should like to make this contribution to the debate. The National Guard of my State of Tlinois were very much disap~ pointed with respect to the amount of appropriation that was constdered suffi- cient by the House in passing the bill. Generals Smykal and Boyle and others have been in my office pleading with me to try to get an increased appropriation in order that the Iiinois National Guard might be able to do the kind of train- ing they believe is absolutely indispen- sable at this particular time. I do hope that at the proper time this subject may be discussed thoroughly by members of the Appropriations Committee. Cer- tainly the various National Guards of this country are one of the vital parts of our defense. As the Senator from Fexas rightly says, it does seem that this is certainly not the time to start trimming on appropriations for the National Guard. Mr, THYE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. If I may, let me respond to the contribution of the Senator from Illinois first. I know of his great interest in adequate preparedness through the years, both in the House and in the Senate. While I have not made 8 detailed study of the provision to which the Senator from Minnesota refers, I am of the opinion that it will reduce some of the Guard’s personnel and reduce some of the time allowed for training. That will cripple a very effective arm on which we may have to depend in view of the war clouds hovering over us. I hope that at the proper time in the considera- tion of the appropriation bill some of the Senators in charge will offer the neces- sary amendment to give the National Guard the strength our defense officials feel is necessary. Mr. THYE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further for a question? Mr, JOHNSON of Texas. I yield. Mr. THYE. I also note, Mr. Presi- dent, that there is a reduction in the aviation division of the National Guard in that appropriation. As we draw the Regular Army away from the continen- tal United States and send it abroad, we are naturally weakening ourselves. Therefore, as we send the regular Army from the United States, we must strengthen our National Guard in every respect. Otherwise, we are not going to have the military strength here in the United States that will assure us ade- quate protection. I believe that as we go into this general appropriation bill we must give serious thought to that partic- war matter, and it is my opinion that we should increase the appropriation, both for the National Guard itself and for the Air Division of the National Guard. Mr. McKELLAR. Mr, President, will the Senator yield? Mr, JOHNSON of Texas. I yield. Mr. McKELLAR. The chairman of the subcommittee having charge of mili- tary affairs is the Senator from Okla- homa (Mr. Tuomas], He and members of the staff are going over the bill at the present time. called to the need for additional funds for the National Guard, and we hope to be able to report something about it a His attention will be . CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE littie later that will be satisfactory to the Senate. Mr. THYE. Mr. President, I certainly thank the able chairman of the Appro- priations Committee for giving us that information. The matter is very im- portant. I have been preparing amend- ments on the subject. I am glad that particular matter is being taken care of, so tt will not be necessary for me to sub- mit any amendments upon it. Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. It is my understanding that the bill as reported will clearly reduce the maintenance fund permitted the aviation group, and will reduce its personne] and its mainte- nance at a time when we actually ought to order men into the service. I think it would be very ill-advised to follow such a policy. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I yield. Mr. LUCAS. I want to make one fur- ther observation in connection with the colloquy which has just taken place. Should any of the National Guard units be called into the Federal service, of course, any appropriation we make for the Guard itself would be more or less futile and useless, because the Federal Government would take over the Guard. But that should not deter us one iota from attempting to take care of the Na- tional Guard units from now on until they might be called. A number of them might never be called. Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I say to the Senator we ought to make the appropri- ations necessary to be able to meet the situation confronting us at the time we consider the bill. If the Guard is taken into the service and not replaced by other men, the money we provide for the Guard will merely revert to the Treasury. But we should not gamble and take chances on that. Mr. McKELLAR, That question is now being worked out, as I stated. Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I thank the Senator. I am sure the Senator from Tennessee will see to it that we will al- ways have adequate funds for this pur- pose. Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I yield. Mr. HUMPHREY. I merely want to say to the distinguished Senator from Texas that, by reason of his experience, his observations, of course, are worthy not only of consideration but of the most careful consideration and judgment of his colleagues. The other day I was looking through a periodical which, I am sure, comes to the desk of most Members of the Senate, It is a magazine known as the United States News and World Report. I have in my hand the issue of July 7, and I thought what was contained in it was pertinent in terms of what the Senator is speaking about. On page 19 of this magazine ap- pear two captions, The first is; “What Hitler had in 1938.” The second is: “What Stalin has in 1950." Remember, it was in 1989, only a year later, that the Hitler blitzkrieg bowled over one coun- try after another that we thought was rather strong. JULY 12 Also, in another issue, that of May 26 of the same magazine, the United States News and World Report which, by the way, I consider to be quite a good magazine, is contained a tabulation en- titled “Two Worlds: Combat Power,” One of the columns shows the United States bloc. These are the North At- lantic Pact nations, The other column shows the Russian bloc, being Russia and her satellites. If the Senator will permit me, I should like to call attention to some figures as shown in this tabulation. Army divi- sions: In the Russian bloc, 170 divisions; in the North Atlantic Pact bloc, the United States bloc, 43 divisions. Combat aircraft; Russian bloc, 16,000; the United States bloc, 14,000. Naval ships and submarines: The Russian bloc, 427, the majority of which are modern submarines; the United States bloc, 546. Then we get down to the atom-bomb stockpile. That is only estimated, so I do not think we need to put that into the Recorp, because I do not know of any- one who knows how many we have. Then we come to tanks, Only a short time ago, I may say to the Senator from Texas, I read an article in a newspaper in which it was said that some of our military leaders had stated that the tank was becoming a rather useless instru- ment of war. I also read that tanks could not be used in Korea because of the nature of the terrain and by reason of the geography. Apparently, however, someone did use tanks and quite success- fully, and apparently we are having a little trouble stopping them. The article points out that the Russian bloc has 40,000 modern tanks and the United States bloc has 6,000. . Those are what may be called modern tanks. I think that bears out the point the Senator is making of the importance of activating our armed strength up to its quota. Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. How many divisions did the Senator’s intelligence indicate the Russians had? Mr, HUMPHREY. One hundred and seventy in the Russian bloc. Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. And that compares with approximately 10 in the United States Army. Mr. HUMPHREY. That is correct, Forty-three divisions in the North At- lantic Pact area. If the Senator will give me a little more time, I should like to submit a few more figures. I do not want to take any time away from the Senator, but I think this information is of great value. I have referred to the chart giv- ing a comparison between what Hitler had in 1938 and what Stalin has in 1950. When we talk about Stalin, we are not talking about his stooges who are doing his fighting today. We find ourselves in the situation of never being able to get at the master minds. We have to deal with the satellite stooges, Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi- dent, apropos of what the Senator has just pointed out, it is my opinion that the North Korean forces are now being counseled and directed and are being furnished equipment by Russia itself, The American people should realize the
1950 problem which confronts us. This at- tack on South Korea is directed and led, a my judgment, by the Kremlin mas- TS, Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, if the Senator will permit, let me say that I am sure the Senator from Texas has a correct understanding of the situation. I think we should look upon the present situation as one in which the Soviet Union is a great powerhouse, with the masters of the Soviet Union able to con- trol the switches setting various forces loose in the world, anywhere they please to do so, an“ at any time—as was shown most graphically by the cartoon appear- ing in the newspaper, with Stalin being able to push the buttons and throw the switches and set war in motion in Korea or in several other areas. Mr. President, if the Senator will fur- ther permit, I should like to present a few more figures: In the case of steel, in 1938 Hitler had at his disposal an annual production of 27,400,000 tons of steel; whereas today, in 1950, Stalin has at his disposal 35,- 200,000 tons. From various sources and various types of information the reports we re- ceive indicate that Stalin is building a tremendous industrial empire in the satellite areas of Poland, Upper Silesia, and Czechoslovakia. Certainly we should not minimize the importance of the fac- tories in those satellite areas, To give a few other figures, Mr. Presi- dent, let me say that so far as concerns electrical power, in 1938 Hitler had at his disposal an annual production of 62,300,000,000 kilowatt-hours of electrical power, whereas in 1950 Stalin has at his disposal an annual production of 115,- 000,000,000 kilowatt-hours—right now. As for the production of aluminum, in 1938 Hitler had available an annual production of approximately 215,000 tons, whereas today Russia has an an- nual production of 230,000 tons of alu- minum. As for oil, in 1938 Hitler had at his disposal an annual production of 15,- 800,000 barrels of oil, whereas today, in 1950, Russia has at its disposal an an- nual production of 355,500,000 barrels. In the field of mobile equipment, we find this situation: In 1938, the year be- fore Hitler moved into Poland with his blitzkreig, he had at his disposal only 400,000 trucks. Today the Soviet Un- ion has 2,000.000 trucks. In machine tools, in 1938 Nazi Ger- many had an inventory of 1,177,000 ma- chine tools, whereas today, in 1950, Communist Russia has 1,300,000. Needless to say, the Soviet Union has tremendous numbers of men available for military service. As of today, in 1950, there are in Russia 2,000,000 men of draft age, available for military serv- ice, coming up as a military class— each year, whereas in 1938 Germany had, as a similar group, only 500,000. This evidence should be conclusive to the American people, let me say, that we are in for trouble. Bo I think the Senator from Texas is doing well in presenting the call for ac- tion at an early date. However, if he does not mind iny saying so, possibly all CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE of us are @ little late. I think we have some questions to ask the defense establishment. The American people are wondering what has happened with all the money which has been appropriated for*these purposes. Undoubtedly it has been used for good purposes, but I do not think we can permit super-secrecy about this matter. I think the people want to know what has happened to these funds, this $13,000,000,000 or $14,000,000,000. I do not wish to he critical. I have voted for every appropriation bill for these purposes, and I doubt whether there is any Senator who is a stronger supporter of the administration than I am. However, this is not a matter of partisan politics. I think we should know what the administration has done. All Senators have to vote on these questions. I wish to know why there has been delay in getting the fleet out of moth- balls, why so long has been taken, and why only one or two vessels at a time have been made ready. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota will suspend. The Chair has some obligations in con- nection with the maintenance of proper procedure under the rules and the pres- ervation of order. The Senator from Texas can yield only for a question. Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I wish the Senator from Texas would an- swer my questions. Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi- dent, I appreciate the worth-while con- tribution which has been made by the junior Senator from Minnesota. I wish to say that I shall be glad to join him in any attempt to determine whether the funds which have been al- located to the Department of Defense have been properly expended, However, I do not wish to go into that question at this time, but I wish to continue the discussion of the Korean situation. Mr. President, I think we should look forward, not backward. It is not my purpose to attach blame to any indi- vidual or group, in the course of my remarks here today. I merely wish to point out what, in my best judgment, should be done now. I do so in the hope that those who have authority to put such a program into operation will give it every consideration. Mr. President, the seventh point of this program is to make the fullest pos- sible use of the present provision in the Selective Service Act enabling the Fed- eral Government to place priority orders for all material essential for the Armed Forces. I believe that section of the Draft Act is section 18, At the time when I was serving as a Member of the House of Representatives, I offered an amendment to the Draft Act when it was before the House Armed Services Com- mittee. That amendment was adopted by a vote of 29 to 1 in that committee, and the provisions of that amendment closely resemble the provisions of the existing jaw. When the bill was con- sidered in the Senate, at the suggestion of the able junior Senator from Georgia (Mr, Russs11), the Senate wrote into 9991 the bill a provision, which riow is the law, giving to the President the power to get any material he needs to further the war effort, by ordering the material and by paying a reasonable price for it, I am quite sure this will give him the au- thority he needs to obtain the produc- tion essential to support our Armed Forces. The priority provision could certainly be used to break such bottle- necks as the styrene shortage now han- dicapping the output of synthetic rubber and other shortages which deter full production. This is a minimum program. 1 offer it as a suggestion, but I strongly urge its acceptance hy those in authority, We must not tarry longer looking for a cheap way out of the battle in which we are now engaged. There is no cheap way out. There is, in fact, no way out short of total victory. We cannot compromise; we cannot escape; we cannot'continue to retreat, Twice before we have been plunged into global war because we moved too slowly, because we permitted the Kaiser and then Hitler to conclude that we would riot mobilize our forces fully—or in time. It is fortunate for us, Mr, President, that the men in the Kremlin have given us this warning—this time in which to prepare, Otherwise we might never have realized our weaknesses which are evi- dent to us today; we might never have had the opportunity to repair our errors of judgment. We have time now—although none of us knows how much time. We may have only a few weeks—but we may have time enough. Let us use every minute, every second, to the best possible advantage. The American people are behind us. They want us to do all that is necessary—not merely half what is necessary. Shall we permit history to decide that we did too little, too late? Or shall we—~ by a great and unified effort—do enough, soon enough? Shall South Korea be remembered as a@ slaughterhouse for democracy—or as & graveyard for aggression? That is the decision we must face, We must make that decision now. We must direct all our efforts to vic- tory—immediate, decisive victory. Words are useless; criticism is waste- ful; delay is unthinkable. Let us to- gether get on with the job which lies ahead, Mr. MAGNUSON, Mr, President, be- fore the Senator from Texas takes his seat, I wonder whether he will yield, to permit me to make a brief observation. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator can yield only for a question. Mr, JOHNSON of Texas. I yield. Mr. MAGNUSON. Of course, I wish to join the Senator from Texas in his remarks, and I wish to subscribe whole- heartedly to what he has said. I desire to point out to the Senate that probably no one is better qualified to make the suggestions he has made than is the distinguished junior Senator from Texas. It so happens that some years ago—in particular, in 1942—both
9992 he and I were in the midst of a situation which could be described, perhaps, as not too late, when viewed from our hindsight, but as too little; and in the same area in which the war is now oc- curring, the Senator from Texas and I had a good opportunity to realize that probably many of the things he is sug- gesting now should have been done then. I am sure that his words, as a result of that great experience and his expe- rience here as a member of the Armed Services Committee, together with his many years of service in the House of Representatives on the great Naval Af- fairs Committee, are the words of one who is qualified to make the suggestions he has made today in his very able speech. Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi- dent, I may say that the Senator from Washington is always generous in his expressions regarding the Senator from Texas, VISIT TO WASHINGTON OF 3,000 WOMEN SINGERS FROM INDIANA Mr. CAPEHART. Mr. President, a group of 3,000 women from Indiana who have been in Washington since yester- day will sing tonight on the Plaza oppo- site the Senate Office Building. I wish to pay tribute to them because what they are doing is so typically American. These 3,000 women have come from 84 counties in Indiana to participate in the Washington sesquicentennial celebra- tion. They are from the Home Econom- ics Club chorus of Indiana. Throughout the year they meet every 2 weeks in their respective counties and sing and once each year they go to Purdue University, all 3,000 of them, to sing as a single State chorus. They are going to sing here tonight, as I said a moment ago, on the Plaza opposite the Senate Office Building. I belleve that we should honor this group of women, because they have paid their own expenses to Washington. They adopted all sorts of enterprises to secure sufficient money to pay the expenses of the trip. None of their expenses were paid by the Govern- ment, They came here in order to help the city of Washington and the Federal Gov- ernment celebrate the sesquicentennial. I wish all Members of the Senate could hear these 3,000 voices singing in unison. I urge Senators to try to attend this festival tonight. These ladies are fine singers and capably represent the cul- tural interests of the rural communities of Indiana. The thing I wanted to emphasize more than anything else is the fact that, though we are faced with a war, yet in America 3,000 women from the rural homes of Indiana make many sacrifices to come to Washington to assist in the observance of the sesquicentennial of the Nation’s Capital. I think it should be an exampl the world, and an in- spiration to all of us in Washington, that there is still in the people of America the old American spirit and the desire to do things for themselves and to par- ticipate in our Government, without Government help. I strongly recom- mend that every occupant of the Senate galleries and each Senator attend the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE affair tonight in tribute to these 3,000 women, the oldest of whom is 88, the youngest of whom is 14. There will be no admission charge. These ladies are contributing their services. SUGGESTED SEVERANCE OF DIPLOMATIO RELATIONS WITH RUSSIA AND HER SATELLITE COUNTRIES Mr. McCARRAN. Mr. President, the Government of the United States should immediately sever diplomatic relations with the Government of Soviet Russia and with the governments of the coun- tries which are satellites of Soviet Rus- sia. May I hasten to add that the sev- erance of diplomatic relations is not a step toward war but is a last hope to marshal the free people of the world in the cause of peace and to quarantine those who are courting war by spreading their tentacles to all corners of the world. There is no other course available to us than to end diplomatic relations if we are to maintain the moral respect of the peoples of the world and if we are to protect ourselves against the ever-in- creasing penetration of our country by Communist agents who are sent here under the cloak of diplomatic immunity to direct and control the Communist fifth column in this country. Each of these grounds for this course of action warrants deliberate appraisal. First, I invite the attention of the Sen- ate to the moral compulsions which dic~ tate this course of action. In the relationships among the na- tions of the world the duly constituted government of each nation has by long custom been officially recognized by the governments of other nations. Gener- ally, the de facto government is accepted as the de jure government on the theory that the peoples of each nation have the right to determine the form and person- ality of their government. Notable among the exceptions to this custom were the occasions, still fresh in our memory, on which the Nazi invaders set up quisling governments in certain countries which they had overrun, but these quisling governments were not recognized by the Government of the United States or by our allies because they were governments by foreign usurpers. The undeniable fact is, Mr. President, that the government of Soviet Russia and the governments of the countries which are satellites of Soviet Russia are not governments in the accepted sense of this term, but are, instead, an unholy band of mad marauders who lay claim to the form of government by stealth and by sheer force of ruthless power which they inflict on the people under their domination. Is there a voice here in the Senate to assert that the Kremlin reflects the will of the people of Russia in which some 16,000,000 souls are imprisoned in slave- labor camps and in which millions more quake at the untrammeled power of the secret police? By what pretense can we assume that those forces that have by intrigue seized the reins of government in Czechoslo- vakia represent the people of that pros- trate land? JULY 12 Let us read on down the list of peoples who have been stricken by this gang of international outlaws who now assert that they are the government of these unhappy lands: Yugoslavia, Hungary, Poland, Rumania, Bulgaria, China, East Germany, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania— and the list is ever lengthening. Is there a Member of the Senate who is ready to declare that American blood is being spilt in Korea for any reason but to stem the tide of this cancerous growth which threatens to engulf the world? How, Mr. President, can we face the peo- ple of the world who yearn to be free from the yoke of terror which has been imposed upon them and still give official recognition to the monsters who have enslaved them? Has there been manifest in our diplo- matic relations with these enemies of mankind even the semblance of good faith? No, the council table to them is another mockery of men of good will. I say, Mr. President, that the con- science of the world demands that tas United States of America no longer en- tertain a pretense of that which we and the world know is not true. If we are to redeem our moral leadership which has repeatedly been so ignobly sacrificed on the altar of expediency, we shall forthwith declare to the people of the world that this Government shall no longer recognize as governments the mire of iniquity which today controls one- third of the people of the globe. But, Mr. President, there is another equally compelling reason for this course of action which I urge, and that is the dire necessity to protect ourselves against the deadly Trojan horse fifth column in this country which is under the control and direction of official representatives of Communist governments who operate unhampered under the cloak of diplo- matic immunity. Mr. President, I am in dead earnest when I say that I know what I am talk- ing about. Over the course of the last 2% years a Senate subcommittee, of which I have been chairman, has con- ducted an intensive study and investi- gation of our immigration and naturali- zation systems. As the Senate will re- call, we recently filed an exhaustive re- port on the subject, and at that time I introduced in the Senate a comprehen- sive bill which completely rewrites our immigration and naturalization laws. One phase of our investigation dealt with the problems of the entrance into the country of Communist agents, the pipeline of espionage and the relation- ship between subversive activity in the United States, and the international Communist network which operates throughout the world. The facts are, Mr. President, as I have previously recited them in detail to the Senate and as they appear beyond the shadow of a doubt from the evidence in the published hearings of our subcom- mittee, that the Communist network in the United States is inspired, organized, controlled and directed in a large part by those foreign agents who are sent here under diplomatic immunity and who are working feverishly to destroy us. The admissions into this country of aliens
