1950 made to get storage facilities which had belonged to the Army or to the Navy, and their inability to do so. In response to a question asked by the distinguished Senator from California {Mr. KNow ann], General Hill testified that more than $300,000,000 worth of this equipment was stored on the outside. He made a very telling case. The chairman of the committee [Mr. Typrnas1 stated to him in the course of his testimony: I think you have made out a pretty good case. Of course, if we intend to disband the Marine Corps, this item ought not to be included in the bill. There are those who think that the Marine Corps has served its purpose and that hereafter am- phibious operations should be handled by the Army. The Marine Corps is being drastically reduced all down the line. I am one of those who believe that in time of war the Marine Corps gives the Nation something which is incapable of monetary evaluation. The esprit de corps and the traditions of the Marine Corps mean a great deal to the fighting forces of the United States. I believe it would be a great tragedy, if not a fatal mistake, to let the Marine Corps be whit- tled away completely. If we intend to have a Marine Corps, it is entitled to storage facilities for its war reserves on an equal basis with those possessed by the Army, the Air Force, and the Navy. In my opinion, the approval of this item certainly would be an expression on the part of Congress that we do not think the Marine Corps should be diminished to the point of extinction. TI believe the Marine Corps is entitled to equal treat- ment with any other part of the armed services in any construction or prepared- ness program. Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, I re- gret very much that I must oppose this amendment, and I hope the Senate will not approve it, for the following reasons: When this proposal was first made I communicated with the Department of Defense at the Pentagon and asked them whether or not there was a need for these warehouse facilities and whether or not there were any vacant facilities in which this equipment could be stored, without the necessity for an expenditure of $25,000,000 for the construction of warehouses for the Marine Corps. This is one of the largest items in the bill. It has never had the approval of the Navy Department, the Marine Corps, or the Department of Defense. The gen- eral who appeared before us was from the Marine Corps. ‘There is no doubt about that. But the Commandant of the Marine Corps did not write the com- mittee a letter approving it. Mr, RUSSELL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. TYDINGS. I yield. Mr. RUSSELL. As the Senator knows, of course, the Commandant of the Ma- rine Corps could not write a letter which would be contrary to the position taken by the Secretary of Defense. He knows further that the Quartermaster General of the Marine Corps could not have come before the committee had it not been xCVI——109 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE that I insisted on his being brought be- fore the committee to testify with re- spect to this item, because that would be contrary to the policy of the Secre- tary of Defense. The general, who cer- tainly should have known something about it, testified that this item had been approved by the Marine Corps and by the Navy Department, but had met with disapproval when it was submitted to the Secretary of Defense. Mr. TYDINGS. All these items were submitted to those who screened them. My point is that the Commandant of the Marine Corps did not write to us urging the approval of the item. The Secretary of the Navy did not write to us. When I suggested to the Secretary of Defense that $25,000,000 for storage facilities to store equipment which was on the Pa- cific coast and to transport it all the way across the country was a very large item, and that every facility ought to be utilized to put the equipment under cover without the expenditure of such a large sum of money, and suggested that some place ought to be available, he answered by saying that he had already established a committee to find out what existing buildings could be utilized in which to store the equipment rather than to construct new buildings, that the uncovered equipment would be moved under cover as quickly as possible, and that he was opposed to this proposal. I first received a letter on this subject from the Secretary of Defense on Sep- tember 13, 1949. It reads as follows: Tue SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, Washington, September 13, 1949. Hon. Miuiarp E. TyDINGs, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. Dear SENATOR TypiNas: The matter of a Marine Corps depot of supplies on the east coast of the United States, referred to in your letter of August 22, 1949, is being given urgent attention by the Munitions Board. Last February Mr. Donald F. Carpenter, the former chairman of the Munitions Board, considered items to be included {n the Pub- lic Works Authorization bill which your committee has just considered At that time the Marine Corps presented detatled data on the need for such a project. However, the project was not selected for inclusion in the bill because current operational necessities were believed to be more urgent than those for mobilization. More particularly the item was suspended until a determination could be made whether existing facilities could provide the needed depot space. It has developed, as you point out in your letter, that the immediate need 1s not for the construction of a depot but for covered storage space in the East which will permit the removal of valuable equipment and sup- plies from open storage where they are said to be deteriorating. Action was initiated last April by the Munitions Board to determine the availability of unoccupied storage space in active, inactive, and surplus installations. No inactive and surplus space was found which was acceptable to the Marine Corps. Within active military storage facilities in the East there are approximately 1,000,000 equare feetyof available covered storage space, which is about one-half of the peacetime needs of the Marine Corps. This space is widely scattered between and within instal- lations, a little here and a little there. The Marine Corps found this space to be un- suitable because its use would be difficult due to its dispersion, and uneconomical and unsatisfactory from an operational view- point. 1725 In order to expedite an acceptable solution the acting Chairman of the Munitions Board is organizing a group to find covered storage space which it considers suitable to meet the current urgent needs of the Marine Corps to protect its property from deteriora- tion due to outside exposure. Because of the importance of this problem, the group will be composed of officers of flag and general rank from the three services. I appreciate the valuable suggestions of- fered in your letter and I shall do everything possible to find satisfactory storage space for the Marine Corps without the need at this time for the additional construction envisaged in the request to which you refer I shall inform you later of the results of my investigation. With kind regards, I am, Sincerely yours, Lovis JOHNSON. Then, Mr. President, on October 7, 1949, in response to a letter of mine or a call, I received the following letter from the Secretary of Defense: Tze SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, Washington, October 7, 1949. Hon, Mitrarp E. TYDINGS, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. Drak SENATOR T¥DINGS: Supplementing my letter of September 18, 1949, on the subject of a Marine Corps depot of supplies on the east coast of the United States, this matter was again discussed by the Munitions Board on September 16, 1949, and, in the light of the record, as set forth in the attached state- ment, it was decided that an over-all study of the storage operations of the military de- partments should be undertaken, rather than to confine vhis study to the specific subject of a Marine Corps depot of supplies on the east coast of the United States. It was also decided that, because of the in- creased time which will be required for such a study, and because of the unavailability for an extended period of officers of flag and gen- eral rank, that the group to conduct this study should be composed of officers of the rank of colonel in the Army and Alr Force or of captain in the Navy. The report of this group will subsequently be reviewed by offi- cers of flag and general rank, as was the caso in reviewing projects for inclusion in the public-works authorization bills. In view of the facts set forth in the at- tached statement, I am sure you will concur in this procedure, and in my decision not to recommend an appropriation of §20,000,- 000 at this time to initiate construction of this depot. I shall be happy to inform you of the results of the study. Again express- ing my appreciation of your valuable sug- gestions, which will be placed before the study group, and with kindest regards, I am Sincerely yours, Louris JOHNSON. In other words, Mr. President, from the letter of October 7, we see that the projects now included in the pending measure have gone through the mill of review by the appropriate officers, where- as the pending proposition has not yet gone through that mill. In addition, Mr. President, I have a history of this whole proposal. The point is that here we have a re- quest for a very large appropriation, namely, $25,000,000. Mr. RUSSELL. It is not an authori- gation, Mr. President? Mr. TYDINGS Yes; it is an authort- zation of $25,000,000, for the building of warehouses in which to store or house equipment belonging to the Marine Corps. Much of the equipment is al- ready on the west coast, in California,
1726 near the Pacific Ocean. I do not know what it would cost to ship the equipment across the United States; I do not know how many freight trains would be re- quired for that purpose or what would be the cost, in addition to the cost of building the warehouses. Furthermore, Mr. President, if we are to provide for the construction of proj- ects simply upon the testimony of some high-ranking officer, even though the projects may be meritorious, but are to do so without a proper screening by the officers or authoritics who are charged with the duty of picking out the most urgent needs, to be cared for first, in my opinion we shall have a measure which will defeat its entire purpose, and the appropriations will be correspond- ingly reduced. The time may come when we shall re- ceive some recommendations on this subject, if there is nothing to do but build warehouses for the storage of the various pieces of equipment. But that time has not yet arrived. I cannot imagine that the Senate of the United States will appropriate $25,000,000 at this time for this purpose, when no ap- proval of it has been given to the com- mittee by the head of the Marine Corps, by the Secretary of the Navy, or by the Secretary of Defense. I share the point of view of my able colleague on the Committee on Armed Services, the junior Senator from Geor- gia [Mr. Russet], that we cannot go on forever leaving this equipment in the open. Of course, some of it can stand the weather fairly well, but some of it cannot. We must move into storage first the equipment which cannot stand the weather, and we must wait until an appropriate time, later on, to move un- der cover the equipment which can stand the weather. I have on my desk pictures showing any number of tanks, tractors, and other equipment stored in the open. I now hold in my hand, for instance, a picture showing hundreds upon hundreds of pieces of equipment which are stored in the open. That equipment is very valuable. I can duplicate that picture with many other pictures taken all over the Pacific area. In some cases we find, on the basis of surveys already made, that it would cost more to bring the equipment back to continental United States than we could get for it after it was brought back to this country. Some of the equipment is useless because it is battle worn, and some of it is neglected. Moreover, we have found that in many cases the cost of putting guards on the islands where much of the equipment is located would be greater than the loss in- curred by permitting the equipment to deteriorate and go to pieces. We are bedeviled, on the one hand, by wanting to save the equipment, and bedeviled, on the other hand, because the cost of saving it almost defeats that objective. If the matter had come before us after it had been screened, then I think that would be one thing. I have tried to be generous on the air- field matter, which had not been screened, because there was a Httle dif- ferent situation. There was an appro- priation for one fleld, and that field has CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE been abandoned because recently there has been a consolidation, and it seemed to me there ought to be some latitude there, so that further consideration may be given the matter. But that is in an entirely different category from this $25,- 000,000 authorization, and I sincerely hope it will not be approved by the Senate. Mr. RUSSELL. I concede that the two items are in entirely different categories. However, I cannot agree with the dis- tinguished chairman of the committee that this item has not been approved by the Navy Department. When he refers to screening, he refers to items which have been sent to the Committee on Armed Services by the Secretary of De- fense. This item has been approved by the Marine Corps. I have before me the testimony of Maj. Gen. W. P. T. Hill, the Quartermaster General of the Marine Corps. I did not call the Com- mandant, because I got the man who has knowledge about the need for this pro- gram. I am sure if we had brought the Commandant of the Marine Corps be- fore the committee he would have said he thought this was essential to any suc- cessful operation by the Marine Corps from the east coast. From the state- ment before the committee by General Hill, I read the following: General HILL. For about 4 years, sir, we have been trying to get one in the program. It has been approved by the Navy Depart- ment, and last year it went to the National Military Establishment but was not consid- ered operational, so it was not put in the President's budget and at the present time it is not in the President’s plan. The President’s plan, of course, is what the Secretary of Defense sends to the Senate. We all know what happens to those who are in the Navy Department or in the Marine Corps when they vol- untarily testify at variance to what has been decided by the Secretary of De- fense. I should certainly not have the Commandant of the Marine Corps come forward to volunteer his testimony, be- cause he would undoubtedly be relieved of his command. General Hill talks about finding the space. He was asked this question: Have you made any effort to get facilities for this storage, that had been used by the Army or the Navy? General HILu. Yes, sir. We went to the War Assets Administration before it was terminated. We have gone to the Muni- tions Board and they have suggested certain sites and locations which we have in- spected * * *, They are all very small. Some of them were up in Elmira, N. Y.; Buf- falo, N. ¥.; Joliet, Ill.; near Cincinnati, Ohto; Miami, Fla.; and Savannah, Ga., but they all were either turned over to the National Guard or had been disposed of to some other organization before we got there, or were small. The Marine Corps have been trying for years to have this provision made. They have screened it. So fax as screen- ing is concerned, it has been screened all the way up to the Secretary of De- fense. The Secretary of Defense has not seen fit to approve the item. I thought when I heard the testimony that they had made, in the words of the distin- guished chairman, a very good case for this item, and I still think they did, even FEBRUARY 9 though it has not been approved by the Secretary of Defense, It seems to me to be a penny-wise and pound-foolish policy, when we have $300,000,000 to $400,000,000 worth of the most valuable military equipment, which might be needed by the Marine Corps tomorrow, as a spearhead, perhaps, to some effort to save civilization from im- pending danger, not to authorize the construction of warehouses in which it can be stored. It does not mean that the warehouses will ever be built, for that matter, because, as the Senator from Maryland so eloquently suggested a few moments ago, it is necessary to go through the different appropriations committees and to get budget estimates before the funds can ever be appropri- ated. But I see no reason why the Sen- ate should not approve the item. It has been approved by the Marine Corps and has been approved by the Navy Depart- ment. I think the Senate at least should vote to authorize the construction of ware- houses where the equipment can be stored, so that, later on, if there is a change in the international situation, it could serve the Marine Corps as well as did the equipment used so effectively by the Marine Corps in the Pacific during the last war. Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, I have the utmost respect for my friend from Georgia, and certainly want to do everything I can to help the Marine Corps. But in support of what the Sen- ator from Maryland has said, I may say that I remember the discussion on the subject which occurred in the committee. I think the great worry all the mem- bers of the committee had was that we might authorize perhaps more than was justified in these time for warehouscs and buildings and things of that sort, and fail to make adequate provision for the new equipment that we must have to keep our armed services up-to-date, in order to make it possible for our boys to fight as safely as possible and as effici- ently as possible. In this bill we under- took as our objective to give approval only to the projects which were recom- mended. If my memory serves me right, we took the items which were approved by the Secretary of Defense. I think if we at this time begin adding others, we shall find ourselves in a very difficult position. I agree with the Senator from Georgia that there is much equipment that should be placed under cover in some way, but all I can say is that this was not one of the items the Department of Defense finally recommended to us, on the revised list, which was kept as small as prac- ticable. I think even now the whole bill may be too big an authorization. I certainly do not believe that we should add to it now. Mr, RUSSELL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. SALTONSTALL. I yield. Mr. RUSSELL. Does the Senator from Massachusetts think the Committee on Armed Services should confine its considerations only to those matters which they are permitted to consider by the Secretary of Defense?
