were the United Nations to adopt the principle that effective control suffices for seating in the Seourlty Council, and were it then to seat a representative of China’s Communist regime, it would thereby be certifying to all concerned that in its view that regime has effective control and is {pso facto qualified for acceptance. It would set a precedent implying that it does not expect to concern itself, and the world need not, with ques- tions of the origin or the character or the policies of regimes which, having acquired substantial control of a preponderance of territory, claim the right to speak ex- clusively for the whole of nations thus af- fected. Decisions to those effects by the United Nations would put states which have not recognized China’s Communist government, especially the United States, in an awkward position. It would compel them either to @bandon thelr present positions vis-a-vis China's National Government or to develop within and for themselves split political per- sonalities, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE In brief, by adoption of Mr. Lie's proposal the United Nations might presumably effect @ relaxation of the immediate Soviet pres- sure upon it; would, by establishing an ili- omened precedent, invite resort by success- ful aggressors to further such pressures at their convenience; would create for many of its members new perplexities; and would add to the bewilderment and apprehension of multitudes of men of good will who, ob- serving the strength of the modern tendency toward solutions of fancied expediency, are being driven to wonder what faith can with warrant be placed in treaties, conventions, charters, and international law as instru- ments for the safeguarding of the rights and interests of nations and of peoples and of persons. Yet, within the Lie proposal there is a germ of a possibly good idea, Might not the members of the family of nations to advantage delegate to the United Nations, by some orderly process, the function of rec- ognition? Might not this be practicable if there first were formulated and adopted, to be followed by the United Nations in its per- formance of that function, a set of rules, including criteria, toward according or with- holding of recognition? Might not some such steps tend to take questions of recog- nition out of politics, to relieve many gov- ernments of one category of embarrassing and time-consuming problems, and to re- duce or eliminate one of the all too many causes of friction and contention between and among states, governments, and peoples? The idea of a collective decision in regard to recognition is not new. It has been pro- pounded from time to time and in various versions, Left to themselves, individuals, govern. ments, nations, and the United Nations see China in a great variety of lights and see in China and regarding China very different actualities and possibilities. And no wonder, To most people China, old China, has always been more or less a mystery. Today's Com- munist China is so different from anything with which the Occident has been really familiar that the more we see and hear of it, the more we feel like saying, with the coun- tryman at the zoo, “There ain't no such animal.” For, as Professor Steiner, after an inten- sive study of its foreign policy, has recently concluded: ‘Communist China typifies a new kind of state, organized and motivated by a revolutionary ethic thoroughly incompatible with the existing structure of international law and relations. It struggles to attain unbridled freedom of action for the imple- mentation of doctrines which can no longer be exposed to objective scrutiny and evalua- tion. If it accepts restraint, it does so from political and tactical considerations alone and not from any sense of legal obligation under international law. International law does not even receive its lip service.” (Steiner, H. Arthur, American Journal of International Law, vol, 44, January 1950, p. 99.) How can any responsible government, come mitted to the principles and policies which have been and which are those of the United States, seeking to act intelligently and rea- sonably, with the real long swing interests of its own and other peoples on its mind and in its heart and in its hands, expect or be expected to accord recognition to such ® political prodigy without having first de- voted ample time to study of its origin and to observation of ita structure, its activities, its habits, its affiliations and its prociivities? For the United States the question what to do about China’s Communist regime is only one of many questions currently im- plicit in the problem of relations with China and China's neighbors. This question should, then, be considered in the light of other and larger questions, our over-all objectives in regard to China, our objectives 10487 in regard to the Far East as a whole, our objectives in regard to the world as a whole. A decision to recognize the Communist gov- ernment in China, made and implemented independently of decisions with regard to those questions and problems, might easily add to, rather than reduce, the sum total of our difficulties in pursuit of and regarding our major and constant objectives of peace, justice, and security. Getting down to fundamentals: We recoge nized the National Government of China 22 years ago. That government ts still extant and we still recognize it. That government made resistance even as did we to Japanese totalitarian aggression. That government is making resistance, even as are we, to Com- munist totalitarian aggression. In the con- filct between democracy and totalitarianism in which we are reluctantly but inescapably engaged, it can be no heip to us to have that government disappear. A decision on the part of the United States to recognize the Communist regime in China would require first a decision to terminate our recognition of the National Government. Implementing of such a decision would ine volve, constitute, and signify complete