1950 in diplomatic status from behind the iron curtain has been running at the rate of approximately 1,000 a year. In addi- tion, a substantial number have been sent here under the guise of press repre- sentatives, trading commissioners, stu- dents, domestics, seamen, delegates to various organizations and the like. Every one of them is sent with a definite assignment to engage in espionage, or- ganize Communist cells, foment discord, distribute propaganda and otherwise subvert our democratic institutions. These are the kingpins and the lifeline of the deadly conspiracy in this country. Typical of the evidence before the sub- committee is the following statement which appears in our published hearings from the testimony of a former Commu- nist organizer: The personnel of the various Soviet dele- gations, embassy, consulates, Amtorg, Tass, and so forth, in this country have been com- posed in part of Soviet intelligence agents. Hidden in each of these bureaus, ostensibly performing some routine function, are MVD men whose real job is to report on various phases of American society to Mos- cow headquarters. Recently this corps has been reinforced by the UN delegations of Russia and her satellites. A small group of these MVD agents, say three to five men, directs the work of the whole network in this part of the world; it fillers the information that comes in and, making use of the diplo- matic pouches, passes on what is new and useful to Moscow. Here is the testimony of J. Edgar Hoo- ver, Chief of the Federal Bureau of In- vestigation: Experience has reveuxled that foreign es- plonage agents seek the protection of a legal cover, By that, I mean they seek admittance into the United States on diplomatic pass- ports. They seek assignments to some offi- cial foreign agency and thus conceal them- selves under the diplomatic cloak of immu- nity. To further avert suspicion, a high- ranking espionage agent may very well be employed as a clerk or 1n some minor capaci- ty in a foreign establishment. However, when he speaks, those with higher sounding titles follow his orders without question. Foreign espionage services maintain strict supervision over their activities in this country, Right there may I point out that under our present laws the Department of Jus- tice is powerless to exclude these for- eign agents. In passing, may I say that the Department of State has appeared more than anxious to extend our hos- pitality to them without stint. An ex- ample of this tenderness toward these foreign agents is the contents of an un-~- solicited letter which I received from the Secretary of State vigorously opposing @ bill which I introduced to provide for the exclusion of any alien, irrespective of his status, who seeks to enter the United States to engage in subversive activities. The theme of this letter of protest was that to exclude officials of Cummunist governments, even though they may seek entry to engage in sub- versive activities, might offend Commu- nist Russia. How long, Mr. President, are we to remain hypnotized by the illusion that we can deal with madmen as though they were sane? How much longer shall we betray those of ow own flesh and blood who are even now baring their CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE breasts to the cannon and tanks which were assembled in the Soviet Union? The severance of diplomatic relations is a last effort to salvage our moral lead- ership of the world and to avoid the ter- rible consequences of world war III. This course is but responsive to the law of self preservation. It will be the true voice of America which surely will be heard by all the people of the world. Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator from Nevada yield for an observation? Mr. McCARRAN. I yield. Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, I de- sire to commend the distinguished Sen- ator from Nevada for the statesmanship which he has demonstrated today. Asa member of the subcommittee which he has mentioned in his address I heartily endorse what he has said with respect to the real danger which exists in this country because of the Communist con- spiracy here, which is one segment of the world-wide Communist network under the direction of the Kremlin. The distinguished Senator from Nevada, Mr. President, has rendered a real service to the Senate and to the country in urg- ing, as he has today, a course of action which would cut the pipeline of this conspiracy and drive a wedge between the masters of the Kremlin and the mil- lions who yearn to be free. Mr. President, the vision of the Sena- tor from Nevada certainly has been amply verified by the course of events which he foresaw several years ago. Plainer than any other Member of the Senate he saw and predicted step by step the course of aggression and the terrible danger in which the United States would be placed. I desire to read what the distinguished Senator from Nevada said several years ago, to show that his vision was accurate and that he is a statesman of the very highest caliber. In a radio speech delivered during the week of December 13, 1948, more than a year and a half ago, the distinguished Senator from Nevada had this to say: What happens to China will vitally affect our foreign policy with regard to all Asia, * © We know it is the objective of Russta to pull the iron curtain down (in Asia). That must not be allowed to happen if there is any way this Nation can prevent it. Without the open door to China—a door which we opened—all Asia will be made un- tenable for the forces of western democracy. Mr. President, that statement is an historic truth. Had the leaders of this country harkened to those words a year and a half ago, the United States would not be in the terrible predicament in which it finds itself today. I read fur- ther from a prediction made by the Sen- ator from Nevada on February 25, 1949, found at page 1533 of the ConaressionaL REcorp: Flushed with recent victories, the real hand behind the Chinese Communists is making itself known in Asia today. Listen to this prediction: Korea is a powder keg, ready to explode in our face if we are pushed out of China as a force in opposition to communism. Mr. President, what can be said on this floor which would be truer than what 9993 the distinguished Senator from Nevada said a year and a half ago? I quote further: Reports already Indicate the situation ape proaches outright war between the southern, portion which we recognize and the northern, or Communist portion which the Soviets recognize. Make no mistake, if the Communists are not stopped in China, the next step will be Korea, and do not forget that in Korea we still maintain occupation troops and if trouble becomes serious in that country our boys must fight or get out and admit to the world that we are losing our battle for the survival of freedom. Again I say had the leaders of the American Government possessed the wisdom and the foresight of the distin- guished Senator from Nevada, we would not be faced today with a bloody war in Korea. A great man once said, ‘Where there is no vision, the people perish.” It is vision such as has been demonstrated by the distinguished Senator from Ne- vada that is now urgently needed in high places in the American Government. I read from another statement by the distinguished Senator from Nevada on August 22, 1949, when he said: We believe Communist control of China would endanger gravely the American atra- tegic position in the Pacific. There is ample substantial evidence in the files of the State Department and thé Department of National Defense that the Communists, through their fifth columns of infiltration, already have begun to terrorize countries bordering China, The distinguished Senator from Ne- vada recognized from the first the dan- ger in all of Asia. He recognized that trouble there, if not handled in time, would lead to the loss of a great number of American boys. If his prophetic vision had been followed we would have peace in Asia, the United States would not be on the verge of war, and it would not be necessary to have American blood shed. I say again, Mr. President, that when leaders lack vision the people perish. The distinguished Senator from Nevada has shown vision, leadership, and states- manship in this crisis, and in relation to the whole Communist world conspiracy. Mr. McCARRAN. Mr. President, I express my gratitude to the Senator from Mississippi for having brought forth the thoughts I expressed on previ- ous occasions. I only wish that the Chinese people had been encouraged to fight for thelr own land, and a token of encouragement on the occasion when IT made those expressions some years ago would have saved us from the predica- ment in which we now find ourselves. SUGGESTED DESIGNATION OF GEN. CARLOS ROMULO AS UNITED NATIONS REPRESENTATIVE IN THE FIELD Mr, FERGUSON. Mr. President, last Sunday on a radio broadcast which was reported by the press wire associations, I repeated my hope that the United Nations participation in the Korean crisis might be a maximum effort, Specifically, I suggested that in addition to the use of the United Nations flag which had just been authorized, 1t would be a most effective move if the United Nations were to designate Gen. Carlos
9994 Romulo, President of the Fourth Gen- eral Assembly of the United Nations, to serve in the field in resolving the breach of the peace now taking place in Korea. This morning I was gratified to receive a telegram from General Romulo which is of prime importance in connection with that suggestion, The telegram reads as follows: Mawita, July 11, 1950. Senator Homer Fercuson, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.: I appreciate your thinking of me as re- ported by Associated Press dispatch of July 10. As President of the Fourth General As- sembly it 1s my duty to help carry out reso- lutions approved by the United Nations and will abide by whatever decision member states may take regarding their implemen- tation. It was a real pleasure to see you in Washington during my last visit and I wish to reiterate my thanks to you for all the help you are giving the Philippines. Greetings and regards. Romu.o, This clearly shows General Romulo’s sympathy with the proposal I have made, and makes his participation con- tingent upon action by the United Nations. He has himself declared that it is his duty to carry out resolutions approved by the United Nations and that he will abide by whatever decision member states may take regarding their implementation. I therefore formally propose that the United States delegation at the United Nations be instructed to take such action as is necessary to have General Romulo designated to serve as deputy to the United Nations Commander, General MacArthur, in the field of active mili- tary operations. Ican see tremendous advantages to the cause of the United Nations to have Gen- eral Romulo undertake this assignment. The General personifies the United Na- tions, because he is the President of its Fourth General Assembly. He is Chief Delegate of the Philippine Republic to the United Nations. Second. He is a man of genuine mili- tary competence. He has been a briga- dier general in the United States Army, and served with distinction throughout the Pacific campaign under General MacArthur, beginning with Bataan and Corregidor. I am confident that his services would be especially welcome now to General MacArthur, who has first-hand knowledge of General Romu- lo’s ability. Third. General Romulo is himself na- tive to the Asiatic area, and has a thor- ough understanding of Asia's problems and of the aims and aspirations of its people. My immediate reaction following the Korean outbreak was that here, in a clear case of aggression, is a supreme test in- volving the very survival of the United Nations as an instrument for peace and order in the world. It was my hope that the United Nations would grasp this op- portunity to work in the cause of peace- ful processes, and that the United States—in its own interest—would strongly support it. I was deeply grati- fied when the United Nations acted so promptly and so decisively. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE It is my belief that the United Nations should go much further, and take every opportunity to make crystal clear its identification with the action it hag au- thorized in Korea. In this connection, I hope that all member nations will join promptly in sending troops and giving ef- fective aid in this action. I earnestly hope that the United States as a member of the United Nations will focus its own policy more strongly on this object of United Nations identification as a wholly effective instrumentality for peace. Now and in the future we should press for bold international action through the United Nations to the end that peace and order should replace an- archy in the world. I shall have more to say on this point at another time, but for the present I earnestly hope that without delay, the United States delegation to the United Nations be instructed to take whatever action is necessary to have Gen. Carlos Romulo designated to serve as the United Nations deputy associate with General MacArthur in the field. Mr. President, I have sent a copy of these remarks by special messenger to Dean Acheson, the Secretary of State, so he may know how I feel about this par- ticular matter. IMPLICATIONS OF THE KOREAN SITUA- TION Mr WILEY. Mr. President, when I was working my way through the law school of the University of Michigan, a very wise practitioner who taught law gave us much sage advice, Among the other nuggets of wisdom he gave us, speaking to us as embryo lawyers, was this: Do not be ashamed to say you do not know. A man who always knows is either @ damn fool or damn liar, and will make a very poor counselor. He said further: You first have to get the facts. Then you have to study the law applicable to the facts. Then if your judgment of the law and the facts 1s accurate you will be in a position to advise, Mr. President, we find ourselves today oping for the facts. We read headlines n the newspapers which tell us that Korea will become for us a Dunkirk, or some other name such as Bataan is used, They are dealing simply with the situa- tion as it is at present. Mr. President, I was very much im- pressed by the speech delivered by the distinguished chairman of the Commit- tee on the Judiciary (Mr. McCarran]. As he said, in trying to find out how to keep America safe and secure, and main- tain the American way of life, we must keep in mind that we are ving in a world in which another great power uses the penetration method. Since the shooting stopped after the Second World War that great power has taken over 150,000,000 people by means of penetra- tion. The Senator from Nevada very graphically portrayed the danger to America because we are so naive. We let almost any individual come into the United States, and we permit almost any method of penetration to operate before we act. JULY 12 Mr. President, I speak now about the world situation as it confronts us today. The newspapers say there is a feeling of relief in Washington now that the bick- ering and indecision has disappeared and that we are rallying to the President's support. I am not so sure that that feel- ing now exists to the extent it did im- mediately after the President sent Amer- ican forces to Korea. I am sure that in the hinterland people are thinking, and thinking, and thinking about where we are going. Where are we going, Mr. President? Of course, as suggested by the junior Senator from Texas (Mr. JOHNSON) to- day on the floor of the Senate, we must get our house in order. He meant our military house. But I am talking about some of the facts which I think we have to consider before we try to determine just where we are going. The cost of the last war in the way of lives and dis- rupted plans is so fresh in our memories that people are pretty dubious as to the program. That, Mr. President, is a fact. When J say the program, I am nct talk- ing about this little phase of the program which now is in operation in Korea. The world 1s our stage, Mr. President, and where the next eruption will take place no one knows. The only country which has the answer to that question is Rus- sia, I want to call another fact to the at- tention of the Senate. It will be re- membered that in 1948 we created the National Security Council. It was the function and the responsibility specifi- cally of that Council to do the following things: First. To assess and appraise the ob- jectives, the commitments, and the risks of the United States in relation to our actual and potential military power in the interest of national security for the purpose of making recommendations to the President in connection therewith. Second. To consider policies—and this was our law—-on matters of common in- terest to the departments and agencies of the Government concerned with national security—I repeat concerned with na- tional security—and to make recommen- dations to the President in connection therewith. I wish to cite another fact. After all, the intervention in Korea is not the same as the sending of troops into Nicara- gua. The implication of our move in Korea is so far-reaching that we are wondering where we go from here, It was stated on the Senate floor by a dis- tinguished Senator today that the sig- nificant fact is that everywhere Russia is directing the movements of her satel- lites, that she is not expending her own troops, but is utilizing the troops of other groups over which she hes control. Someone called them her stooges, That is a very significant fact. Another significant fact we must con- sider in determining where we are going is that today’s newspapers state that Chi- nese Communist troops are in action in Korea, Russia can expend 100,000,000 of those troops without one Russian being xilled. Another significant fact we must not forget is that, as has been stated time
1950 and time again on the floor of the Sen- ate, the Russian policy is to exhaust the resources and the manpower of this Na- tion so that we will become so weak that when she produces the major blow we will not be able to resist it. I wish to speak of the philosophy of the Russians. By “the Russians” I do not mean the common people, who are serfs, who are slaves. I am talking about the leaders who have swallowed whole the Marxist concept that there is no God, that the state is omnipotent, that the citizen is a serf, that all prop- erty belongs to the state, and that the individuals must obey the commands of the state. I am speaking of that group headed by Stalin and others who have done such a tremendous work in taking over approximately one-third of the earth’s surface, and controlling almost 1,000,000,000 human beings. Those are facts which I want the Sen- ate to bear in mind. If we are going to apply to the present situation the common-sense rule which the wise teacher at the University of Michigan laid down for those of us who were embryo lawyers, I repeat that we must consider all the facts. In addi- tion to the facts I have enumerated, what are some of the others? We know that it is apparent that Rus- sia has trained and armed the North Korean forces and is directing the at- tack. Of course it is always well to know whom one is fighting. It is also apparent that under the Marxist and Communist philosophy, as expressed by Marx, Lenin, and others, the objective is to revolutionize and take over the world. We know that in Korea the Russian tanks are the things that are doing the devastating work. Russia has equipped the North Koreans with tanks and other weapons; and when we destroy 30 or 40 of those tanks, another 100 come into action. They are what are pushing our boys back and back. If the Chinese Communists go in there with several hundred thousand men, that will constitute another important fact. Ap- parently the manpower available to the other side is inexhaustible. It may he that we shall be pushed out of Korea. So we should consider where we go from there, Of course, we are trying to evaluate the entire battlefield, not only in terms of Korea, but in terms of the entire world. I sincerely trust that those in Government who thus far have failed properly to evaluate and appraise the situation in the Far East will not fail to realize that the whole world is the battlefield. We know, as another fact, that there are rumblings in the Berlin area. I agree with those who say that when Russia has created diversions here and there, she will be ready to strike in Iran and will be able to take over the oil fields there, which are her great objec- tive. She needs the oil, although today she is producing more oil than she has ever produced before. However, it is almost a certainty that the next move Russia will make will be in Iran. The question is, what are the freedom-loving nations doing about that? CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Do they have those oi! wells in such shape that if the invasion starts, the wells will be destroyed at once? That is a question which some of us ask. A charge of dyna- mite or other explosive in each oil well would do the job. However, in that re- spect will we find ourselves in a situation comparable to that in which the Bel- gians and the French found themselves in the last World War, and as we were at Pearl Harbor—asleep at the switch? Korea has been called a Pearl Harbor, a Bataan, a Dunkirk. Will we be asleep? Mr. President, another question the people back home are asking {s, What has become of the $15,000,000,000 a year which has been appropriated by Con- gress for defense purposes? How has that money been spent in terms of preparations? It is not simply a question of appro- ’ priating money; but we had better see to it that when the taxpayers pay money for defense purposes, they get 100 cents’ worth of value for every dollar that is spent. Otherwise, when we are fighting the perimeter battles—if that is what we are going to have to do—-the Russians will see that we are led into a trap. In the meantime their saboteurs will come into this country. Day before yesterday I telephoned Mr. J. Edgar Hoover and read him a letter from a manufacturer located in the East, who said that at a certain party at which some persons got drunk, he talked to a Communist who said that in every great plant in this country they had people planted, people who will take care of sabotage work when and if certain con- ditions arise—in other words, that they will be ready. I gave that information to the FBI for whatever it is worth. Cer- tainly it is consistent with the remarks which have been made today, on the floor of the Senate, by the distinguished Sena- tor from Nevada. Mr. President, are we alert; or is it a fact that we are mentally asleep—as we were in Korea? I have previously referred to the func- tion of the National Security Council. We are