1950 Mr. SALTONSTALL. No, I do not, but I think the difficulty is, there is such a wide range of matters that when we try to go outside the big items which we feel may be of value—and I agree with what the Senator from Georgia says—we get ourselves into a very difficult position. That is all I have to say. Mr. RUSSELL. If we should ever happen to have a Secretary of Defense who wished to abolish the Marine Corps, he could do it very easily under the Senator’s formula, because he would not submit any item to the Armed Services Committee that would enable the Marine Corps to exist. Mr. SALTONSTALL. I should like to answer the Senator’s suggestion, be- cause it comes pretty close to home. I had a son in the Marine Corps. I want to do everything I can to keep the Ma- rine Corps in existence as a fighting force and as a necessary adjunct to the Navy. I can assure the Senator from Georgia I would not do anything that I felt would jeopardize the future exist- ence of the Marine Corps. Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. SALTONSTALL. I yield. Mr. TYDINGS. I should like to point out to the Senator that the status of the Marine Corps in numbers is fixed by law, and it must be, as I recall, at 20 percent of the strength of the Navy. So, as the Navy goes up, the Marine Corps goes up; as the Navy goes down, the Marine Corps goes down. There is no chance of hurting the Marine Corps in that respect, or wiping it out, as I have often heard stated. It will never be wiped out with my approval, while the present law is on the statute books. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. CHAPMAN in the chair). The question ts on agreeing to the amendment offered by the Senator from Georgia. Mr. SCHOEPPEL. I suggest the ab- sence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll Mr. SCHOEPPEL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum-call be rescinded and that further proceedings under the call be suspended. The VICE PRESIDENT. Without ob- Jection, it is so ordered. The question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the Senator from Georgia [Mr. Russe]. The amendment was rejected. The VICE PRESIDENT. The bill is open to further amendment. Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, be- fore the final vote on the bill, I wish to express my personal appreciation and the appreciation of all persons concerned in Alaska for the consideration which the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee has given the prob- lem of military housing in Alaska. The committee devoted a great deal of time to it. This housing is long overdue, and I hope the bill will have speedy passage in both the Senate and the House, s0 that work may be done in Alaska during the season. I again wish to thank the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE chairman and his committee for their courtesy and for the consideration which they have given the problem. Mr. TYDINGS. I thank the Senator from Washington. The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is on agreeing to the committee amend- ment as amended. The amendment as amended was agreed to. The bill (S. 2440) was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, was read the third time, and passed. OBLIGATION OF FUNDS FOR ASSISTANCE IN CERTAIN AREAS OF CHINA Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, in making an annouscement recently in the Sen- ate as to the order of business, I advised the Senate that following the passage of Senate bill 2440 the Senate would pro- ceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 1082, House bill 5839, which is known as the Forest Service bill and which is being handled by the distinguished Sen- ator from Wyoming [Mr. O’MAHONEY]. Mr. O'MAHONEY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. LUCAS. I yield. Mr. O’MAHONEY. The Senator from Minnesota (Mr. THyE] reported that bill from the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. I am not a member of that committee. Ihave offered some amend- ments to the bill which are agreeable to all concerned. I think the Senator from Minnesota is in charge of the bill. Mr. LUCAS. What I meant to say was that the Senator from Wyoming had ob- jected to the bill in the past, and I now understand that he has some perfecting amendments which are satisfactory to all concerned. However, the Senator from Wyoming will not be in the Senate to- morrow, and, therefore, desires that some other measure be taken up. In discuss- ing the question with the acting minority leader and the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, I find it is satisfactory to them that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Senate bill 2845. I ask unanimous con- sent that the Senate proceed to the con- sideration of Senate bill 2845. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Secre- tary will state the bill by titic. The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. A bill (8. 2845) to enable the President to obligate funds heretofore appropriated for as- sistance in certain areas in China until June 30, 1950. Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, while this is not one of the five or six bills which it was agreed would be taken up in the next few days, I have tried to ascertain, on the side of the minority, whether there was any objection to con- sidering the bill tomorrow. I can find no evidence of objection on the part of anyone to having the bill considered, and I know it has to be acted upon very shortly if it is to be of value. So I hope the request will be agreed to. The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there ob- jection to the request of the Senator from Tlinois? There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill (8. 2845) to enable the President to obligate funds heretofore appropriated for assistance 1727 in certain areas in China until June 30, 1950. RECESS Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, it is now 5 o’clock, there will be some debate on the bill just taken up, and in view of the fact that the bill was not contemplated by the leadership on this side, I think it is advisable that the Senate take a recess until tomorrow. There are two other bills on the calen- dar, which have been reported unanit- mously by the Committee on Finance, one a few days ago. One of the bills, Senate bill 501, would repeal section 202 (e) of the Sugar Act of 1948, and House bill 5486 would amend the Internal Reve- nue Code to permit the use of stamp machines, and for other purposes. Whether or not those bills will be taken up tomorrow depends perhaps on how long it will take for the consideration of the bill just made the unfinished busi- ness. However, I may say, after having conferred with a number of Senators, that after the Senate concludes its busi- ness tomorrow we will probably take a recess until Tuesday, February 14. Mr. President, I now move that the Senate stand in recess until 12 o’clock noon tomorrow. The motion was agreed to; and (at 5 o’clock and 2 minutes p. m.) the Senate took a recess until tomorrow, Friday, February 10, 1950, at 12 o’clock meridian. CONFIRMATIONS Executive nominations confirmed by the Senate February 9 (legislative day of January 4), 1950: NATIONAL MILITARY ACADEMY Col Elvin R Heiberg, 016378, for appoint- ment as professor of mechanics, United States Military Academy. In THE ARMY APPOINTMENTS IN THE REGULAR ARMY OF THE UNITED STATES Melecio M Santos, 014683, to be a lieu- tenant colonel. Kenneth D. Nichols, 017498, to be a colonel, The nominations of Lorenzo R Berry et al, for appotntment in the Regular Army of the United States, which were confirmed today, were received by the Senate on January 30, 1950, and appear in full in the Senate pro- ceedings of the ConGressionaL Recorp for that date under the caption “Nominations,” beginning with the name of Lorenzo R. Berry, which appears on page 1086, and end- ing with the name of Kenneth Y. Wright, Jr., which is shown on page 1090. Unrrep Sratres Am Force The nominations of Howard F. Currie, 029502, et al., for appointment in the United States Air Force, which were confirmed to- day, were received by the Senate on February 2, 1950, and appear in full in the Senate proceedings of the CONGRESSIONAL ReEcorD tor that date, under the caption ‘“Nomina- tions,” beginning with the name of Howard F. Currie, which appears on pege 1370, and ending with the name of Michael I. Youchah, which is shown on page 1371. IN THE Navy The following-named officers for temporary appointment to the grade of rear admiral in the line of the Navy: Ralph E McShane Leon J Huffman Thomas B. Brittain Harold A. Houser Richard P. Glass John M Higgins Clark L. Green Edward A. Solomons
1728 The following-named officers for permas nent appointment to the grade of com- mander in the line of the Navy: Bess A. Dunn Joy B Hancock Eleanor J. Durrett Louise K. Wilde The nominations of Aaron F. Adams et al., the nominations of Sigmund Abraham, Jr., et al., and the nominations of William J. Bennett, Jr., et al., which were confirmed today, were received by the Senate on Febru- ary 2, 1950, and appear in full in the Senate proceedings of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD for that date under the caption “Nomina- tions,” beginning with the name of Aaron F, Adams, which appears on page 1371, and ending with the name of James N. Martin, which is shown on page 1375. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuunspay, Fepruary 9, 1950 The House met at 11 o’clock a. m. The Chaplain, Rev. Bernard Bras- kamp, D. D., offered the following prayer: O Thou who wert the God of our fathers, we rejoice that Thou art also the God of their succeeding generations. Fill us with an eager desire to have our beloved country enjoy the blessings of democracy in an_ ever-increasing measure. May we share these blessings with all the needy members of the human family and in a spirit that is indicative of a real personal interest in their welfare and happiness. Grant that we may build a finer social order and may the nations of the earth never again seek to settle their diffl- cult international problems by submit- ting them to the dreadful arbitrament of war, Hear us in Christ’s name. Amen. The Journal of the proceedings of yes- terday was read and approved. MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE A message from the Senate, by Mr. Mc- Daniel, its enrolling clerk, announced that the Senate had passed a bill of the following title, in which the concurrence of the House is requested: 8. 2681. An act to authorize the attendance of the United States Marine Band at a cele- bration commemorating the one hundred and seventy-fifth anniversary of the Battle of Lexington, to be held at Lexington, Mass., April 16 through 19, inclusive, 1950. The message also announced that the Vice President has appointed Mr. JoHNn- ston of South Carolina and Mr. Lancer members of the joint select committee on the part of the Senate, as provided for in the act of August 5, 1939, entitled “An act to provide for the disposition of cer- tain records of the United States Gov- ernment,” for the disposition of execu- tive papers referred to in the report of the Archivist of the United States No. 50-15. The message also announced that the Senate agrees to the amendments of the House to bills of the Senate of the follow- ing titles: 8.485. An act for the relief of Joyce Violet Angel; and 8.1604. An act conferring jurisdiction upon the United States District Court for the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE District of New Mexico to hear, determine, and render judgment upon the claim of F, DuWayne Blankley. EXTENSION OF REMARKS Mr. COUDERT (at the request of Mr. KILBURN) was given permission to extend his remarks in the Appendix of the REcoRD. Mr. DONDERO asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the Recorp and include the one-half minute speeches made at the Lincoln Day Re- publican box social on February 6. Mr. HAND asked and was given per- mission to extend his remarks in the Recorp in two instances and in each to include extraneous matter. , Mr. SMITH of Wisconsin asked and was given permission to extend his re- marks in the Appendix of the Recorp in two instances and include extraneous matter. Mr. MACK of Washington asked and was given permission to extend his re- marks in the Appendix of the Recorp in two instances and include extraneous matter. PERMISSION TO ADDRESS THE HOUSE Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to ad- dress the House for 1 minute, and to revise and extend my remarks. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Massachusetts? There was no objection. (Mrs. Rocers of Massachusetts ad- dressed the House. Her remarks appear in the Appendix.] READJUSTING POSTAL RATES AND PAR- CEL POST REGULATIONS Mr. MOULDER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks, The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Mis- souri? There was no objection. Mr. MOULDER. Mr. Speaker, yester- day the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Murray] offered an amendment to the bill H. R. 2945, now under consideration, by which amend- ment he attempts to exempt certain rural areas from the changes and restrictions imposed by the bill as to the size and weight of parcel-post packages in the postal service to and from rural towns and communities not served by any com- mercial carrier service to the people re- siding in such areas. That amendment exempted all rural routes and third- and fourth-class post offices from the provi- sion in the bill reducing the size and weight of parcel-post packages mailed to and from rural routes and third- and fourth-class post offices. But most Mem- bers probably do not realize that there are numerous second-class post-office towns in their districts that are rural towns without express service or other commercial carrier transportation facili- ties; and the reople residing therein de- pend entirely upon parcel-post service. If this bill is adopted in its present form the farmers residing near such towns who are not on rural routes, and the people in such second-class post-office FEBRUARY 9 towns will be deprived of essential par- cel-post service as a result of the reduc- tion of size and weight regulations as now provided in H. R. 2945. This will hit the farmers especially hard, those living around the second-class post-office towns, and they, too, will be deprived of the parcel-post service that they now re- ceive. It will mean, for instance, that those engaged in the business of chicken hatcheries cannot ship baby chicks to or from second-class post-office towns. Furthermore, the reduction of size and weight of parcel-post package service creates, by compelling use of smaller and separate packages, a higher and addi- tional increase of rate separately pro- vided for in the bill. Under these circumstances and be- cause of other objectionable provisions in the bill I am compelled to vote to re- commit it to the committee for further consideration. The SPEAKER. The time of the gen- tleman from Missouri has expired. EXTENSION OF REMARKS Mr. LANE asked and was given permis- sion to extend his remarks in the Ap- pendix of the RrEcorp in two separate instances, in one to include an article which appeared in the Exeter Newsletter, and in the other the remarks of the na- tional chaplain of the American Legion. Mr. CELLER (at the request of Mr. KLEIN) was given permission to extend his remarks in the Appendix of the Rrc- orD in two separate instances. Mr. CAVALCANTE asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the Appendix of the Recorp and in- clude a resolution in favor of the Fed- eral Bureau of Investigation and against the Communists adopted by the Knights of Columbus of his district. Mr. ASPINALL asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the Appendix of the Recorp and include an editorial from one of the leading news- papers of his district. THE FORGOTTEN MAN IN THE EXCISE TAX PICTURE Mr. HUBER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend my re- marks at this point in the Recorp. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Ohio? There was no objection. Mr. HUBER. Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak briefly today about the forgotten man in the excise-tax picture. Amid all of this current concern over reductions in the wartime excise taxes on furs and jewelry and several other items, he has been almost completely forgotten. He is the man who buys a tire—the man who uses tires in the earning of his Mvelihood, whether he be a farmer, a worker or a professional man. There are millions of him—upward of forty millions. Tires are in no sense a luxury. You will remember that they were virtually impossible to get during the war, even if you held one of those coveted B or C ration coupons. They carried a high pri- ority as essentials to the war effort. They are no less essential in peace- time, Yet even today, more than 4 years
1950 after the end of the war, taxes on some tires remain at levels more than double that of the excises levied against costly perfumes and luxurious furs. And all classes of tires bear taxes unfairly and disproportionately higher than the excises borne by comparable products. At present wartime rates, for example, the excise tax on industrial and lawn- mower tires ranges from 26 to 35 percent of the sales value of the tire; on automo- tive tires and tubes the range is from 7 to 14 percent at various levels of sale; and on baby-carriage tiring and tires for children's toys this tax ranges up to as much as 56 percent of the sales value. American motorists, farmers, and truckers paid out more than $1,100,000,- 000 in tire and tube excise taxes since 1932. Last year alone their tire and tube taxes amounted to more than $150,000,000. Harder hit by these taxes probably than any other single group of tire users was the American farmer. Taxes paid on tires and tubcs purchased for farm vehicles last year exceeded $33,000,000. A single farmer must lay out more than $60 in taxes to put new tires and tubes all the way around on his utility car, his farm truck, his tractor and farm trailer. Tire and tube taxes were selective and discriminatory when they were imposed. They became more so when they were increased in 1940, burdensomely so when they were doubled in 1941 as a temporary wartime measure to raise much-needed revenue to support our military effort. This tax means nothing to the manu- facturers of tires, large or small. Their role is simply that of a tax collector. But it is a matter of real dollar-and- cents concern to more than 200,000 small-business men in America who, as tire dealers, have much-necded operat- ing capital tied up in taxes which they have paid on their floor stocks. And it means even more to upward of 40,000,- .000 tire users who pay the bill in the final analysis. H. R. 6898, which I introduced in this House on January 20, recognizes the in- equity of this tax. It would carry rates on tires and tubes back to their prewar level. Moreover, it would aid these small-business men by affording to them @ means of unfreezing at least half of this sterile capital by permitting them to recover taxes which they will already have paid on floor stocks upon the effec- tive date of this legisiation. Gentlemen, I urge your serious consid- eration of the merit of this bill. CONGRATULATIONS TO WATTS REGULATOR CO. Mr. LANE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unani- mous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts? There was no objection. Mr. LANE. Mr. Speaker, from 1875 to 1950 is a 75-year span of progress on the books of the Watts Regulator Co., of Lawrence, Mass. On this three-quarter century anni- versary, management, workers, cus- tomers, and friends will attend open CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE house at the plant to celebrate an ac- complishment in which all have shared and to look forward to an even brighter tomorrow. It is a modern plant with up-to-date facilities, catering to an increasing de- mand for its plumbing and heating spe- clalties. Behind this physical evidence of in- genuity and organization is the Amcr- ican story, ignored for many years dur- ing which our people were concerned with experimentation and adaptation, but which {s coming into its own again as we realize that it is the main factor in our great development as a Nation. Our industrial plant and equipment did not come ready made. It had to have a beginning, sparked by men who had an idea and the persistence to build that idea into the buildings and machinery and techniques for creating jobs and cre- ating wealth. When Burchard E. Horne, the present owner, took over the Watts Regulator Co. in 1918, he only had a small machine shop with little more than a dozen employees. But he and they had the faith in each other that is called teamwork, which is an indispensable ingredient for success In any enterprise. Today it is called the science of indus- trial relations. Giant corporations and powerful labor unions employ many peo- ple and expend considerable sums in trying to recapture the lost unity of teamwork, as bigness tends to push em- ployer and employee farther and farther apart. This problem does not exist at Watts Regulator. The company has grown and expanded until it now has many employees and its specialized products serve a national market, but it is still a small industry. We hear much these days about the fi- nancial and competitive handicaps un- der which small industry operates. But to counterbalance this small industry 1s humanized. There is an immediate and personal communication between man- agement and workers. Both produce. Both share in the fruits of mutual pro- duction. But, above all, the viewpoints of both are understood by one another, and from this appreciation comes the in- spiration to go forward together, doing the job well. This is the secret of success at Watts Regulator. It is an example of that sin- cere cooperation between management and labor upon which the fate of our free industrial society depends. And so we extend our congratulations to the industrial family at the Watts Regulator Co., of Lawrence, not only for its steady production and its material progress but for that harmony in hu- man relations that makes the American success story a fact in which we all take pride. It is a lesson by the little people which the big people should copy. The Watts Regulator Co. is showing the way to the future. HOOVER COMMISSION RECOMMENDA- TIONS ON THE VETERANS’ ADMINISTRA- TION Mr. RODINO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House 1729 for 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New Jersey? There was no objection. Mr. RODINO. Mr. Speaker, the pro- posal to destroy the VA medical and hos- pital services and reestablish it as part of a single over-all Government agency designed to serve the health needs of all citizens, veterans, and nonveterans alike, is a complete about-face, and a return to the chaos which existed before VA was organized. To complete its destruction, the Hoover Committee further proposes to divorce the insurance operation from VA and set up a Government insurance cor- poration independent of other related benefits administered by VA in the inter- ests of veteran policyholders. The present integrated system of serv- ices to veterans was created to get away from the waste and inefficiency of the identical disintegrated system to which it is now proposed to return. The unified services now provided vet- erans by the VA did not come into being overnight. The building up of the present admin- istrative unity of the Veterans’ Admin- istration, guided by the will of Congress, took 12 long years. It took from 1918, following the close of World War I, until 1930. At the end of World War I, five sepa- rate agencies were trying vainly to serve veterans. Let us see what happened to the indi- vidual veteran after World War I under this crazy-quilt pattern. A disabled vet- eran presented his claim for pension to the Pension Bureau. Without medical information the Bureau was tied hand and foot. It could not move. The vet- eran was sent hobbling across town on his crutches to get a medical examina- tion. Weeks passed—often months—be- fore report of the examination reached the Pension Bureau. Meanwhile the vet- eran waited pensionless. Conditions got so bad they bordered on the scandalous. The President appointed a committee headed by Charles G. Dawes to investigate and recommend a remedy. The report of this committee submitted to the Congress, in 1923, said: It cannot be too strongly emphasized that the present deplorable failure on the part of the Government to properly care for the disabled veterans is due in large part to an imperfect organization of governmental cf- fort. * ® *® No emergency of war itself was greater than is the emergency which confronts the Nation in its duty to care for those disabled in its service and now neglected. This brought together three of the five organizations serving veterans. The improvement was so great that in 1930 President Herbert Hoover asked the Coneress to bring all veterans services to- gether in one integrated organization. I agree with the opinions expressed by Mr. Hoover as President. I am for in- creased efficiency and the utmost econ- omy in handling veterans affairs. But I am opposed to wrecking the finest medical service that has been bullt up in the United States. Iam opposed to
