11310 the execution of the contract between the TVA and the Department was that the agree- ment was conditioned upon a satisfactory arrangement or operating agreement to be entered into between the TVA and the De- partment of the Army for the scheduling operations of these projects. This latter agreement has been completed. Without @ satisfactory operating agreement, the con- tract for the sale of power would have had to be terminated, thus leaving the Depart- ment with a great amount of generating ca- pacity to be disposed of otherwise, and leav- ing the TVA with a costly transmission line, but without the power and energy to be transmitted from these projects. (e) In the last analysis, all the work done by the Department of the Army, the Depart- ment of the Interior, the Federal Power Com- mission, and the TVA in the sale or disposi- tion of the surplus power from the Cumber- land projects, centered about a bookkeeping transaction, in which the United States, through one of its agencies, generates power which is turned over to a second agency which delivers the power to a third agency at rates to be approved by a fourth agency, which power is to be accounted for by the third to the second agency, and by the sec- ond to a fifth agency, the Treasury of the United States. All this labor and consequent expense would have been avoided, and any future labor and expense will be avoided, if the power from the Cumberland projects is made available to the TVA to be accounted for in accordance with the provisions of the TVA Act. (f) It is the view of this Department that further economies and greater benefits can be effected, if not only the surplus power but also the projects were turned over to the Tennessee Valley Authority, especially since this agency is in a position and is qualified to operate the projects for navigation and flood control, as well as for power purposes, under the policies of the TVA Act which are fully adequate to protect the public interest. If this is done there will be no division of authority between the TVA and the Army, and no need for operating agreements the requirements for which may from time to time introduce uncertainty concerning the success of the entire undertaking. In addi- tion, the people of the Cumberland River Basin would be in @ position to benefit from all the activities of the TVA in the same manner as the people in the basin of the Tennessee River and its tributaries. (g) The transfer of these projects to the TVA is undoubtedly intended by this bill (8. 338). I recommend, however, that this intention be expressly stated, and therefore suggest the above stated amendment to sec- tion 2, although upon the enactment of this provision without the suggested amendment, the President may, under section 7 (b) of the Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933, as amended (48 Stat. 63, 16 U. 8. C. 8312) exercises his authority to transfer this prop- erty to the corporation. 2. It ts not necessary to increase the board from three to five members, and there is no need for a saving clause in this bill. (a) I believe that the functions and under- takings of the corporation have been carried out in & most commendable and efficient manner by the three-man board of directors, Ido not see that anything would be gained by an increase of the board by two additional members. Therefore I suggest that section 4 of the bill be eliminated. (>) An examination of the bill suggests that there is no likelihood of any substan- tial constitutional questions arising out of this enactment, and therefore there is no need of a saving clause. This is especially 80, since this bill would merely amend the Tennessce Valley Authority Act of 1933, as amended, and the provisions would become part of the more comprehensive statute which already has a saving clause. There- ‘CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE fore, I recommend that the bill be further amended by eliminating section 5 thereof. I am informed by the Bureau of the Budget that there is no objection to the presentation of this report to your com- mittee. However, the Bureau of the Budget also informs me that pending a further report, to be submitted by the Tennessee Valley Authority, bringing up to date its previous report on the relationship between the Tennessee and the Cumberland Rivers (H. Doc. No. 107, 79th Cong., 1st sess.), it is mot in a position to inform me on the relationship of the proposed legisla- tion to the program of the President. Stncerely yours, Oscar L. CHAPMAN, Secretary of‘the Interior. Mr. KEFAUVER. Mr. President, the report of the Secretary of the Interior points out that at least 70 percent of the area of the Cumberland Basin is served by the TVA; that the electricity is sold by the Corps of Engineers at the bus bar to the Department of the Interior; and that thy Department of the Interior, in turn, negotiates with the TVA for the sale of the power. So the negotiations go through that circuitous and wasteful route. The Secretary of the Interior points out—and it is quite generally conceded— that in operations for fiood-control pur- poses, and for the development of the greatest possible amount of electricity, these two river basins should be operated asa unit. Water can be stored for flood- control purposes in the Cumberland Basin at the same time that water is needed for hydroelectric purposes in the Tennessee Basin. As both these rivers are in the same electrical system, more prime power can be produced if both rivers are operated as a unit, The elimination of this $100,000 would not decide the issue as to which agency will have charge of the further develop- ment of the Cumberland. The Eighty- second Congress will have to decide that question on the merits of and in line with the recommendations of the various agencies. All that the amendment which I pro- pose to offer would do would be to defer the spending of this $100,000 for plan- ning until the next appropriation bill comes along, by which time we hope this issue will be decided. Mr. President, I find that this item of $100,000 was not included in the bill as it was passed by the House of Repre- sentatives. It is true that it is covered in the table which appears on page 237 of the report made by the Appropriations Committee to