aban-~ donment by the United States of the Na- tional Government and should imply and involve intention on the part of the United States to refrain from any encouragement of resistance to the authority in China of the government thereupon or thereafter rec- ognized by us in place of the government thus “buried alive.” Such a taking and giving, such a transfer of legal approval, by the American Govern- ment, under now prevailing circumstances, would signify to the Chinese people, to many other peopies, and to more than a few of our own people, that in this critical case the United States prefers acceptance of a Com< munist domination achieved by force to a continuance of resistance thereto by a gov- ernment which has declined or has been un- able to comply with American advice or de- mands or both. : What may have been in mind when it was stated in the white book that we believe that ultimately the civilization and individ- ualism of China will “reassert themselves and * * © throw off the foreign yoke” and that we “should encourage all develop- ments in China which * * * work to- ward this end” is a fair subject for cone Jecture. In the light of our traditional policies, especially of developments therein since 1928 and particularly of those since 1944, it would seem that we, the United States, should be among the last of the democracies to certify China's National Government legally de- funct. And in the light of our current poll- cies and of the recent utterances and acts of the Chinese Communist authorities we certainly should be among the last to certify China’s Communist regime the government of China, In that context and as matters stand, there persist a number of serious questions not lightly to be answered or to be brushed aside: Can we afford to abandon a friendly gov- ernment to the fashioning of whose predica- ment we have contributed, while that gov- ernment still lives and still is resisting a common enemy? Can we afford to add, by such an act, to the doubts regarding our standards and our reliability which already exist in the minds of various peoples whom we exhort to stand with us in a common effort to combat com- munism and produce conditions of national and international security? Can we afford not only to withhold sup- port but to withdraw recognition from @ government which is actively and tena- clously resisting, with armed force, the ad- vance of communism? Were we to follow such courses now, how could we reasonably
10488 expect opportunity to develop wherein we would even up by encouraging and support- ing revolt in that area at some future moment? Can we afford, taking into account all known factors, to invest heavily in support of resistance to the menace of communism in western Kurope and at some points in eastern Asia and elaewhere and at the same time to declare disqualified a government actively engaged in restetance to an armed subjugation by communism of the most vi- tal area and the most durably influential nation in eastern Asia? Can we afford to accept, by facilitating the completion of the Communist conquest of China and consolidation by the Commu- nists of their position in that pivotal and crucial area, the increase which will inevi- tably result therefrom of Communist pres- sure upon and against other areas in the Far East in which we have interests and involve- ments, especially Japan, Korea, and the Philippines? Can we afford to accept by default the loss of the advantage which it might be to us to have remain alive in China at least a nu- cleus of organized resistance, some element allied with us in the common cause of re- sistance by freemen and free peoples to the armed advance of communism? With regard to China’a Communist gov- ernment, we owe to China as a state and, therefore, to any authorities functioning in or for any pert of China, respect on our part for the international legal obligations that are ours toward China. That is all that we owe. There exists no law or rule which re- quires that we accord recognition. There do exist tests which we have been in the habit of applying of qualification for rec- ognition. This Communist government Goes not pass these testa. There are con- ceivably some problematic advantages which we might lose by not recognizing it. There is much that we would almost surely lose by recognizing it now. With or without recognition a new gov- ernment displacing or claiming to have dis- placed an old owes to the world respect for the international legal obligations of the state which it governs or proposes to gov- ern. Thus far this Communist government in China has shown itself little or not at all inclined to respect those obligations. In our pursuing of the courses which we have followed in relations with and regard- ing China during the years since 1944 we have incurred enormous losses. Now, in at- tempting to answer the question what to do about this Communist government we have a choice between evils. Either way, we stand to incur further losses. Recogni- tion of that government, if now accorded, would constitute an acknowledgment and confirmation of losses up to date, but it would not put an end to our losing. There is only one possible course, pursuit of which might possibly, on balance, do that. Recognition can be accorded at any time, and easily. Recognition once given can only with difficulty be withdrawn. In the light of all these many considera- tions, tt seems the better part of wisdom to scrutinize very carefully and, therefore, with deliberation, any proposal for trans- fer of recognition from an old government still extant to any new government which has just begun to function. This, especially when the old government has long shown itself favorably disposed toward us and to the world at large and the new government has, in word and in deed, shown itself hos- tile to us—to our ideals and practices. It is believed, then, that in this China case, we should take no action toward withdrawal, transfer, or according of recognition unless and until it becomes crystal clear that we have leas to lose by such action than by con- tinuing to stand, look, and listen. Mean- while, as the of State, Mr. Ache- son, said 4 weeks ago (April 5), the United CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE States continues to recognize the National Government, and it would be “premature” (that was Mr. Acheson’s word) to coneider now any shifting of that position, [Ap- plause.] MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE A message from the House of Repre- sentatives, by Mr. Maurer, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House had passed, without amendment, the following bills of the Benate: 8.382. An act for the relief of Wong Suey g: 8. 