1730 breaking up a smooth running, efficient organization to return to the chaos and confusion, that brought about the shame- ful treatment accorded our veterans of World War I—a system that was ended when the VA was created in 1930 under President Hoover. Our veterans have a right to expect the benefits awarded them by a grateful Na- tion to be administered promptly, sym- pathetically and with justice. We have built an organization to accomplish this. I am opposed to destroying it now. SPECIAL ORDER GRANTED Mr. HOLIFIELD asked and was given permission to address the House today for 20 minutes following disposition of matters on the Speaker’s desk and at the conclusion of any special orders here- tofore entered. EXTENSION OF REMARKS Mr. GORSKI asked and was given per- mission to extend his remarks in the ReEcorp. Mr. TAURIELLO asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the Recorp and include a newspaper article taken from the Buffalo Courier. Mr. FERNOS-ISERN asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the Recorp and include an address delivered by Ambassador Austin before the Legislature of Puerto Rico on last Monday. ATTENDANCE OF UNITED STATES MARINE BAND AT LEXINGTON, MASS, Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of the bill (S. 2681) to authorize the attendance of the United States Marine Band at a celebra- tion commemorating the one hundred and seventy-fifth anniversary of the Bat- tle of Lexington, to be held at Lexington, Mass., April 16, through 19, inclusive, 1950. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Massachusetts? Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, re- serving the right to object, may I say that this bill has passed the Senate. It permits the Marine Band of the United States to participate in the one hundred and seventy-fifth anniversary of the fa- mous battles of Lexington and Concord which played such an important part in the development of our constitutional government Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Speaker, reserv- ing the right to object, and I shall not object, I would be glad to have the Ma- rine Band attend that celebration. I would also like to have more bands around proclaiming American liberty and American freedom and constitutional government throughout this country. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Massachusetts? There being no objection, the Clerk read the bill, as follows: Be it enacted, etc., That the President is authorized to permit the band of the United States Marine Corns to attend and give con- certs at a celebration to bo held April 16 through 19, inclusive, 1950, at Lexington, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Mass., commemorating the one hundred and seventy-fifth anniversary of the Battle of Lexington. Src. 2. For the purpose of defraying ex- penses of such band in attending and giving concerts at such celebration there is hereby authorized to be appropriated a sufficient sum to cover the cost of transportation and pullman accommodations for the leaders and members of the Marine Band, and allowance not to exceed 88 per day each for additional traveling and living expenses while on duty, such allowance to be in addition to the pay and allowance to which they would be en- titled while serving their permanent station. Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Aniendment offered by Mrs. Roauas of Mas- sachusetts: Page 1, line 6, after the word “Lexington”, insert “and Concord”, and on page 1, line 8, after the word “Lexington”, insert “and Concord.” The amendment was agreed to. The bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read the third time, and passed. The title was amended so as to read: “An act to authorize the attendance of the United States Marine Band at a cele- bration commemorating the one hundred and seventy-fifth anniversary of the Bat- tle of Lexington and Concord, to be held at Lexington, Mass., April 16 through 19, inclusive, 1950.” A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. EXTENSION OF REMARKS Mr. SCUDDER asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the REcorp. Mr. MILLER of Maryland asked and was given permission to extend his re- marks in the Recorp and include a speech by Mr. Martin of Massachusetts. Mr. AUCHINCLOSS (at the request of Mr. Puitiips of California) was given permission to extend his remarks in the Recorp and include an address. Mr. LOVRE asked and was given per- mission to extend his remarks in the Recorp and include a radio address of a former colleague, Hon. C. A Christopher- son, of Sioux Falls, S. Dak. Mr. STEFAN (at the request of Mr. HAGEN) was given permission to extend his remarks in the Recorp and include four newspaper articles. POSTAL RATE INCREASES The SPEAKER. ‘The unfinished busi- ness is the reading of the engrossed copy of the bill (H. R. 2945) to adjust postal rates. The Clerk will read the engrossed copy of the bill. Mr. MARTIN of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the engrossed copy be considered as hav- ing been read. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Mas- sachusetts? There was no objection. Mr. HAGEN. Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be recommitted to the Com- mittee on Post Office and Civil Service. The SPEAKER. Is the gentleman op- posed to the bill? Mr. HAGEN. Yes, I am, Mr. Speaker. The SPEAKER, The Clerk will re- port the motion, FEBRUARY 9 The Clerk read as follows: Mr, Hacen moves that the bill be recom- mitted to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service. Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the motion to recommit. The previous question was ordered. The SPEAKER. The question is on the motion to recommit. The question was taken. Mr. HAGEN. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present. The SPEAKER. Evidently a quorum is not present. The Doorkeeper will close the doors, the Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members, and the Clerk will call the roll. The question was taken; and there were—yeas 150, nays 218, answered “present” 1, not voting 62, as follows: [Roll No. 40] YEAS—150 Albert Gross Meyer Allen, Ill. Gwinn Michener Andersen, Hagen Miller, Md. H Carl Hale Miller, Nebr. Anderson, Calif Hall, Morgan Andresen, Edwin Arthur Moulder August H. Harden Murray, Wis Angell Hays, Ohio Nelson Arends Hedrick Nicholson Aspinall Herter Norblad Baring Heselton O’Hara, Minn Beall Hinshaw O’Konski Beckworth Hoeven O'Neill Bishop Hoffman, Til. Philbin Blackney Hoffman, Mich Phillips, Calif Boggs, Del. Holmes Phillips, Tenn Bram blett Horan Plumiley Brehm Hull Poulson Brown, Ohio Jackson, Calif. Powell Burdick Jackson, Wash Rankin Burleson James Reed, N.Y. Cannon Javits Rich Carnahan Jenison RiehIman Case, N J. Jenkins Rogers, Mass Case,S Dak Jennings Sasscer Celler Jensen Scott, Hardie Chiperfleld Johnson Scott, Christopher Judd Hugh D., Jr. Church Keating Scrivner Clevenger Keefe Scudder Cole, N Y. Kilday Secrest Corbett King Simpson, Ill. Cotton Kruse Simpson, Pa. Cunningham Kunkel Smith, Wis. Curtis Lane Stefan Dague LeCompte Talle Davenport LeFevre Teague Davies, N. Y Lemke Tollefson Davis, Wis. Lodge Underwood D’Ewart Lovre Velde Dondero Lucas Vursell Eberharter McConnell Walter Ellsworth McCrwiloch Weichel Elston McGregor Whitten Engel, Mich McGuire ‘Wigglesworth Fellows Mack, Wash. Withrow Fenton Marcantonio Wolcott Flood Marshall Wolverton Ford Martin, Iowa Wood Fulton Martin, Mass. Woodruff Gavin Mason Gillette Merrow NAYS—218 Abbitt Bonner Carroll Abernethy Bosone Cavalcante Addonizio Boykin Chatham Allen, La. Breen Chelf Andrews Brooks Chesney Auchincloss Bryson Chudoft Bailey Buchanan Clemente Barden Buckley, Il. Cole, Kans Barrett, Pa. Buckley, N. ¥. Colmer Battle Burke Combs Bennett, Fla Burnside Cooley Bennett, Mich. Burton Cooper Bentsen Byrne, N. ¥. Cox Biemiller Byrnes, Wis. Crawford Boggs, La. Canfield Crook Bolling Carlyle Crosser
Davis, Ga. Jones, Mo Preston Davis,Tenn. Jones, N.C. Price Dawson Karst Priest Deane Karsten Quinn DeGraffenried Kee Rabaut Delaney Kelley, Pa. Rains Denton Kelly, N. ¥. Ramsay Dollinger Keogh Redden Donohue Kerr Regan Doughton Kilburn Rhodes Douglas Klein Ribicoff Doyle Lanham Richards Durham Larcade Rivers Elliott Latham Rodino Engle, Calif. Lesinski Rogers, Fla. Evins Lind Rooney Feighan Linehan Roosevelt Fernandes Lyle Badlak Fisher Lynch Shelley Fogarty McCarthy Sheppard Forand McCormack Sikes Frazier McGrath Sims Fugate McKinnon Smith, Kans. Furcolo McMillen, Til. Smith, Va. Gary McSweeney Spence Gathings Mack, Ill. Staggers Goodwin Madden Stanley Gordon Magee Steed Gore Mehon Stigler Gorski Mansfield Bullivan Gossett Marsalis Sutton Granahan Miles Taber Granger Miller, Calif. Tackett Grant Mills Tauriello Green Mitchell ‘Taylor Gregory Morris Thompson Halleck Morrison Thornberry Hardy Multer Towe Harris Murdock Trimble Harrison Murphy Vinson Hart Murray, Tenn. Wagner Harvey Noland Walsh Havenner Norrell Welch Hays, Ark. O’Brien, M11. Wheeler Hébert O'Brien, Mich Whitaker Heffernan O'Hara, Il. White, Calif. Heller O'Sullivan Whittington Herlong Pace Wickersham Hobbs Passman ‘Wier Holifield Patten Willis Hope Perkins Wilson, Tex Howell Peterson Winstead Huber Pfeifer, Woodhouse Irving Joseph L. Worley Jacobs Pickett Yates Jonas Poage Young Jones, Ala. Polk Zablocki ANSWERED “PRESENT’—1 Hand NOT VOTING—62 Allen, Calif. Hare Rees Barrett, Wyo. Hill Sabath Bates Kean Sadowski Bland Kearney St George Blatnik Kearns Sanborn Bolton, Md Kennedy Saylor Bolton, Ohio Kirwan Shafer Brown, Ga. Lichtenwalter Short Bulwinkle McDonough Smathers Camp McMillan,8 C Smith, Ohio Coudert Macy Stockman Dingell Monroney Thomas Dolliver Morton Van Zandt Eaton Nixon Vorys Fallon Norton Wadsworth Gamble O'Toole Werdel Garmatz Patman White, Idaho Gilmer Patterson Williams Golden Pfeiffer, Wilson, Ind Graham William L. Wilson, Okla Hall, Potter Leonard Ws Reed, ll. So the motion to recommit was re- jected. The Clerk announced the following pairs: ' On this vote: Mr. Potter for, with Mr. Brown of Georgia against. Mr. Reed of Illinois for, with Mr Gilmer against. Mr. William L. Pfeiffer for, with Mrs. Norton against. Mr. Kearns for, with Mr. Bates against. Mr. Van Zandt for, with Mr. Coudert against. Mr. Lichtenwalter for, against. with Mr. Rees CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Mr. Allen of California for, with Mr. Sabath against. Mr. Kearney for, with Mr. Williams against. Mr. Graham for, with Mr. Wilson of Okla- homa against. Mr. Short for, with Mr. Kean against. Mr. Shafer for, with Mr. Fallon against. Mr. Golden for, with Mr. Gamble against. Mr. Sanborn for, with Mr. Kennedy against. Mr. McDonough for, with Mr. Garmats against. Mr. Hill for, with Mr. O’Toole against. Mr. Nixon for, with Mr. Bolton of Maryland against. Until further notice: Mr. Camp with Mr. Macy. Mr. Hare with Mr. Werdel. Mr. Smathers with Mrs. St. George. Mr. Sadowski with Mr. Eaton. Mr. Monroney with Mr. Morton, Mr. McMillan of South Carolina with Mr, Smith of Ohio. Mr. Dingell with Mr &tockman. Mr. Patman with Mr. Wilson of Indiana. Mr Blatnik with Mr Barrett of Wyoming. Mr. Kirwan with Mr. Doliver. Mr. Thomas with Mrs. Bolton of Ohio. Messrs. BRYSON and RANKIN changed their vote from “yea” to “nay.” The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. The doors were opened. The SPEAKER The question is on the passage of the bill. Mr. JAVITS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were refused. So the bill was passed. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. Mr. HAND Mr. Speaker, I was reluc- tant to vote “present” and I cannot re- call ever having done so before on the final vote on any legislative matter. The fact is, however, that the bill on which we have just voted provided that the pro- posed increase in rates should not apply to weekly newspapers having a circula- tion of less than 5,000. I am directly and personally interested in such a newspaper and, therefore, have a di- rect and personal interest in the legis- lation on the floor with the preparation of which, of course, I had nothing to do. Under the circumstances I feel it would be quite improper for me to have voted at all on the measure and thus I felt honor bound to merely record my presence without voting. PROGRAM FOR TODAY AND NEXT WEEK Mr. MARTIN of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to ad- dress the House for 1 minute. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts? There was no objection. Mr. MARTIN of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I take this time in order that I might obtain the program for the bal- ance of the day and for next week, if the majority leader has that information available at this time. Mr. McCORMACK. I am in a posi- tion to respond to the inquiry. The next order of business will be the economic assistance to certain areas in the Far East bill under the 5-minute rule; there- after the urgent deficiency appropriation 1731 Mr. MARTIN of Massachusetts. Does the gentleman know whether there is any controversy connected with that bill or not? Mr. McCORMACK. So far as any in- formation I have received, there is none. I have seen no evidence of it. There- after there is a resolution from the Com- mittee on Foreign Affairs; one of those 4-day resolutions. Mr. MARTIN of Massachusetts. That is the Lodge resolution? Mr. McCORMACK. Yes. Of course, the usual procedure is to have it read and then lay it on the table. Just what will develop, I do not know. I have no knowledge whether or not there will be any difficulty there, but if those matters are disposed of, then I shal! ask unani- mous consent to go over until Monday. Monday, of course, is the anniversary of Abraham Lincoln’s birthday; that is that is the day it will be celebrated There will be no business on Monday. I have nothing for Tuesday. Next Wednesday, of course, will be Calendar Wednesday. So, there will be nothing for Monday or Tuesday. I am definitely making that statement now. Mr. MARTIN of Massachusetts. Can the gentleman tcll us what committee has the call on next Wednesday? Mr. McCORMACK. The Committee on the District of Columbia. Mr. MARTIN of Massachusetts. are next in line? Mr. McCORMACK. Ordinarily Mon- day would be District day, but I am in- formed that the Committee on the Dis- trict of Columbia has no bills to call up that day. Mr. MARTIN of Massachusetts. Will they have any bill to be called up on Wednesday? Mr. McCORMACK. I was going to continue. I assume that the committee will exercise its privilege on Wednesday, although I cannot say definitely. I would be surprised if it did not. Mr. MARTIN of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman. ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE TO CERTAIN AREAS IN THE FAR EAST Mr. KEE. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into the Com- mittee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further considera- tior, of the bill (S. 2319) to promote world peace and the general welfare, na- tional interest, and the foreign policy of the United States by providing aid to the Republic of Korea. The motion was agreed to. Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the fur- ther consideration of the bill S. 2319, with Mr. Bonner in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The CHAIRMAN. When the Com- mittee rose on Tuesday, February 7, the Clerk had read section 1 of the bill. The Clerk will read. The Clerk read as follows: Src. 2. To enable the President until June 80, 1950, to obligate funds heretofore ap- propriated for assistance in certain areas of China, section 12 of Public Law 47, Eighty- first Congress, is amended by striking out They
17382 “February 16, 1950” and inserting in leu thereof “June 30, 1950.” Sxzc.3. (a) The Administrator for Eco- nomic Cooperation is hereby authorized to furnish assistance to the Republic of Korea in conformity with— (1) the provisions of the Economic Co- operation Act of 1948, as amended, wherever such provisions are applicable and not in- consistent with the intent and purposes of this section 3; and (2) the agreement on aid between the United States of America and the Republic of Korea signed December 10, 1948, or any supplementary or succeeding agreement which shall not substantially alter the basic obligations of either party. (b) Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, the Administrator shall im- mediately terminate aid under this section in the event of the formation in the Re- public of Korea of a coalition government which includes one or more members of the Communist Party or of the party now in control of the government of northern Korea. (c) Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, the Administrator is authorized to make available to the Republic of Korea merchant vessels of tonnage not in excess of 2,500 gross tons each, in a number not to exceed 10 at any one time, with a stipu- Jation that such vessels shall be operated only in east Asian waters and must be re- turned forthwith upon demand of the Ad- ministrator and in any event not later than June 30, 1951. Any agency of the United States Government owning or operating any such vessel is authorized to make such vessel available to the Administrator for the pur- poses of this section upon his application, notwithstanding the provisions of any other law and without reimbursement by the Ad- ministrator, and title to any such vessel so supplied shall remuin In the United States Government. (d) In order to carry out the provisions of this section 3, there is hereby authorized to be appropriated to the President, in ad- dition to sums already appropriated, not to exceed $60,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1950. (e) Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, until such time as an appropria- tion shall be made pursuant to subsection (d) of this section, the Reconstruction Fi- mance Corporation is authorized and di- rected to make advances not to exceed in the aggregate $30,000,000 to carry out the provisions of this section, in such manner, at such times, and in such amounts as the Administrator shall request, and no interest shall be charged on advances made by the Treasury to the Reconstruction Finance Cor- poration for this purpose. The Reconstruc- tion Finance Corporation shall be repaid without interest for advances made by it hereunder, from funds made available for the purposes of this section 3. Mr. LARCADE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word, and ask unanimous consent to speak out of order. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Louisiana? There was no objection. Mr. LARCADE. Mr. Chairman, I call to the attention of the Members of the House my bill, H. R. 7134, which was in- troduced on February 3, and which au- thorizes the Secretary of Agriculture and the Commodity Credit Corporation to turn over gratuitously to the governors of each State for distribution on a basis of population all of the surplus Irish potatoes and eggs acquired under the price support program. I have requested the chairman of the House Agricultural Committee to permit me to appear before the committee to present this plan, and CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE I am certain that I will be afforded an opportunity to do so. Mr. Chairman, these potatoes and eggs were acquired with the taxes of the citi- zens of this country, and it is my opinion that, instead of destroying these prod- ucts that our people should have the benefit of the same. More than $200,000,000 has been paid for these surplus potatocs and eggs, and the amount necessary to distribute this food to our people would be negligible in comparison to the values inasmuch as the facilities of each State could be uti- lized for the distribution. Mr. Chairman, I think it would be un- thinkable to again destroy this valuable food when the same could be distributed and utilized by our people, especially in many sections where the same is so des- perately needed at this time. Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. LARCADE. I yield. Mr. RANKIN. If we are going to de- stroy these potatoes and eggs, why not send them to Korea and save this money? Mr. LARCADE. I think our people should be given first call on them. Mr. GATHINGS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. LARCADE. I yield. Mr. GATHINGS. As a member of the Committee on Agriculture I would like to hear the gentleman, and hope that our chairman will set the date. You should be commended for your efforts to distribute surplus foods to the needy. We have flooded conditions in Arkansas and our people can use these foods. Something should be done rather than to destroy these potatoes and other surplus foods. Mr. LARCADE. I think the gentleman is quite correct. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Louisiana has expired. Mr. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the pro forma amend- ment. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous con- sent to speak out of order. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Utah? There was no objection. Mr. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, in announcing the program for next week the distinguished majority leader said that perhaps the Committee on the Dis- trict of Columbia would have some legis- lation on Calendar Wednesday. That committee has a very, very important and emergent piece of legislation which it would like to consider which is so im- portant that the committee instructed our chairman to use all means possible to have it considered, even if it was on Calendar Wednesday. The great ques- tion which we are going to discuss at that time is whether or not we will grant a charter to the Girl Scouts of America. Mr. MILLER of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word. Mr. Chairman, I do not propose to talk about the potato program or the agricultural program. Of course, it is very important as to what might hap- pen on next Wednesday. I understand there has been some talk about bring- FEBRUARY 9 ing up the bill in which I am interested regarding some qualifications for physi- cians to practice in the District. I hope it is not brought up on Calendar Wed- nesday. I think it ought to be brought up on the regular District day and be discussed in the regular order. Now a word about Korean aid. Mr. Chairman, in reviewing some of the aid we are giving to the nations, I find in the Far East that we have five or six agen- cies engaged in giving aid. We have a Korean aid bill. We have ECA working in Korea. We have GARIOA working in Japan and occupied countries, and we have some military assistance that has been used in various spots in the Far East. We have had money appro- priated to China. Some of it, I under- stand is still unspent. We have numer- ous aid bills for the Philippines These Government agencies are not working together. They are working at cross purposes in many instances. It would seem to me that the Congress sooner or later should consider putting all of this under one umbrella so that we can get some efficiency in the aid that we are trying to extend to these countries. Here are five or six agencies not working together. I happen to know that in Japan, for instance, they have been short of fertilizer until just recently. Now, they are able to export fertilizer. They have fertilizer which can be ex- ported to Korea, which Korea needs. Korea, by the way, is exporting rice, large amounts of rice, and Japan needs rice. Why not have Korea send some of her rice to Japan and have Japan send some of her fertilizer to Korea? Under the half dozen aid programs, that is not possible. It seems to me the entire aid program, not only in the Far East but in the European countries, ought to be coordinated so that they would not be working at cross purposes. Mr. JAVITS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for a correction? Mr. MILLER of Nebraska. For a cor- rection, yes. Mr. JAVITS. What the gentleman says is being done. In other words, the occupation authorities in Japan are working with the ECA in Korea and are doing just what the gentleman wants to have done. Mr. MILLER of Nebraska. Let me say that not one pound of fertilizer has gone from Japan to Korea and not one pound of rice has gone from Korea to Japan, and I can prove that, and the gentleman knows it. It just is not so. It ought to be so, but it is not. They tell us in the Philippines there has been quite a scandal in the handling of our surplus property. I do not know. I know we left about $2,000,000,000 worth there, and we will perhaps get less than $100,- 000,000 out of it. The Filipinos are here asking us to appropriate money to make up the difference, forty or fifty million dollars, which we said they would get, and which they did not get. All of these programs ought to be coor- dinated, and I hope the gentleman from New York will make an effort to get that done. The Korean people do not need food. They have food. They do not need many