going to pour into Korea our country’s reserves of material and men. As has been suggested on the floor of the Senate, that situation presents a very serious problem which we must consider. Has it been properly consid- ered by the various agencies of the Gov- ernment, particularly by the National Security Council, which, as we know, is composed of the heads of the Govern- ment, namely, the President, the Vice President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of the National Security Resources Board, now Mr. Symington. Why have not we and why have not they been fully acquainted with this situation? Why have so many of our aircraft carriers been kept in mothbalis? It has been stated that if we had four or five or six of our aircraft carriers, equipped with the necessary planes, in the seeth- ing, fermenting area in the Fer Hast, the situation there today might be quite dif- ferent. Mr. President, there is no inclination on my part personally to criticize any- one, However, we Americans have lived 9995 a soft life—~even during the last World ‘War, things came to.us easily--and we have had one continuous administration for 20 years, an administration which hes had its own way for all that period of time, Therefore, it seems to me that. it is time that questions were raised, and that some of us called attention to the fact that the danger to our national house is that of utter destruction. Mr. President, this is not the first time in history when people have slept, I have just finished reading a book en- titled “The Egyptian,” written by a Finn, telling the story of Egypt a thou- sand years before the life of Christ, re- counting how the great Pharaoh had a false sense of security, despite all the omens and warnings, despite the warring tribes, despite the situation in Syria and other lands. He simply fell asleep at the switch, so to speak; and his country was taken over. Mr. President, we have been living in the lap of luxury, and we have been spending $15,000,000,000 a year for na- tional defense purposes. However, where are our defenses? I think the American people should be told the facts in that connection, A moment ago I said that there are rumblings in Iran and rumblings in Ber- lin. There are also rumblings in Tito’s land. Tito says he can handle the situa- tion. I think he is probably about as misinformed as we were about Korea. Another fact is quite significant. We are seeking to get the facts, and then, from the facts, to find the answer to the question, Where do we go? Another fact which is quite significant, and which we in America must keep in mind, is that all over the world Russia, as I said be- fore, seems to be getting manpower other than her own to start the fighting to- ward her objectives. Thus, in China, as I said, she gets the Communist Chinese, In Korea, she gets the North Korean Communists; and in Indochina and Malaya, she gets Indochinese and Ma- Jayan Communists to do the fighting. The fact has been stressed, as I recall, by one of the Senators, and it ia a known fact, that Russia has built great manufacturing cities behind the Urals. We also know that what she would need most tn a world contest would be oil. Therefore, I think we may safely draw the conclusion that Iran is on her sched- ule; just when, no one knows. It also appears—and this is a most significant fact, and some of the facts were stated today by the Senator from Minnesota—that Russia has outdis- tanced the world in the number of air- planes manufactured. Why? She has outdistanced the world in tanks. The effectiveness of her tanks is demon- strated in Korea. Is the action in Korea merely a trying-out operation? Some- one had said that we are supposed to have secret weapons, and that one of the purposes behind the Korean en- counter is to force us to open up and show our secret weapons in that fight, in order that Russia may know about them, if, indeed, she does not already have them. Mr. President, you and I remember, years ago, when Spain was the testing ground for Communist and
9996 Pascist groups. Different countries par- ticipated. Russia gave the Spanish Communists arms, but not men in that fight. She egged them on. It was the preliminary bout preceding the world battle--World War II. As I say, the only purpose at this time of bringing out these facts, as distin- guished from surmises, is not that we do not know them, but, Mr. President, so that you and I may become conscious of them, and so that they will operate to give direction and perhaps guidance, particularly the Executive and the De- fense Department of the Government, to the end that they may become wise to the situation, we may know where we are going and not commit great blunders and expose our great country to some- thing which we ourselves imposed upon Japan. These sare some of the basic facts, but not allof them. Some of us would like to know what is around the corner of to- morrow. Today it was mentioned on the floor that “without vision, the people perish.” Are we to try to contain Russia's allies throughout the world? That is a part of the foreign policy that we must know about. Moreover, we must count the cost. We must evaluate that, Mr. President. Read the news- papers today and see how our boys were slaughtered. Of 500 of them, but 28 or 30 remain. We have got to count those costs. Those were our boys. We are in Korea, and must continue our activities there; but we cannot focus all our sights on Korea. Look at the map of Russia. There she is, concentrated within her 8,000,000 square miles, striking out, feel- ing the world out in all directions; and we are 9,000 or 10,000 miles away. Another fact which I want to call par- ticularly to the attention of the National Security Council is this: We have heard much said about the fact that the Navy ‘was not permitted to get into action, that we did not have available a sufficient number of air carriers and were not ade- quate to handle the situation in that respect. Another fact we must remember is that at Pear] Harbor our ships were sit- ting like ducks. They were bombed from the air. It is possible for our ships to be sitting like ducks on the ocean, sailing the waters between China and the Korean peninsula, where they can be bombed from the air or attacked by the snorkel submarine. The question is, What precautions have been taken? Are ‘we alert to such dangers? Will our en- tire Navy be sunk. In February 1941, speaking on the floor of the Senate, about 8 months before ‘Pearl Harbor, I called attention to the certain facts and asked that President Roosevelt submit to the Senate in execu- tive session information as to the condi- tion of our defenses in Hawaii and the Philippines, and that we be permitted to catechise the Becretary of State and other officials. On that occasion I asked, “Will our ships be found, as the Russian ships were in the Russo-Japanese War, at Port Arthur?” For 8 months follow- ing that no attention was paid to the question, No attention was paid when I asked that information be given us as to our defenses in Hawaii and the Philip- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE pines. We remained in Pearl Harbor totally oblivious, as we have done in Korea. The general in charge of Korea was on his way home, and the colonel whom he left in charge was in Japan. Iam not speaking against individuals, but about a condition of mind which is exceedingly dangerous in this period. The world has become contracted. The war game is now played on something similar to a chessboard. We have’planes that will travel 1,000 miles an hour. A week or two ago we were told how we were going to handle the possible situa- tion of planes coming with bombs over the Pole. There is another fact which is tremen- dously significant. It goes to the ques- tion of what happened at Pearl Harbor and what happened in Korea. It relates to our total blindness to the world situa- tion as it is. Have we forgotten Hiro- shima and Nagasaki? We remember that by one bomb between 80,000 and 100,009 lives were snuffed out. Yet only a few weeks ago we were talking about planes coming over to this country. Mr. President, for years I have talked about decentralization. That is a vital subject today. We are still building larger cities. We are still concentrating factories which are vital ‘to our defense within certain constricted areas, where it would be possible for one bomb to knock them out. Those are facts, Mr. President. We are living in the Atomic Age which we, ourselves, brought into being. We demonstrated the effective- ness of the atomic bomb on certain Jap- anese cities, What are we doing about that? What are our defenses? How much asleep are we? As I say, Mr. President, I do not like to indulge in personalities, but we sent to Korea 500 officers. What was our in- formation from them? It was that the South Koreans could take care of the sit- uation. What were those officers doing? They certainly were asleep to the real situation. Is that same condition true as to every front on this sphere? Are we still asleep at the switch? Are we permitting the gold-braid boys to fall asleep when it is their job to alert us? One of the things in which we are in- terested is whether we have been getting value for the money we have been spend- ing for national defense, or are we just as unalert and unprepared to meet an attack on our own shores as were the South Koreans? Have we, because of the conflict in Korea, forgotten the les- sons of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Are we alert to the danger of the snorkel, with our Navy in the Far East? Will the Navy be found by the Russian planes and snorkels like sitting ducks, as were our ships at Pear) Harbor when the Japs at- tacked, only this time sailing the seas? What constitutes alertness and adequacy changes with the changing of time and events. Mr. President, I hope the signs indi- eating that we are asleep will disappear in America. I hope that those who have the power under the law, such as the Na- tional Security Council, will accept the obligation, in the Interest of national security, of doing that which is neces- sary. I repeat, their function is to assess and appraise the objectives, commit- JULY 12 ments, and risks of the United States in relation to our actual and potential zil- itary power. We were very naive in dealing with Stalin in the past, I repeat, because I want it clearly known, if that be possible, that we are building our cities bigger; We are centralizing our production; and we neglect the building of the St. Law- rence seaway, which is now so neces- sary—more so than ever before—in order that tn the great Middle West area the production of steel and the things which are made from steel may continue. If we should become isolated in a third world war—and no one Knows what the effect of the snorkel will be; no one knows what the effect of the great planes which can travel 6,000 or 7,000 miles will be—if we cannot produce the iron ore, and the steel from it, we shall not be able to produce planes, tanks, and munitions of war, and we shall not be able to re- build our cities. America must become alerted, and those who lead us must become alerted and totally aware of the tremendous challenge which is thrown at us. We have taken no steps to decentralize our Government. One bomb could de- stroy the taproots of the executive, ju- dicial, and legislative branches of our Government. One bomb planted on Washington could set this Nation into confusion, because the taproots of the executive, judicial, and legislative branches would be gone. Why did we not bomb Tokyo? It was because General MacArthur told us not to do it. He said, “If you destroy the head of the government, chaos will be the result.” We are proceeding like babes in the woods, just as naive as can be, with no provision against an emergency which might arise overnight. We can be sure that the first spot for attack by Russia will be Washington, because its destruc- tion would cause demoralization. So, Mr. President, we talk about alert- ness, but what have we done? Are we still living back tn the days of 1941 when armed planes could not cross the ocean and when we had no thought of planes coming over the Pole? The Senator from Maryland [Mr. Typincs], speaking about Korea, stated that the situation was tough. He said: Naturally, the logistic problems sre ex- tremely difficult, due to distance, and there are limited port facilities and relatively poor landing-field facilities for aviation. David Lawrence, in commenting on this statement, said: These words might have been uttered about America’s position in the Far Rast when the Japanese took both the Philippines and Hawaii in 1941, and one must rub one’s eyes ‘and pinch one’s self to make sure this is 1960, With all the Navy's aircraft carriers and the vast number of planes in the Pacific only & years ago, it seems as if someone blun- dered badly despite the $15,000,000,000 a year spent for defense purposes. Mr. President, I shall summarize briefly and then conclude. We must remember that we are living in 1950. In the years since 1941 the world has stepped ahead in scientific progress to such an extent that we have Hterally contracied the world into a very
1950 small sphere. In our military develop- ments—I mean, in our handling of the atom bomb-—we have created an entirely new world climate. Unless we become conscious of that, we shall be like the babes in the woods, and we shall be caught like sitting ducks. I have given the facts on which we can agree. I cannot tell what will hap- pen tomorrow; I do not know what will come next week, next month, or next year; but I do know, that in Russia, with its false concepts of life and liberty, and its false concepts of religion and government, the leaders have a definite plan to take over this globe, and they have been pursuing it successfully. They have done the greatest job in history in the shortest time in acquiring territory and slaves. I know that America is the garden spot of the earth, and that all the peoples of the earth would like to have what we have. If we should so weaken ourselves by the pursuit of any course through the blind leadership of anyone, we would be in a fine position to be picked off. If we were our conquerors could shout like the Roman generals and Caesers of old. They could march us forth literally in chains, They would take our wealth. If that is so, Mr. President, where do we go from here? I, too, have asked the Executive and Louis Johnson to tell us where we are going, what we have, and what they need. This is not monkey business, Mr. President. As one Senator said on the floor today, this is a crisis. It is the most significant crisis in the history of America. I want Americans to remain alert. I want them not only to remain alert, but to become so adequate that the great catastrophe, which some prophesy, will not come to pass, FREEDOM OF SPEECH--LICENSING OF RADIO STATIONS Mr: BRICKER. Mr. President, truth is an elusive thing. Today, the distor- tion of truth has become a common oc- curence in the world. With the contra- dictory statements which come to us from hour to hour from the battle front, we must ask ourselves constantly: What is the truth, what is right, and whom can we believe? Freedom of speech is a sacred right purchased at tremendous cost. It can be destroyed by direct at- tack. It can be lost through negligence. Our country is about the last bulwark for the privilege and the right to speak the truth as one believes the truth to be. It is now seriously threatened. Distor- tion of truth ultimately will destroy free- dom of speech. Government propaganda will lessen the respect of citizens gen- erally for their Government and in the truthfulness of Government reports, and lessen confidence in Government action. A short time ago there came to my desk, as no doubt there came to the desk of the other Members of this body, @ pamphlet entitled “Penalty for Patriot- ism. A Battle for Freedom of Speech.” No one in this body would be deliberately a part of any program which in any way would weaken the constitutional right of freedom of speech. We must be con- stantly vigilant that by our neglect it does not come to pass by the action of others. The brochure which I have XCVI———630 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE mentioned I have recently reread. It relates to the proceedings now being conducted by the Federal Communica- tions Commission in the matter of re- newing the licenses of three independent radio stations. These stations are WGAR of Cleveland, WJR of Detroit, and KMPC of Los Angeles. This bro- chure presents evidence of a seeming attachment on the part of the Commis~ sion to a philosophy of government which should be repugnant to every Member of this body, and to every Amer- ican, regardless of his political affilia- tions, who loves liberty and respects the rights of his fellow man. As the record shows, other Senators have already referred to this dispute be- tween the Federal Communications Com- mission and the owners of these stations. The formal charge is that these stations slanted the news, but I believe there is sound reason to believe that the charges are in fact based on the alleged personal views of the station owner. The issues have been delineated forcibly by both the senior Senator from New Hampshire LMr. Bripces] and the junior Senator from Michigan [Mr. Fercuson]. In the House of Representatives, Representa- tive AnrHony TaurRiIELLo, of New York, has admonished the Federal Communi- cations Commission for their action in this case. An editorial in the Washington Post, which the Senator from Michigan [Mr. Frrcuson] introduced into the Recorp, discusses the issues involved in these proceedings from the standpoint of a free press. I have in my hand an edi- torial from the Saturday Evening Post under date of May 27, which I ask unan- imous consent to have inserted in the body of the Recorp at the conclusion of y remarks on this subject. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered. (See exhibit 1.) Mr. BRICKER. Mr. President, the Federal Communications Commission has introduced all its testimony against the owner of these stations and against Station KMPC of Los Angeles. There is evidence indicating a sharp difference between the owner's personal opinions and the actual content of the broadcasts of Station KMPC. Let me say, Mr. President, that at no time have I heard any criticism of any kind or character of the contents of the programs of the sta- tion located in my State. On the other hand, everything I have heard, and all I know of that station, is positively com- mendatory of its programs and of its performance of its specific responsibili- ties. There is little substantial evidence that radio station KMPC had broadcast false or deceptive programs. I am con- vinced that the Congress never intended the Federal Communications Commis- sion to penalize a radio station because of the personal political views of the owner, when his views are not reflected in the programing of the station. In my judgment the action of the Commission js an attempt to impose political censor- ship, which is abhorrent to every funda- mental principle and feeling of the peo- ple of the United States. . 9997 ‘I suggest that basic constitutional questions are involyed in these hearings, These questions were raised at the time of the discussion on the floor of the Sen- ate of the reorganization pian far the Federal Communications Commission. By this threat of nonrenewal of licenses, the Federal Communications Commis- sion is attempting to exercise a measure of political censorship and thought con- trol over independent radio station own- ers whose personal views may not be everything the Commission desires. In my judgment the apparent administra- tive irresponsibility of the Federal Com- munications Commission indicates that Congress needs to take a careful look into its powers, with a view toward more carefully defining what the Commission may and may not do. I am confident that the Congress will not by default permit an adminis- trative body to act in complete disre- gard of the basic freedom guaranteed all, citizens by the Constitution of the United States. When the right to speak the truth is denied to an American citi- zen because of his political beliefs, the days of freedom are numbered. This is a@ more serious matter than is apparent upon the face of the record as yet, but it is the building up of an implement of control over independent radio sta- tions which imperils the liberty of every American citizen. Exzrsrr 1 [From the Saturday Evening Post of May 27, 1950] Wao Is Comprrent To Decibe WHI0H News Is SuaNtTED? People who are on the alert for the begin- nings of censorship in this country are tak- ing a second squint at the proceedings brought by the Federal Communications Commission against Mr. G, A. Richards, who operates three radio stations: in Cleveland, Detroit, and Los Angeles. In February 1948 Mr. Richards, who makes things as hard for himself as possible by holding strong anti- Fair Deal opinions, was the subject of a complaint by three former employees of his Los Angeles station, who stated that he fre- quently ordered newscasts to be slanted in a@ manner unfavorable to minority groups, the Truman administration, and the de- preased and despised of the earth in gen- eral. On the basis of these statements, James Roosevelt wrote to the Commission suggesting an investigation of all three of Mr, Richards’ stations. Inasmuch as any attempt to control slanting runs into the touchy issue of censorship, the charges ap- pear to rest mainly on the clause in the communications law which gives the Com- mission authority to pass on the character of proprietors of radio stations. Ordinarily understanding of this require- ment is that by character is meant the degree of responsibility, moral, financial or other, which might be expected of a man who en- joys the limited monopoly which operation of @ radio station confers, The notion that failure to appreciate James Roosevelt im- plies deficiency in character would probably not have occurred to the framers of the com- munications law. Nor would it have oc- curred to them that discussions or orders be- hind the scenes in a broadcasting studio or the proprietors private views about certain politicians would be seriously considered 88 grounds on which to challenge a man’s fit- ness to operate a radio station—particularly when there seems to have been no complaint of the fairness or impartiality of the actual programing. If a Government commission