the Senate. However, in examining the testimony which has been presented to the Appropriations Com- mittee, I find that even the representa- tive of the Corps of Engineers, when he appeared before the committee, failed to request the money for the planning of the Dover Dam at this time. Colonel Potter testified before the committee, but he did not refer to the Dover Lock and Dam or to the $100,000 here involved. So it appears that even the Corps of Engineers would not be greatly upset if this matter were deferred until this larger issue can be determined. Colonel Potter’s testimony is to be found at page 770 of the report on the civil functions appropriations, Department of the Army. JULY 28 Of course, Mr. President, we are look- ing for places where we can economize. It is true that the amount which js the subject of the amendment I wish to pro- pose is not a comparatively large amount, but if the Corps of Engineers changes its mind in regard to whether to build one high dam, instead of two low dams, then this $100,000 will be wasted. If the Cumberland is to be developed by the Tennessee Valley Authority—in other words, if the bill which we hope will be brought up at the next session is passed—this $100,000 will be wasted, thrown away, and I do not want to throw away $100,000 of the taxpayers’ money if I can prevent it. This item was not included in the bill by the House of Representatives. So far as I can find from the testimony, the Corps of Engineers have not said they need this sum, or at least have not urged the appropriation of any money for the planning of the Dover Dam. The President has asked all the agen- cies involved to submit a report in the interest of the orderly development of the Cumberland to assure that the water power potential of the Cumberland, par- ticularly in respect to the development of hydroelectric power, is made available most fully for the greatest benefit of that area and of the Nation. Therefore, Mr. President, it seems to me that my motion for the reconsider- ation of the vote by which the commit- tee amendment on page 364 in line 2 was adopted should be agreed to, and that the item of $100,000 should be elim- inated and not subject to the risk of wanton waste. Mr. KEM. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Tennessee yield to the Senator from Missourl? Mr. KEFAUVER. I yield. Mr. KEM. Does the Senator have in mind extending the jurisdiction of TVA to the Cumberland Valley? Is that the plan favored by the Senator? Mr. KEFAUVER. That is the purpose of my bill which is now pending before the Public Works Committee. Mr. KEM. And is that the purpose of the Senator’s motion? Mr. KEFAUVER. No. The purpose of the motion is to defer this $100,000 for planning until the next session of Congress, when it can be brought up in the next appropriation bill, to give Con- gress an opportunity to decide how it wants the Cumberland developed. This is no decision, one way or other, on how it is going to be developed in my motion. Mr. KEM. But the extension of the jurisdiction of TVA to the Cumberland Valley is the ultimate objective which the Senator has in mind, is it not? Mr. KEFAUVER. There is such ® bill pending. The objective we have in mind now is to see that the Cumberland is properly developed. The TVA does not want the job particularly; its direc- tors have not asked for it. Our first ob- jective is to see that the Cumberland is developed properly. The Corps of En- gineers originally in its plan did not want to build this project. It wanted to build only one dam, to be located near
1950 the point at which the Cumberland empties into the Ohio, It has changed its plans, In view of the great need of and in- creased demand for electricity, it is en- tirely reasonable that they may again change thelr plans. In any event, if either that contingency happens or if it were turned over to the TVA, this money would of course be wasted. I can see no harm to be done by delaying the plan- ning of this dam or by delaying the ap- propriation of money for the dam, until the next appropriation bill, Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Tennessce yield to the Senator from Illinois? Mr. KEFAUVER. I yield. Mr. DOUGLAS, Is it not true that as @ general policy the Corps of Army Engineers in building dams tends to favor low dams which do not generate much power? Mr. KEFAUVER. That, I understand, has been the general policy in the past. I think that more recently the engineers have been building dams for the purpose of generating more electricity than they did heretofore. It is everywhere recog- nized that the building of the one dam, instead of two, would furnish a great deal more electricity for a section of the country which is growing rapidly, and which has several very important de- fense projects, including the Arnold Air Engineering Development Center at Tul- lahoma. Huge amounts of electricty are needed there. I think if Congress de- cides this river is to be developed by the Army Corps of Engineers, it may later decide to build only the one dam, and not the Dover Dam. I am reasonably sure Dover Dam will not be built if the TVA should be authorized to develop the Cumberland. Mr. President, I hope the motion will be agreed to and that this amendment may be adopted. I ask for the yeas and nays. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of the Senator from Tennessee to recon- sider the vote by which the amendment on page 364, line 2, was agreed to. Upon that question the yeas and nays have been requested. The yeas and nays wcre not ordered. Mr. KEFAUVER. Mr. President, was the request for the yeas and nays not sufficiently seconded? The PRESIDING OFFICER. It was not. It requires 10, and there were but 5. The demand was not sufficiently secondcd. The question now is upon agreeing to the motion of the Senator from Tennessee to reconsider, The motion was rejected. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will state the next amendment. Mr. THOMAS of Oklahoma. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it. Mr. THOMAS of Oklahoma. Has any amendment been agreed to as yet in chapter X of the bill? The PRESIDING OFFICER. No amendment has as yet heen agreed to in chapter X. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. THOMAS of Oklahoma. I offer an amendment to the first committes amendment, on page 374, and ask that the amendment be stated. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will state the committee amend- ment, The Cuter Cierx. On page $74, line 19, after the word “diem”, the commit- tee proposes to insert “and contracts with not to exceed 23 such individuals may be renewed for 1 year.” The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Oklahoma desire to offer an amendment to that committee amendment? Mr. THOMAS of Oklahoma. I offer a clarifying amendment to the commit- tee amendment on page 374, line 19, which I send to the desk. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will state the amendment. The Cuter CLerK. On page 374, line 20, it is proposed to strike out “such in- dividuals” and insert “temporary or part-time employees.” The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma to the commit- tee amendment. Mr. THOMAS of Oklahoma. Mr. President, just a word generally about the bill before I discuss the amendment. Chapter X was considered by the House before the Korean crisis developed. The bill then came to the Senate. The Sen- ate committee considered the bill, chap- ter X, before the crisis in Korea became acute. So it may be said that what the Senate committee did was to prepare this bill for peacetime activities. More re- cently, the military authorities have sub- mitted to the Senate a supplemental budget. That budget was cut to fit the bill as recommended by the Senate com- mittee. So when the military authori- ties considered this chapter, they sub- mitted three clarifying amendments, and they then submitted their supple- mental budget to fit the remainder of the bill. Therefore, if the Senate should see fit to pass the bill as reported by the committee, it would be exactly as the au- thorities expect the bill to be passed by the Congress, Their supplemental budget would then fit into this bill, The first amend- ment, the one I have suggested, was re- quested by the military authorities and was authorized by the committee. This amendment will follow the intent of the committee in its amendment in al- lowing for the renewal of contracts with temporary or part-time employees for 1 year and at the same time will allow the National Security Resources Board to continue to hire intermittent employees in accordance with present law. There are approximately 23 tempo- rary and 75 intermittent employees working for the Board. As the amend- ment is presented the words “such in- dividuals” applies to both temporary and intermittent employees. Since the renewal of contracts has application to temporary employees, the corrective amendment is needed. The PRESIDING OFFICER. With- out objection, the amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma to the commit. 11311 tee amendment {fs agreed to, and with- out objection, the committee amend- ment, as amended, is agreed to. The clerk will state the next commit- tee amendment, The next amendment was, on page 375, line 11, after the word “conclusive”, to strike out “$3,000,000” and insert “$3,- 600,000.” The amendment was agreed to. FURTHER TEMPORARY APPROPRIATIONS, 1951 Mr. McKELLAR. Mr. President, as we all know, the pending appropriation bill cannot become the law by the 1st of August. We have already had to pass a continuing joint resolution in order to keep the Government going during the month of July. The House has passed a further continuing joint resolution for the month of August, and yesterday it was referred to the Senate Committee on Appropriations, which today ordered it reported. From the Committee on Appropriations, I report favorably, with- out amendment, the joint resolution (H. J. Res. 512) making further temporary appropriations for the fiscal year 1951, and for other purposes, and I submit in connection therewith a report (No. 2183). I ask unanimous consent that the un- finished business be temporarily laid aside, and that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the joint resolution. The PRESIDING OFFICER, Is there objection to the request of the Senator from Tennessee? There being no objection, the joint resolution (H. J. Res. 512) was consid- ered, ordered to a third reading, read the third time, and passed. GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS, 1951 The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (H. R. 7786) making appro- priations for the support of the Govern- ment for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1951, and for other purposes. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will state the next committee amendment. The next amendment was, under the heading ‘‘Title II—Department of De- fense—Office of the Secretary of De- fense—Salaries and expenses,” on page 376, line 2, after the word “conclusive”, to strike out “$11,000,000” and insert “$11,300,000.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the heading “Title I1J—Department of the Army—Office of the Secretary of the Army—Contingencies of the Army,” on page 378, line 2, after the word “pur- poses”, to strike out $51,978,000" and insert ‘$51,878,000.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the subhead “General Staff Corps—Fleld ex- ercises,” on page 378, line 16, after the word “property”, to strike out “$5,500,- 000” and insert “$5,350,000.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Finance Department—Finance Service, Army—Pay of the Army,” on page 380, line 7, after the word “enlist- ment”, to strike out “$1,448,660,000" and insert ‘$1,447,660,000.” The amendment was agreed to.