1950 of the things that we propose to do in this bill. Why build fertilizer plants when they can get fertilizer out of Japan? Why not use some of that Japa- nese aid to send fertilizer to Korea? Then we propose to make it possible to irrigate some 235,000 acres of land in Korea. That is a very fine thing. Also to build electric power plants, put in per- manent improvements which later on will probably be just right for the Com- munists to take over. Make no mistake about it. A radio announcer this morn- ing said that the Russians were building some parts for ships close to Korea. For what purpose? To move in and take over Korea. Do we propose to make $60,000,000 available to Korea between now and the last of June and then in another bill that is coming in another $60,000,000 a year for 3 years? This is not all of the Korean aid. In my humble opinion, we in the United States ought to begin to pay some attention to our own defenses. We can spend ourselves into destruction. We are on that road now. We are trying to help the nations of the world, but who is going to help us when we go broke? The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Mrturr] has expired. Mr. KEEFE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word. Mr. Chairman, I cannot find it in my conscience to support this legislation. Appropriation bills will be coming before this House shortly, bills that involve the future and the welfare of the people of America. I for one have got to make some choice. I admit the tug at my conscience and heart of the desire to help these people throughout the world, but you who are not charged with the primary responsibility of examining and scanning the budgets that have been submitted by the Executive this year will have to give some answers to the people back home as to why we can so glibly and easily turn over these vast sums of money to rehabilitate and take care of people in foreign countries and of neces- sity be compelled to deny to our own peo- ple the services that they so earnestly desire. Let me call your attention to just one thing. If there is anything in this country that touches the people more than another it is the matter of public health and the welfare of the people of this Nation so far as it involves health problems. The whole people of the country have been awakened to the necessity for the expansion and the con- tinuation of the programs of research and control in the fields of cancer, heart disease, and mental illness. There is not @ man, woman, or child in this country who is not willing to be taxed, not only to carry a nominal program, but also to expand and carry forward those pro- grams. What has happened? If you examine the budget submitted by the President you will observe that in those great categories of public necessity they have been definitely stopped in their tracks due to proposed rescissions, if I may use that word, in connection with the various programs that are so near and dear to the hearts of the people of America. And why, why should we con- tain and stop the programs of research CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE in the fields of cancer, heart disease, and mental illness? It is said that we have not the money to go around, that the demands are so great in other fields we cannot afford to spend that money for our own peo- ple. So far as I am concerned, and I only speak for myself as a member of the subcommittee charged with that ini- tial responsibility, I am serving notice I am going to try to bring to this Con- gress, budget or no budget, appropria- tions that will permit those magnificent activities to be carried on at a level that will not insure their curtailment or de- struction in the interest of the people of the United States. The only way I can see to do that is to make some curtall- ment in certain of these other items of the budget. Mr. Chairman, we are faced with a tremendous responsibility in making that determination. Every person who comes before the committee is asking for more money for America; yet if we are going to try to keep the appropriations within the budget estimates and make some reductions, we will have to curtail some place along the line. I would be willing to see some curtailment in this appropriation, to have it in the over-all picture of the budget, so that we could say: “Here, we can make a reduction. Perhaps we can do it when the appro- priation comes before the Congress.” But let me tell you, Mr. Chairman, in talking with the people of this country and of my district, they are going to ask Congress to do something for our own people in connection with some of these programs and give some consid- eration to the necessities of our people here before we scatter our substance to such an extent we cannot Carry on our own domestic programs in this country. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin has expired. Mr. CHRISTOPHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word. Mr, Chairman, I am only a fresh- man Member of this House and have been rather consistently an adminis- tration Democrat. I have voted for the appropriation for the European recovery program and for many other measures to send money and goods over- seas as gifts. They have been going to Europe, Asia, in fact, all around the globe; but I do not mind saying that I am getting tired of it. The time is going to come and it is not going to be in the far-distant future when I am going to refuse to vote for any appropriation de- signed to send goods and money to Eu- rope, Asia, Africa, or anywhere else in the world unless a different attitude is evinced regarding the things that are needed at home. The Book of Books Says: He that provideth not for his own and especially they of his own household is an infidel and has already denied the faith. I do not want to see this Congress reach the place where the people of the United States can point their finger at us and say, “You are infidels, you have not provided for your own.” Mr. Chairman, this measure only calls for an appropriation of $60,000,000 and $60,000,000 does not mean much any 1733 more. That $60,000,000 would terrace 240,000 acres of farm land in this coun- try from which half the topsoil has already been eroded away and. which is becoming more worthless every time it rains. This land is a part of the United States. A part of the country we call home and over which the Stars and Stripes wave. A part of the country and land that you gentlemen and ladies on both sides of this aisle profess to love. A part of the land that our boys gave their lives for. We had better give our own country something before we g€0 around spending millions and billions of dollars to take care of somebody else’s country. Mr. Chairman, let me tell you some- thing else, $60,000,000 will buy and spread 20,000,000 tons of agricultural limestone on the land in this country. Sixty mil- lion dollars will provide a good sod of grasses and legumes on 5,000,000 acres of land that is now in desperate need of being returned to grass to save it from utter destruction. If I should ask for $60,000,000 to do any of the worth while things above mentioned in our home country I would be reminded of the $285,- 000,000 that has been allowed for soil conservation in 1950. Two hundred and eighty-five million dollars to do a job in our own country that our Extension Services and our agricultural colleges all say would take $1,500,000,000 per year to accomplish. We are doing for soi] con- servation in § years what should be done each and every year. I am serving no- tice on the Members of this House that the time is near at hand when I will not vote for gifts for other countries while my own country Is bleeding to death at every river’s mouth from Vancouver to the mouth of the St. Lawrence. I am tired, awfully tired, of voting to send money and goods to Europe, Asia, and Africa when we are doing so very little to save our own land. Mr. SUTTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the necessary number of words, and ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Tennessee? There was no objection. Mr. SUTTON. Mr. Chairman, I did not intend to speak on this bill. I voted against it before, and I intend to vote against it again. Mr. TABER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. SUTTON. I yield to the gentle- man from New York. Mr. TABER. I am wondering if any- body knows, for there is nothing in the hearings, what the present status of this situation is. Would the gentleman tell us? {Mr. SUTTON. I am like my neighbor and colleague the gentleman from Mis- souri [Mr. CHRISTOPHER], who is getting tired and has already gotten tired of sending the money of the American tax- payers outside of America, Just the other day I noticed in the Rrcorp a statement about expenditures which was prepared by the United States Department of Com- merce, entitled “Foreign Transactions of
1734 the United States Government.” I re- quested and received one of these state- ments from the Department of Com- merce. I wish every Member of the House would get this publication. I believe that if you will look over this report by the Department of Commerce with an un- biased and unprejudiced mind, you would not send $1 out of the United States of America ever again. I would like to give you a few of the figures contained therein. On page A-11 of this report I find that we have given to Russia $11,248,000,000. Now, there is not a man, woman or child in the United States of America that hates commu- nism any more than I do. I know that should we go back to war that I am of the age and of the spirit to again volun- teer my services. I fear that we boys will have to fight again some time. We must realize that certain foreign nations are traitors of democracy and traitors of the people. I hate communism, there- fore, I do not propose to continue to coddle communistic governments with hard-earned American taxpayers’ dol- lars. Our great majority leader says that this is a means of fighting communism, speaking of aid to Korea. However, it oc- curs to me that if our $28,200,000,000 hypodermic, already administered, has not destroyed the plague that it is high time that we change our prescription. I also find that we have given Yugo- slavia $332,000,000. That is another Red nation. I find that in the over-all pic- ture since the cessation of the war, ac- cording to the Department of Commerce, that we have given in grants and credits American people's money to the tune of $28,200,000,000. Now, we all believe in economy. When are we going to prac- tice it? We all believe in democratic principles and in our frecdom. We all believe in practicing the principles of democracy and of strengthening our own defenses. When are we going to start practicing these? When are we going to start building up our own national de- fenses? Why are we going to continue to give American taxpayers’ dollars to these countries who are not sympathetic with our principles of democracy? Are we as Americans and Representa- tives in Congress for our 150,000,000 peo- ple in the United States, going to con- tinue to give away the taxpayers’ hard- earned money, not just to Korea but to the Communists, to those countries who do not believe in God, to those coun- tries who do not believe in the princi- ples of democracy? There must be a stopping place. We must cease the squandering of the substance of Ameri- ca’s toil. Our people have been more than generous; it is time to stop, think, and take inventory. I have as much sympathy for the Ko- reans as anyone. I have as much sym- pathy for them as any other foreign country. I would like to see them build up ademocracy. But the American tax- payers are spending American dollars to help the Korean people build up their country for Russia to take over. Mr. Chairman, I hope this bill is de- feated. Mr. BREHM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Mr. Chairman, I should like to make this brief observation. It will be very interesting to watch certain commen- tators and other propaganda agents in the future to see the action they take regarding those who are now taking this stand, as to whether they class them as isolationists, as they have enjoyed doing s0 much in the past toward those of us who have been advocating the same pro- gram for a good many years. Many of us have been called Republican reaction- aries and isolationists by these individ- uals. Now let us see how they refer to our Democratic colleagues who have finally seen the light. Mr. HUGH D. SCOTT, JR. Mr. Chair- man, I move to strike out the last two words. Mr. Chairman, on the all-important question of financing these programs, some of which are undoubtedly neces- sary, I find myself today affected with considerable sympathy for the month of February. I find that the month of Feb- ruary has a good deal in common with poor old John Taxpayer. Both of them will soon yield to the oncoming and in- evitable demands of March, and both of them are short. In an effort to make available to the needy certain commodities at home and abroad, on last Thursday some 28 Re- publican Members of this House intro- duced or supported bills to direct the Sec- retary of Agriculture to distribute avail- able surplus food commodities to the school-lunch and welfare agencies. Yesterday our “promising” Secretary of Agriculture announced that he would comply in part with the directive. These distributions provided in our bill would involve aid to foreign countries, includ- ing Korea, but only after distribution to the public relief agencies here and to private relief agencies here. This ac- tion of the Secretary was in accordance with the intent of Congress contained in the Agricultural Act of 1949, that was signed at the White House last October 1. Up until yesterday Secretary Bran- nan has seen fit to find that only potatoes are in surplus for Americans despite the warehouses bulging with stocks owned by the Commodity Credit Corporation. However, when it came time to hand out acreage allotments the Secretary of Agri- culture had no trouble in finding sur- pluses and over-supply to justify the cutting of agricultural production. In yesterday’s action, however, he has agreed that the school-lunch program and the welfare agencies may secure dried eggs and dried milk provided they are willing to pay the freight and han- dling charges. The cost of such com- modities now in storage is, I believe, in the neighborhood of $115,000,000. This is what the law authorized him to do last October 1. Why the delay, Mr. Secre- tary? Why, in fact, is the Secretary of Agriculture so interested in sabotaging activities such as these and, on the other hand, equally sabotaging any effort to make the Anderson bill work? Would he give our new bill more help, if we call it “The poor man’s Brannan plan’? However, in the bills offered last Thursday, the effort was made to ex- pedite the movement of all food surpluses owned by the Commodity Credit Cor- FEBRUARY 9 poration and to cut the constantly ac- cumulating storage charges by having 6 months’ storage cost advanced against the transportation and handling charges. So far the House Committee has ignored the bill, although five of the Republican members of the committee support the proposed legislation which is to be found in H. R. 7135 and other bills. Why cannot Americans receive admin- istrative and legislative consideration? Why cannot deserving Americans, and the American farmer, be accorded some- thing other than lip service by their pro- fessed friend, the Secretary of Agricul- ture? Mr. HESELTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HUGH D. SCOTT, JR. I yield. Mr. HESELTON. Has the gentleman any information as to the amount of edible food commodities that are being stored in this country and what the Fed- eral Government is paying for that storage? Mr. HUGH D. SCOTT, JR. Yes; I have such information. Ido not have it available here, but I will on a later date undertake to put that in the Recorp, I want to commend the gentleman from Massachusetts for his support of this same proposed legislation. I thank the gentleman. I believe we have made a constructive suggestion worthy of immediate consideration. Mr. HESELTON. Are the _ storage charges many millions annually? Mr. HUGH D. SCOTT, JR. the gentleman is correct. Mr. WHITE of California. Mr. Chair- man, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HUGH D. SCOTT, JR. I am glad to yield to the gentleman. Mr. WHITE of California. Do you not mean the total value of the commodities and not the storage charges? The gen- tleman asked for the storage charges. Mr. HUGH D. SCOTT, JR. I thought the gentleman said the total value. Mr. HESELTON. I thought the gen- tleman referred to the total value of the commodities. It is interesting to note that last week, Wednesday, the Secretary of Agriculture appeared before the Senate Agriculture Committee to discuss the disposition of 50,000,000 bushels of surplus edible pota- toes. On Friday night field men of the Department were ordered to start dump- ing these potatoes and the Secretary pre- dicted that the total to be destroyed in the next few weeks would be between twenty-five and forty million bushels at a cost of $1.25 per bushel. That would be between thirty-one and one-quarter million and fifty million dollars, which certainly would pay for the transporta- tion of millions of bushels of these pota- toes to localities where they could be eaten. This precipitous action was tragic in the face of the statement of former Secretary of Agriculture Ander- son in the Senate Friday afternoon that the 1949 act gave the Secretary discre- tion to make these surplus commodities available to school-lunch programs, to welfare and charitable institutions, and to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. We cer- tainly should be interested in this latter possibility of disposition since I under- stand that we are being asked to provide I think
1950 $803,000 more in the urgency deficiency bill later this afternoon for the Bureau of Indian Affairs and for the welfare of our American Indians, If there is an urgent need for this request and if it involves shortages of food, why should we not get the food to these deserving Americans rather than to pay storage and ultimately hire more people to de- stroy these commodities? These bills would make that action mandatory and would broaden existing authority. They are not intended to solve the problem of a sound agricultural program. As is so often stated here, we face a condition, not a theory. Approval of these proposals would prevent the carrying out in full of the waste of good food under an arbitrary administrative edict. As the gentleman has pointed out, the Department now moves belatedly and grudgingly into the field of providing dried eggs and dried milk as Congress intended them to be provided for those who need them. Actually, according to the inventories of the Commodity Credit Corporation as of December 31, 1949, there were 254,490,784 pounds of this commodity and the cost is listed at $31,- 615,535.72; there were 76,433,954 pounds of dried eggs and the cost was $98,645,- 444.68. Of course, this is entirely exclu- sive of the accrued storage charges. I received today from a responsible of- ficial in one of the communities in my district a request for information as to how potatoes might be furnished for needy residents, and I have asked the Secretary to advise me on this point. IT am also requesting further information as to the actual facts involved in the storage programs, as to where these arti- cles are being stored, and as to what the cost has been and is to the American taxpayer. It occurs to me that all Members might like to know what the commodity inven- tories of the Commodity Credit Corpo- ration showed as to other items as of December 31, 1949, and I shall ask per- mission when we return to the House to include those figures. They are butter, cheese, prunes, raisins, edible dried beans, rice, turkeys, and canned Mexican meat. What more will be selected and when will we have further action in these other flelds? Certainly the record proves be- yond any question to all except those who will not look at the facts that we have a challenge here which is urgent. Irrespective of the frenzied attempt of some to defend this outrageous misinter- pretation of congressional intention and illogical maneuvering for political posi- tion, I do not believe that either the people in this country, who need food, or the taxpayers, who are being asked to finance these absurd gyrations, will be happy about any delay in taking a prompt, constructive action. Bear in mind that, according to the latest figures, there are 2,715,751 persons receiving old-age pensions, 1,486,404 re- ceiving dependents and children benefits, 92,000 blind receiving help, and 543,000 on State and local relief rolls. As was CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE stated by these 28 Republican Members of the House when these bills were filed: Why not bring these two sets of statistics together, for they are more than statistics? They are people and food. Better to get the food to the deserving people than to pay storage, and ultimately hire more people to destroy the food. I think the Members may be interested in seeing the list of those who joined in support of this recommendation. Be- sides the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. HucH D. Scort, Jr.] and myself, they were: JoHN Puituips, California; JEssE P, Wotcott, Michigan; RicHaRp M. Nixon, California; Harpre Scott, Penn- sylvania; WILLIAM L, PFEIFFER, New York; KENNETH B. KEATING, New York; J. GLENN BEALL, Maryland; DonaLp Jackson, Cali- fornia; Ropert J. CorseTtT, Pennsylvania; EDWIN ARTHUR HALL, New York; THOMAS H. WErpEL, California; W. STERLING COLE, New York; R. WALTER RIEHLMAN, New York; Tuomas A, JENKINS, Ohio; ALBERT W. Coir, Kansas; ANrOonI N. Sapiak, Connecticut; HENRY J. LATHAM, New York; Wiitram 8. Hitz, Colorado; Cartes B. Hoeven, Iowa; Avcust H. ANDRESEN, Minnesota; Paut B. Dacur, Pennsylvania; Geratp R. Forp, JR., Michigan; Harotp O. Lovre, South Dakota; James W. WapdswortH, New York; DanreL A. REED, New York; and Henry O. TALueE, Iowa. I am also including for the informa- tion of Members the text of the resolu- tion referred to: Be it enacted, etc., That in order to prevent the waste, and to assure proper utilization of food commodities acquired through price- support operations, the Secretary of Agricul- ture and the Commodity Credit Corporation are authorized and directed to make avail- able such commodities as follows in the order of priority set forth: First, to school-lunch programs; and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and Federal, State, and local public-welfare organizations for the assistance of needy In- dians and other needy persons; second, to private welfare organizations for the assist- ance of needy persons within the United States; third, to private welfare organizations for the assistance of needy persons outside the United States. The Secretary of Agri- culture shall first determine that any such commodities are in ample supply over and above such reserves as may be required and Geemed in the public interest. The Secre- tary of Agriculture and Commodity Credit Corporation shall make any such commodi- ties available at point of storage, at no cost save handling and transportation costs from point of storage. The Secretary of Agricul- ture and the Commodity Credit Corporation may advance as against handling and trans- portation costs in making delivery up to the equivalent of 6 months’ storage costs on any such commodities turned over. Mr. HUGH D. SCOTT, JR. Yes. As to potatoes, the Secretary of Agriculture will pay freight to give them away for pigs to eat. Does this administration think more of pigs than of people? I think the gentleman will also be inter- ested in a recent article which pointed out that in view of the destruction and storage and losses in the potato program a dealer down in New Orleans only this week bought 1,000,000 pounds of pota- toes from Canada because he could buy them more cheaply there. This dealer said: “I don’t know why I can buy choice 1735 potatoes from Canada and have them shipped down here cheaper than I can buy them from Maine or Idaho; but I know I can do it.” Mr. BURNSIDE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HUGH D. SCOTT, JR. I yield. Mr. BURNSIDE. Suppose we should have had a bad year next year? Do you want to get rid of all our surplus s0 that we will be in a very bad fix after that? Mr. HUGH D. SCOTT, JR. Iam sure that nobody is suggesting that we get rid of absolutely all of our surplus. We are suggesting that some of these gluts be removed from the warehouses. Mr. HESELTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HUGH D. SCOTT, JR. I yield. Mr. HESELTON. The Secretary of Agriculture, through the Production and Marketing Administration, has told the public that every bit of the dried eggs being stored in Kansas will have to be dumped where they were purchased back of last year and beyond that and he has warned that the rest of them are becom- ing mildewed. Does the gentleman from West Virginia want to keep them? Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HUGH D. SCOTT, JR. I yield. Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Some of our delightful friends from the city over on the other side apparently do not know anything more about potatoes than that they are good baked. You know that they rot after a while and you can- not store them. You come out on the farm and I will show you some of these things. Mr. BURNSIDE. What do you want to do, give them all away? The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania has ex- pired. Mr. WHITE of Califorina. Mr. Chair- man, I rise in opposition to the pro forma amendment. Mr. Chairman, Iam somewhat amused by the remarks of the gentleman from Pennsylvania on the problems facing ag- riculture. Apparently he is not aware that the Anderson bill which he so highly praises fails to provide that the Secre- tary of Agriculture is permitted to pay freight charges on these surplus com- modities when they are for human con- sumption. On the other hand, the Anderson bill specifically provides that the Department of Agriculture can pay freight on these commodities if you feed them to livestock. There is a plain case of a law which discriminates against the hungry people of this Nation in favor of animals. I think it is a strong indict- ment of the Anderson bill. Speaking a little further about the gentleman's remarks—— Mr. HAND. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order. The gentleman is not discussing the pending bill, and has not had consent to speak out of order. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair sustains the point of order. The gentleman from California will proceed in order. Mr. WHITE of California. Mr. Chair- man, I yield back the balance of my time.