9998 f# to inquire into the opinions, prejudices or social connections of radio proprietors, we are nearing the point of no return as far as arbitrary censorship is concerned. The Washington Post aptly challenges the FCC on its claim to deny radio licenses even on the ground that news was actually slanted. “We do not believe,” says the Post, “that the commission has any standards that would be s safe guide in such a venture. * © * Swery decision as to what shall go on the air and how it shall be played is likely to be influenced by the broadcaster's or the newscaster’s prejudices. * * °* We doubt that the FCC can apply stricter policies in the regulation of broadcasting than the press generally applies without taking upon itself the unmanageable problem of censorship.” A Government bureau, permitted to decide whether prejudice, or news Judgment, or lack of time, or mere whim accounted for this or that alleged distortion, would be an import- ant instrument of tryranny. The argument has been that the natural limits imposed on the number of stations which can operate justified a stricter censor- ship than would be permisstbie over the press. New technological developments like, FM, however, have greatly increased the oppor- tunities for competition in broadcasting. The Richards case sounds suspiciously like one of those alarm bells in the night which free men fall to heed at their peril. POLL IN OHIO ON AGRICULTURAL PROBLEMS Mr. BRICKER. Mr. President, a few weeks ago I inserted in the Rrcorp a preliminary report of a survey or poll taken by the farm bureau in Ohio in re- gard to agricultural problems which are before the country today, and which are being considered by the Congress of the United States. I have here the final re- sults of the poll amonz 6,894 farmers in Ohio, members of the Ohio Farm Bureau, under the title of “What Kind of a Farm Program Do You Want?”. I ask that it be inserted as a part of my remarks at this point in the Recorp. There being no objection, the matter was ordered to be printed in the Rscorp, as follows: Wrat Kinp or a Farm Procram Do You Want? Final results of an Ohio Farm Bureau poll conducted in Ohio during May 1050. Re- ports are based on 6,894 replies from advisory councils, the Ohio Farm Bureau News, and State-wide meetings. I, What do you think we should do when we have farm surpluses? Check all those statements you agree with. Percent fitore enough of the storable crops to stabilize supply. .....--.-----.-----~-- Distribute surpluses to State and county relief agencies._......----.---.~------ 55 Vote marketing quotas upon ourselves to keep production down... 2-2 -nnen 13 Use acreage allotments to prevent the production of surpluses. ....-........ 23 Distribute surplus abroad through CARE, CROP, ete_...-.-....--.--.---- eee 35 Maintain one price at home and sell at a lower price abroad... ....--.--..- 8 Use a food allotment plan to get food to low-income familles............... 84 Promote research to find new uses for surpluses... 2-2 eee ene ne 14 Encourage the establishment of more cooperatives... enn weeenwe - 87 Encourage the establishment of an ant- mal agriculture... 22.2... .-.-..-.- « 47 Let surpluses take care of themselves... 28 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE TI. At what level should we ask the Government to guarantee farm prices or income? Check one item. Percent There should be no Government guar- anty at ell.......-.. peewee en ence n 80 Farm income should be supported at a level which would guarantee farmers a rate equal to the average of the frat 10 of the last 12 years, which is prac- tically 100 percent of parity......-.--+ 25 There should be flexible price supports (ranging from 75 to 90 percent of parity) depending upon supply and changes tn cost of production...--... 25 A price support to prevent national farm income from reaching depression levels -_..--.---~-~--- ee eee 89 TI. How do you think a Government program should operate? Check one item. Use price supports only............... 17 Use productton payments only for both perishabies and nonperishables....... 8 A combination of price supports for stor- ables and production payments for perishables ......-.-.------ =e een 87 No supports at all... 2... nee eee 39 IV. Which of these proposals for a farm program do you favor most? Check one item. Do you favor the Agrtoultural Act of 1949?__--- eee eee 14 Would you favor amending the Agricul- tural Act of 1049 as follows: (a) By putting flexible price sup- ports into effect now. ...-.._. 17 (ob) By using only modernized parity formulas _-.-.-.----.-.------ 9 (c) By establishing a bipartisan Ag- ricultural Committee to ad- vise with the Secretary of Agriculture, with wide dis- cretionary powers in deter mining the method and level of price supports........-... 28 (ad) By other amendments....._... 3 Would you favor the Department of Agri- culture plan proposed by Secretary . Brannan? ~2.2...24---- eww eee ene ne 1¢ No Government plan at all.... 84 Other suggestions -_........------.--. 9 Note-—Because of the fact that some checked more than one item, the respouse in percentages may total more than 100 percent, PRODUCTION MARKETING ASSOCIATION MEETING IN ST. PAUL Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, last April I called the attention of the Senate to the manner in which a State meeting of the Minnesota PMA was conducted on April 3 and 4. I raised the point that there might have been improper use of PMA funds in directing some 4,000 com- mitteemen of Minnesota to attend the meeting on the second day to hear the Secretary of Agriculture and others make speeches. The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Frravson] also made the point that in making a political speech at this meet- ing which was clearly intended to influ- ence legislation, the Secretary of Agri- culture was in violation of section 201 of title 18 of the United States Code. The General Accounting Office then made an investigation of the meeting, and on June 20 Comptroller General Lindsay Warren wrote to me stating that he found no provision of law which would permit disallowing the expenses of the committeemen who attended the JULY 12 mecting. He also sent his report to the House Committee on Lobbying Activities, and the chairman of that committee made a statement to the press soon afterward to the effect that the charges that there was anything improper about the St. Paul meeting appeared to be without foundation. It would appear that this House committee, headed by Representative Bucwanan, of Pennsyl- vania, based its own findings wholly upon the report of the Comptroller Gen- eral, Mr. Warren, and did not go back of the report to see what else might have been involved. On receipt of the letter from Mr. War- ren, I took some exceptions to the basis on which he made his finding which, in effect, seemed to me at that time to clear those who were responsible for the conduct of the meeting at St. Paul. So I wrote Mr. Warren under date of July 6, 1950. On July 7 he replied to my letter, and in order that this whole situation may be cleared up, I shall ask to have these three letters inserted in the Recorp. Mr. President, in his final letter to me, under date of July 7, 1950, Mr. Warren makes it clear that he did not in any way intend to rule upon the point raised by the Senator from Michigan that the Secretary of Agriculture might have vio- lated section 201 of Title XVIII of the United States Code, but he expressed the belief that that was a matter which would properly come under the Depart- ment of Justice, rather than under the Comptroller General's Office. He also makes it clear that in making a ruling that there was no provision of law which would enable him to disallow the expenses of those four thousand-odd committeement who had been invited to the meeting, “That does not necessarily mean, of course, that I approve of the meeting or the way in which it was conducted. As you know, I have no au- thority to disallow or withhold credit for payments because they may have been made extravagantly or unwisely.” He also holds that even though the Secretary of Agriculture may have vio- lated the criminal code, the committee- men could not be held responsible for at, In an effort finally to make this whole situation a bit clearer, I ask that these three letters be printed in the Recorp. There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in the Rsc- orp, as follows: Comprno.iza GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, Washington, June 20, 1950. Hon, Grouce D. Aiken, United States Senate. Mr Dagar SEenAroR Armen: Reference is made to your letters of April 12 and May 19, 1950, relative to the meeting of the Preduc- tion and Marketing Administration, Depart- ment of Agriculture, at St. Paul, Minn., on April 8 and 4, 1050. There is attached for your information a copy of the report of investigation of the matter made by the General Accounting Office which, by Office letter of today, was furnished the chairman of the House Select Committee on Lobbying Activities at his re- quest. Also, attached is a copy of Secretary
1950 Brannan's address as made available by him and of his report to this Office relative to the said meeting. With regard to whether the salary and ex- penses of the community committeemen attending the meeting may properly be allowed, the Secretary of Agriculture, by sec- tion 888 of the act of February 16, 1938, 62 Stat. 68, 7 U. 8. ©. 1388, ‘is directed to utilize State, county, and local committees as established by 16 U. 8. C. 690h (b), and the programs of the Production and Market- ing Administration are largely administered through such committeemen. As you know the said committeemen are not regular Gov- ernment employees but farmers elected to assist in carrying out the agricultural pro- grams. To effectively carry out their duties, of course, they must be trained as to their functions and related problems and the regulations of the Department of Agriculture (par. 713.37, Reguiations of the Secretary of Agriculture Governing PMA County and Community Committees) provide for meet- ings “when necessary to the successfu. ad- ministration of the program.” The salary and travel expenses of the community com- mitteemen appear to have been in accord- ance with rates duly established by com- petent authority under regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture. Also, the said salary and exponses appear to constitute ad- ministrative expenses incurred by the county committeemen in cooperating in the carry- ing out of the production-and-marketing program which the Secretary of Agriculture by section 388 (b) of the act of February 16, 1938, 7 U. 8. C. 1388b, is authorized and directed to pay out of funds made available for such program. The meeting considered as a whole appears to have familiarized such committeemen with the workings of the pro- gram, and it is believed that the salary and expenses of the community committeemen are properly authorized to be paid as ad- ministrative expenses of the county com- mittee under section 368 (b) of the said act. While the said section of law makes pro- vision for payment of the administrative ex- penses of the county committee, the salary and expenses of the community committee- men who assist the county committees in carrying out the program appear properly to be for consideration as an administrative expense of the county committee which is payable in the same way as would other ad- ministrative expenses of this county com-~ mittee such as stenographic services, thelr own compensation and expenses, and the like. I trust that what is set forth above and the attached material will be of assistance to you, Sincerely yours, LINDSAY WARREN, Comptroller Gencral of the United States. ne UNirep States SENATE, CoMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY, July 6, 1950. Hon, Lrnpsay CO. Warren, Comptroller General of the United States, Washington, D.C. Dear Me. Warren: I want to thank you for your letter of June 20 and also for the material enclosed relating to the meeting of the Production and Marketing Administra- tion, Department of Agriculture, at St. Paul, Minn., on April 8 and 4, 1950. However, I must say that I am pretty much disappointed and disturbed in your report as submitted, In effect, you almost give the PMA a clean bill of health in connection with this meeting. The crux of the fesue raised by me in connection with this meeting was whether CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE or not the expenses and salary of commu- nity committeemen could be paid in cone nection with their attendance at the second day of St. Paul meeting for the purpose of hearing political speeches. Senator Fercuson made the point that Secretary of Agriculture Charles F. Brannan violated section 201 of title 18 of the United States Code by making a speech intended to influence legislation. In other words, in- stead of discussing the PMA program as now authorized by law, he made a plea for the adoption of the so-called Brannan plan. Certainly, this plea for the Brannan plan could have been made for no other purpose than the influencing of proposed legisla- tion, So far as I can see, you have not made any finding as to whether the Secretary vio- lated section 201 of the law in making such a speech. Possibly you do not consider this as coming under your jurisdiction. However, as to the specific point I made, you state that “said committeemen are not regular Government employees but farmers elected to assist in carrying out the agri- cultural programs. To effectively carry out their duties, of course, they must be trained as to their functions and related problems and the regulations of the Department of Agriculture (paragraph 713.37, ‘Regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture Governing PMA County and Commodity Committees’) provide for meetings ‘when necessary to the successful administration of the program.’ “The salary and travel expenses of the community committeemen appear to have been in accordance with rates duly estab- shed by competent authority under regula tions of the Secretary of Agriculture. Also, the said salary and expenses appear to con- stitute administrative expenses incurred by the county committeemen in cooperating in the carrying out of the Production and Marketing program which the Secretary of Agriculture by section 388 (b) of the act of February 16, 1938 (7 U. S. C. 1388b), is authorized and directed to pay out of funds made available for such program.” You have ignored the fact that the com- munity committeemen were not even invited to attend the first day of the meeting on April 3 which was publicized by the PMA as the day on which county committeemen would “make plans for the year's conserva- tion work and to consider administrative details of the price-support and crop-insur- ance programs.” It was made clear in the PMA news re- leases that the county committeemen would “be joined by community committeemen for the second day's session in the auditorium arena.” I have searched the record care- fully and I cannot find any statement or announcement whatsoever that the second day’s meeting would be devoted to, or was actually devoted to, anything but speeches. Theae speeches were not billed as discus- sions of programs now on the statute books; they were listed in such vague terms as “messages of vital importance to people in- terested in agriculture.” Besides Secretary Brannan, other speakers at the second day of the conference men- tioned were Dr. Dewey Anderson, executive director of Public Affairs Institute, who was there to discuss the President's point 4 pro- gram; and Senator Hustrt Humpuary, who did not discuss the PMA program at all. I cannot see how you can justify paying community committeemen for attending the second day of the St. Paul meeting on the ground that community committeemen can attend meetings “when necessary to the suc- cessful administration of the program.” TI don't see how even Secretary Brannan's dis- cussion of the proposed Brannan plan has “anything to do with the successful admin- fetration of the program now on the statute books, which is the only program community 9989 or county committeemen have any responsi- bility for administering, | You also hold that— . “The salary and expenses of the community committeerrien who assist the county com- mittees in carrying out the program appear properly to be for consideration as an admin- istrative expense of the county committee which is payable tn the same way as would other administrative expenses of this county committee such as stenographic servides, their own compensation and expenses and the like.” According to this interpretation, the county committee can hire anyone to attend any meeting for any purpose. I am sure most county committees would not willingly and knowingly do this, but this, nevertae- less, 1s the import of your interpretation. I want to make it clear that I am not blaming the committeemen for what took place in connection with the St, Paul meet- ing. It is their superiors whom I hdéld responsible. Tam keenly disturbed by your report which so obviously evaded the points raised by Sen- ator Fercuson and myself. By determining that the 4,266 community committeemen could legally be paid salary and expenses to the second day of the St. Paul conference, I fear you have cleared the way for the expenditure of large sums of PMA funds for political purposes, Sincerely yours, Grorce D. AIKEN, United States Senator. ComprTroLLER GENERAL or THE UNITED STaTEs, Washington, July 7, 1950, Hon. Grorce D. AIKEN, United States Senate, My Dear Senator AIKEN: I have received your letter of July 6, 1960, with further ref- erence to the meeting of the Production and Marketing Administration, Department of Agriculture, at St. Paul, Minn., on April 3 and 4, 1950. It was somewhat distressing to me to learn that you did not consider my letter of June 20, 1950, as completely responsive to your letters of Apri] 12 and May 19 and I wish to assure you there was certainly no intention on my part to be evasive or to indicate any personal approval of the meeting. My effec- tive jurisdiction in the matter was con- sidered to relate soleiy to the bare legal ques- tion involved—the availability of appropri- ated funds for the payments to community committeemen—and it was thought that the conclusion that the appropriation was avall- able sufficiently answered your letters to the extent it was within my authority to do so. For the reasons stated in my letter of June 20, 1950, there appears to be no proper legal basis for the General Accounting Office to disallow credit for the payments made to community committeemen for attendance at the second day of the meeting. Commu- nity committeemen are provided for by law, they are authorized to participate in the agricuitural programs, they are authorized to attend meetings in relation thereto, and appropriated funds are available for expenses incurred in that connection. That does not necessarily mean, of course, that I approve of the meeting or the way in which It was con- ducted, As you know, I have no authority to disallow or withhold credit for payments because they may have been made extrava- gantly or unwisely or because the benefits received may not have been as great as might be expected or desired. I have no authority to administer the agricultural programs or to substitute my judgment for the judgment of the officials charged with such responsi- bility.
10000 The conclusion that community commit- teemen may be paid in connection with at- tendance at meetings was not intended to convey the impression that county commit~ tees ‘can hire anyone to attend any meet- ing for any 7’ and I assure you that the county committees have no such author- ity and the said conclusion will not be so appHed in the audit here of accounts and el; aims. It will be noted that section 201 of title 18, United States Code (now sec. 1913, title 18) contains penal provisions for violations thereof which are not within my authority to enforce. The fine and imprisonment pro- visions thereof are criminal in nature and could be enforced only through Judicial ac- tion. And should that take place, It prob- ably would afford no basis for disallowing credit for the payments made to the com- munity committeemen. They were paid for attending the meeting and not for attempt- ing to influence anyone. It 1s hoped that the foregoing will satis- factorily explain the position of the General Accounting Office in this matter, Sincerely yours, Lrnosay CO. WanrEn, Comptroller General of the United States. GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS, 1951 The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (H. R. 7786) making appropri- ations for the support of the Govern- ment for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1951, and for other purposes. Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, in discussing the appropriation bill I do not desire to take very much time, but I dis- cover in the Department of Agriculture appropriation covered in the report on page 90, a provision for the activities un- der the Research and Marketing Act, 1946. In the House bil] an appropriation of $11,000,000 was made, but the Senate committee recommended that $6,000,000 be allowed, and that $5,000,000 be taken from this item and transferred to the Office of Experiment Stations. I have tried to find in the statements or in the bill or somewhere else an ex- planation as to why that should have been done. On page 97 I find the very brief statement given there from which I read: The increase recommended by the com- mittee in this item 1s to conform to the dis- tribution of section 9 funds from the item for Research and Marketing Act of 1946 in the amount of $5,000,000— And so forth. That Is about the only explanation given. I turn then to page 106, and I find un- der the heading “Decreases” that appro- priation for the Research and Marketing Act has been decreased $5,000,000, and a statement as to why it is made. Mr. President, I hope the Committee on Appropriations is prepared to with- stand a point of order against this item, because in my opinion it represents an attempt on the part of the Appropria- tions Committee to change and to repeal by its action portions of the Research and Marketing Act of 1946. I think I understand the reason for it, but I believe it is nonetheless regretta- ble. I hope the Members of the Senate, before they vote on this item, if they have a chance to vote on it, if the point of order is not found to be good, will read Public Law 733 of the Seventy-fifth Con- gress again. This is the law known as the Hope-Flannagan Act, or the Flan- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE nagan-Hope Act—jt has been labeled both ways—named for the majority and minority ranking members of the House Committee on Agriculture in 1946. They both introduced individual bills, and those two bills were consolidated, and the bill passed providing for research and marketing in the Department of Agriculture. Mr. President, I ask at this point that section 1 of that act may be printed in the Recorp because it states the purpose of the legislation. There being no objection, section 1 of the act was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: SECTION 1, It is hereby declared to be the policy of the Congresa to promote the efi- cient production and utilization of products of the soil as essential to the health and welfare of our people and to promote 4 sound and prosperous agriculture and rural life as indispensable to the maintenance of maximum employment and national pros- perity. It is also the intent of Congress to assure agriculture a position in research equal to that of industry which will ald in maintaining an equitable balance between agriculture and other eections of our econ- omy. For the attainment of these objectives, the Secretary of Agriculture ts authorized and directed to conduct and to stimulate re- search into the laws and principles underly- ing the basic probleme of agriculture in its broadest aspects, including but not limited to: Research relating to the improvement of the quality of, and the development of new and improved methods of the production, marketing, distribution, processing, and util- ization of plant and animal] commodities at all stages from the original producer through to the ultimate consumer; research into the problems of human nutrition and the nu- tritive value of agricultural commodities, with particular reference to their content of vitamins, minerals, amino and fatty acids, and all other constituents that may be found necessary for the health of the consumer and to the gains or losses in nutritive value that may take place at any stage in their pro- duction, distribution, processing, and prep- aration for use by the consumer; research relating to the development of present, new, and extended uses and markets for agricul- tural commodities and byproducts as food or in commerce, manufacture, or trade, both at home and abroad, with particular reference to those foods and fibers for which our capac- ity to produce exceeds or may exceed ex- isting economic demand; research to en- courage the discovery, introduction, and breeding of new and useful agricultural crops, plants, and animals, both foreign and native, particularly for those crops and plants which may be adapted to utilization in chem- ical and manufacturing industries; research relating to new and more profitable uses for our resources of agricultural manpower, soils, plants, animals, and equipment than those to which they are now, or may hereafter be, devoted; research relating to the conser- vation, devélopment, and use of land, for- est, and water resources for agricultural pur= poses; research relating to the design, de- velopment, and the more efficient and satis- factory use of farm buildings, farm homes, farm machinery, including the application of electricity and other forms of power; re- search relating to the diversification of farm enterprises, both as to the type of commod- ities produced, and as to the types of oper- ations performed, on the individual farm; research relating to any other laws and prin- ciples that many contribute to the estabiish- ment and maintenance of a permanent and effective agricultural industry including such Investigations as have for their purpose the development and improvement of the rural home and rural life, and the maximum con- JULY 12 tribution by agriculture to the welfare of the consumer and the maintenance of maxi- mum employment and national prosperity; and such other researches or experiments bearing on the agricultural industry or on rural homes of the United States as may in each case be deemeti advisable, having due regard to the varying conditions and needs of Puerto Rico, the reapective States, and Territories. In effectuating the purposes of this section, maximum use shall be made of existing reas#arch facilities owned or con- trolled by the Federal Government or by State agricultural experiment stations and of the facilties of the Federal and State ex- tension services. Research authorized under this section shall be in additon to research provided for under existing law (but both activities shall be coordinated so far as practicable). Mr. ANDERSON. In that connection, section 9 and section 10 were changed in the bill to give additional sums for new types of studies looking toward the bet- ter marketing of agricultural products and toward the utilization of farm crops. This had been the subject of long, long study. It was not something which was hastily drawn out of a hat and presented to the Congress. As a matter of fact the Department of Agriculture had caused a survey to be made of every type of agri- cultural experimenta)] work, research work, that was going on in the whole United States, and after that survey was completed, it required months of time of an entire staff even to correlate all the facts brought to light as to the type of research being done by private and public institutions in the United States. When all that work was done and when the results of the correlation were ap- parent to the Department of Agricul- ture, it was seen that there was need for a tremendous amount of work by the Department of Agriculture itself both by experimentation which it might carry on and by experimentation which it might farm out to the agricultural col- leges and to private research organiza- tions if agricultural crops were properly to be utilized. As I said, that was not hastily done. It required months of work, Then finally upon the basis of all that research a bill was prepared and presented to the Congress. Mr. President, I desire to call the at- tention of the Senate to a pamphlet en- titled “The Agricultural Research and Marketing Act of 1946—A Consideration of Basic Objectives and Procedures,” which was issued by the Agricultural Committee on National Policy of the National Planning Association. It is strange that a publication of this nature could be issued and the act praised highly by everyone in the United States who was concerned with the Department of Agriculture, and that then a commit- tee of the Congress should wipe out that work in a moment by a provision in the agricultural appropriation bill. It was not done solely by the Senate committee. The House committee took care of the changes tn section 10 (a) and (b}. Then the Senate committee took care of the provisions in section 9. I submit that those two things added together have pretty effectively scuttled the research provisions of the Research and Market- ing Act of 1846. It seems to me it would have been much better if it was desired to repeal