841. An act for the relief of Michele Bartolomeo Marchisto; 8.976. An act for the relief of Vartan Chamsarian; 8.1262. An act for the relief of Jultana Mendiola Alastra; 8.1779. An act for the relief of Phil Meyers, also known as Gil Meyers; 8.2077. An act for the relief of Francisco Gonzalez Perez; 8. 2277. An act for the relief of George A. Voregarethsos (George Spiro Chatmos); 8. 2296. An act for the relief of Maria Cicerelli; and 8.2676. An act for the relief of Kimie Yamada Ina and her daughter, Ritsuko Ina. The message also announced that the House had agreed, without amendment, to the concurrent resolution (8. Con. Res, 90) favoring the suspension of deporta- tion of certain aliens. A PROGRAM FOR AMERICA Mr. HAYDEN. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr, Brinags]. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hunt in the chair). The Chair understands the Senator from Arizona to request that he may yield to the Senator from New Hampshire without his losing the floor. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered. Mr. BRIDGES. Mr. President, gallant American fighting men are dying in Korea. Vastly outnumbered by a foe which despises the value of human life, our forces are fighting a delaying action. Why do they fight, Mr. President? To restore the peace? Mr. President, 5 years ago our fighting men laid down their arms. They had fought World War II. Their gallantry had won that war. The sacrifices of those who fought, the sacrifices of those who died, the sacrifices of those they left behind, had been made for one purpose: Peace. America fought World War IZ to gain but one objective: Permanent Peace. Our fighting men had a right to expect that the cause they advanced would be earried forward, that the world would know the beginning of Permanent Peace. Peace is worth fighting for, Mr. Presi- dent. But there are reports from Korea of bitterness and frustration. Our fight- ing men know of the epic failure of our efforts to establish a lasting peace. It is small wonder if there are some who feel bitter. The essence of government is to foresee the future. This administration, like the preceding administration, has failed. This Nation cannot afford further fail- ure. We must know where we are go- ing. We must chart a course. We must take heed of our failures and profit from JULY 18 our experience or disaster will overwhelm us. I happen to be a United States Senator who can make thisspeech, For 14 years, as a Member of the United States Senate, I have consistently held the same couree. Since 1937 I have urged, I have argued, I have pleaded. I have said, “Resist small aggression before it becomes large ag- gression.” Ihave said, “Quench the bon- fire before it becomes a major conflagra- tion.” . I voted against passage of the Neu- trality Act, that law which prevented us from sending assistance to those who opposed Hitler and his fellow conspira- tors against the peace. I was one of six Senators to vote against this law in March 1937. By my votes and by my speeches, which are in the Recorp, I supported Selective Service, Lend-Lease, and each and every program to maintain and extend our military strength, to build our Army, Navy, and Air Force. All these pro- grams, and a multitude of others, had my support. Sometimes the number of Senators to agree with my position was pitifully small. But Hitler and Musso- lini were on the march and the Japanese war lords were sounding the war drums. After World War iI, I joined with that group of Senators which enacted the ECA program, the North Atlantic Pact, and the arms-implementation program, and other legislation. This time the danger was Soviet expansion. At times it has been an unpopular position, Individuals lobbying against preparedness have spat on me. My life was threatened as I prepared to speak on the afternoon of December 7, 1941, because I had heen labeled a war- monger. It was a hollow triumph to find that I was right before Pearl Harbor. It is equally hollow, now, to find that I have been right about Russia. Even as a political opponent of this administration, I certainly can find no pleasure in reciting the foolishly opti- mistic words which administration lead- ers have uttered in the last year. It is hard to believe, in the light of what they have said, that they knew the truth. Yet it is impossible to believe they did not know the truth. I knew what was hap- pening. Many other Senators have known what was happening. A substan- tial part of the general public has known what was happening. It is only with regret that I review these statements: regret born of the de- spair I feel as our casualty Nsts mount in Korea—casualties which could so readily have been avoided. It was less than 1 year ago that the State Department issued the infamous “China white paper,” a product of the thinking of Philip C. Jessup—our Am- bassador-at-Large—whose personal prej- udices, and those of his associates in the State Department against the Republic of China, are too well known to require further comment. Incidentally, my colleagues will recall that Jessup's last trip to south Asia was delayed while he testified for Alger Hiss. This white paper, a monstrous excuse for losing the key to the Orient, was issued on Augunt 5, 1849, The next day the senior Sena-