1736 Mr. JACKSON of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word. Mr. Chairman, it seems to a great many people that today this Nation is paralleling in many respects the course of action followed by the allies of west- ern Furope during the period before Munich. I make that statement in the light of events which are transpiring at this very moment in Asia. Conquests are being consummated which are strikingly simi- lar in their execution to the conquests of Adolf Hitler. Through processes of political infiltration, through the lending of every possible type of aid and assistance, the satellite forces of the Soviet Union continue undeterred in their march across the face of Asia, under ever-increasing clouds of dust which show no likelihood of settling any- where for a long time to come. As France, England, and the United States waited during those torturous years of 1937 and 1938 for the blows of Adolf Hitler to fall, so it seems to me that the free nations of the West are today waiting in exactly the same mood of passive anticipation for the next uncon- tested blow to fallin the Orient. Neville Chamberlain, that distinguished British diplomat, was certainly, if I may be for- given the phrase, a piker in many re- spects in his actions before, and for & period after he came back from Munich. The Prime Minister of England had no blueprint for approaching disaster such as we have today in the Communist manifesto. He had no recent historical precedent on which to base his humani- tarian activities and his moves toward peace as he made his way to Munich. Certainly, the free democracies of the world in this hour should be able to see, in what has transpired in our day, the threat that faces us in Asia, and the almost certain and complete conquest within a matter of weeks or months. As strongly as any other Member of this body, I have opposed communism wherever it has reared its head. I have supported bills coming to the floor from our committee for aid to Greece and Turkey, and for assistance to other na- tions throughout the world. I gladly supported ECA when the problem and the calculated risks were explained and weighed. I did these things when the President of the United States told us frankly what he had in mind. He told us what the difficulties were; the nature of the conquests, and what he intended to do about them. He told us then that he would use very resource at his com- mand to resist the Red tide, and that we would, whenever and wherever our help was needed, defend those free peoples who were attempting to help themselves in stopping the aggression. What the world needs today, Mr. Chairman, and needs much more than @ small measure of economic and pos- sibly futile assistance to Korea and For- mosa, is a statement on the part of the United States of America that will carry conviction into the homes and into the hearts of the people who live under this constant pall of dread and fear. If $60,000,000 or $600,000,000 would insure in our time the peace that Neville CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Chamberlain thought he had achieved in his efforts to appease Adolf Hitler, it would be a good investment, indeed. But any program designed to insure free- dom for the peoples of the Far East will require an instrumentality far more effective than the mere giving of a small portion of economic assistance to Korea and to Formosa. I shall oppose this measure, with great reluctance, and only after long hours of sincere thought on the subject. I have a deep conviction that along this 10 per- cent course of action lies 100 percent disaster for the United States of America in our day. For one thing, so far as Iam personally concerned, I want to Know, before I vote one more penny of foreign assistance, what the administration in- tends to do with respect to recognition of that international conspiracy in China, which regime is the natural child of secret agreements concluded with a war- time ally who was all too willing to parti- tion Poland, Finland, Czechoslovakia, and the rest of central Europe. I shall oppose this bill. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. JAcKsSON] has expired. Mr. JAVITS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman may proceed for two additional minutes. The CHAIRMAN. is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New York? There was no objection. Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. Mr. Chair- man, will the gentleman yield? Mr. JACKSON of California. I yield. Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. The gentle- man knows that I completely su%scribe to the effective position which he took in opposition to the bill for Korea alone. But in view of the failure of the State Department to implement the prior ap- propriations of this Congress with re- spect to aid for China, does the gentle- man feel that this additional gesture with respect to Formosa is any convinc- ing argument that I can use for support- ing this bill when I opposed the previous bill? Mr. JACKSON of California. No, Ido not. I would say that the gentleman's position is entirely logical. Much of my opposition stems, unfortunately, from a lack of confidence, a lack of confidence which is daily growing, with respect to the activities of the State Department in both a domestic sense and in the foreign field. I take my stand on this measure out of regard for the United States of America and without regard for any partisan consideration. I feel that some changes should be made, and these changes must be made before the De- partment of State can ever regain the position of dignity and public confidence it once enjoyed and which are today es- sential to the proper discharge of im- portant duties. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California has expired. Mr. JAVITS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word. Mr. Chairman, it is with the greatest regret that I just heard my colleague, the gentleman from California, whose advice and counsel we value very highly on the committee—and I think that goes FEBRUARY 9 for members on both sides—declare that after long deliberation he felt that he had to vote against this bill. I believe that his views on the subject are im- portant and worth while, and I ask the indulgence of the House in replying to him for just a very few minutes, because we must understand where South Korea stands now. South Korea is on the very brink of fatal economic peril. With respect to their inflation, a reference to the com- mittee’s report will indicate that the circulation of money has almost doubled in the space of a year, and the reason for that is the fact that American aid which was relied on and depended on by the Korean people, albeit without com- mitment—let me emphasize that—but which they depended on, was not forth- coming. Secondly, and very important, and this goes back to what my colleague, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Marc- ANTONIO], spoke of when the bill was considered under general debate. Let us be very clear about North Korea, and let us not get confused by any assertion that we are backing some police state in South Korea, because you cannot un- derstand South Korea without compar- ing it with North Korea. North Korea shut out the United Nations Commission which was sent there to insure a free election. In June of 1948 there was a manifesto by the Government of North Korea that there would be an election. Call it an election if you will, but the fact is that 99 percent of the people would probably have been made to vote on a one-party ticket to support that party—yet even at that no election has yet been held. The people of South Korea agreed to hold elections under the watchful eye of the United Nations Commission, and their government is the result of a free election. There is the difference. It is not just a matter of military protection in the Pacific; I have urged, and I shall continue to urge and to fight for a Pacific pact, which I think is essen- tial. But that is not the only point; the fundamental point about the Pacific is that the peoples of the Pacific, the rank and file of the people, the teeming mil- lions of them, want some recognition of their right to a better life, although they are relatively unskilled in the theories of freedom and the theories of constitu- tional government. The people of South Korea turn to us and look to us to help them maintain a free government to help them to get for themselves a better life. If we help them accomplish this they, and the peoples of all Asia will feel that we carry out our pledges to help peoples to gain for themselves freedom and a chance for a better standard of living. On the other hand, if we just baldly tell them that we must have completely su- perior, naked military power in that area we will defeat the ends and purposes of the free peoples of the world, for the peo- ples of Asia will not believe that we can be trusted, and it will have its reper- cussions throughout all of Asia. All of Asia is watching what we do. I think, therefore, that the important, the overwhelming, the fundamental signifi- cance of this aid to South Korea is the
1950 effect it will have on the common people of Asia proving to them that the United States really means what it says in offering them an opportunity for their own freedom and their own well-being, proving to them that it is not a question of a naked military power display as between the United States and the Soviet Union. Mr. JACKSON of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. JAVITS. I yield to the gentleman from California. Mr, JACKSON of California. I am very grateful to the gentleman. I am entirely in agreement with the gentle- man on one point—at least I believe this to be the gentleman’s position—that we would certainly be strengthened in what- ever course of action we followed in the Pacific area by a definite, straightfor- ward statement of what we intend to do. Does the gentleman agree to that extent? Mr. JAVITS. There is no question about the need for a positive and com- plete Pacific policy, and I have spoken to the fact that a Pacific pact militarily and a far eastern recovery program eco- nomically are essential. I point out that if you default in respect to South Korea you vitiate everything you say about the need for a far eastern policy if you do not support this measure. This measure represents performance, not talk. Mr. JACKSON of California. Of course, we share opposite opinions on that point, but I would like to say in that connection that I have the utmost regard and respect for the position taken by the gentleman from New York. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York has expired. Mr. MILLER of Nebraska. Mr. Chair- man, a parliamentary inquiry. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it. Mr. MILLER of Nebraska. When will {t be in order to offer amendments to the bill? The CHAIRMAN. Section 3 is now open to amendment. Mr. SMITH of Wisconsin. Mr. Chair- man, I move to strike out the last word. Mr. TABER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for a question? Mr. SMITH of Wisconsin. Yes. Mr. TABER. I wonder if this is the picture, and I may say this is what both- ers me about this bill, We have no pol- icy in the Far East or anywhere else. Korea is raising enough rice to support herself. She may require that a little cotton come in and a little fish or some- thing like that. But the major part of this operation relates to the development of permanent resources like mining and power plants. Mr. SMITH of Wisconsin. There is no doubt about that. Mr. TABER. We have the cart before the horse when we try to embark upon a permanent program without having a policy as to how we should proceed; is that correct? Mr. SMITH of Wisconsin. Yes; I think so. Mr. Chairman, this bill is worse today than the one we had before us several weeks ago. We have certainly opened up the door for more money to the extent of at least $10,000,000. We are asked to CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE contribute $60,000,000 to Korea only as a starter, only to get our foot in the door. The 3-year program will cost $320,000,- 000. The gentleman from New York has just called attention to the fact that this money for Korea is going to be put into permanent establishments—rail- roads, fishing fleets, coal mines, recla- mation projects, and so forth. We are asked to do that in face of this situation, and I read from page 15 of the report: As to negative aspects of the South Korean economy in its present phase, a New York Times dispatch of January 13, 1950, makes note of “the Korean financial situation, which United States experts describe as ‘de- teriorating’ in the face of unchecked deficit spending.” The dispatch continues: “During the first 8 months of the fiscal year 1949-50, deficit expenditures of the Gov- ernment excecded the entire budget for the year. The chief spenders were the Ministry of National Defense and the Home Ministry. The latter pays for a police force of army pro- portions. The office of the Prime Minister spent more than three times its entire budg- et on intelligence activities alone. “Most of the deficit money was obtained either from printing presses or overdrafts on the Bank of Korea. The abrupt rise of cur- rency in circulation during the last few months, despite a slight reduction in 1949, is shown by the following figures. December $1, 1948, 43,000,000,000 won; March 31, 1949, 88,000,000,000 won; January 7, 1950, 74,- 000,000,000 won. “The present situation, tn the opinion of United States financial experts here, has arisen because of uncontrolled spending not only by agencies concerned with hunting down Communists but by other depart- ments, inadequate tax collections, and fall- ure to absorb United States aid matériel.” Now, we are going to pour this $60,- 000,000 into that kind of a situation? It was very encouraging, I thought, just a few moments ago, when several Mem- bers of this House took the floor and elo- quently pleaded for the poor American taxpayer. Now, there are those who smile about that situation, but the Mem- bers of this House will hear more about that when they go back to their constitu- encies in July or August of this year. Mr. RICH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. SMITH of Wisconsin. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. Mr. RICH. It is not only too bad that they smile when we think of the tax- payers paying all of this debt, but if we want to keep our country solvent, should we not do these things differently than the State Department is trying to do in the way of conducting affairs in foreign countries with our money at this particular time? Mr. SMITH of Wisconsin. Certainly. Of course, the only foreign policy we have in the Far East today is Titoism. Why, the boys in the State Department are on their knees praying that the Chi- nese Communists will repudiate Stalin. Under no circumstances can this bill be justified. The American taxpayers are entitled to a break, The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin has expired. Mr. TACKETT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the necessary number of words. 1787 Mr. Chairman, when one protests for- erign spending he is purposely made to appear by a majority of the Members of this House as not being properly advised. Perhaps I am not properly informed about some things, but I can assure you that I am sufficiently informed on this subject to know that not one economist, not one businessman, not one laborer, nor not one farmer can honestly justify our lavish foreign aid spending program. This foreign aid spending program was imposed upon the Congress by a group of smart men who were anxious to pro- mote their businesses immediately fol- lowing World War II at a time when this Congress did not know what to do and was willing to take any kind of chance that might prevent another war. The Congress had every reason at that time to believe that perhaps the smart pro- moters of the Marshall plan were sincere. I venture to say that most of the Members of this Congress now con- scientiously feel that they have made a mistake in supporting the foreign aid program, but do not have the courage to admit it and return to a sane and sound foreign policy. Possibly it is necessary for their voters to be misled for the protection of their officials. I say there is nothing more honorable than the ad- mission of error and mistake. Many Members of this Congress pri- vately admit they now doubt the sound- ness of our foreign-aid policy, but brush it aside with assertions that they have now taken a stand and do not feel it ad- visable to turn back. With the facts now available, there is not a school child in this country who could at this time be sufficiently blinded by the promoters’ scheme as to advocate a continuation of this wild business pro- motion. Socialistic England is the prime beneficiary even of United States funds spent elsewhere in the foreign-aid pro- gram. Not long ago a school teacher was telling her pupils about the United King- dom being spread out all over the world like a big octopus and that the sun never went down on possessions of Great Britain. One child spoke up, “Teacher, I knew that, and I can tell you why the sun never goes down on the United King- dom.” The teacher was astonished to know that her pupil was better informed than she and inquired of Johnny why the sun never went down on British pos- sessions. Johnny said, “Teacher, the sun never goes down on British posses- sions because we can’t trust them in the dark.” I am not an isolationist and fully realize that we cannot place a fence around this country and hope to give to our citizens their entitlements. I am cognizant of the fact that all of Europe, Asia, Africa; and, in fact, any part of the world is closer to us today than Los Angeles was to Washington when Monroe uttered his doctrine. When I ran for Coneress, I told my voters that some for- eign assistance was justifiable because we could not conscientiously allow friendly democracies that had assisted us in curtailing both World Wars to Euro- pean soils to be without the necessities of life. Yes, Mr. Chairman, many of the European and Astatic countries savagely
1738 fought for the preservation of democracy and thereby kept the fight off our soils and afforded a great protection to our women and children. However, my investigation of the for- eign-spending program does not reveal such assistance at our hands to suffering humanity. We find some big-business men in this country collaborating with businessmen abroad to fleece the Ameri- can taxpayers. Our foreign-aid money is being used to build factories where fac- tories were never before; to build high- ways where highways were never before; to construct flood-control projects that do not replace war-torn facilities; and to purchase commodities at a great profit to many who pretend to be wiping tears for struggling humanity. I will not have time to cite the wrongs that have been committed in the name of national defense and restoration of war-torn Europe. Some of you should scrutinize the ECA mule transaction on behalf of Greece. You will find that the ECA purchased approximately 7,500 farm mules through a contract with some Turk who in turn made a subcontract with a couple of gentlemen in this country who received $90 per mule delivered at the port, and the Turk received an addi- tional $15 upon each head delivered to Europe. The ECA paid $147.75 for cargo freight per mule from the United States to Europe. Each mule cost the ECA $252.75, while the two citizens of this country paid from $35 to $50 per head. In another such transaction, the Army purchased approximately 10,000 mules at an average price of $139.68 per head de- livered to Fort Reno, with a loss of 36 mules in transit. That transaction was carried on with just as much under- handedness as the ECA mule-purchasing program. I wish I had time to give you the benefit of many such ECA trans- actions. If only our voters knew the whole story, this foreign-aid spending program would end in short order. For a time I was at a loss to know why those who have been hollering the loudest throughout the United States of America against the great expenditures by the Congress say so little against the foreign spending program. A little investiga- tion will enlighten you considerably as to why many of the big businesses and the big newspapers protect the foreign- aid program while criticizing all other types of public expenditures. They holler for suffering humanity abroad and about their fear of communism, but let us see just how much money they are getting for their sympathies and pleadings. The Marshall plan was conceived in inequity and born in sin at the hands of some Wall Street bankers and war profiteers and those connected with the interests in the I. G. Farben cartels of Germany. Right now a move is in exist- ence to give more billions to the British, and I venture to say that this session of Congress wil] not have ended before an effort is made here through a back- door method for this country to assume the debt of Britain in India, Egypt, and other foreign countries. Efforts will be made to cause these debts to be paid by the United Siates accepting sterling now frozen in London in payment for agriculiure products accumulated by the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Commodity Credit Corporation, for ma- chinery and other items. The activities of the International Chamber of Com- merce is ample authority for this gran- diose scheme. The interests back of the idea of paying Britain’s debts are the same ones which brought into existence the highly lauded Marshal! plan for their own selfish profiteering motives. I have learned from a very reliable and authentic source some interesting facts concerning the advocates of the foreign spending program. Mr. William L. Clayton, former Under Secretary of State, was the principal architect of the Marshall plan. His firm, known as An- derson, Clayton & Co., has supplied at least $100,000,000 worth of cotton to the ECA program. Mr. S. Sloan Colt, presi- dent of the Bankers Trust Co., of New York, is another leading proponent of the foreign spending program. His bank has enjoyed a large percentage of the ECA credit business—already doing $281,000,000 in business through the Marshall plan. It will be interesting to know that two directors of the Bankers Trust Co , Phillip Reed and Ward Melvill, were members of the committee for the Marshall plan. Mr. Reed is also presi- dent of the International Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Sosthenes Behn and Mr. Gerald Swope, directors of the National City Bank of New York, were represented on the Marshall-plan committee, and their bank has enjoyed $310,000,000 in ECA business. The Irving Trust Co. has found it profitable for the hard Marshall- plan work performed by their directors, Henry P. Bristol and David L. Luke, for they have enjoyed $220,000,000 in ECA credit business. As usual, J. P. Morgan & Co. lost no chance to profit out of funds supposed to be used to combat communism and feed suffering humanity. That company has done $238,000,000 of ECA business. Incidentally, the vice president of J. P. Morgan & Co., Mr. Raymond Atkins, is one of the study group suggesting ad- ditional British aid. The Bank of America has done all right with the ECA program—a lucrative $197,000,000 of it. There are many other sympathizing or- ganizations that have certainly lost no money by sending their directors to Washington for honorary committee work which has for 1ts purpose the selling of white elephants to our excited tax- payers. Now, remember, that these same businesses are leading the fight against any assistance to the underprivileged of this country. These promoters have not failed to cross every “‘t’” and dot every “i.” For fear that the humanitarian idea might become stale, they have something to offer to every section of our country in order to whip up a few more votes. The southern Members are told today that we cannot afford to vote against this bill be- cause Korea needs a little cotton. Well, I wish to say to that argument that, even though I come from a cotton section, my people do not wish to sell their wares through trickery and fraud. The ECA, handling their business as per the mule transactions, will pay a fancy price for each pound of cotton. My farmers will get the m.a.mum price of 25 to 30 cents FEBRUARY 9 per pound, and by the time some big shots in this country have collaborated with those in Korea, the price of a cotton shirt will be comparable with that of a Cadillac automobile. ‘You know why the cotton is not sent directly from the South to Korea rather than through the mid- dlemen. If it were, there would be little cry from the present promoters for for- eign spending. There are a lot of big-business men in the United States who have foreign credit that they can visualize slipping from them; therefore, it is necessary for them to induce the good taxpayers of this country to continue spending money upon foreign soils to protect these busi- ness investments. Mr. Chairman, in one breath we con- tend that communism is unbearable and cannot be tolerated—to which I agree 100 percent—and in the next breath we contend that it is necessary for us to spend billions of dollars fighting that system of government. The first—and, so far as I know, the only—Commu- nist college ever to be established in the United States was in my district—Com- monwealth College at Mena, Ark. While serving as prosecuting attorney down there, it was my pleasure to close that institution. Any of you may go to Mena, in Polk County, Ark., where that college operated for several years, seeking Com- munists and I can assure you that your efforts will be futile. Those Polk County people saw communism in action, and, therefore, are stronger than any people in this country against communism. You are spending billions of dollars try- ing to keep the people from knowing communism. I venture to say that if you will spend a little money letting them know communism it will not cost us 1 dime to abolish it. Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. TACKETT. I yield to the gentle- man from Mississippi. Mr. RANKIN. The gentleman re- ferred to the National City Bank of New York. Mr. TACKETT. Yes. Mr. RANKIN. I wonder if the gentle- man remembcrs when it and one other banking institution induced an adminis- tration about 25 years ago to send troops to Nicaragua ostensibly to hold honest elections. Senator Morris said, “Why not send them to Philadelphia or Pitts- burgh?” Does the gentleman remember that? Mr. TACKETT. I recall hearing of that occasion. Mr. RANKIN. They went down there and they came to find out that some bonds had been floatcd in Nicaragua and these banks had bought them. They feared that the incoming administration was going to repudiate the bonds because of the manner in which they had been floated, so they induced the administra- tion to send the Marines to Nicaragua. Mr. TACKETT. Yes; and these banks are now interested in floating bonds to finance the foreign spending program in order that they may get their ten- tacles wrapped around a greater portion of it.