1950 the act, to have raised the question on the floor by submitting a bill for that purpose and having it referred to the Committee on Agriculture in the House or the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry in the Senate. I hope at this stage, instead of reading it, because the hour ts already late, that I-may have permission to insert in the Recorp at this point a statement on the act itself, its purposes and provisions, not prepared by me, but prepared by the Agricultural Committee on National Policy of the National Planning Association. I ask unanimous consent that that may be done. There being no objection, the state- ment was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: The agricultural colleges have been en- gaged in research almost since their begin- ning some 85 years ago. Much of their study has been on technological problems such as the improvement of varieties, animal breed- ing and feeding, soll management, disease and pest control and so on—in other words, on ways of improving and cheapening pro- duction. The results achieved have been enormous, though for the most part not sensational. Since agriculture is a competitive industry, & good part of the benefits has been widely diffused among the Nation’s population in the form of more abundant, cheaper, and better products. In recent decades, however, farming has become more highly commercial. It re- quires larger investments, borrows more money, ships its products greater distances, and produces more specialties. It is con- cerned with a vast array of economic rela- tionships many of which involve closely re- lated technological problems.: This shift from relative self-sufficiency and largely local markets to broad national and international markets has made necessary more study of market organization, of problems of pack- ing, storing, shipping, and selling, and of competitive relationa with other areas, New uses of agricultural products and new outlets for them have also become more im- portant, and the problems of oversupply and undersupply and of stabilizing prices and incomes have come into prominence, There is, furthermore, a growing recognition of the importance to agriculture of nonfarm in- comes and buying power and of general na- tional policies relating to credit, taxation, transportation, labor, and international trade. The act of 1046 is clearly intended as a major step in the evolutionary process of providing for agriculture a research arm com- parable to those available to many non- agricultural industries. This process began with the Hatch Act of 1887 and was extended by the Adams Act of 1906. In 1925, through the Purnell Act, and again in 1936, through the Bankhead-Jones Act, the Congress not only increased the funds for agricultural re- search but broadened the directives under which it was to be carried on. The act of 1946 represents a more vigorous and compre- hensive attempt to create a larger and better balanced program of agricultural research, Its major emphasis is on economic problema, particularly those relating to marketing. There 1s clear recognition, however, of the need for continuing and strengthening the work on technological problems. The spe- eific directives for research on marketing and economio problems should not be interpreted as deemphasis on technological research, but rather as an effort to strengthen an undere Geveloped phase of the research program, No industry, of course, can afford to ignore researches looking to improved and more ef- ficient production, to the maintenance of its CONGRESSIONAL. RECORD—SENATE basic resources, and to the elimination of physical losses and ‘wastages. Agriculture's efforts to solve problems of these types should be continued vigorously and effec- tively. Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, I do not desire to detain the Senate long. I merely have made this statement on the floor today because the matter referred to will come up tomorrow, I assume, when the item in question is reached. I think it is extremely unfortunate that there is not a better explanation for the action of the committee, I called ofi- cials of the Department of Agriculture and tried to find out what the reason was for the change, and the answer I received was that it was proposed to simplify the appropriation strugture. That is a simple explanation, it actually is a device whereby the Research and Marketing Act of 1946 is repealed without a moment’s hearing, without an opportunity for anyone who worked for its enactment to appear before a com- mittee and discuss it. I hope that some- thing better than that will be presented as a reason for the action which has been taken by the committee. Mr. CHAVEZ. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. SPARKMAN in the chair). Does the Sena- tor from New Mexico yield to his col- league for a question? ti Mr. ANDERSON, I yield for a ques- on. Mr. CHAVEZ. I was going to suggest to my colleague that the chairman of the Subcommittee on Agriculture of the Appropriations Committee dealing with this matter is the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Russe..]. I am sorry that he was not present at the moment my colleague made his remarks. I am sure the Sena- tor from Georgia will be able to explain to my colleague and to the Senate the provisions to which my colleague has referred to. I see the Senator from Georgia has now come onto the floor. Mr. ANDERSON. The Senator from Georgia is now on the floor. I may say that I recognize the section in question was handled by the distinguished Senator from Georgia, and I can testify from my experience that the Department of Agri- culture has no greater friend in the Con-: gress than the Senator from Georgia. I do not believe that he is quite sure as to why the change is being made. I think it is somewhat important that we take a very good look at it. It is easy to say that we simply take the money from one place and transfer it to the same group without it going through the Research and Marketing Administration. But the very reason why it was given to the Research and Marketing Admin- istration was that it was determined that there might be projects which the coun- try at large decided were necessary for an over-all study of the problem and that the work should be planned in the De- partment of Agriculture, and then farmed out to the agricultural colleges and experiment stations. The action taken by the committee completely re- verses that, and puts it directly into the hands of the office of the experiment sta- tion the distribution and handling of these funds. I say that a long, long fight was made on this question, and I think it is a shame to lose the result of thet struggle by such a provision as that con- tained in the bill. Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. ANDERSON, I yield. Mr, AIKEN. Does the Senator from New Mexico know whether this provision was approved or protested by the De- partment of Agriculture? Mr. ANDERSON. _I believe the dis- tinguished Senator from Georgia can tell the Senator about that. Mr. RUSSELL, Mr. President, I may say that this provision was inserted in the bill at the suggestion of the Depart- ment of Agriculture. The House had made a transfer of other research funds, not of course to the same purpose as pro- posed in this connection, but the depart- ment suggested that the amendment be included in the bill. They stated to the committee that it would simplify their bookkeeping procedures, and that it would not adversely affect the research program. I have requested of the De- partment a full statement of their posi- tion on this matter, and I will have it here tomorrow before the item is reached in the bill. Mr. AIKEN. Is the Senator from Georgia satisfied that it will not ad- versely affect the research program? Mr. RUSSELL. I am, of course, re- lying on the statement of the Depart- ment to that effect. Mr, AIKEN, The Senator from Geor- gia and, I expect the Senator from New Mexico, will agree that greater controls are no substitute for research and mar- keting investigation, I may say that if the Department suggested it, it might be in line with the policy of those who con- stantly emphasize a desire for more con- trols rather than for more research. It has appeared to me ever since the bill was passed that the Department has never put its heart into conducting the research and marketing work of the De- partment as the Congress had intended. Mr. RUSSELL. I think there is no question that the results of all these re- search items have been disappointing to those of us who sponsored the original research bill. I would not confine that observation to the production and mar- keting end. Mr. AIKEN. I would not, either, Mr. RUSSELL. I would say that the entire research program, for which Con- gress has made perhaps too liberal a pro- vision, has been disappointing to me, Of course sometimes we have given the Department, at its request, money which it should not have had because it did not have available programs on which to ex- pend the funds; and that has resulted in haphazard activities. Mr. AIKEN, But the Department has requested the funds. Mr. RUSSELL. Oh, yes. Of course, we have provided advisory committees and other committees to assist in the program. On the other hand, it ha's been in effect for only a few yearg, and perhaps I have expected too much of it by this time. However, the results haye been disap- pointing to me.
10002 Mr. President, I would be the last man to wish to injure any phase of the pro- gram under the Agricultural Act of 1946, of course. Mr. AIKEN. Let me say that it has been very disappointing to me that the only solution which has been proposed for some of the problems has been that of providing more Government controls, Mr. RUSSELL. I do not understand that the question of more Government controls is involved in this amendment, although that may be the case. I am not in a position to say as to that. However, I understood that it was merely a matter of simplifying the book- keeping and of making more easy the ad- ministration, without attempting in any way to change the intent of Congress under that act, when it was passed. Mr, ANDERSON. Mr. President, I would be very happy if anyone could point out that that is the situation. I simply point out the fact that the House has voted to merge the funds un- der sections 10 (a) and 10 (b), and the Senate Appropriations Committee has voted to transfer the funds under section 9, That matter is one over which we fought for months, namely, the question of whether it was better to appropriate the funds directly to the experiment sta- tions or to appropriate them directly to the Department of Agriculture itself, so that it could apportion the funds in any way it saw fit to do. Mr. President, I do not desire to detain the Senate in regard to this matter, ex- cept to point out that in the Department of Agriculture there are rooms full of surveys for the better utilization of agri-~ cultural products; there are charts and plans and studies, which have been made for 50 years, in regard to how to better utilize agricultural products. However, when the surveys were made by the various interested groups, they discovered that it does not do any good to talk about the better utilization of an agricultural product unless those han- dling the program are prepared to make contracts with certain persons or firms to try to use the product. We found that it was one thing to say that cotton should be used for insulation, for instance, but quite another thing to persuade a com- pany to use cotton for insulation; and we found that sometimes it was neces- sary to subsidize for a while the attempts to use a certain product in a new way, until such uses became established. For instance, we found that sometimes a manufacturing company would have millions of dollars available to put to use in research in connection with the de- velopment of a synthetic product to be used as a substitute for cotton and in the adaptation of that synthetic product to various uses, whereas the cotton farmers did not have any research organization or facilities by which to compete with such efforts to substitute the synthetic product for cotton itself. So Congress has realized that research is most important to the proper use of the various agricultural products. On that basis, the act was passed in 1948, and efforts have been made to start the research work. I can say frankly that there are in the Department of Agriculture agencies CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE which resisted when attempts were made to take away from them the re- search work they long had handled; and those agencies were not happy when an attempt was made to set up a research and marketing section. Now we find the fruits of thetr efforts, when the funds under sections 10 (a) and 10 (b) have been voted by the House to be transferred, and when, now, the funds under section 9 are proposed by the Senate Committee on Appropria- tions to be transferred. I do not think that should be done. I think this mat- ter is most important and most serious to the country as a whole. I think it is important that we have a chance to bet- ter utilize agricultural products. We sho’ realize that we are faced with the t that if these appropriations are reduced this year, possibly these agen- cies will not be able to do the necessary work in future years. Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. ANDERSON. I am glad to yield. Mr. LANGER. Is not the situation the Senator has been discussing quite simi- lar to the situation in connection with silver? In other words, the silver pro- ducers have set up committees to find new markets for silver. Is not that situ- ation similar to the one in this case? Mr. ANDERSON. Of course it is. We had hoped that we would be able to make great savings, as a result of the proper utilization and development of this re- search program. For instance, there is a field in which cotton can be used in the manufacture of fine bond paper. How- ever, no paper manufacturer will begin to do so at once; it is necessary to supply cotton to him free for a certain period of time, and perhaps to subsidize him to a limited extent in connection with such a development; and then, finally, he will reach the point where he will use cotton for that purpose. The Depart- ment has done precisely that, and I think ‘t has acted wisely in trying to find new uses for cotton and other products. Cotton is not the only product for which attempts have been made to find new uses, but similar attempts have been made in regard to other products and commodities. Certainly in that connection the vari- ous producers need the combined re- sources of the Department of Agricul- ture, it seems to me. Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield further, I should like to call particular attention to wheat siraw, flax straw, and corn, which the Senator has mentioned. It seems to me me that in that connection there is a chance to bring about very great de- velopments. I should like to ask the Senator whether the committee was apprised of these facts before it took the action it did take. Mr, ANDERSON, Ido not know. The best person to whom the Senator can ad- dress that question is the Senator from Georgia [Mr. Rusésexu]. My understanding is that the matter was presented by the Department of Ag- riculture as a means of simplifying ita budgetary and accounting procedures. I have tried to say that the Department JULY 12. hes no finer friend than the Senator from Georgia. I know that from my ex- perience as Secretary of Agriculture; and I know that if the matter had been prop. erly presented to the committee, it would have been carefully considered. It may be that there is nothing to the present proposal other than an attempt to bring about a change in the budgetary and accounting procedures. However, I do not so understand the proposal: it seems to me that it certainly smacks of the battle which we had for a long time regarding whether the Department of Agriculture itself should direct the re- search or whether it should turn the re- search funds over to the experiment sta- tions and let them direct the research. Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, I should like to ask the Senator from Georgia a question, if the Senator from New Mexico will yield to permit me to do so. I should like to ask the Senator from Georgia whether the committee con- sidered this matter? Mr. RUSSELL, The committee con- sidered it. No objection was raised, from any source, to the provision of the House provision which consolidated the funds authorized in regard to research and administration. The Department said it would apply the same rules to the transfer of the funds, as authorized in section 9 or sec- tion 9 (a), I believe, of the original act, with assurances that in no wise would that affect the research work, but merely would be a simplification of the pro- cedures. A few minutes ago I stated that I had requested from the Department a full and complete statement of the effect of the amendment, from its standpoint, and a statement regarding what it pro- posed to do under the amendment, if the amendment is agreed to and goes into effect. I hope to have that infor- mation available tomorrow, when this title of the bill will be reached. Mr. LANGER. Myr. President, will the Senator yield, to permit me to ask a further question? Mr. RUSSELL, Certainly, if I now have the floor. Mr. LANGER. I am quite sure the Senator is familiar, as is the junior Sen- ator from Minnesota {Mr. Humpnrry], with the situation in the Northwest, where literally hundreds of thousands of tons of wheat straw are hurned each year. Great stacks of wheat straw are piled up and burned. I have always thought it was a terrific loss to the coun- try that the wheat straw was not used beneficially in industry. Of course it took us many years to find ways to utilize the flax straw. I remem-~ ber, as Iam sure my colleague the Sena~ tor from Minnesota does, the days when flax straw was burned, just as today wheat straw is burned, all over the Northwest. I should like to bring to the attention of the distinguished Senator from Georgia the question of finding some use for wheat straw, so that when similar questions arise before the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, he will have that particular subject in mind, because it seems to me that instead of permit- ting this tremendous waste to con-