11312 The next amendment was, under the subhead “Travel of the Army,” on page 881, line 23, after the word “personnel”, to strike out “$75,000,000” and insert “$76,500,000.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Finance Service,” on page 382, line 22, after “(61 Stat. 493)", to strike out “$28,410,000” and insert “$29,000,000.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Quartermaster Corps—Quar- termaster Service, Army—Welfare of en- Usted men,” on page 383, line 16, after the word “personnel”, to strike out “$8,000,000” and insert “$8,362 500.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Subsistence of the Army,” on page 385, line 6, after the word “prices”’, to insert “and without unduly increas- ing future United States market prices”; and in line 9, after the word “of”, to insert “highly.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Regular Supplies of the Army,” on page 386, line 5, after the word “irri- gation”, to strike out “$100,000,000" and insert “$107,247,258.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Clothing and equipage,” on page 387, line 8, after the word “intern- ment”, to strike out “$90,000,000” and insert “$93,853,365.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Incidental expenses of the Army,” on page 388, line 3, after the word “sites”, to strike out “$95,000,000” and insert “$101,988,313.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Transportation Corps—Trans- portation Service, Army,” on page 388, Ihne 17, after the word “activities”, to strike out . “$290,000,000" and insert “$289 960,000 ” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Signal Corps—-Signal Service of the Army,” on page 391, line 3, after the word “thereof’, to strike out $157,500,000” and insert “$158,248,000.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Medical Department—Medical and Hospital Department,” on page 392, line 19, after the word “institutions”, to strike out “$54,913,000” and insert “$54,- 883,000.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the ‘* head “Corps of Engineers—Engineer Service, Army,” on page 393, line 20, after the word “for” to strike out “$300,- 176,000” and insert “$304,187,500": and in the same Une, after the amendment just above stated, to insert a colon and the following proviso: “Provided, That the sum of $2,000,000 of the appropria- tion ‘Engineer Service, Army,’ fiscal year 1947, shall remain available until June 20, 1951, for the payment of obligations incurred under contracts executed there- under prior to July 1, 1947.” The amendment was agreed to, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE The next amendment was, at the top of page 394, to insert: MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, ARMY For construction, installation, and equip- ment of temporary or permanent public works, military installations, and facilities for the Army, as authorized by the act of June 17, 1950 (Public Law 564, lst Cong ), wtihout regard to sections 1°36 and 8784, Revised Statutes, as amended, inoluding hire of passenger motor vehicles; $£5,318,685, to remain available until expended: Provided, That not to exceed $661,400 of the funds ap- propriated under this head in the Military Functions Appropriations Act, 1949, are here- by made available for construction author- iscd }y the act of October 27, 1949 (Public Law 414), The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Ordnance Department—Ord- nance Service and supplies, Army,’’ on page 395, line 8, after the word “Office”, to strike out “$621,559,000”" and insert “$647,327,000.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Chemical Corps—-Chemical Service, Army,” on page 396, line 10, after the word “ranges”, to strike out “$36,000,000” and insert “$37,300,000.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Army training,” on page 396, line 21, after the word “for’, to strike out “$7,930,000” and insert “$7,830,000.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the subhead “United States Military Acad- emy——Maintenance and operation,’”’ on page 398, line 4, after the words “in all”, to strike out “$5,200,000” and insert “$5,120,000.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Civilian components—Army National Guard,” on page 400, line 38, after the word “supplies”, to strike out “"$212,400,000" and insert “‘$210,500,000.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Organized Reserves,” on page 401, line 11, after the word “stocks”, to strike out “$115,000,000" and insert “$114,525,000.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Army Reserve Officers’ Train- ing Corps,” on page 402, line 14, after the numerals “1952”, to strike out “$25,- 000,000” and insert “$24,800,000.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Departmental salaries and ex- penses—Salaries, Department of the Army,” on page 405, line 8, after the word “services”, to strike out ‘‘$3,265,- 000” and insert “$3,368,271.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, on page 405, line 9, after “Office of Chief of Staff”, to strike out “$6,354,700” and insert “$6,576,293.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, on page 405, line 10, after “Adjutant General's Office”, to strike out “$9,477,400” and in- sert “$9,777,200.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, on page 405, line 11, after “Office of Inspector JULY 28 General”, to strike out “$197,600” and insert “$203,880.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, on page 405, line 12, after “Office of the Judge Advocate General”, to strike out '§577,- 100” and insert $595,375.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, on page 405, line 14, after “Office of the Chief of Finance”, to strike out “$1,437,800” and insert “$1,483,202.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, on page 405, line 16, after “Office of the Quarter- master General”, to strike out “$6,767,- 400” and insert ‘$6,981,504 ” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, on page 465, line 17, after “Office of the Chief of ‘Transportation’, to strike out ‘$2,850,- 000” and insert “$2,940,000.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, on page 405, line 19, after “Office of the Chief Signal Officer”, to strike ort “$2,379,600” and insert “$2,455,821.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, on page 405, line 21, after “Office of Chief of Spe- cial Services”, to strike out $56,800" and insert “¢58,636." The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, on page 405, line 22, after “Office of the Provost Marshal General”, to strike out “$112, 500” and insert “$116,038 ” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, on page 405, line 24, after “Office of the Surgeon General”, to strike out “$2,400,000” and insert $2,475,873." The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, on page 405, line 25, after “Office of Chief of Engi- neers”, to strike out “$3,636,200” and in- sert ‘'$3,751,026.