1950 The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Arkansas has expired. Mr. TACKETT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for five additional minutes. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Arkansas? There was no objection. Mr. EDWIN ARTHUR HALL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for @ parliamentary inquiry? Mr. TACKETT. I yield to the gentle- man from New York. Mr. EDWIN ARTHUR HALL. Mr. Chairman, may I ask when it will be in order to offer amendments to section 3? The CHAIRMAN. When the gentle- man is recognized. Section 3 has been read and is now open to amendments. Continue, Mr. TACKETT. Mr. TACKETT. This whole foreign- aid structure, even though I am sup- posed to be ignorant because I oppose it, is serving but one purpose; and that is to take care of the big businesses in this country that have foreign invest- ments. Most of the newspapers con- tinually fight Government expenditures, but very few of them find any fault with the billions of dollars supposedly for foreign aid. No, they do not dare open their mouths upon this subject because big businesses will not tolerate it of their controlled newspapers. Oh, yes; the people in your district feel just as the people in my district. They doubt the wisdom of the whole affair and sincerely believe it wasteful spending. All of us continually write back home telling every old, indigent, crippled, and underprivileged person that sooner or later we are going to do something for them. We promise that in due time they will have a bed of roses. Those people may be old, crip- pled, and underprivileged, but they ex- hibit more wisdom in all of their every- day activities than this Congress has exhibited on any one foreign-aid pro- posal. They know the score; and that their time shall never come. I am a rabid liberal when it comes to taking care of the people of this country, but Iam a reactionary conservative concern- ing foreign spending that prefers selfish business interests to our own people. I must admit that some of the member- ship has exhibited enough courage to tell their underprivileged people that it is first necessary to take care of the for- eigners, Others have found it politically expedient to rely on the Townsend plan which is definitely known as another big, money-grabbing scheme and is not sup- posed to ever reach the floor for a vote. I am for assisting the old, indigent, and underprivileged prior to assisting the big shots of this country to gobble up blood money; and I shall not dodge the issue with the Townsend plan. I am just as strong against the Townsend plan as I am against foreign aid, and I am not afraid to tell my people that I am opposed to this socialistic bunch of tomfoolery. Mr. FULTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. TACKETT. I yield to the gentle- man from Pennsylvania. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Mr. FULTON. It is a pleasure as a Republican on the Republican side to find a Democrat now publicly declaring that the Democrat Party is a party of big businesses. Mr. TACKETT. I do not agree with your conclusions. The leadership of your party takes great pride in referring to the foreign-spending program as a bipartisan matter. The majority of your party is just as strong as the majority of my party for this spending of billions of dollars throughout the world. Very few of you Republicans vote along with the few of us in our efforts to curtail these needless expenditures. The ma- jority of your party merely uses a few dilatory tactics, lay all the blame on the Democratic leadership, and then fall in line with the foreign-aiders on the final vote. Your party cannot be trusted, Mr. Furtron. You are always going to do so much for us southerners, but you are never there when the going gets rough. The activities of your party make certain that the Republican Party cannot be trusted any farther than you can throw a bull by the tail. The newspapers are always talking about a MRepublican- southern Democrat coalition, which is just a bunch of foolishness with no scintilla of truth involved. A majority of you Members on the left of the aisle are just as wild as the most rabid libcral on the right side of the aisle. 1 have sat here day in and day out and watched a few of you pretend to be savers of tax money, but on the final roll call it is quite convincing that a lot of demagoguery has been exhibited because a proportionate number of Republicans to Democrats are usually lined up on the spending band- wagon. Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. TACKETT. I yield to the gentle- man from Michigan. Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. The gentleman was saying something about the Republicans and big-money men in that party. Isit not true that big money does not pay any attention to party lines but just goes after what they want? Mr. TACKETT. Big money does not give a hoot about the policies of Demo- crats, Republicans, Socialists, or Com- munists—it does not make any difference to them—all they want is to get the gravy out of the taxpayers; and, at the same time, criticize all others who hap- pen to sop some of the gravy. Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Now, you are saying the truth. Mr. TAURIELLO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. TACKETT. I yield to the gentle- man from New York. Mr. TAURIELLO. Recently the Brit- ish Government recognized the Commu- nist Government of China. Does the gentleman know whether there is any truth or any basis for the rumor going around that the United States Govern- ment soon is to recognize the Communist government of China? Mr. TACKETT. I will say that I do not know, but that I would not be sur- prised at what our State Department might do at any time. There is no tell- ing what they will do. 1739 Mr. STEFAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. TACKETT. I yield to the gentle- man from Nebraska. Mr. STEFAN. In answer to the ques- tion, we have been holding hearings on appropriations for the foreign service and our State Department in my committee. The fact of the matter is that while the British Government has recognized the Communist Government of China, the Communist Government of China has not recognized the Government of Great Britain. So far as the United States is concerned, all of the information I can get after lengthy interrogation of the Secretary of State and other officials in the Department of State, there is no sign that the United States Government is going to recognize the Red government in China. Mr. TACKETT. 1s correct. I have received a couple of letters criti- cizing my last vote against the Korean aid bill, Those two people fear that should this bill not pass, the prestige of the United States Government might be injured. Well now, is not that just piti- ful? The advocates of this proposal often refer on the floor of this House to the possibility of our prestige being lowered should we not send money to Korea. I value the Hfeblood of our American boys and girls more than prestige. We can just keep meddling around in other people’s business until we will find ourselves in another war. There is no doubt in my mind but that we are heading straight into world war III because our State Department en- joys sticking its nose into the affairs of every other country with the approval of this Congress. Our prestige is not all that is to be hurt; but, to the contrary, it will be some of our young American boys and girls slaughtered to appease some big business interests who would actually rather see us in war than at peace in order that they might enhance their purses while the youth fight the battles. It always has been and always will be a poor man’s fight and a rich man’s war. The selfish promoters of this forcign-aid spending program were not satisfied with their lavish monetary gains from the last war and, therefore, continue their vulturing tactics. The proponents of this bill do not even contend that Korean aid is neccs- sary for suffering humanity, or even for defense. They merely contend that we need to build some factories and carry on some public work in that area to prove our friendship to those people and save our prestige. Why do not they Just admit that big businesses are want- ing some substances in retaliation for their gripe against a few smaller fellows in this country who have for the first time here of late been receiving some attention from the Congress. Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. TACKETT. I yield to the gentle- man from Mississippi. Mr. RANKIN. The gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Steran] said that the Communists of China had not recog- nized Great Britain. Well, if they ever I hope the gentleman
1740 see Mr. Attlee, the Communists will recognize him. Mr. TACKETT. Yes; if for no other reason he heads the twin-sister party of communism. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Arkansas has expired. Mr. FULTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman may proceed for one additional minute. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania? There was no objection. Mr. FULTON. May I ask the gentle- man a question on the serious side? Mr. TACKETT. Yes; I am serious about this whole thing. Mr. FULTON. When you see commu- nism expanding abroad, do you think we should completely ignore such expan- sion, or do you think there is some point at which we should try to stop commu- nism expanding abroad? Mr. TACKETT. Yes; I absolutely do; but I can tell you this: You are going at it the wrong way. What are the Com- munists doing? They are taking by in- filtration. What are we doing? We are attempting to take with our wealth. What is the difference? Very little; but the ultimate result is the same. What we cannot get with our money, we at least realize that we should not take by infiltration. We should not be buying control. Yes; we should draw a line and advise Russia in no uncertain terms that she is not to cross that line unless she expects her bluff to be called. Russia is not going to intentionally find herself in conflict with the United States, and you know that. Appeasing, giving, and tak- ing with Russia, and sticking our nose into the affairs of all others, and by the Atlantic Pact inviting any little country that belongs to the pact to find herself in conflict with Russia with assurance of our assistance is surely going to lead us into war. It will not cost us a dime to keep Russia out of other countries in which we do not want ner to infiltrate by letting her know in no uncertain terms that she is not to enter therein with our good graces and without ex- pecting conflict. Oh, yes, you will say that Russia will infiltrate through the underground as to allow her agents to become in control of some country so as to place us in the position of no. being able to carry out our threat. Russia cannot get anything done underground that the people in those countries do not want if Russia knows that we do not intend to tolerate any acts contrary to the wishes of the people of those countries. Communism abolishes Christianity, individual initiative, free enterprise, and open competition. It cannot prevail, but will die of its own course long before a monopoly of world trade at the hands of Russia could possibly be achieved. Mil- lions of United States foreign-aid dollars have reached the hands of Russia to as- sist the cause of the Communists. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Arkansas has again ex- pired. Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I offer a preferential motion which is at the Clerk’s desk. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE The Clerk read as follows: Mr. Horrman of Michigan moves that the Committee do now rise and report the bill back to the House with the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken. Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, if I had not been convinced before that this is a bad bill, the remarks of the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. TACKETT) would have convinced me. The gentleman expressed my views in a clearer and more persuasive manner than I could have done. He repeated the arguments a few of us on the Repub- lican side were making in 1942. We were then called isolationists, a characteriza- tion I have never resented. Sometimes we were enemies charged with being un- mindful of our duty to the rest of the world, expressing our interest in our country before the Second World War. The gentleman from Mississippi {Mr. RANKIN] was one of those who tried to keep us out of war—who saw where we were heading. He did his utmost to Keep us out of that war, but in we went. Now, I have no fault to find, with either the conclusions the gentleman trom Arkansas (Mr. TaCKETT] drew as to who wanted war, when he referred to those gentlemen who have money, for if I read history aright, that has always been the situation; those who might profit out of a war, not the people who had to do the fighting and make the sacrifices, were the ones who caused war. The gentleman said he could not un- derstand why so little had been said against this bill. Well, he is a new Mem- ber. I think he came in last year. Hence he does not understand that, but I can tell him. One reason is that every time anyone raised his voice against sticking our nose into everybody else’s business, someone on the floor of the House or in the press would call him disloyal as well as ignorant. You were just inviting abuse as well as criticism if you did not go along with the administration’s for- eign policy. Mr. CHRISTOPHER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for a short question? Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Oh, you are such a fine, large gentleman. What is it? Mr. CHRISTOPHER. Who stuck their nose in our business at Pearl Harbor? Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Yes, and who asked them in? Have you read the papers? Mr. CHRISTOPHER. wait to be asked. Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Oh, now, listen. I will not say you are ignorant, but you are not aware of the facts. Who stuck their nose in our business? Who asked the Japs to do it? Do not you know? If you do not, then read a little history. Read John Flynn’s Looking Ahead, or any one of a half dozen other publications. There are none so blind as those who will not see. Those who have the facts as they have come to light in the last 4 years now know that the administration had us committed to war long before the Japs struck. So here we go again—looking for a third world war—another crop of veterans to say nothing of those who must die. They did not FEBRUARY 9 Now a word to all those who have been talking about spending money to set everything right all over the world—one gentleman said he knew what the world wanted. I do not know what the world wants. I think I know what my con- stituents and the common people of America want, and that is not another war—they want peace. Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. In just a minute. Always my constituents have been writing me ever since I have been here, and they tell me every time I am home, “For heaven’s sake, Clare, let us keep out of these foreign entangle- ments—let us avoid war—it will destroy us.” What have we got out of our two World Wars? The ill will of almost every na- tion. And what do the people who followed a@ policy which meant war admit now? The champions of this bipartisan foreign policy over in the other body are ready to admit, and they have admitted re- cently what others have long known to be true, that we just cannot take on all the world, supply them with food, clothing and shelter, and everything else they need, without destroying ourselves economically. That is just what Russia wants. She wants us to bleed ourselves white so that we have no ability left to defend ourselves. But now, what is being proposed? Today, over in the other body, a com- mittee holding hearings, the purpose of which is to make us surrender our form of Government, forsake the Constitu- tion and the principles enunciated there- in, haul down our flag and hoist some international rag and agree that our young men, and our girls, for we have young women in the armed services now, shall be bound to fight in every war that any one of those quarrelsome nations starts. For the life of me, I cannot understand the thinking of any American who wants us to join hands in a firm part- nership with the bankrupt, trouble- making, trouble-seeking, quarrelsome and, from a military standpoint, helpless nations all over the world, and agree not only to go to war in their behalf when- ever they think a war might be advan- tageous to them—bind ourselves not only to pay in dollars and material but in the lives of our men—bvt to bear the cost of a third world war. The Communists advocate the over- throw of our Government by force. Without in any way challenging the pa- triotism or the sincerity of those who are now advocating some form of a world government—and I care not what they call it—in which we should join, bind- ing ourselves, I repeat, to fight whenever, wherever, one of our partners might de- ceilde, in my humble opinion, they will, if they succeed in their efforts, arrive at the same destination toward which the Communists are looking. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Michigan has expired. Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my motion.