1950 tinue—and, 80 far as I know, it occurs only in the United States and in Can- ada—~somehow, somewhere, such straw should be utilized, and the marketing division should find some way of utiliz- g Mt, Mr. RUSSELL. It seems to me that that is certainly a proper matter of re- search. I have had a hobby of my own of research along similar lines for the past 10 years. It has always disturbed me greatly to know that one-fourth of all our timber was discarded in the form of sawdust and waste. It has always seemed to me to be almost a criminal waste, when we know that we are cutting down our forest resources every year and that the production is not keeping pace with the rate of consumption, particu- larly during the war years. So, for years I urged the Department of Agri- culture, through the Forestry Products Laboratory, to make intensive surveys to ascertain if some feasible use could not be made of sawdust and shavings and materials of that kind which are now burned at tens of thousands of sawmills and planing mills throughout the coun- try. Some little research has been done along that line. I shall be glad to do whatever I can in assisting the Senator to have some research done in connec- tion with wheat straw. Mr. LANGER. During the war there was an admitted shortage of paper, as the Senator knows. Mr. RUSSELL.” That is correct. Mr. LANGER. The question arose as to whether certain kinds of timber could be used for the manufacture of paper pulp. Finally, as the Senator knows, we spent a great deal of money in Canada for paper to be shipped into the United States. The prices doubled, trebeled, and rose even higher. It seems to me that the attention of the marketing divi- sion should be called to the fact that wheat and oat straw makes excellent paper. Whether the cost is prohibitive I think is something that should be ascer- tained. Mr, RUSSELL. Ishall be happy to see research done along that line. I am sure the Senator knows that we also make paper from pine pulp. Mr. LANGER. Yes, indeed. Mr. RUSSELL. The Senator from North Dakota also knows that tens of millions of tons of sawdust, slabs, and shavings from pine lumber have been burned. During my lifetime I have ob- served a great deal of it. But, thus far, very little research has been done toward the utilization of such material either in the production of paper or for other purposes. Mr. LANGER. I remember that one of the most eloquent arguments ever heard upon this floor was made by the distinguished Senator from Georgia on the very matter which he is now discuss- ing, about the waste of stumpage, I think it was called, at that time. Mr. RUSSELL. That is correct. I thank the Senator. We have been too prodigal with the blessings of Providence in this country. We have been wasteful since the inception of civilization on this continent. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. ELLENDER,. Mr. President, I sug- gest the absence of a quorum, Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President—— The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Illinois is recognized. Mr. LUCAS. May I inquire whether the Senator from Louisiana expects to get a vote on his amendment this after- noon? Mr. ELLENDER. Yes; immediately following the obtaining of a quorum. Mr. LUCAS, Have the arguments been concluded? Mr. CHAVEZ. I desire to discuss the amendment, and I am pretty sure the ranking Republican member of the Sen- ate Building Commission, the Senator from New Hampshire |Mr. Bripces], will want 2 or 3 minutes. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, a parlia- mentary inquiry. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator will state it. Mr. LUCAS. What is the pending bus- iness before the Senate? The VICE PRESIDENT. In the opin- jon of the Chair, the bill (H. R. 7786) making appropriations for the support of the Government for the fiscal year end- ing June 30, 1951, and for other purposes, is the pending business. Mr. LUCAS. Is that under the unani- mous-consent agreement? The VICE PRESIDENT. That is under the unanimous consent that was granted yesterday to lay aside temporarily the motion of the Senator from Illinois and eet to the consideration of that Mr. LUCAS, If the Senator from IIli- nois should demand the regular order, that would, as I understand, place the so-called FEPC bill before the Senate again, The VICE PRESIDENT. It would place before the Senate the motion of the Senator from Illinois to proceed to the consideration of that bill. Mr. LUCAS, That is what I meant, Mr. President, I demand the regular or- er, The VICE PRESIDENT. The regular order being demanded, the question is on agreeing to the motion of the Senator from Illinois—— Mr. SALTONSTALL, Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator will state it. Mr. SALTONSTALL. Is the demand of the Senator open to objection? The VICE PRESIDENT. It is not. Mr. SALTONSTALL. So that, if the Senator from Tilinois demands the regu- lar order, there is no way of preventing it, is that correct? The VICE PRESIDENT, That is cor- rect. Any Senator has the right to de- mand the regular order. Does the Sen- ator from Illinois demand the regular order? Mr. LUCAS. The Senator from MIli- nois demands the regular order. The VICE PRESIDENT. The question ds on agreeing to the motion of the Sena- tor from Ilinols to proceed to the con- sideration of the bill (8, 1728) to prohibit 10003: discrimination !n employment because af race, color, religion, or national origin, Mr. LUCAS. No—— The VICE PRESIDENT. That is the pending motion. Mr. LUCAS. No; I demand the regu- lar order. The VICE PRESIDENT. The regular order is that the motion be brought be- fore the Senate. Mr. LUCAS. Yes. The VICE PRESIDENT. And it isnow before the Senate. Mr, LUCAS, Then I withdraw the de- mand. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator withdraws the demand. : Mr. SALTONSTALL. Just a moment. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. LUCAS. I yield. Mr: SALTONSTALL. Is that open to objection? The VICE PRESIDENT. It is not. Any Senator may withdraw a demand that he makes. Mr. LUCAS. Inow move that we pro- ceed to the consideration of the bill (H. R. 7786) making appropriations for the support of the Government for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1951, and for other purposes. This is the bill we have been considering. ‘ The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is on agreeing to the motion of the Sen- ator from Illinois. Mr. WHERRY. Mr, President, is the motion debatable? The VICE PRESIDENT. The motion to proceed to the consideration of the appropriation bill is debatable. Mr. WHERRY. In order that I may know what is before the Senate, was it the intention to replace the appropria- tion bill as the pending business, which was taken up by unanimous consent? Mr. LUCAS. I may say to the Senator from Nebraska that there was some mis- understanding as to what the parliamen- tary situation was. The Senator will re- call that, earlier in the day, immediately following the vote upon the cloture mo- tion, I asked unanimous consent to with. draw the motion for the consideration of the FEPC bill, and to move to resume consideration of House bill 7786. The Vice President, at that time, held that that was unnecessary, that the bill H. R. 7786 was the pending business and that it would be necessary to walt until we finished with the appropriation bill before I could request the withdrawal of my motion, unless we returned to the regular order. That is the situation. Mr. WHERRY. That clarifies the par- liamentary situation. So that the pend- ing motion would make the appropria~ tion bill the unfinished business, Is that correct? Mr. LUCAS, That is correct. There was some question as to whether that was the case, and that is why I raised the question. That is all there is to it. The VICE PRESIDENT. The ques- tion is on the motion of the Senator from Tinois. ; The motion was agreed to, and the Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (H. R. 7786) making appropriations for the support of the Government for
10002 Mr. President, I would be the last man to wish to injure any phase of the pro- gram under the Agricultural Act of 1946, of course. Mr. AIKEN. Let me say that it has been very disappointing to me that the only solution which has been proposed for some of the problems has been that of providing more Government controls. Mr. RUSSELL. I do not understand that the question of more Government controls is involved in this amendment, although that may be the case. I am not in a position to say as to that. However, I understood that it was merely a matter of simplifying the book- keeping and of making more easy the ad- ministration, without attempting in any way to change the intent of Congress under that act, when it was passed. Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, I would be very happy if anyone could point out that that is the situation. I simply point out the fact that the House has voted to merge the funds un- der sections 10 (a) and 10 (b), and the Senate Appropriations Committee has voted to transfer the funds under section 9. That matter is one over which we fought for months, namely, the question of whether it was better to appropriate the funds directly to the experiment sta- tions or to appropriate them directly to the Department of Agriculture itself, so that it could apportion the funds in any way it saw fit to do. Mr. President, I do not desire to detain the Senate in regard to this matter, ex- cept to point out that in the Department of Agriculture there are rooms full of surveys for the better utilization of agri- cultural products; there are charts and plans and studies, which have been made for 50 years, in regard to how to better utilize agricultural products. However, when the surveys were made by the various interested groups, they discovered that it does not do any good to talk about the better utilization of an agricultural product unless those han- dling the program are prepared to make contracts with certain persons or firms to try to use the product. We found that it was one thing to say that cotton should be used for insulation, for instance, but quite another thing to persuade a com- pany to use cotton for insulation; and we found that sometimes it was neces- sary to subsidize for a while the attempts to use a certain product in a new way, until such uses became established. For instance, we found that sometimes @ manufacturing company would have millions of dollars available to put to use in research in connection with the de- velopment of a synthetic product to be used as a substitute for cotton and in the adaptation of that synthetic product to various uses, whereas the cotton farmers did not have any research organization or facilities by which to compete with such efforts to substitute the synthetic product for cotton itself. So Congress has realized that research is most important to the proper use of the various agricultural products. On that basis, the act was passed in 1946, and efforts have been made to start the research work. I can say frankly that there are in the Department of Agriculture agencies CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE which resisted when attempts were made to take away from them the re- search work they long had handled; and those agencies were not happy when an attempt was made to set up a research and marketing section. Now we find the fruits of their efforts, when the funds under sections 10 (a) and 10 (b) have been voted by the House to be transferred, and when, now, the funds under section 9 are proposed by the Senate Committee on Appropria- tions to be transferred. I do not think that should be done. I think this mat- ter is most important and most serious to. the country as a whole. I think it 1s important that we have a chance to bet- ter utilize agricultural products. We sho realize that we are faced with the Nict that if these appropriations are reduced this year, possibly these agen- cies will not be able to do the necessary work in future years. Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. ANDERSON. I am glad to yield. Mr. LANGER. Is not the situation the Senator has been discussing quite simi- lar to the situation tn connection with silver? In other words, the silver pro- ducers have set up committees to find new markets for silver. Is not that situ- ation similar to the one in this case? Mr. ANDERSON. Of course it is. We had hoped that we would be able to make great savings, as a result of the proper utilization and development of this re- search program. For instance, there is a fleld in which cotton can be used in the | manufacture of fine bond paper. How- ever, no paper manufacturer will begin to do so at once: it is necessary to supply cotton to him free for a certain period of time, and perhaps to subsidize him to a limited extent in connection with such a development; and then, finally, he will reach the point where he will use cotton for that purpose. The Depart- ment has done precisely that, and I think it has acted wisely in trying to find new uses for cotton and other products. Cotton is not the only product for which attempts have been made to find new uses, but similar attempts have been made in regard to other products and commodities. Certainly in that connection the vari- ous producers need the combined re- sources of the Department of Agricul- ture, it seems to me. Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield further, I should like to call particular attention to wheat straw, flax straw, and corn, which the Senator has mentioned. It seems to me me that in that connection there is a chance to bring about very great de- velopments. I should like to ask the Senator whether the committee was apprised of these facts before it took the action it did take. Mr. ANDERSON. Ido not know. The best person to whom the Senator can ad- dress that question is the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Russe... My understanding is that the matter was presented by the Department of Ag- riculture as a means of simplifying its budgetary and accounting procedures. I have tried to say that the Department JULY 12 has no finer friend than the Senator from Georgia. I know that from my ex- perience as Secretary of Agriculture; and I know that if the matter had been prop- erly presented to the committee, it would have been carefully considered. Tt may be that there is nothing to the present proposal other than an attempt to bring about a change in the budgetary and accounting procedures. However, I do not so understand the proposal; it seems to me that it certainly smacks of the battle which we had for a long time regarding whether the Department of Agriculture itself should direct the re- search or whether it should turn the re- search funds over to the experiment sta- tions and let them direct the research. Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, I should like to ask the Senator from Georgia a question, if the Senator from New Mexico will yield to permit me to do so. I should like to ask the Senator from Georgia whether the committee con- sidered this matter? Mr. RUSSELL, The committee con- sidered it. No objection was raised, from any source, to the provision of the House provision which consolidated the funds authorized in regard to research and administration. The Department said it would apply the same rules to the transfer of the funds, as authorized in section 9 or sec- tion 9 (a), I believe, of the original act, with assurances that in no wise would that affect the research work, but merely would be a simplification of the pro- cedures. A few minutes ago I stated that I had requested from the Department a full and complete statement of the effect of the amendment, from its standpoint, and a statement regarding what it pro- posed to do under the amendment, if the amendment is agreed to and goes into effect. I hope to have that infor- mation available tomorrow, when this title of the bill will be reached. Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield, to permit me to ask a further question? Mr. RUSSELL. Certainly, if I now have the floor. Mr. LANGER. I am quite sure the Senator is familiar, as is the junior Sen- ator from Minnesota [Mr. Humpurey], with the situation in the Northwest, where literally hundreds of thousands of tons of wheat straw are hurned each year. Great stacks of wheat straw are piled up and burned. I have always thought it was a terrific loss to the coun- try that the wheat straw was not used beneficially in industry. Of course it took us many years to find ways to utilize the flax straw. I remem- ber, as I am sure my colleague the Sena- tor from Minnesota does, the days when flax straw was burned, just as today wheat straw is burned, all over the Northwest. I should like to bring to the attention of the distinguished Senator from Georgia the question of finding some use for wheat straw, so that when similar questions arise before the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, he will have that particular subject in mind, because it seems to me that instead of permit. ting this tremendous waste to con-
1950 tinue—and, so far as I know, it occurs only in the United States and in Can- ada—somehow, somewhere, such straw should be utilized, and the marketing division should find some way of utiliz- ng it. Mr. RUSSELL, It seems to me that that is certainly a proper matter of re- search. I have had a hobby of my own of research along similar lines for the past 10 years, It has always disturbed me greatly to know that one-fourth of all our timber was discarded in the form of sawdust and waste. It has always seemed to me to be almost a criminal waste, when we know that we are cutting down our forest resources every year and that the production is not keeping pace with the rate of consumption, particu- larly during the war years. So, for years I urged the Department of Agri- culture, through the Forestry Products Laboratory, to make intensive surveys to ascertain if some feasible use could not be made of sawdust and shavings and materials of that kind which are now burned at tens of thousands of sawmills and planing mills throughout the coun- try. Some little research has been done along that line. I shall be glad to do whatever I can in assisting the Senator to have some research done in connec- tion with wheat straw. Mr. LANGER. During the war there was an admitted shortage of paper, as the Senator knows. Mr. RUSSELL.* That is correct. Mr. LANGER. The question arose as to whether certain kinds of timber could be used for the manufacture of paper pulp, Finally, as the Senator knows, we spent a great deal of money in Canada for paper to be shipped into the United States. The prices doubled, trebeled, and rose even higher. It seems to me that the attention of the marketing divi- sion should be called to the fact that wheat and oat straw makes excellent paper. Whether the cost is prohibitive I think is something that should be ascer- tained. Mr. RUSSELL. Ishall be happy to see research done along that line. I am sure the Senator knows that we also make paper from pine pulp. Mr. LANGER. Yes, indeed. Mr. RUSSELL. The Senator from North Dakota also knows that tens of millions of tons of sawdust, slabs, and shavings from pine lumber have been burned. During my lifetime I have ob- served a great deal of it. But, thus far, very little research has been done toward the utilization of such material either in the production of paper or for other purposes. Mr. LANGER. I remember that one of the most eloquent arguments ever heard upon this floor was made by the distinguished Senator from Georgia on the very matter which he is now discuss~- ing, about the waste of stumpage, I think it was called, at that time. Mr. RUSSELL. That is correct. I thank the Senator, We have been too prodigal with the blessings of Providence in this country. We have been wasteful since the inception of civilization on this continent. CONGRESSIONAL. RECORD—SENATE Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I sug- gest the absence of a quorum. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President—— The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Illinois is recognized. Mr, LUCAS, May I inquire whether the Senator from Louisiana expects to get a vote on his amendment this after- noon? Mr, ELLENDER. Yes; immediately following the obtaining of a quorum. Mr. LUCAS. Have the arguments been concluded? Mr. CHAVEZ. I desire to discuss the amendment, and I am pretty sure the ranking Republican member of the Sen- ate Building Commission, the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Brincgs], will want 2 or 3 minutes. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, a parlia- mentary inquiry. The VICE PRESIDENT, The Senator will state it. Mr. LUCAS. What is the pending bus- iness before the Senate? The VICE PRESIDENT. In the opin- ion of the Chair, the bill (H. R. 7786) making appropriations for the support of the Government for the fiscal year end- ing June 30, 1951, and for other purposes, is the pending business. Mr. LUCAS. Is that under the unani- mous-consent agreement? The VICE PRESIDENT. That is under the unanimous consent that was granted yesterday to lay aside temporarily the motion of the Senator from Dlinois and to Proceed to the consideration of that Mr. LUCAS. If the Senator from Illi- nois should demand the regular order, that would, as I understand, place the so-called FEPC bill before the Senate again, The VICE PRESIDENT. It would place before the Senate the motion of the Senator from Illinois to proceed to the consideration of that bill. Mr, LUCAS. That is what I meant. Mr. President, I demand the regular or- er, The VICE PRESIDENT. The regular order being demanded, the question is on agreeing to the motion of the Senator from Illinois—— Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator will state it. Mr. SALTONSTALL, Is the demand of the Senator open to objection? The VICE PRESIDENT. It is not. Mr. SALTONSTALL. So that, if the Senator from Tilinois demands the regu- lar order, there is no way of preventing it, is that correct? The VICE PRESIDENT. That is cor- rect. Any Senator has the right to de- mand the regular order. Does the Sen- ator from Illinois demand the regular order? Mr. LUCAS. The Senator from Iili- nois demands the regular order. The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is on agreeing to the motion of the Sena- tor from Illinois to proceed to the con-' sideration of the bill (8. 1728) to prohibit 10003 discrimination in employment because of race, color, religion, or national origin. Mr. LUCAS, No-—— The VICE PRESIDENT, That is the pending motion. Mr, LUCAS. No; I demand the regu- lar order. The VICE PRESIDENT. The regular order is that the motion be brought be- fore the Senate. Mr. LUCAS. Yes. The VICE PRESIDENT. Anditis now before the Senate. : Mr. LUCAS. Then I withdraw the de- mand. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator withdraws the demand. ‘Mr. SALTONSTALL. Just a moment, Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. LUCAS. I yield. Mr. SALTONSTALL. Is that open to objection? The VICE PRESIDENT. It {s not, Any Senator may withdraw a demand that he makes, Mr. LUCAS. I now move that we pro- ceed to the consideration of the bill (H. R. 7786) making appropriations for the support of the Government for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1951, and for other purposes. This is the bill we have been considering. The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is on agreeing to the motion of the Sen- ator from Illinois. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, is the motion debatable? The VICE PRESIDENT. The motion to proceed to the consideration of the appropriation bill is debatable. Mr. WHERRY. In order that I may know what is before the Senate, was it the intention to replace the appropria- tion bill as the pending business, which was taken up by unanimous consent? Mr. LUCAS, I may say to the Senator from Nebraska that there was some mis- understanding as to what the parliamen- tary situation was. The Senator will re- call that, earlier in the day, immediately following the vote upon the cloture mo- tion, I asked unanimous consent to with. draw the motion for the consideration of the FEPC bill, and to move to resume consideration of House bill 7786. The Vice President, at that time, held that that was unnecessary, that the bill H. R. 7786 was the pending business and that it would be necessary to wait until we finished with the appropriation bill before I could request the withdrawal of my motion, unless we returned to the regular order. That is the situation. Mr.WHERRY. That clarifies the par- liamentary situation. So that the pend- ing motion would make the appropria- tion bill the unfinished business. Is that correct? Mr. LUCAS. That is correct. There was some question as to whether that was the case, and that is why I raised the question. That is all there is to it. The VICE PRESIDENT. The ques- tion is on the motion of the Senator from Winois. The motion was agreed to, and the Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (A. R, 7786) making appropriations for the support of the Government for