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, on page 4°6, line 1, after “Office of Chief of Ord- nance”, to strike out “$3,776,400” and insert “$4,137,696.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, on page 406, line 2, after “Office of Chief, Chemical Corps”, to strike out “$792,700” and in- sert “$817,707.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, on page 406, line 8, after “Office of Chief of Chaplains”, to strike out “$131,100” and insert “$128,478.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Contingent expenses, Depart- ment of the Army,” on page 406, line 6, after “government”, to strike out “$9,000,000” and insert ‘'$9,970,000.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the heading “Title IV—Department of the Navy—Navy Personnel, general ex- penses,” on page 407, line 24, after the word ‘salaries’, to strike out “$60,000,- 000” and insert “$60,538,000.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Military personnel, Marine Corps,” on page 408, line 8, after the
1950 word “training”, to strike out “$200 - 700” and insert $200,993.00." 301, The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Marine Corps troops and fa- cilities,” on page 409, line 6, after the word “salaries”, to strike out “$80,699,- 000” and insert “$82,354,000.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Aircraft and facilities,’ on page 409, line 17, after the word “sala- ries”, to strike out “$536,226,000" and insert “$532,226,000.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Ships and facilities,” on page 411, line 14, after the word “salaries”, to strike out “$415,282,000” and insert ‘ $411,782 ,000.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Ordnance and facilities,” on page 412, line 16, after the word “sala- ries”, to strike out “$177,088,000” and insert ‘$181,665,000.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Medical care,” on page 413, line 24, after the word “salaries”, to strike out ‘$38,212,000” and insert “$37,862,000.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Civil engineering,” on page 414, line 10, after the word “salaries”, to strike out “$35,178,000” and _ insert “$34,778,000.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, on page 414, after line 11, to insert: PUBLIC WORKS For construction, installation, and equip- ment of temporary or permanent public works, naval installations, and facilities for the Navy, as authorized by the act of June 16, 1948 (62 Stat. 459), and the act of June 17, 1950 (Public Law 564, Bist Cong ); major repairs and improvements to the Davisville pier, Naval Base, Newport, R 1; furniture for public quarters, personnel in the Bureau of Yards and Docks and other personal serv- ices necessary for the purposes of this ap- propriation, and engineering and architec- tural services as authorized by section 3 of the act of April 25, 1939 (84 U. 8. C. 556); $62,928,000, to remain available until ex- pended. Mr, THOMAS of Oklahoma. Mr. President, to the committee amendment I offer the amendment which I send to the desk and ask to have stated. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will state the amendment offered by the Senator from Oklahoma to the committee amendment. The LEGISLATIVE CLERK, On page 414, line 24, after the word “expended” and before the period, it is proposed to in- sert the following: “Provided, That the funds appropriated by the act of June 25, 1948 (62 Stat. 1027), for construction of two new storehouses at Adak, Alaska, may be used for the conversion of ex- isting facilities, if the Secretary of the Navy determines such action would re- sult in a savings to the Government.” Mr. THOMAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Pres- ident, I am informed that this amend- ment will save the Government over $4,500,000, Public Law 653 of the Eight- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE feth Congress authorized the Navy to construct two storehouses at a cost of $6,000,000. The first increment of $1,- 300,000 has been appropriated. Since then it has been determined that sur- plus Army transit sheds could be con- verted to provide the needed storehouses, The Facilities Review Board and the Comptroller General indicated that ad- ditional authorization would be required fo the Navy to utilize its funds for the conversion of the sheds. The amend- ment would do this. The Navy esti- mates that the $1,300,000 alveady appro- priated would be sufficient to take care of the entire matter, making a saving of $4,500,000 in estimated costs. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question 1s on agreeing to the amend- ment offered by the Senator from Okla- homa to the committee amendment. The amendment to the amendment was agreed to The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question recurs on the committee amendment, as amended. The amendment, as amended, was agreed to. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will state the next amendment, The next amendment was, under the subhead “Research,” on page 415, line 11, after the woid “expended”, to strike out $43,383,000" and insert “$43,083,000.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Service-wide supply and fi- nance,” on page 416, line 8, after the word “salaries”, to strike out ‘“$200,000,- 000” and insert “$209,292,000,” The amendment was agiced to. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Service-wide operations,” on page 417, line 1, after the word “salaries”, to strike out “$94,261,000 and insert “$100,281,000 ” Mr THOMAS of Oklahoma = Mr. President, to the committee amendment I offer the amendment which I send to the desk and ask to have stated, and I also have an amendment to offer to the next committee amendment. After action on the amendments I shall ex- plain their effect. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will state the amendment offered by the Senator from Oklahoma to the amendment. The Lecis.aTIve CLERK. On page 417, line 2, it 1s proposed to strike out “$100,- 281,000” and insert “$99,281,000 ” The amendment to the amendment was agreed to. The amendment, as amended, was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Island governments,” on page 417, line 6; after the word “Islands”, to strike out “$1,500,000” and insert “$785,- 000.” Mr. THOMAS of Oklahoma. Mr. President, to that amendment I offer an amendment, The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment to the amendment will be stated. The LrarstaTive CLERK. On page 417, line 6, it is proposed to strike out ‘$785,- 000”, and insert “$1,785,000,” 11313 The amendment to the amendment was agreed to. The amendment as amended was agreed to. Mr. THOMAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Presidcnt, the effect of the two amend- ments to the committee amendments just agreed to is to reduce the appro~ priations for service-wide operations by $1,000,000, and to increase the appro priations for island governments by the same amount. The PRESIDING OFFICER, The next committee amendment will be stated. The next amendment was, under the heading “Title V—Department of the Air Force—Acquisition and construction of real property,” on page 419, after line 12, to strike out: For Nquidation of obligations incurred pursuant to authority granted under this head in the “Second Supplemental Appro- priation Act, 1950,” or authorized to be trans- ferred to this head by the “National Military Establishment Appropriation Act, 1950,” to remain available until expended, $25,000,000. The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, on page 419, after line 18, to insert: For construction, installation, and equip- ment of temporary or permanent public works, military installations, and facilities for the Alr Force, as authorized by the act of March 30, 1949 (Public Law 30, 81st Cong ), the act of October 27, 1949 (Public Law 415, Blst Cong ), the act of May 11, 1949 (Public Law 60, 81st Cong ), and the act of June 17, 1950 (Public Law 564, 8ist Cong), without regard to sections 1136 and 3734, Revised Statutes, as amended, including hire of pas- senger motor vehicles, to remain available until expended, 164,784,000, of which $25,000,000 is for Mquidation of obligations incurred pursuant to authority granted un- der this head in the Second Supplemental Appropriation Act, 1950, or authorized to be transferred to this head by the National Military Establishment Appropriation Act, 1950. The amendment was agrced to. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Maintenance and operations,” on page 422, line 4, after the word “other- wise”, to strike out ‘$1,010,000,000" and insert “$1,027,662,000 ” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the subhead ‘‘Air National Guard,” on page 426, line 16, after the word ‘‘owned”, to insert “or State-owned”; in line 17, after the word ‘“‘any”, to strike out “State or”; and in the same line, after the word “subdivision”, to strike out “‘thereof” and insert ‘‘of a State.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Salaries and expenses, admin- istration,” on page 427, line 18, after the word “station”, to strike out ‘“$55,- 620,000” and insert “$58,545,000.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the heading “Title I—Gencral provisions,” on page 441, after line 23, to strike out: Src. 626. No payment shall be made from appropriations in this chapter to any officer on the retired Mats of the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Marine Corps, or Reg- ular Air Force, who for himeelf, or for others is engaged in the selling of, or contracting
11314 for the sale of, or negotiating for the sale of, to any agency of the Department of Defense, any war materials or supplies, The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, on page 442, line 6, to change the section number from "627" to “626.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, on page 442, line 10, to change the section number from “628” to “627.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, on page 442, line 22, to change the section number from “629” to “628.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, on page 443, line 3, to change the section number from “630” to “629.” The amendment was agreed to. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, we have now finished, I think, the chapter which we have been considering this morning. The PRESIDING OFFICER. That was the last committee amendment in chapter X. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I be- lieve most people will agree that the best way to reduce expenditures is to reduce individual items. A general across-the- board percentage cut hits all agencies affected equally even though there is bound to be more fat in some agencies than in others. This method is called a meat-ax approach because the cutting is done with a broad blade and the actual severing is accomplished by brute force. You cannot trim off excess fat with a meat ax—it cuts in a straight line across the lean as well as the fat. CUTTING APPROPRIATIONS SHOULD BE DONE CARE- FULLY—WITH A SURGEON’S KNIFE Trimming selected items more closely resembles the use of a surgeon’s knife. A surgeon’s knife is extremely sharp and fat can be trimmed neatly without cut- ting into the lean. Thus the fat in an in- dividual bureau can be cut back without harming the bureau itself. The surgeon’s knife method is the one ZI have been trying to use. In trying to be selective, I have made 68 separate proposals for reductions so far. The amounts of these cuts have ranged from $1 to $263,483,000. When added together they would have made a total reduction of three-fourths of a billion dollars be- Jow the amounts in the bill before us and nearly a billion below the budget. I have not finished these efforts to make selec- tive cuts. I will have a great many more proposals before we finish this bill. And yet almost every time I start to apply the knife, sharp and delicate though it is, the Senate has gently but no less defi- nitely placed a sheath over the blade. “Put that thing down,” they say, “you're liable to hurt somebody.” First, may I say that I blame myself most of all for my failure to get the Sen- ate to accept the many selective cuts which I have proposed. The cause, I think, has been «. good one but there has apparently been something in my man- ner and methods which has offended many of my colleagues. If I have shown any smug self-righteousness, may J as- sure the Senate that it was unintentional CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Civil