1950 Mr. NICHOLSON and Mr. RICH ob- jected. The CHA{RMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Kee] is recog- nized in opposition to the motion. Mr. KEE. Mr. Chairman, I have no disposition whatever to argue this mo- tion. We all understand the reason the motion was made, and that reason is not good. I hope it will be defeated. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Horrman]. The question was taken; and on a di- vision (demanded by Mr. Ricw) there were—ayes 32, noes 67. Mr. RICH. Mr. Chairman, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present. Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the gentle- man’s objection is out of order. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may not in the Committee of the Whole object to a vote on the ground that a quorum is not present, but he may make the point of order that a quorum is not present. The Chair assumes the gentle- man intended to make a point of order that a quorum was not present. The Chair will count. lAfter counting.] One hundred and twenty Members are present, a quorum. So the motion was rejected. Mr. HINSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word. Mr. Chairman, I did not speak on this bill when it was under consideration the other day, and I do not intend to say very much right now except that while the gentleman from Arkansas has made a very cogent statement, one which is de- serving of our keenest attention, we must all remember that we have not found it possible to change the foreign policy of our country to his liking, or to mine, or probably to the liking of a very great many present here. But in con- nection with this Korean and Formosa aid business, I trust we will not be swayed too much by the very able reasoning of the gentleman from Arkansas or these other Members. I hope we will examine the situation from a purely strategic standpoint. What we have before us is a strategic program whether or not the foreign policy of this administration has been adequate or properly conducted. I do not like the way it is being admin- istered. I will say that very frankly, and I think that much of this money is being spent not only unwisely but per- haps to the profit of some people in this country who have no moral right to be engaged in such an undertaking. I want to say here that while the island of For- mosa is not strategically important in the defense of our country from the standpoint of our occupation of that island, but it fs exceedingly important that no other government that is un- favorable to us shall occupy it. That is the truth. No one will say that it is strategically important to us, but it is mighty important that nobody who is against us shall occupy it. That is toa lesser degree true also of South Korea. How this money may be squandered in South Korea I do not know. I may say to the gentlemen on the other side of XCVI——110 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE the aisle who think this bill is wrong that if they will make it their business to see that it is properly administered and the money not squandered by their own ad- ministration there may be some success. But, for goodness’ sake, let us look at this in the strategic interest of our country, in the situation we find today, not last year, 5 years or 10 years ago. Those are important days which are gone by. They are in the history book. We cannot change them. We can only do our best to override the mistakes of the past and to do what is right today. Mr. SMITH of Wisconsin. Mr. Chair- man will the gentleman yield? Mr. HINSHAW. I yield to the gentle- man from Wisconsin. Mr. SMITH of Wisconsin. I call the gentleman’s attention to the hearings. He will find in those hearings that neither Formosa nor Korea are consid- ered as a vital part of our security line. Mr. HINSHAW. That is what I said @ moment ago, if the gentleman has heard me. I likewise said it is mighty important that Formosa is not occupied by a power that might be opposed to us. That is the important thing. It is in- deed not strategically important for us to occupy it except, possibly if we found that necessary in order to preclude an- other country from occupying it. Mr. MILLER of Nebraska. Mr. Chair- man, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HINSHAW. I yield to the gen- tleman from Nebraska. Mr. MILLER of Nebraska. Does the gentleman have any information that the State Department or the defense organization will move one finger to pre- vent the Communists from taking over South Korea? Mr. HINSHAW. If I had such definite information, I would not give it on the floor of this House. Mr. FULTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield’ Mr. HINSHAW. I yield to the gen- tleman from Pennsylvania. Mr. FULTON. I want to compliment the gentleman on his statement of the strategic meaning of the position of the United States, because with Formosa un- der a foreign power which was antago- nistic to the United States in the last war, Formosa was used as a landing or stag- ing area against the Philippines and could be so used again. Mr. HINSHAW. All one has to do is to learn just a little smattering of mili- tary science, tactics and strategy. Then examine the geography of the Pacific; take a look at the island of Formosa and the answer is absolutely clear. Anyone who fails to recognize the situation in which we find ourselves today from a military or strategic standpoint, may make a very grave mistake in his con- clusions over legislation of this kind. Much as I do not like the way a great deal of our foreign program has been handled and much as I doubt that this money will be expended wisely I feel compelled to support this bill because in this bill we find some recog1ition of the importance of Formosa to our defense in the Pacific. Mr. KEE. Mr. Chairman, I want to see if we cannot limit the time for de- bate. We seem to be going around in a 1741 circle. We are starting back on the sub- jJect with which we began. Mr. GAVIN. It may appear to the gentleman that we are going around in circles, but we are not. We just want an opportunity to be heard, to express our opinions, so that the folks back home may know where we stand. Mr. KEE. The gentleman misunder- stands what I said. I am not trying to keep any Member from expressing his views. Mr. MILLER of Nebraska. I have an amendment on the desk that I hope can be considered before we close debate. It is very important, and I am sure my colleagues will be interested in it. Mr. KEE, I should like to arrange, by unanimous consent or otherwise, for a limitation on debate, or we will not get through this evening. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous con- sent that all debate on this section close in 20 minutes. Mr. RICH. I object, Mr. Chairman. Mr. KEE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unan- imous consent that all debate on this section and all amendments thereto close in 35 minutes. Mr. MILLER of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman. Mr. KEE. Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on section 3 and all amend- ments thereto close in 35 minutes. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion. The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. Taser) there were—ayes 66, noes 43. So the motion was agreed to. Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it. Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr. Chairman, is the committee amendment being considered as an original bill? The CHAIRMAN. Section 3 has been read. Mr. CASE of South Dakota. still another section to be read? The CHAIRMAN. Yes, section 4. Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Then, Mr. Chairman, the important point ifs this: Could not some of the Members who have been allotted time under the limitation of time be able to secure time to speak during the consideration of sec- tion 4, if they do not care to claim their time now? The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Mr. CASE of South Dakota. That would result in more time being allotted to the gentleman who may have sub- stantial amendments, rather than pro forma amendments to offer? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct. (By unanimous consent the time al- lotted to Messrs. JUDD, Breum, and CHIPERFIELD was given to Mr. MILLER of Nebraska. ) Mr. CHIPERFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to extend my re- marks at this point in the Recorp. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Illinois? There was no objection. I object, Is there
1742 Mr. CHIPERFIELD. Mr. Chairman, when the Korea bill was being con- sidered about 3 weeks ago, I stated my reasons why I was against such aid. Nothing has transpired since that time, including the changes that have been made in the bill, that would cause me to change my decision. During the debate last Tuesday it was stated that there has been a reduction from $150,000,000 as originally proposed, to $60,000,000. Asa matter of fact, $60,- 000,000 of the original amount has al- ready been appropriated, and because of the time involved in securing the re- mainder of the appropriation the evi- dence discloses that only $60,000,000 more can be used before June 30. So, in reality, there is np reduction from the original plan. jn the present bill there is a sop of- fered for those who believe in supporting China, of somewhere around $10,000,000 fo. economic aid to Formosa. It seems to me this aid to Formosa is too little and too late to be of much significance even though one’s sympathies are with the liberty-loving people of China. Since the original debate on the Ko- rean aid bill I have received several let- ters favoring aid to Korea because the writers were of the impression that the bill would provide food for the hungry Koreans. We are all familiar with the fact that the purpose of this bill is not to feed hungry people but to build rail- roads, power plants, and so forth. The only items the evidence discloses that is for human consumption is vegetable oil and salt. Since the hearings were held it has been shown there is no need for salt. To my mind, this bill is the dying gasp to correct a misdirected administration policy in the Far East which has been an utter failure. From the time General Marshall, great soldier and statesman that he is, tried to carry out orders of the President to form a coalition govern- ment in China with the Communists, together with the State Department's handling of the Ward case and its deci- sion to remove our diplomatic officials from China, I have gradually lost faith in the State Department’s judgment. The last straw was the recent statement of Mr. Acheson concerning Mr. Hiss. But, to illustrate Mr. Acheson’s lack of vision, I have but to call attention to his statement of March 20, 1947, when he said: The Chinese Government is not in the position at the present time that the Greek Government is in. It is not approaching col- lapse. It is not threatened by defeat by the Communists. The war with the Commu- nists is going on, much as it has for the past 20 years. To me it seems absolutely futile that we should build up Korea, as it would only serve as an additional inducement for Russia to take over. The trouble, as I see it, with our for- eign policy is when some foreign country needs economic aid, it is immediately assumed it is our responsibility to come to its aid. I believe this should only be true when it is for the best interest of our country, including our own security, for us to do so, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE In the case of Korea I do not feel this is the fact. When we are going into the red to the tune of $5,500,000,000 this year, and with a like indebtedness facing us next year, I believe we must take into consideration that since June of 1945, in a postwar era, we have already given aid to foreign entities amounting to $33,070,- 200,648, and Korea has already received $326,580,489. It seems to me it is about time to give the American taxpayer a break and say to ourselves, ‘“‘Where is the money coming from?” Mr. MILLER of Nebraska. Mr. Chair- man, I offer an amendment which is at the Clerk’s desk. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. MILver of Nebraska: On page 5, lines 17 and 22; strike out “60,000,000” on line 17 and insert ‘'20,- 000,000"; in line 22 after “aggregate”, strike out “30,000,000” and insert “10,000,000”. Mr. MILLER of Nebraska. Mr. Chair- man, the purpose of the amendment is very clear. It merely strikes out the amount of $60,000,000 which the bill carries up to the end of June 30, 1950, and inserts $20,000,000. It reduces the amount which is made available by the Reconstruction Finance Corporation. I have the report of the Economic Cooper- ation, they allocated over $10,000,000 to Korea last December. That money is still in the process of being spent. This bill proposes $60,000,000 to be spent be- tween now and June 1950—there is a $30,000,000 loan by the RFC and their appropriation from Congress. It must go through the other body. It must get back here for conference and then the appropriation must be made. We prob- ably will have about 2 months in which to spend the $60,000,000. Then, I would point out, too. Mr. Chairman, the fiscal policy of the Korean Government is one of printing press money. I told this body before when we visited there November last, when they were asked how they handled their money they said, “When we want more money we just print it.” That was when the won was 900 to the dollar and it used to be 4 to the dol- lar. They said, “We just print it.” Of course that is just printing press money. I am opposed to the entire bill but it is quite apparent that the Administration insists on passing it. I am interested that the taxpayers of the country be given some kind of a break, while we are playing Santa Claus all over the world and Uncle Scrooge at home. As I said, under this bill $60,000,000 is to be allo- cated in about 3 months’ time. I main- tain that is all out of proportion and more than can be spent wisely in this short time. It is for capital improvements. There is no military aid. I trust the amend- ment will prevail. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Nebraska has expired. Mr. KEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in op- position to the amendment. Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the time as- signed to me may be given to the chair- man of the committee. FEBRUARY 9 The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Oklahoma? There was no objection. Mr. KEE. Mr. Chairman, I hope this amendment will not have favorable con- sideration. We heard the debate today and we heard a full explanation of the bill some 2 or 3 weeks ago when this identical bill was before the House. I dislike to take up the time of the House going over the history of the mat- ter. The Senate bill, from which the commitee has struck everything after the enacting clause, had come here carrying an authorization for $1650,000,000. That was for the fiscal year 1950. The orig- inal bill in the House in which the au- thorization had been cut from $150,000, 000 to $60,000,000, failed of passage during the first session of the Congress. Because of that failure, the operations of our Government in its aid program in Korea were held up. We could not carry on the operations to the same extent they should have been carried on or would have been carried on had the bill passed. Contracts had to be cut down. No for- ward contracting could be done, and for a period of some months the aid program was carried on solely by reason of piece- meal appropriations that were from time to time initiated in the other body and made available to carry on the Ko- rean program. The total of those ap- propriations, all in all, amounted to $60,000,000. Those were the appropri- ations frequently called unauthorized appropriations on this floor. As a mat- ter of fact they were authorized by the appropriations. All work would have been halted had not those appropriations been made. Then we came in with a bill some weeks ago asking for the ap- propriation of $60,000,000. As stated, that bill had been cut down from an original authorization of $120,000,000. We asked for only $60,000,000. Why? Because we found that $60,000,000 would be needed and all that would be needed. It is absolutely needed to carry on this work until the 30th day of June of the present year. I hope the amendment will be defeated. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Keer] has expired. Mr. TABER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. Mr. KEATING. Mr, Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the time al- lotted to me may be granted to the gen- tleman from New York (Mr. Taser]. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection? There was no objection. Mr. KEEFE. Mr. Chairman, a point of order. I make the point of order that a quorum is not present. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will count. [After counting.] One hundred and one Members are present, a quorum. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Taser] is recognized. Mr. TABER. Mr. Chairman, there has already been appropriated this year $60,000,000 for Korean aid operations. What the status of that fund is the Con- gress has not been informed. I have checked the speeches that were made here on Tuesday, I raised the question
1950 with the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Surron] when he spoke, but noth- ing has been forthcoming. This is a travesty. With the State Department having no policy on the far eastern question or any real policy on anything, it ds absolutely impossible in any intelli- gent way for the United States to embark upon major construction items in Korea. They do not need immediate relief, at least not to any enormous extent; they have food enough, they can get enough of the necessities of fe. As a permanent proposition undoubtedly they will need some mechanical development, but there is money enough, should this motion be adopted, to provide amply for all relief needs. Why do we not approach these things from an intelligent standpoint? Why do we not have the cart behind the horse instead of ahead of it? This whole pic- ture is gotten up on the basis of putting the cart in front of the horse, and we are just going haywire in the whole sit- uation. I plead for some intelligent ap- proach to this problem in the Congress. Why can we not have the same consid- eration for our taxpayers that we have for foreigners? Frankly, if we have an obligation to do something for Korea, how much more do we have an obligation on the part of our State Department to determine where we are going, and upon the part of the President and the ma- jority in the Congress to lay out that program? Instead, there is nothing of the kind; we are just throwing the money in blindly; we have no intelligent ap- proach to this problem, no intelligent in- formation as to what money they have or what they need. There were no hear- ings when this was presented that were printed and submitted to the House. I think we ought to adopt this amendment. Mr. GAVIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word and rise in support of the amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized. Mr. GAVIN. Mr. Chairman, this bill has been before the House on previous occasions, and it was defeated the last time by a vote of 193 to 192, I believe; so that evidenced the will of the House. The State Department becomes alarmed then goes into a huddle and comes up with a new bill, and back it comes to the House all polished up with a new title; but make no mistake about it, it is just the same Korean-aid bill. in November I visited some four dif- ferent European countries, Germany, Austria, Italy, and France. Recovery in all the countries is amazing; they are well on the mend; the people are well fed, well shod, well clothed, and with this aid given, they are doing very well, and let no one tell you otherwise. In- stead of cutting down, sloughing off in the spending program and letting them slug it out a little harder, I am of the opinion in the very near future we are going to be asked to put in another three or four billion dollars to these countries. So, we are not only taking care of the European economy, but now we are go- ing to spread out and take on the entire world; we are going to take on Korea, Formosa, and all the Asiatic countries, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE I say it is about time that we start looking after our own back yard. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania has ex- pired. Mr. RICH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my time be given to the gentleman from Pennsyl- vania, The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania? There was no objection. Mr. GAVIN. Mr. Chairman, when I returned home recently I picked up an issue of the Pittsburgh Press, and here are some of the headlines: ‘Hearts, purses open, save starving village after mine closes—Teacher’s plea for hungry children brings $15,000 in gifts from Nation.” On the next page: “American miracle rescues tiny mine village from starva- tion.” Going to the next page: “Families re- moved from fire-trap tenement—Fire would have been disastrous—An impas- sable fire escape, littered with debris and too weak to stand on was found when families were taken from this Webster Avenue building—Coal in the bedroom— Wilson Borland, executive director of the Pittsburgh Housing Association inspects what had been the bedroom of one of the slum tenants.” Mr. Chairman, what I would like to bring to the attention of the House is this: Why should we not be concerned about the people in our own back yard? Why do we have to take in the world? All of us can take a look right around in our own districts and we will find plenty of places to make investments in order to protect the welfare of the American people. The time has come when we should give careful and thoughtful considera- tion to this colossal program of spending before we end up in bankruptcy. Every- one thinks Uncle Sam is a rich uncle, that his pockets are inexhaustible. It is spend, tax, tax, spend, spend, and tax. I say the time is here when we should look after our own welfare and the inter- ests of the American people. Cut out the spending, cut down taxes, balance the budget and give relief to the Ameri- can taxpayer. Mr. RICH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. GAVIN. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. Mr. RICH. I think the gentleman is absolutely right. We ought to take care of the American people. We want to help these foreign countries, but we do not want our State Department to squander money the way it is doing at the present time, and doing a bad job at that. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania has ex- pired. Mr. FULTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my time may be given to the gentleman from Pennsyl- vania. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania? There was no objection. 1743 Mr. GAVIN. Mr. Chairman, I was in Austria this past November where we are dumping millions and hundreds of millions of dollars. Austria is within the sphere of the Russians, the Com- munists, and the more money we pour into Austria the more money the Rus- sians drain out. Korea is in the same orbit so far as China is concerned, and the more money we pour into Korea the more money they will siphon out. The question for the Members of the House to decide is, How long can we stand this terrific drain on our financial re- sources without eventually finding our- selves on the doorstep of bankruptcy? Let me tell you right now, Mr. Chairman, and I reiterate what I said the other day, that no bankrupt nation ever won a war. Mr. SUTTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. GAVIN. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee. Mr, SUTTON. We have given to Austria $604,000,000. Mr. GAVIN. Yes, $604,000,000. Mr. BREHM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. GAVIN. I yield to the gentleman frem Ohio. Mr. BREHM. Can it definitely be proven that any of our foreign aid has stopped communism anywhere in the world? And I mean in practice, not in theory. Mr. GAVIN. Not to my knowledge. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania has ex- pired. Mr. LODGE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my time be given to the gentleman from California. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Connecticut? There was nc objection. Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the pending amendment. Mr. Chairman, I had no intention of entering the debate on the Korean aid bill, but, inasmuch as the name of the distinguished and patriotic Will Clayton has been injected into the deliberations by the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. TacKETT] and his good name brought into question, I am constrained to rise in his defense if his fine character, patri- otic and selfless service to the Nation needs any defense. The name and fame of Will Clayton has been emblazoned in our Nation’s history, and no mean reference or de- traction uttered here or elsewhere will reduce in my estimation or in any way detract from his service or credit. He has earned his place in history. What I cannot understand is why a Member from the cotton-growing State of Arkansas will take this opportunity to kick in the teeth one of the greatest champions of King Cotton because he— Will Clayton—wants to sell a hundred million dollars’ worth of the South's first and greatest product. I wonder if cot- ton is to be sold or permitted to rot in southern fields. As a northerner, I cannot figure out this riddle, and I doubt if the gentleman from Arkansas could ever explain. Mr. Clayton favors the Marshall plan, but he wants to sell cotton at the same time.