10004 the fiscal year ending June $0, 1951, and for other purposes, Mr. BRIDGES. Mr. President—— The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Tlinois yield the floor? Mr. LUCAS. I yield the floor. Mr, ELLENDER. I suggest the ab- sence of a quorum. Mr. AIKEN. Will the Senator with- hold the suggestion for a moment, to en- able me to obtain a leave of absence? The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Briners] ad- dressed the Chair before any other Sen- ator. Mr. ELLENDER. I withdraw the sug- gestion of the absence of a quorum. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair was on the verge of recognizing the Sen- ator from New Hampshire. Mr, AIKEN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from New Hampshire yield to the Senator from Vermont? Mr. BRIDGES. I yield. LEAVE OF ABSENCE Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, to be excused from attendance upon the sessions of the Sen- ate tomorrow, Friday, and on Saturday, if there should be a session on that day. The VICE PRESIDENT. Without ob- jection, it is so ordered. GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS, 1951 The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (H. R. 7786) making appro- priations for the support of the Govern- ment for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1951, and for other purposes. Mr. BRIDGES. Mr. President, I de- sire to say a few words on the new Senate Office Building. Mr. HAYDEN. Let me suggest that the Senator can say it after we have a quorum call. Mr. BRIDGES. Very well. Mr. ELLENDER. I suggest the ab- sence of a quorum. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator has not been recognized for the purpose of suggesting the absence of a quorum. The Senator from New Hampshire has the floor, Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for the purpose of sug- gesting the absence of a quorum? Mr. BRIDGES. I yield for that pur- Pose. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from New Hampshire cannot yield for that purpose without losing the floor. Mr. BRIDGES. Mr. President—— The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from New Hampshire was recognized, and he has the floor, if he wishes to pro- ceed. Mr. BRIDGES. I realize that, and I intend to proceed, but I thought I could yield for that purpose. I am sorry if I cannot, The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator cannot yield for a quorum call without losing the floor, except by unanimous consent. If he wishes to ask unanimous consent that he may yield for that pur- pose, the Chair will put the question. Mr, HAYDEN. I ask unanimous cone sent that the Senator from New Hamp- shire may yield to the Senator from CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Louisiana for the purpose of suggesting the absence of a quorum, without preju- dice to his right to the floor, The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there ob- jection? The Chair hears none, and it ts 80 ordered. t Mr. ELLENDER. I renew my sugges- jon, The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Louisiana makes the point that a quorum is not present. The Secretary will call the roll. The legislative clerk called the roll, and the following Senators answered to their names: Aiken Hendrickson Malone Anderson Hi Martin Brewster Hill Maybank aa: Hoey Morse B Holiand Mundt Butler Humphrey Murray Capehart Ives Myers Chapman Johnson, Colo, Neely Chavez Johnson, Tex. O'Mahoney Connally Johnston, 8.C. Robertson Cordon Kefauver Russell Donnell Kem Saltonstall Douglas Kerr Schoeppel Dworehak Kilgore Smith, Maine Eastland Knowland Smith, N. J. Ecton Langer Sparkman Ellender Lodge Stennis Ferguson Long Taft Flanders Lucas Thomas, Okla, Frear Thomas, Uteh Fulbright McCarthy Thye George McClellan Watkins Graham McFPariand Wherry Green McKellar Wiley Gurney McMahon Willtams Hayden Magnuson Young The VICE PRESIDENT. A quorum is present. The Senator from New Hamp- shire has the floor. Mr. BRIDGES. . Mr. President, the question before the Senate is the amend- ment offered by the distinguished Sena- tor from Louisiana {Mr. ELLENDER] to eliminate the so-called new Senate Office Building from the legislative chapter of the appropriation bill. The pros and cons of the argument for the new Sen- ate Office Building are known to every Senator. For many years Senators have been complaining that the space avail- able to them is not sufficient to enable them to perform their work efficiently, AS a result in 1947 the Eightieth Congress made an authorization for the initiation of a study for a new Senate Office Build- ing. The story of the new Senate Office Building dates from that period. Following the creation of the Senate Office Building Commission various steps were taken. Finally a site was selected on First Street, in the rear of the present Senate Office Building. Architects were employed, plans drawn, the land pur- chased, and the old buildings on the land removed, The land is now either un- used or used in part as a parking lot. During this period Senator after Senator has gone to the chairman of the Com- mittee on Rules and Administration, first to former Senator Brooks and now to the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Hay- pew]. They have cried on their shoul- ders for more space, which they said they moust have in order to make available reasonable working conditions for their staffs. The issue is before us, Mr. President. There is nothing to be gained by dis- cussing the subject further. Every Sena- tor Knows whether he is in favor of the construction of a new Senate Office JULY 12 Building. The proposal fs to provide $10,000,000 in order to go ahead with the work. Some Senators who now ob- ject raised no question when we spent $65,000,000 to construct a building for the United Nations, $20,000,000 for a Court building only two or three blocks from the Senate Office Building, and ap- proximately $23,000,000 for a new build- ing for the General Accounting Office. If a Senator wants to be consistent, and therefore is against the construction of a new Senate Office Building, that is one thing, However, when we have gone ahead and furnished new buildings for various departments and divisions of the Government, and we fail to recognize or lack the courage to recognize the ne- cessity of providing adequate quarters and efficient working space for our em- ployees, it seems to me we have reached a sad day in the United States Senate. If I may do so, I should like to ask a question of the Senator from Arizona. I should like to ask him if what I have stated regarding Senators making requests of him is not true? Mr. HAYDEN. Mr. President, it is entirely true. I feel very strongly about the testimony given to me, not only by Senators but by members of their staffs. They have been to me time and time again asking if some cubbyhole or some space somewhere could not be found in order to relieve the tremendous conges- tion in their offices. It seems to me that any Senator who, knowing the condition in ‘his office and having made to me the representations which have been made, votes against the new Senate Office Building should go back to his office force and publicly confess to them that he knew what he was doing in making their working conditions hard. He would not suffer. He has four or five rooms in his office and he has a room of his own into which no one comes unless he sends for him. However, when he steps out of that room he steps into conditions which I think are utterly disgraceful. As a matter of record, we do not provide half the office space which is provided in other Government agencies. Mr, President, confession is good for the soul, and any Senator who is op- posed to a new office building should call the members of his force together and tell them that he did not have the po- litical courage to vote for it because he feared that some political commentator on the radio or some columnist might comment on his having done something for himself and therefore he dodged the issue. As a matter of fact, it would not be for himself, but would give more room for his hard-pressed office force. Mr. THYE. Mr. President, will the Senator from New Hampshire yield? Mr, BRIDGES. I yield for a question. Mr, THYE. This is a very unhappy moment for me. I occupy a three-room suite on the east side of the Senate Office Building, and because of the balcony there they are short rooms; they are much shorter than the average room. I am extremely crowded, and it is difficult for my clerks to work in the rooms £ have. I would support the erection of a new Senate Office Building at this mo- ment if we were not faced with a world crisis such as the one which confreats
1950 | us, and such as we may expect in the next few weeks, or possibly many months. In view of that situation I think our efforts should be—at least my effort will be—to back up the boys af the front and to spend money for military appropria- tions or anything else that is necessary. I cannot support a provision to appro- priate funds to erect a new office build- ing, and I shall go back to my office force and say, “In view of this, we are going to stay in these crowded quarters just so long as I am permitted to remain in Washington, and until the world situa- tion improves we are going to put up with these quarters, even though they are inconvenient and uncomfortable,” I do not expect that I shall be given much consideration when I ask for addi- tional space at some future time, in view of my remarks at this moment. But we are faced with a world situation that is most critical, and in view of that I shall not vote to appropriate funds to con- struct a new office building until the world crisis is past. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair will suggest to the Senator from New Hampshire that he cannot yield to other Senators to make speeches. Mr. BRIDGES. I thank the Chair. I shall abide by his suggestion. The Senator from Minnesota is a little aside from the poigt, because he knows, as well as I do, that there is not a Sena- tor in this Chamber who does not desire to provide funds adequate for the sup- port of the men who are fighting in the so-called Korean affair, if it is not to be called a war. It was brought out on the Senate floor yesterday, clearly and unmistakably, I may say to the Senator from Minne- sota, that if this situation should de- velop into a major crisis which would necessitate the use of scarce materials and labor, the President, under his power of allocation, and similar powers, could stop the construction of the building at a moment's notice, and we would ex- pect him to do so. So, if Senators vote against the provision, they are merely delaying the construction of the build- ing, while if we do proceed with it, and the emergency develops to a greater ex- tent than is now apparent, I think the Senator’s point can be well protected, for, as I have said, the President would have full authority, as a result of his power of allocation of materials, to stop the construction at a moment’s notice, and I trust he would do so. I think that may answer the Senator’s question. Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, will the Senator from New Hampshire yield? Mr. BRIDGES. I yield to the Senator from Vermont. Mr. AIKEN. Does the Senator also recall that the chairman of the Senate Office Building Commission made a state- ment that the commission itself would not proceed with the construction of the building if it were found that the labor or the materials required competed with the war effort? Mr. BRIDGES. The Senator is cor~ rect, Mr, AIKEN. I understand the build- ing is to be constructed only if it does not compete in any way with the war effort. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. BRIDGES. The Senator is cor- rect, Mr. AIKEN. In other words, if the war blows over, then the building will be erected. If it does not blow over, the building will not be erected. Mr. CHAVEZ. Mr. President, will the Senator from New Hampshire yield? Mr. BRIDGES, I yield to the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. CHAVEZ. Is it not a fact that the Senator from Vermont made the in- quiry yesterday as to what the position of the Senate Office Building Commis- sion would be in case of @ war or any-~ thing that looked like a war, when ma- terials would be necessary to carry on the war effort? Mr. BRIDGES. I think he did. , Mr. CHAVEZ. And did not the cifilr- man of the commission, speaking for the entire commission, which is com- posed, in addition to the chairman, of the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Bripces], the Senator from Nevada [Mr, Maxone], the Senator from Rhode Is- Jand [Mr. Green], and the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Sparkman], not only state that we would carry out our orders, but would also follow strictly the suggestion made by the Committee on Appropria- tions when it practically vnanimously inserted this item in the appropriation i11? Mr. BRIDGES. The Senator is cor- rect. Mr, CHAVEZ. May I ask the Senator another question? Mr. BRIDGES. Certainly. Mr. CHAVEZ. This item {s in chapter 2 of the appropriation bill, whicl. is the legislative feature of the bill, and it comes directly after chapter 1, which is the District of Columbia part of the bill. Is it not a fact that when the Senate was in @ sane and economical mood, it voted to give the District of Columbia $12,000,000 of the taxpayers’ money, but that when it comes to a question of pro- viding space the whole Senate needs, Senators indicate a desire to save money? Mr. BRIDGES. The Senator is cor- rect. I hope that any Senator who is opposed to this appropriation will be con- sistent. I expect that any Senator who opposes {it will also oppose all the efforts to increase the nonessential appropria- tions in the bill. I expect he will oppose all new building projects, and I know many Senators who are opposing it have favored similar building projects in the executive department running into mil- lions and millions of dollars. The Senate Committee on Appropria- tions inserted in the bill these words which I call to the attention of the Senate: After full discussion, tha committee voted to request the Senate Office Building Com- mission to review forthwith the detailed plans of the proposed Senate Office Building with a view of simplifying the building to bring about savings, and with the expressed desire of the committee to make the new office building more of a working and utili- tarian unit than the present plans contem- plate. When this review is completed and the plans revised to meat the suggestions of the Commission, the construction is to go forward as expeditiously aa is practicable in an effort to relieve the congestion and crowding that now exists in the offices of 10005, many Senators and in the space allotted to each committee of the Senate, I now desire to ask the chairman of the commission whether or not he, as chairman of the commission, intends to carry out this instruction of the com- mittee. Mr, CHAVEZ. Mr. President, I believe it to be the duty of any commission, any creature of the Senate, to carry out the directions of the Senate, It was the sug- gestion of the senior Senator from Georgia [Mr. Groraz] that something be done about the construction of a new building. We have been waiting for many years in order to carry on, and nothing has been done. We have spent $25,000 for plans alone, which will be wasted if we start anew. Everyone admits the need of a new building. If Senators will look at the CONGRESSIONAL Recorp of yesterday they will see letter after letter from Senators. I am curious to see how Senators will vote this afternoon, after writing those letters, in which they complained, and insisted they needed more space. Mr. TAFT. Mr. President, do I under« stand the Senator correctly to say he is not going to have the plans revised and is not going to follow the instructions of the committee read by the Senator from New Hampshire? Mr. CHAVEZ. The Senator from New Mexico, as chairman of the commission, intends to follow that mandate, and re- view the plans. Mr. BRIDGES. Mr. President, in closing, I wish to say that the issue is clear. If Senators desire a new Senate Office Building, if they think they need more space to make their offices efficient, they should support the committee amendment. It is time for Senators to speak for themselves. The issue is clear. Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I wish to correct a statement made by the distinguished Senator from New Hamp- shire when he stated that the purpose of my amendment was simply to strike from the bill all the language pertaining to the erection of a new Senate Office Building. I have offered a substitute which would strike all of said language and in addition would provide for an appropriation of $10,000 for use by the Senate Office Building Commission to make new plans for the erection of a building that will be more in keeping with the actual needs of Senators, Should my amendment fail I will then move to strike from the bill all of the language pertaining to the erection of the new Senate Office Building. It is my consid- ered judgment that under no circum- stances should the proposed building be erected according to the plans approved by the Commission and now in the pos- session of the Architect of the Capitol. As I pointed out yesterday, the plans which have already been approved by the Commission cannot be changed to give us the kind of building which many of us think we should have. We want a utilitarian building, something that will be of service. One in which all of the available space will be utilized. We have no use for 18 large committee rooms, 2 special hearing rooms, an auditorium, 18 ante rooms for standing committees,
10006 @ swimming pool, & garage to accommo- date 200 cars, and many other extras that I pointed out in debate on yesterday. I repeat, that under the law which I read yesterday it is provided that the building must be in substantial accord- ance with the plans and specifications prepared by the architects employed, and which have already been approved by the Senate Building Commission. I grant that a few changes could be made, but not to a degree that will make it possible to give us what we need. The architects took the position that to give us a utility building, the present plans would have to be scrapped. My amend- ment provides for an appropriation of $10,000 so that the Commission can em- ploy architects to plan a utility build- ing and not a monumental building. Aside from that, the cost of a building to fill our needs could be contructed for about one-half of what the building in contemplation will cost. I hope my amendment will be agreed to. The VICE PRESIDENT. The ques- tion is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. ELLENDER], on page 23, beginning with line 24, to strike out down to line 4, on page 24, and insert in lieu thereof certain new language. Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays, The yeas and nays were ordered, and the legislative clerk called the roll. Mr. MYERS. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Benron] is absent on public business. If present, he would vote “nay.” The Senator from California [Mr. Downey] is absent because of illness. The Senator from Iowa [Mr, Gite LETTE], the Senator from Wyoming {Mr. Hunt), the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Leary], and the Senator from Maryland [Mr. Typinecs] are necessarily absent. The Senator from New York [Mr. Leuman) is unavoidably detained on of- ficial business. The Senator from Maryland [Mr. O’Conor] is absent by leave of the Senate on official business, having been in at- tendance at the sessions of the Interna- tional Labor Organization at Geneva, Switzerland, as a delegate representing the United States. : The Senator from Florida (Mr. Pep- PgR] is absent because of the death of Judge Curtis Waller, a close personal friend, whose funeral is being held today. The Senator from Idaho [Mr. Tay.or] and the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Wirnxrs] are absent by leave of the Senate. Mr. SALTONSTALL. I announce that the Senator from Washington [Mr. Catn], the Senator from Kansas [Mr. Darsy], the Senator from New Hamp- shire [Mr. Tosry], and the Senator from Michigan (Mr. VANDENBERG] are absent by leave of the Senate. The senior and junior Senators from Indiana (Mr, Capxuart and Mr. Jenner] and the Senator from Colorado [Mr. Mirioan) are detained on official business, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE The result was announced—yeas 32, nays 46, as follows: YEAS—82 Byrd Graham Lucas Connally Hendrickson McClellan Cordon. Hoey Maybank Dougias Holland Robertson Dworshak Johnson, Colo. Saltonstall Eastland Johnaon, Tex. Smith, N. J. Ellender Johnston, §.C. Taft Ferguson Kem Watkins Flanders Knowland Wiley Freer Lodge Williams Fulbright Long NAYS—46 Aiken Humphrey Murray Anderson Ives Myers Brewster Kefauver Neely Bricker Kerr O'Mahoney Bridges Kilgore Russell Butler Langer Schoeppel Ch an Me! Smith, Maine Che’ McCarthy Sparkman Donnell McFarland Stennis Ecton McKellar Thomas, Okla, McMahon Thomas, Utah Green Magnuson Thye Gurney Malone Wherry Hayden Martin Young Hickenlooper Morse Hi Munat NOT VOTING—18 Benton Hunt Pepper Cain Jenner Taylor Cay Leahy Tobey Darby Lehman Tydings Downey Millikin Vandenberg Gillette O'Conor Withers So Mr. ELLenpsr’s amendment to the committee amendment was rejected. The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is on agreeing to the committee amend- ment. Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, after submitting the amendment that was ad- versely voted upon, I was told by quite a few Senators that they were opposed to the appropriation of any money, whether it be for planning or for the actual construction of a building. So in order to bring the issue squarely before Senators as to whether or not we should appropriate any money at all, I now move to strike from the bill lines 22, 23, 24, and 25 on page 23, and through line 4 on page 24, and on that amendment I ask for the yeas and nays. The VICE PRESIDENT. The amend- ment is not in order. A vote on the committee amendment itself would have the same result. The question is on agreeing to the committee amendment. A negative amendment striking out a committee amendment is not in order, because the same result comes on the decision on the question of agreeing to the committee amendment. itself. Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I dis- cussed my proposed amendment with the Parliamentarian, and I was told that a motion to strike out was in order. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Parlia- mentarian advises the Chair that the Senator did not take up the matter with him. The Chair’s ruling is in accord- ance with the views of the Parliamen- tarian, Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I took up the matter with the Assistant Parliamentarian who is sitting to the left, at the desk. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair does not know just who that is. JULY 12 At any rate, the Chair—not the Parlia~ mentarian—is ruling on this matter. | The question is on agreeing to the com- mittee amendment, ‘Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays. Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, dur- ing the debate on yesterday and again today I took the position that I did not believe that the instructions of the com- mittee incorporated in the report could be adhered to by the Commission. It will be recalled that the Appropriations Committee expressed the desire that the Building Commission make the new office building more of a working and utilitar- jan unit than the present plans contem- plate. The reason for my position is that the law under which the building is to be erected specifically provides that it must be built in substantial accord- ance with preliminary plans already pre- pared and now in the possession of the Architect of the Capitol. If there is any substantial change from those plans— which I think will be necessary if we are to erect a utilitarian building—a ques- tion may arise as to whether those who contract to put up the building can be paid. I wish to be perfectly fair. My pro- posed amendment to the pending com- mittee amendment will make certain that the Commission can change the present plans in any manner it sees fit. I may state further that the Commis- sion could make new plans if it saw fit, in order to carry out the mandate of the Appropriations Committee. In short, Mr. President, my perfecting amend- ment would legalize what the Appro- priations Committee sought to have the Building Commission do by incorporating in the report certain specific instruc- tions, The amendment which I submit to the committee amendment is as follows: Provided, That notwithstanding the pro- visions of the Second Deficiency Appropria- tion Act, 1948, requiring that the additional bullding authorized to be constructed there- under for the use of the Senate be con- atructed in substantial accordance with pre- liminary plans prepared under authority of the act of July 11, 1947 (Public Law 169, s0th Cong.), such building may be constructed in accordance with such modi- fications or revisions of such plans, or with such new plans, as may be approved by the Senate Office Building Commission: And pro- vided further, That the funds hereunder propriated shall be available for use in the preparation of such plans. I wish to make it clear, Mr. President, that even though my perfecting amend- ment is agreed to I shall continue my opposition to the pending amendment. I do not wish to detain the Senate. I have had my say. Now is not the time to construct a new Senate Office Build- ing, especially one that is more orna- mental than useful. Mr. President, I submit the amendment to the committee amendment, and send it to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration. The VICE PRESIDENT. The amend- ment to the committee amendment will be stated,