functions of the Army appropria- and I most sincerely beg the pardon of my colleagues. I happen to dislike self- righteousness most of all, because it shuts off the possibility of growth and is essentially uncharitable to others and if I have sinned in this respect, as some of my colleagues obviously think, I shall try to rid myself of this fault in the future. Ican only wish that abler, better, more conciliatory, and more experienced men than I had taken up this battle who could have carried it through with greater suc- cess and who would not have aroused the hard feelings which I apparently have done. There are very many such men in the Senate, but, unfortunately, they have not come forward in this instance. As is too often the case, the team has had to depend on a scrub and second- rater who has failed to do justice to the cause which he tried to represent. I only hope that the burden will be as- sumed next year by better men and then I shall be glad to step back and let them take the lead and serve myself only as a dishwasher and possibly a factual hod- carrier for their efforts. I would do this all the more gladly because it has been extremely unpleasant for me to get up again and again to move a reduction in appropriations and to feel that I was incurring the displeasure of colleagues whom I respect. But while I wish to take my full share of the blame for the failure of our body to make selective economies, I am in- clined to believe that the causes for this failure lie far deeper than my own per- sonal faults, real though these are. ORGANIZATION OF SENATE MAKES SELECTIVE CUTS DIFFICULT In the first place, it is clear that the very organization of the Senate makes selective economies difficult, if not im- possible. For the members of the Appro- priations Committee, having thrashed these issues out and having arrived at a recommendation, feel bound in loy- alty to each other to defend the items for which big appropriations are being asked. We have seen many times rank- ing minority members of the Appropria- tions Subcommittees rising to defend specific figures and insisting that the ap- propriations cannot be cut by a single dollar. Then I have also noticed that the Senators who are interested in the appropriations under a given chapter in the bill are generally on the floor in force when that chapter is up for considera- tion. Thus, the Senators from the farming States were present in large numbers when the appropriations for the Department of Agriculture, chapter VI, came up and overwhelmingly de- feated my proposal to reduce these ap- propriations. I was similarly bowled over as I tried to reduce specific items for roads by $100,000,000 in this time of great stress, Similarly, when the appropria- tions for the Interior Department, chap- ter VII, were under consideration and I tried to cut $90,000,000 for reclamation and reduce other items, I saw large num- bers of Senators on the fioor from the mountain and semiarid States who natu- rally resisted these cuts. When the rivers and harbors section, chapter IX, which is euphoniously referred to as the JULY 28 tion came up, I looked about me and saw the serried ranks of the Senators from the regions of the Gulf, the lower Missis- sippi, the Missouri, and the Arkansas Rivers. These men believe in all good faith in the projects which would benefit their communities and were strong in their support of the recommended appropriations. On the other hand, the Senators whose interests were not immediately involved in the making of the specific appropriations, and whose interests were only general in that they primarily rep- resented taxpayers tended not to be on the floor—with many honorable excep- tions, of course—when these items came up for consideration, This was perfectly natural, excusable, and perhaps inevi- table. For them to have stayed on the floor and joined in the fight item by item would have required not only many hours but actually may days of dull, dreary work, besides the weeks of study and preparation required. In the mean- time, they would have had to miss many vital committee meetings, fall behind on their heavy correspondence, arouse the fre of constituents by not seeing them when they called, and go through a very unpleasant process to no apparent avail. The special interests were there- fore concentrated and determined, while the genera] interests were scattered, dif- fused, and unorganized. It is small won- der, therefore, that no cuts were made. Secondly, our procedures in the Sen- ate make it very difficult for us to con- sider an appropriations bill intelli- gently on the floor. For again and again, while we were considering specific chap- ters, Senators would rise and speak at length for hours on some perfectly ex- traneous subject. This wore out and discouraged many who were anxious to take part. I would humbly suggest— and as a new Member I do so humbly— that we would make more progress if we were to accept a rule of germane- ness so that up to a given hour, say 5 o’clock, we would only consider and speak upon the subject before the House and then after that hour, let any Sena- tor speak on any subject about which he felt a concern, whether that question be sex perverts in the Government, For- mosa, Kamchatka, or Timbuctoo. We would get infinitely more work done un- der such a rule and yet Senators would still have the right of free and unlim- ited debate. Finally—and I say this with timidity— I have come to suspect that those who urge the superiority of selective cuts to the meat-ax method of general cuts tend to lose some of their enthusiasm for the selective method when it is actually employed, The suspicion occurs to me also that possibly one reason why some Senators prefer the method of general cuts is because if they vote for specific cuts, they incur the wrath of special interest groups while if they vote for general cuts, they get popular credit for standing for economy and thus com- pel the President and the executive de- partments to bear the popular oppro- brium of making the specific economies