1744 The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog- nizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. VuRSELL]. Mr. VURSELL. Mr. Chairman, it seems obvious to the Members of the House who have been watching this prob- lem away back from the days of Yalta that we turned our backs on the oppor- tunity of China and Korea at that time and it was only a matter of time until they would fall into the Russian or Com- munist orbit. They are almost there now, and it has been the fault largely, at least in great part, of our own State Department and high officials at or be- fore the close of the war. Now we are asked to put $60,000,000 more into Korea. An amendment is before the House to reduce it to $30,000,000. I am in favor of reducing it to $30,000,000 because any- one who is thinking clearly knows that just as soon as Russia and Communist China want to move down they will take all of Korea, and they will take the $60,000,000, if we put it in, in developing their heavy industry; and if we only put in $30,000,000, which this amendment calls for, we will have aided their ulti- mate conquerors, Communist China, by only to the extent of $30,000,000. This will only be a temporary aid to the southern part of Korea if we vote ten, twenty, or thirty million dollars in this bill. So I think it would be the part of wisdom, inasmuch as there is sufficient food in Korea, that we simply give them this pat on the back for $30,000,000 at this time and await the turn of future events. Let us save this $30,000,000 now by reducing the sixty million to thirty million, as this amendment provides. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Illinois has expired. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Morris]. Mr. MORRIS. Mr. Chairman, I have consistently opposed this program from its very inception. I think it is wrong in principle and definitely is not getting us anywhere. I believe that we should have a strong Army, Navy, and Air Force in these dangerous times, and I have voted for all of the appropriations in re- gard thereto. But, we are spreading our- selves out so thinly over the world that we are dissipating our strength. If com- munism is the international threat that some say it is, then we are not doing enough. If it is not the threat that some think it is, then we are doing too much. We are not doing it right, that is a cinch. There is nothing in this program as I see it, except a psychological set-up and a bad one at that. It is not feasible, it is not practicable, it is not reasonable. One reason why there is so little ex- pressed opposition is that the big news- papers are mostly for it and we know, of course, why they are for it. I do not believe that the people of America are ror this sort of program, or ever have een, The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Oklahoma has expired. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. JoHNsoN]. Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, what you do with this problem today depends on how you appraise the situation that is before us. If you believe that what is done in Korea and China does not con- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE cern us, naturally you will not put one dollar over there. It is my firm convic- tion, after a great deal of thought and study, that what we do in Korea today might be very important to the future security of America. What we have failed to do in China has already hurt us. As I see it, the basic problem before Americe. today is not primarily the mat- ter of finances, although that is very im- portant. It is, are we able by our lead- ership and by the help of our friends that we have left in the world today to stop another war? We have had plenty of road blocks to bringing about of peace placed in our way during the last few years. All the arguments these gentlemen have made about the cost of war, about the ungodly profits of war that were made in this war and in the first one, creating thousands of millionaires, constitute one of the rea- sons why I think our conduct in Korea today will be watched throughout the world. Are we going to turn our backs on the only visible symbol of liberty in that part of the world? Are we going to turn our backs to that symbol of freedom and say to the Chinese, who are resisting the infiltration of communism, that we are walking away from them? Are we going to walk away from Asia and let it fall into the lap of the Communists? Do not think our future and the future of our children is not involved in this problem today. I. is involved right in this particular thing we are proposing in this legislation. Are we going to break faith with little Korea, who was prom- ised this aid? I do not know the details of how they are going to spend the money, but we must have faith in somebody that is run- ning the foreign policy of the United States. They have explained the need for and purposes for which this money is to be spent. The committee that held the hearings is almost a unit in advo- cating this bill. I have faith in their judgment. As far as I can see from per- sonal observation and trips to both these countries, this appropriation is a very vital step in trying to creep slowly to- ward a peaceful and stable world. That is what motivates me in voting for the proposed law and also in opposing this amendment. I think our future security is the great problem we have today. We can show by our conduct here whether we are going to go along and help this little country or turn our backs on Asia. I would like to concur in the statement of my colleague from California (Mr. HINSHAW] as to the strategic problem involved. If we do not get world peace, it means that the brutal war which closed in 1945 will have been lost. It means that we will have broken faith with the millions who fought and the thousands that died and were wounded, all of whom fought to bring freedom and peace to the world. This little bill is only a minor part of the over-all problem. But it is a rather important part in the particular sector of the world where Korea is located. Last evening I attended a very inter- esting banquet in honor of the Boy Scouts of the District of Columbia. We were told that about 2,000,000 boys are engaged in the Scout movement in the FEBRUARY 9 United States and getting the training which it offers to the youth of today, As I listened to a report on their activi- ties on this, the fortieth anniversary of the beginning of the Boy Scouts of America, this thought continued to harrass my mind: The Boy Scout leaders will undoubtedly develop the character of these boys; they will train them and teach them to become sturdy and de- voted American citizens; they will pre- pare them for the leadership of the fu- ture world in which they will be the men to carry on the best traditions of Amer- ica; but unless we can, by American leadership, coupled with cooperation of other liberty-loving nations, bring about the stability that will insure world peace, what will the training of these boys be utilized for? They were trained to han- dle assignments in a peaceful world. So to avail ourselves of their ability, vision, and courage we must have peace. I do not for one moment wish to min- imize the financial and other problems before our country. They are serious and I fully recognize that our financial strength is an important factor in our security. But the only threat that is real to the freedom of the world is the infiltration and political and economic penetration conducted by the Commu- nists of the world in practically every continent of the world. If we cannot stop that, either by our direct action or by supporting and strengthening those who are subjected to this kind of pene- tration then world peace has a slim chance. These are only a few of the serious things that have motivated me in my determination to give this aid to little Korea, a gem of free government and personal liberty surrounded by aggres- sors who would jump at the chance to take this small country over. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog- nizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. BENNETT]. Mr. FULTON. Mr. Chairman, inas- much as the gentleman from New York (Mr. EpwIn ARTHUR HALL] is not here at the moment, so that the time allotted to him has not been used, I ask unani- mous consent that his time be given to the gentleman from Florida. Mr. KEATING. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New York is not on the floor. Mr. BENNETT of Florida. Thank you, but I do not know that I can use it, anyway. I am going to speak entirely extemporaneously, The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania? There was no objection. Mr. BENNETT of Florida. Mr. Chajir- man, I am very much in favor of the theory behind the Marshall plan and our efforts to try to bring about a strength- ening of those countries which need to have that strength given to them and are standing up for democracy and will be able to resist communism. By such aid we may be able to prevent another war. However, when I hear $60,000,000 called a “symbol” and realize how much money $60,000,000 is and how relatively small the area of Korea is with its rela- tively small population, I think that is
1950 @ rather substantial symbol. I am in good faith speaking in favor of the amendment. I intend to vote for this bill if the amendment is adopted. I will not vote for the bill if the amendment is not adopted. Our overexpenditures in both foreign and some domestic expenditures are bleeding the defense of this country white. We can look at the recent reduc- tions in our armed services for an ex- ample of what is happening. For in- stance, the recent cuts in the Navy and the new complications in the Pacific have together underlined a drastic need for at least two additional carrier groups, pro- viding that sufficient strength is also maintained in the Atlantic. Whether they will be forthcoming is doubtful in view of the fiscal situation. I personally desire to see these carrier groups activat- ed and the Armed Services public works bill enacted. I feel reduction in the sum involved in this Korean aid bill would be one step which we can take to provide for more funds for our domestic defense. We are told we must give the whole amount of money requested in this bill. It is a part of a pattern of such requests, the total of which is vastly beyond the ability of our country to stand and re- main fiscally sound. We can afford such @ program if we will keep the requests within reasonable limits. But we are not doing that. This amendment should be adopted. I would like to say one other thing which I think probably has more signifi- cance than anything that I have said so far in this little talk, It concerns the situation in Formosa. There is no need for a great deal of additional military strength in Formosa. They have the military strength. There is no need for a great deal of additional money in Formosa. They have the money. What is lacking? What is lacking is a plenti- ful supply of the will to fight and the will to resist and the will to get ahead. This jis primarily a matter of morale and of political confidence. What are we doing about this? I do not like to be critical of any department of the Government. I am not inferring that I could do a better job if I were there; but to me it is as clear as crystal that what is needed right now is a plebiscite or a free election in Formosa. The results may be that they will either become an independent republic, or go communistic, or decide that they will stay under the flag of Na- tionalist China. If they decide to be a free and democratic government, either under a flag of Formosa or of Nationalist China, then I think we should give them every possible aid. They do not need money. ‘They do not need troops. do not need anything except faith in the fact that they are not going to be stooges in the future. That is what con- cerns most of Asia today. I call upon the State Department to look into the possibility of having free elections there. Such elections would seem to be a prerequisite to any solution in Formosa. Maybe the United Nations should hold them. Maybe a commission of people from the southern Asiatic countries, such as India and others, should do it. The United States should take initiative if no one else does. That They. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE is what is really needed in Formosa, It is strange to me that our country can- not take the initiative in these very im- portant things while other countries can. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Florida has expired. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. Javits]. Mr. JAVITS. Mr. Chairman, I take this time in order to clarify a few facts because there are lots of ways to kill a bill and this is one of them, this effort to reduce the amount authorized by the figure which the gentleman’s amendment calls for. For this reason, even assuming that bare subsistence for the people of Korea was desirable between now and the end of the fiscal year 1950, the report on page 18 states as follows: It is contemplated that approximately one- third of the sum sought for the balance of the fiscal year will be devoted strictly to re- covery. That leaves two-thirds for subsistence items, which means $40,000,000 of the $60,000,000. Secondly, we have heard a great deal about power plants and ferti- lizer plants, and so forth. These are now concentrated in North Korea and un- available to the people of South Korea. South Korea is no pasture. Even in order to get more produce from the rice fields, in order to get the food to a country hav- ing 21,000,000 people, you have to have railroads, or have some facilities. They have to have cotton textiles for the people to make their clothes out of. They have to have creosote for farm buildings. They have to have cement and all of the things that go into even a civilized so- ciety. The figure which is fixed in this bill is not sacrosanct but it is a figure ap- portioned to needs, and not subsistence alone, which is not enough. Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. JAVITS. I yield. Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Is this a bill to build some railroads in Korea? Mr. JAVITS. No; the amount of ratl- road construction envisaged under this legislation is very slight and is only to develop the truncated railroad systems so as to make it more useful for the South Korean economy. For the gentleman’s information, in the fiscal year 1950 there will be $2,432,000 in rail construction in the whole program of $120,000,000. Fight hundred and two thousand dollars for railroad construction purposes was used of the initial $16,000,000. Of the second sum of $60,000,000 as proposed in this bill $1,630,000 will be used for railroad construction. Seventy-six thousand dollars has been used up to the present for railroad electrification but none will be used for this out of the au- thorization we are here asKed to vote on. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentle- man from Nebraska [ Mr, MILER}. The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. MILLER of Nebraska) there were—ayes 43, noes 69. Mr. MILLER of Nebraska. Mr, Chair- man, I ask for tellers. Tellers were ordered, and the Chair- man appointed Mr. Ricuarps and Mr. Mutter of Nebraska to act as tellers. Mr. 1745 The Committee again divided; and the tellers reported there were—ayes 54, noes 81. So the amendment was rejected. The Clerk read as follows: Sec. 4. The authorization for appropria- tions in this act is limited to the period end- ing June 3, 1950, in order that any subsequent authorizations may be separately passed on, and is not to be construed as an express or implied commitment to provide further au- thorizations or appropriations. Mr. NORRELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word. Mr. Chairman, I have said before, I say again, that if there ever was a for- eign-aid bill that should be passed this is it. It is all right to be against the State Department and its policies; it is all right to say you are against big busi- ness—I am not against big business, and I am not against small business—but let me tell you this is of outstanding im- portance by itself. Let me tell you why it ought not to be considered along with other foreign-aid bills. When the war was over, the United States Government was a party to di- viding Korea. That part of Korea north of the thirty-eighth parallel was occu- piled by Russia and the south half of Korea was occupied by the United States. We were assisted in making that divi- sion. Had that division not been made, Korea would not today be asking the American Government for anything. Then talk to me about placing Korea with the other nations receiving foreign aid. Mr. Chairman, it is not right. Korea was divided, without her consent; Russia, as I have said, was given the northern half and America was given the southern half. Old Glory, the American flag, is there in our section of Korea. Further, I call your atten- tion to the fact that under the supervi- sion of the United Nations an election was held in Korea; we agreed to that election; that election was held after the adoption of their new constitution, and the new officers are doing a great work. Their constitution is somewhat like ours. They then set up a government some- what like ours. We endorsed that. We are helping them now. Because, how- ever, a few Members do not like the State Department, because others do not like the party in power in China, because still others do not like European relief, an are being urged to vote against this Mr. Chairman, let me tell you that the Koreans are among the finest peo- ples that God Almighty ever breathed the breath of life into. They followed us through their liberation as I have heretofore indicated. They were willing that the division be made that we sug- gested. At least, they accepted the de- cree; they later adopted the kind of con- stitution we wanted them to have. Then they set up the kind of government we thought they ought to have. The seeds of democracy have been planted. They believe in us. Are we going to run out now because there may be somebody somewhere who does not want to give Korea relief? I am not for the Com- munists. I do not think we have any Communists or even any fellow travelers or anybody of that kind in the House.
1746 They would not vote for this bill, though, if they were here because they do not want to pass it. Mr. Chairman, let us consider aid for Korea without getting the matter mixed with other relief or foreign-aid bills. They asked us for $150,000,000 a year ago. This Congress said it would let them have $60,000,000 and asked them to reexamine their needs and see if they could not reduce their request. They have done that. They have reduced their request by $30,000,000. We have, impliedly, at least, agreed that if they would make these reductions that we would go along with them regarding the balance of the request. Mr. FULTON. Mr. the gentleman yield? Mr. NORRELL. I yield for a ques- tion. Mr. FULTON. I just wanted to say that we on this side thank the gentle- man for his sincere and excellent state- ment. Mr. NORRELL. I appreciate the gentleman’s words. I feel very deeply that the bill ought to be passed. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, permit me to say that I will put my record for economy against that of any Member of this Congress. I have stood for econ- omy even under circumstances when it was rather embarrassing to me. We ought not to play politics with this bill; we ought not, Mr. Chairman, to play politics with the people of Korea. I urge that the entire bill as presented to the House be passed today if we want to do anything to prevent the spread of communism further into southeastern Asia. Mr. MORRIS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last two words. Mr. Chairman, let us reason together now a little bit about this situation. AsTI understand it, there are about twenty to twenty-three million people that this so- called aid will go to. We propose to send about $60,000,000 over there, which will be an average of about $3 apiece per per- son. I might be in error but I believe that is substantially correct. Those peo- ple do not dress like we do, they do not have the same educational system that we have, and I dare say that very few of them know anything about the mechanics or the theory of our Govern- ment. I doubt that very few of them know anything about the traditions of our Government. Why do we think that spending $3 apiece, on the average, is going to change their way of life and is going to bring them around to our way of life? How can we expect such a sum of money to really have any impact what- soever upon those people? Mr. NORRELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MORRIS. I yield to the gentle- man from Arkansas. Mr. NORRELL. As one illustration— because when we divided Korea all of the power plants and steam plants were located in Northern Korea. When Rus- sia got it they cut the lights and all of the power in southern Korea. If they build a steam plant, the gentleman knows we cannot divide it on a per capita basis. Mr. MORRIS. I get the gentleman's point and he makes a very good one. But Chairman, will CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE the situation is simply this: Those in- cidents like you mention may happen at any time on any occasion and we cannot be responsible for them. Suppose they do build a Nght plant with some of the money proposed in this bill; it will only last for a while, it will only result in a temporary service. We cannot keep building for them forever. If we are going to start in on the thing on the theory of keeping them friendly toward us why we will just have to keep on from now on, forever. Mr. Chairman, we cannot take over the world. We just cannot do that. We might go in there temporarily with this program and create a little good feeling for us, we might do that, but next Wednesday that feeling might be gone. Maybe they will want something else. It is just too big and it cannot be done, I may say to the gentleman from Ar- kansas. It might help a little while, but if we start in on it on the basis of bringing them over to our way of life, we are going to have to continue with it from now on to keep them that way. No, it is not practical, it is not reasonable. Mr. Chairman, the thing for us to do, as I see it, is to work diligently, truly, and sincerely for peace, but keep our- selves strong in this dangerous world and be ready for any enemy that might come against us; to hold the banner of liberty and justice high, as an example for all the nations of the world, hoping that they will follow our example, that they will let us teach them by precept and by example. Let us decal fairly with them in trade, let us deal with them fairly in all matters, but let us realize the fact, Mr. Chairman, that we cannot buy friendship and if we could, we do not have enough money with which to do it. It just is not practical, it is not reasonable, from any standpoint that you may approach it. No, it is not a rea- sonable thing to do. Not only that, but as has been suggested before, we are weakening ourselves in the process. In- stead of retaining that money to make ourselves strong, we are spreading it out very thinly and finally we may find our- selves, God forbid that day should ever come, as one of the have-not nations in- stead of one of the have nations of the world. Mr. WHITE of California. Mr. Chair- man, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MORRIS. I yield to the gentle- man from California. Mr. WHITE of California. I want to make the observation that the gentle- man and I have voted against these so- called relief programs for some time now. Mr. MORRIS. Let us not call them relief programs. Mr. WHITE of California. Foreign aid programs. The bipartisan sponsors of this legislation have made the point that there is some cotton in this bill; in other words the cotton people can sell cotton over there and make a little money out of this bill. The gentleman knows I am in the cotton business. That is my main business or has been and my district has lots of cotton in it. But I am still going to vote against this thing. They cannot put enough pork in it to make me vote for it, even if all the money went for cotton. FEBRUARY 9 Mr. MORRIS. I appreciate the state~ ment of the gentleman from California and he certainly shows a very wonderful spirit here in being willing to sacrifice personal gain and a matter that might be of personal or political help to him, in order to carry on with his duties here in the way that he sees them. I appreciate that splendid attitude. Let me say this, my friends: let us never base a proposi- tion like this on a question of business. That is not right, that is not fair. Iam afraid this program is a step toward war and if this program will tend to get us in a war, then all the business we get out of it will not be worth the price we will be paying. No business can ever com- pensate for leading us toward war. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Oklahoma has expired. Mr. KEE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unani- mous consent that all debate on this bill close in 10 minutes. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from West Virginia? There was no objection. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog- nizes the gentleman from Oregon [Mr, ELLSwortTH]. Mr. ELLSWORTH. Mr. Chairman, coming from the part of the world that I come from I naturally would like to vote for this bill. But I am deeply concerned about two or three things which I feel I must call to the attention of the com- mittee today. One is the fact that this money, whatever the amount may be, is borrowed money. We will have to borrow it in order to send it to those people, therefore we must give this matter most careful scrutiny. We are running in the red in this country at the rate of about $16,000,000 every calendar day, and it is a serious matter when we spend $60,000,- 000 more. Then I am reminded of the fact that about 3 weeks ago this same bill or prac- tically the same bill was on this floor. I believe the bill we had before us at that time, Mr. Chairman, called for $120,000,- 000, or some such figure. I thought it was rejected by the House by three votes, but I heard in the debate today that it failed by one vote. If that is true, I can take unto myself the credit for saving the Government of the United States $60,000,000 in the last 3 weeks because I voted against the bill 3 weeks ago. At that time, and I recall the debate dis- tinctly, it was argued that we had to have that amount of money because the needs had been accurately calculated, and that was the least amount of money the Koreans could get along with. Today the amount is cut in half. It is again stated that the needs have been care- fully calculated and that this is really and truly the correct amount. It seems possible if we wait another 3 weeks the figure might be reduced still more and thus further millions of borrowed money saved. I think we must strengthen our position in the Pacific but I do not see how I can vote for any such haphazard estimate as is represented by this legis- lation. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog- nizes the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Gross].