1950 The Lecis.ative Cuerk. On page 24, after the figures “$10,000,000,” im line 4, it is proposed to insert the following be- fore the period: “Provided, That not- withstandin~ the provisions of the Sec- ond Deficiency Appropriation Act, 1948, requiring that the additional building authorized to be constructed thereunder for the use of the Senate be constructed in substantial accordance with prelimi- nary plans prepared under authority of the act of July 11, 1947 (Public Law 169, 80th Cong.), such building may be con- structed in eccordance with such modi- fications or revisions of such plans, or with such new plans, as may be ap- proved by the Senate Office Building Commission: And provided further, That the funds hereunder appropriated shall be available for use in the preparation of such plans.” Mr. HAYDEN. Mr. President, a par- liamentary inquiry. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Sena- tor will state it. Mr. HAYDEN. Is this amendment to the committee amendment a proviso to be added at the end of the language now appearing in the bill, and not a sub- stitute for it? The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair understands that it is an addition to the committee amendment. Mr, McKELLAR. Mr. President, is the amendment offered to the commit- tee amendment? If so, I understand that it is in order. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair understands that it is an amendment to the committee amendment. The question of whether it is in order is another matter. Mr. MCKELLAR. Mr. President, while I am on my feet, I wish to say that as I view the matter, it is very unfortu- nate that this proposal is brought up when we are considering one of the most important bills ever before the Senate of the United States. My, President, we have a very serious matter before us. As I figured the situ- ation yesterday and today, we are giv- ing approximately 10 times as much at- tention to the building of a new Senate Office Building, at this time of emer- gency in our national and international affairs, as we are giving to the interna- tional affairs for which this bill will provide funds for the defense of our country. I am very sorry about that situation. However, it cannot be helped now, for this question is now before the Senate, and we must vote on it. It seemed to me, after very careful consideration, that the position taken by the committee was the proper one, and that is why I voted for the amend- ment. Incidentally, let me say that quite a considerable sum of money—ap- proximately $850,000 I believe—already is available; and it is now proposed to provide $10,000,000 more. Mr. CHAVEZ. Mr. President, if the Senator from Louisiana desires to con- tinue to press the perfecting amendment, I am willing to accept it. The VICE PRESIDENT. The ques- tion is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the Senator from Louisiana . CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE {Mr, ELLenper] to the committee amend- ment on page 24, in line 4, The amendment to the amendment was agreed to. The VICE PRESIDENT. The question now jis on agreeing to the committee amendment as amended. Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, I dis- like very much to rise in opposition to a measure which is needed in normal times, and which I have supported in the past, and which I shall expect to sup- port in the future, at the proper time. However, I think a set of circum- stances completely out of the control of the distinguished chairman and other members of the Approprations Commit- tee has brought on a situation which entirely changes the picture, since this action was taken in the Appropriations Committee, Of course, that situation is the trouble existing in Korea and the other dangerous and difficult interna- tional complications which now confront us, and which of course involve and re- quire heavy additional expenditures by our Government. Before proceeding a little further, Mr. President, I wish to say that I am fully and completely in accord with the feel- ing of the committee that we should have this building, when we can have it, be- cause it is needed; and I am entirely sympathetic with the attitude of the dis- tinguished and patient senior Senator from Arizona [Mr. Haypen], who, I know, has had a great deal of trouble in finding space for the various Members of the Senate, including the Senator from Florida, who from time to time have tried to find additional space. However, there is a time to do certain things and a time when they cannot be done. I believe that the people of the United States are looking to the Senate today to see whether the Senate is going ahead now on a basis of business as usual, at a time when all of us realize the finan- cial difficulties are tremendous, and when all expenditures of money which are made should be made on the basis of and against the background of the international situation. Mr. President, a few moments ago my attention was called to certain items shown en the Associated Press ticker, in- Gicating clearly that the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee, the senior Senator from Georgia {Mr. Gerorce], in common with other Sena- tors and Members of the House who have the heaviest responsibility on their shoulders in connection with planning for revenue, have been constrained to sluw down, at least, in their announced program in connection with the revision of excise taxes and the raising of cer- tain additional taxes, and have done so because of the international situation to which I have referred. I quote briefly into the Recorn from the Associated Press ticker tape on that point; and, first, under a Washington date line: Administration leaders were reported to- Gay to have decided to put aside the $1,010,- 000,000 (b) excise-tax-slashing bill, pending developments from the Korean war. 10007 The next item continues: The report could not be officially con- firmed immediately, One source, who is familiar with tax mat- ters, told a reporter the agreement was reached after conferences of leading son. gressional Democrats, with representatives of the administration. The third item quotes our distin- guished chairman of the Finance Com- mittee, the senior Senator from Georgia (Mr. Georce]. I read it as it appears or the ticker tape: Chairman Grorcz, Democrat, of Geargie, of the Senate Finance Committee confirmed that the tax bill will be shelved momenta- rily when public hearings are completed on it tomorrow. But, Grorox declined to say there would be no tax action at this session, Asked about reporta that the Treasury Department hag withdrawn tts support of the House-approved bill, in view of the pos- sible military money needs in the resistance against Communist aggression in Korea, GrorGe said: “I have no statement at all to make on that at this time. I suggest you confer with Mr. Snyder (Secretary of the Treasury) .” “The Finance Committee will continue its hearings on the tax bill tomorrow,” Gzorex said, “and then will recess on this subject until the record is printed. This will take several days.” The original timetable called for the com- mittee to prepare the tax bill next week for immediate Senate action. Now, Mr. President and Senators, I heard the comment made by the distin- guished senior Senator from Arizona a while ago about what columnists may say—what columnists may say about the action of any Senator upon this floor on this matter. I have become quite used to having columnists say uncomplimen- tary things. I am not in the slightest concerned about what they may say, and I do not have great concern about what other Senators may say, if T have a deep conviction on a matter, as I have on this. I think it would be a great mistake for the Senate to take the position that it would launch at this particular time a $20,000,000 building program primarily for its own convenience and needs, which are certain, and which are definite, and which at the same time are the conveni- ence and needs of the public whom we serve. But I think that the people of this Nation expect us to put first things first, and to quit this business-as-usual attitude toward appropriations, particu. larly toward appropriations of this kind. I think it is up to us, right now, and on this matter, to make it very clear that we do not feel that this is an appropri- ate time for the launching of this par- ticular building. I want to say that I think we might as well realize that peo- ple reading the paper tomorrow will have, in columns side by side, these two items, if this amendment is voted down: First, an item stating that in this time of crisis, after 2 days of debate on a venture of this kind, the Senate, in its dignified and deliberate judgment, decided that this was an appropriate time to enter upon & $20,000,000 building project for addi- tional housing for itself. Second, in the other column and with much bolder headlines will be the story, disappointing
10088 to those thousands of peeple who are de- pending tpon and hoping for some dimi- nution of excise taxes, which ao vitally affect their business—and of course eiti- zens generally, the purchasing public, are looking at this matter also—will be the item that the financfal situation is so critical on this particular date that those particular committees of Congress charged with the raising of appropriate finances for the handling of the grave problems of our Government and with preparing a tax bill bave said that there is question enough about our financial condition that we are slowing down the time schedule of excise-tax reduction. When the question comes as to whether the Secretary of the Treasury himself has insisted that there be no reduction, our esteemed chairman of the Finance Committee has gravely suggested that he would prefer to have the question ad- a@ressed to Mr. Snyder himself. Now, Mr. President and Senators, I do not believe this is the time to launch this project. I think we have spent too much time on itt already. I certainly do not intend to debate it at length now. But I do feel, and I feel very keenly, that we would be placing the Senate and the Coneress in a most unfortunate position by the approval of this item, and would make it appear that we are in fact find- ing here at this date and at this partic- ular time that “business as usual” is go- ing on, and that we can properly start a building program of this kind. So far as there having been any waste in the money that has been spent here- tofore, I respectfully differ from those who say that there has been waste or would be waste if we did not proceed just now. I do not think there would be any loss because we have already bought and paid for the site of this proposed building: the site will be there, available for this building, when we can build. I do not think there will be any loss be- cause we have already bought and paid for plans and specifications. I think th plans and specifications, or some modification of them, will be available when we are ready for them. Mr. President and Senators, I strongly feel that this is not the time for us to em- bark upon this venture, and that we should strongly and quietly and quickly vote it down, and go on to more vital business of the Nation. The VICE PRESIDENT. ‘The question is on agreeing to the committee amend- Ment, as amended. Mr. ELLENDER and other Senators requested the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, like the distinguished Senator from Florida, I hate to oppose a project which is needed, but, like him, I am going to vote against it. I believe that the need for additional space affects me as much as it does any other Senator. I have a staff of 27 peo- ple. I receive from 2,000 to 5,000 letters a day. I need much more space. But I want to say to you, Mr. President, and to my fellow Senators, that in my opin- ton this is not the time for the Congress of the United States to embark upon an expensive project of this sort, costing up- ward of $20,000,000 or $25,000,000, when we know that in all probability we are CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE going to require huge sums for the sup- port of the operations now under way in Korea in a struggle which may spread to other parts of the world, a struggle in which men are dying. Many more, I am afraid, will die before it is all over. And so I urge the defeat of this amendment. I do it reluctantly, because I know the project is needed, and I have been in the habit of following the lead of my esteemed colleagues from Arizona and New Mexico, but I feel it my duty to urge the rejection of this amendment. Yhe VICE PRESIDENT. The ques- tion is on agreeing to the committee amendment as amended. The yeas and nays having been ordered, the Secretary will call the roll. Those who favor the committee amendment, as amended, will vote “yea” as their names are called. Those who oppose it will vote “nay.” The legislative clerk called the roll. Mr. MYERS. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Bewron | is absent on public business. If present he would vote “nay.” The Senator from California {[Mr. Downey! is absent because of iliness. The Senator from Iowa [Mr. GrL- Lerts}, the Senator fro. . Wyoming [{Mr. Hunt}, the Senator from Rhode Island {Mr. Leany)], and the Senator from Maryland (Mr. Typrves] are necessarily absent. The Senator from Maryland [fMr. Q’Conor] is absent by leave of the Sen- ate on official business, having been in attendance at the sessions of the Inter- national Labor Organization at Geneva, Switzerland, as a delegate representing the United States. The Senator from Florida [Mr. Prp- PER} is absent because of the death of Judge Curtis Waller, a close personal friend, whose funeral is being held today. The Senator from Idaho [Mr. Tayioal and the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Wrrurrs} are absent by leave of the Senate. Myr. SALTONSTALL. I announce that the Senator from Washington [Mr. Catw), the Senator from Kansas [Mr. Darsy], the Senator from New Hamp- shire [Mr. Tosry) and the Senator from Michigan [Mr. Vanpensgrc) are absent by leave of the Senate. The senior and junior Senators from Indiana [Mr. Carrnart and Mr. JENNER] are detained on official business. The result was announced—yeas 35, nays 42, as follows: YEAS—35 Atken Humphrey Morse Kefauver Mundt Bricker Kerr Murray Bridges Kilgore Chapman Langer O”Mahoney Chaves McCarthy Russell Donnell McParland Smith, Maine Ecton McMahon Sparkman Green Magnuson Stennis Gurney Malone ‘Thomas, Utah Hayden Martin Young Bi MNlikin - NAYB—42 Butler Frear Johnston, 8, 0. Gennally George Browland ge Ww Cordon Graham Lehman Dougias Lodge Dworshak Hoey Long Eastland Holland Luees Ellender Ives McCarran Ferguson Johnson, Colo. McClellan Flanders Johnson, Tex, Maybank JULY 1 Neely Bmith, N. J. Watkins ‘Taft Wherry Saltonstall Thomas, Okla, Wiley Thye ta NOT VOTING—19 Benton Hickenlooper Taylor Brewster Hunt Tobey Cain. Jenner ss Capekart Leahy Vandenberg Darby McKellar Withers Downey O'Conor Giltette Pepper So the committee amendment, a amended, was rejected. Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Mr. President I should like to make a statement witl respect to the record vote just had on th: appropriation for the new Senate Offic: Building. After the vote on the firs Ellender amendment, and apperenth shortly prior to the record vote on thi committee amendment as amended, : was in the cloakroom adjoining the Sen- ate Chamber. Apparently the bells dic not ring in the cloakroom. I heard nc bell. I am sorry to say that the page: did not come into the cloakroom, to saj that a record vote was being taken. | valked into the Chamber just as the Chair was announcing the result of the record vote. I fail to understand why apparently, the bells did not ring in the cloakroom, where I was constantly, dur- ing the time of the record vote. I want to make my position clear. I oppose the appropriation for the Benate Office Building at this time and I am opposed to the committee amendment as amended. Because of some inadvertence, or the failure of the bells to ring, or for some other reason, I was not notified of the record vote. Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. President, I wish to say that I find myself in the same position in which the Senator from Iowa finds himself. I was called to the cloakroom and I was in conference in the cloakroom, within 10 feet of the Chamber. No bells rang. The Senator from Iowa and I came into the Chamber amd discovered that the record vote had been taken. E would appreciate it if a check would be made to see whether the bells are ringing. I would have voted against the appropriation at this time. I simply wish to state my position for the Recoay. Mr. BRIDGES. Mr. President, be- cause of the eloquent pleas made for economy in certain sections by certain Senators, I desire to give notice that they will have an opportunity to vote for economy in cormection with this bill, and it will be as to new projects, worth- while projects. They will have an op- portunity to vote for a 10-pereent over- all cut, of course, excluding appropria- tions for defense; but I hope the Sena- tors who have so eloquently spoken against the construction of the new Sen- ate Office Bufiding will be comsistent and wil support the economy amendment. Mr. CHAVEZ. Myr. President, I think we shall be in favor of economy from now on. Y hope that when some com- mittee reports in favor of constructing another $25,000,000 building for some department in the city of Washington, economy-minded Senators will feel the same way, and I hope that those who want authorizations for $80,000,000 or more, to bring water from my State to
1950 their States, will want to economize. We may as well start on that. At this particular time, Mr, President, I should like to give notice that it is my purpose to move to reconsider the vote by which chapter 1 of the appropriation bill was approved on yesterday, namely, the vote by which an economy-minded Congress is giving the people of Wash- ington $12,000,000 out of the taxpayers’ money, in these hard times, when we need money so much for other purposes. I make the motion that the Senate reconsider the vote by which chapter 1 of the appropriation bill was approved, Mr, McKELLAR. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. SpaRKMAN in the chair). The question is on agreeing to the motion of the Sen- ator from Tennessee to lay on the table the motion of the Senator from New Mexico, The motion is not debatable. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, I un- derstood the distinguished Senator from New Mexico to say that he was only giv- ing notice that he expected to move to reconsider the vote. Mr. McKELLAR. Mr. President, may we have the statement read by the Offi- cial Reporter? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will state that the Senator from New Mexico concluded his statement by making the motion, and the question is on agreeing to the motion made by the Senator from Tennessee to lay the mo- tion of the Senator from New Mexico on the table. Mr. ELLENDER and other Senators requested the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were not ordered. The PRESIDING OFFICER (putting the question). In the opinion of the Chair, the “ayes” have it. Mr. WHERRY and other Senators asked for a division. On a division, Mr. wicKge.iar’s motion to lay on the table the motion of Mr. CHAVEZ was agreed to. Mr. BRIDGES. Mr. President, if I may I should like to address a question to the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. I have been queried by several Senators within the past few minutes with respect to a hearing tomorrow morning before the Committee on Appropriations, because they had understood, as I understood, that the hearings on this bill before the Committee on Appropriations had been closed. We understood that the bill had been reported and therefore all hear- ings had been closed. I was surprised to hear that there would be a hearing to- morrow morning. I should like to ask the distinguished chairman of the Com- mittee on Appropriations what the situ- ation is with respect to that subject. Mr. McKELLAR. I shall be very glad to give the Senator from New Hampshire any information which I have in my pos- session. Some gentlemen connected with the National Guard and the Re- serve Corps stated that they had not been treated fairly and wanted to talk to me personally about the matter. I told them that I thought it would be bet- ter for them to talk to the whole ¢com- mittee rather than to myself, I thought CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-—SENATE the committee was enitled to know what they have in mind. I told them to come before the committee tomorrow. I have asked the secretary of the committee to notify the other members of the com- mittee, and he has done that. Mr. BRIDGES. The hearing is not for the purpose of reopening hearings on this bill. Mr. McKELLAR. No. Not at all. I very much hope that nothing will be done to interfere with the action the committee has taken thus far and that we shall all stand by the committee when it comes to a vote tomorrow. This is a tremendous bill. I believe it is the largest single bill which has ever been reported by the Committee on Appro- priations. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield so that I may address an inquiry to the Senator from Tennes- see? Mr. BRIDGES. I yield. Mr. WHERRY. The distinguished Senator from Tennessee stated that some men who were personally inter- ested in the National Guard and in the Reserve Corps had come to him. I am not asking for their names. Can the Senator tell me whether they are from the National Guard and the Reserve Corps? Mr. McKELLAR. I so understood. I will get their names. I do not remember now. Mr. WHERRY. Had the Senator heard them before? Mr. McKELLAR. I do not remember that we had heard them before. Mr. BRIDGES. The hearings on this bill are closed? I assured those who made inquiry of me that we were not re- opening any hearings. Mr. McKELLAR, We are not reopen- ing any hearings. However, I thought when a Government organization felt it had been unfairly treated by the com- mittee, and appealed to me as chairman, that I should call the committee to- gether. Every member will find that he has been asked to come to the committee room tomorrow. Mr. BRIDGES. Are they the same persons who testified originally? Mr. McKELLAR. I think not. Mr. BRIDGES. I do not quite see the point. I do not wish to embarrass the Senator. Mr. McKELLAR. The Senator will not embarrass me unless he states some- thing which is not true, and he has not done that. Mr. BRIDGES. I am merely asking the question. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. BRIDGES. I yield. Mr. LUCAS, I am not sure, but per- haps what the Senator from Tennessee is talking about is with respect to a small appropriation for the Ulinois National Guard, which they requested some time ago. In colloquy with the Senator from Texas (Mr. JOHNSON], I stated that representatives of the Illinois National Guard had come to me some time ago and asked for a small! additional appro- priation. I forget what it was. I have not looked at my file. I thought I could 10009 offer an amendment from the floor, i T thought it was necessary. Senator from Tennessee suggested that I come before the Committee on Appro- priations in the morning. That may be the situation that we are talking about at this time. It has nothing to do with the National Guard so far as the present situation is concerned. These gentle- men came to me some 60 days ago. The Senator from Texas was talking about the National Guard being additionally equipped, and one thing or another, and he and I merely had this colloquy. That may be the situation. Mr, BRIDGES. The point I wished to make was that when inquiry was made of me, as the ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations, I told those making the inquiry that the hear- ings had been closed and the bill was on the floor of the Senate, That is why I asked the question. Mr. MAYBANK. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr, BRIDGES. I yield, Mr. MAYBANK. I merely wish to say that I received the same inquiry. The House had raised the appropriation for the National Guard above the Budget Bureau's estimate. The item related to drill pay, and other matters. The House had gone far above the Budget Bureau’s estimate. I told the persons who made inquiry of me the same thing which the Senator from New Hampshire told them, namely, that the hearings had been closed. Mr. THYE. Mr, President, will the Senator yield? Mr. BRIDGES. I yield. Mr. THYE. When the junior Senator from Texas (Mr. JoHNSON] was making his statement on the entire world situa- tion I raised the question of the advis- ability of reducing the estimate sub- mitted by the Bureau of the Budget for the National Guard by the sum of $1,- 900,000. I also raised the question whether we should not increase the ap- propriation, as well as increase the ap- propriation for the aviation section of the National Guard. I was informed this afternoon that there would be an opportunity to appear before the Com- mittee on Appropriations tomorrow morning at 10:30. In order to inform and enlighten my- self on the subject I called the former Adjutant General of the National Guard in Minnesota, General Walsh, who is now President 02 the National Guard Asso- ciation of the United States, in an effort to obtain full information concerning the National Guard’s anticipated needs in the near future. As I suggested this afternoon, in view of the fact that the Regular Army is being called into active service in the South Pacific, I felt we were weakening our own national security when the Regular Army was called to that duty and that we should be increas- ing the strength of the National Gua:d because of the national emergency. I am very happy that the Committee on Appropriations is permitting the statement not only by me as of tomor-~ row, but is affording an opportunity pos- sibly to file a statement concerning the whole question of the National Guard.