1950 to carry out the broad sweeping and in- definite reductions of 10 percent, 15 percent, or 20 percent, for which the swingers of the meat ox have voted. If I am uncharitable in these surmises, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE I hope that my colleagues and the pub- lic will pardon me. I ask unanimous consent to insert in the Recorp at this point a list of the proposals for reductions which I have 11315 proposed, their amounts, and references to their explanations. There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Itemized reductions in omnibus appropriations bill (H.R. 7786) proposed by Senator Douglas Proposed reduction F i ‘or reasons . Department, agency, and purpose of funds A argopriation Amount voted Amount in Budget esti- Bee CONGRES- 1950 y House ‘enate bill mate Below Senate Below budget Cae Rn »P. No. S  EnERAeneR ener Legislative branch+ New Senate Office Bldg......... u Department of Stato € aanweee None None $10, 000, 000 $10, 000, 000 $10, 000, 000 $10, 000, 000 10006 Salaries oof Te arian A fis gyTitttttereceeseee-| $78, 152,000] $77, 300, 000 78, 300, 000 78, 731, 000 1, 000, 000 1, 431, 000 @) Exponseg: : Cash... 0... .ae- ane -enneeennsensnenennsecnceee 4, 751, 600 8, 500, 000 5, 000, 000 6, 500, 000 , OC 2, 000, 000 10221 Dopartment of Cen eon BHO. eaeeeeseneeenecanoeee None None | 7,000,000] 14,000, 000-2, 000,000} 8, 000, 000 10221 peta Aeronauties fdministratton, Salaries, expenses... m4 ie, on %, no, 000 99, 778, 000 104, 250, 000 2,775, 000 7, 250, me 10928 + C8 ORT ek cen ween nee ne nnn eee 620, 500 3, 400, 000 4, 000, 000 323, 000 400, 000 23, C00 Bureau of Foreign and Jomoestic Commerce Salaries ‘ _ iad yen Oftien Sor i ttn tween weer e ween newer enn neceeces : 923, iO 5, 000, 000 6, 300, 000 5, 620, wr 400, 000 620, 600 10744 ( CO Service... eee - O70, 500 2,050, 000 2, 155, 000 2, 155, 000 108, 000 105, 000 y Patent Office Salaries and expenses ...... - 10, 895, 000 11, 300, 000 71, 530, 000 11, 760, 000 240), 000 460, 000 10224 Bureau of Public Roads: Postwar highways. ~~ 3865, 000, 000 408, 000, 000 385, 0100, GOO 426, 000, 000 100, 000, G00 741, 000, G00 10225 D Weather Bureau: Salaries and expenses........22222222- 24, 179, 000 24, 447, 000 24, 807, 000 26, 100, 000 474), OX) 1, 653, 000 10234 epartment of Treasury. Office of Adininistrative Services: Balaries......-.....-- 1, 150, 000 1, 160, 000 1, 207, 000 1, 207, 600 47, 000 47,000 10288 Bureau of Accounts Salaries and expenses 1, 725, 000 1, 875, 000 2, 029, O00 2, 024, 000 164, 000 334, WY) 10299 Bureau of Customs: Salaries and evpenses 35, 150, 000 36, 500), 000 36, 806, 360 36, 973, 000 806, 360 478, 300 10209 Bureau of Narcoties, Salaricg and expenses. ......., 1, 610, 000 1, 750, 000 1, 908, 000 1, 933, 000 15%, 000 18:5, O00 10209 Bureatt of Engraving and Printing Salaries and ex- 60 1m, $00, c00 18, 828, 000 16, 938, 000 1.336, 000 1,438, con 11300 PCNSO8_.. eee eee eee eee eee ene 15, C60, 000 1, 500, ¢ , 835, ¢ ) 338, 35, OC Reconstruction Finunce Corporation Sularies and ex- _ ’ ’ POUSCS 2 on eee wee eee we - - wee 25, 775, 000 26, 000, COO 26, 700, CCO 27, 100, 000 6, 700, 000 7, 100, (00 10323 Foderal Security Agency, Office of Education: Salarics , and ey enses wane nner eee ee eas ee 1, 900, 000 1, 900, 000 2, 023, 420 2, 168, COO 123, 420 268, 600 11012 Public Health Service, Hospital Construction Service: Salaries and expenses ..00 0. 2. Lee eee 1, 132, 257 1, 337, 000 2, 107, 000 2, 807, 000 750, 000 1, 450, 000 11013 Burenn of Federal Crodit Union: General fund appro- 200, 000 200, 000 300. 000 78, 000 100, 10 175, 000 no13 priation ...2.2 22-22 e ee eee eee ee . 200, 00, (3, ™), nf General Counsel: Salaries and expenses........----.---- 453, 008 G11, 100 835, 100 667, 100 24, 000 56, 000 11014 Department of Agneultine | \ ; hie of Aen cut . . ene m ts (economy nvestigas 2, 621, COO 2, 600, 000 2, 720, C00 2, 915, 600 120, C00 315, 600 10534 srop and livestock estimate and d. Crp na - estocl - st - " a -- 2, 817, 000 2, 725, 000 2, 004, 000 8, 378, 000 179, 000 653, C00 10534 Bureau of Human Nutrition and . Salaries and expenses.....0. 0 ..-.--2-2-e eee eee eee 1, 749, 200 1, 500, 000 1, 763, 200 2, 217, 200 268, 200 7 7, 200 10536 Bureau of Animal Husbandry, Solarics and expenses. 2, 248, 200 2, 260, 000 2, 319, 600 2, 518, 700 68, 000 269, 700 10536 Bureau of Dairy Industry... 22. 2222222... 1, 613, 300 J, 600, 000 1, 735, 000 1, 890, 300 134, 000 200, 500 10638 B of Aguicultute and Industrial Chemistry. 8, 305, 625 7, 750, 000 8, 600, 000 8, 818, 800 754), 000 1, 068, 800 10839 ureau of Agriculture y ‘ ‘ ‘ 6 0 ats 000 i041 Forest development: Roads and trails........- 10, 344, 000 , 348, (00 12, 000, 000 12, 465, 000 » G00, O00 i, 4665, OOt Flood control... . 0020202222 eee 9, 600, 000 10, 750, 000 , 880, 11, 700, 000 1, 090, 060 2, 820, WOO 10541 Bugar Act. ...2222.2 wool. wo weee ones €0, 000, 000 40, 000, 000 633, 750), OO) 67, 500, 000 8, 750, 000) A 500, 00 10542 Bureau of Plant Industry: Field crops... ered 3, 446, 500 3, 400, 000 3, 475, 000 , 638, 300 75, COO 288, 300 10839 fall of Entomol: and Plant Quarantine. Insee Buren plant disease control nee ee wee : cence eaeeenee 4, 661, 000 4,185, 000 4, 651, 000 , 4, 752, 000 465, 100 566, 100 (') Forest Service’ Protection and management. £6, 500, 000 26, 800, 000 29, 320, #010 30, 270, 500 2, 430, fo 3, as), att { Forest Services Acquisition Of land. ....0..senenee eee 401, 000 100, 000 401, 000 vo ”) rh : on 24 400 “ Marketing Service’ News servica....2.02.200-2--.-- ee 1, 200, 000 2, 050, 000 2, 187, 000 2, 274, 300 ‘ Federal crop Insurance Corporation: Operating and 5, 064, 000 6 854, c¢0 7. 204, c00 + 450, O00 350, c00 06, oc 0 administrative expenses _...... 2.2.2... we eeee eens , 054, » BOA, , 204, , 450, , Cl 06, Commodity Crodit Corporation: Administrative ex- 15, 000, 000 16, 000, aco 16, 350, 000 16, 750, 000 4350, 000 7a, 000 0 DENSON. Lee eee eee ee eee ee eee eee ee a 35, 000, , 000, OC: 146, 350, 0 , 750, 350, 00 750, ere s i : Salaries and expensas... 26, 149, 000 27, 700, 000 29, 000, 000 30, 000, 000 1, 300, 000 2, 300, 000 Othec of Suter  mstration: Balaries and expenses. 2304, 000 | 2,450,600] 3,675,000] “a, 070, 000 226, 060 "6, 000 10540 Dopartment of Interior: : ' wee 6, 215, 200 6, 756, 800 7, 127, 810 8, 650, 000 371, 010 1, 803, 200 10665 Buren of Land Management: Management of land... 6X), 000 * $00! TLUU 4 1,000; 000 200, 600 3 200, 000 10006 iiin AfRair 5S Wellare 00 37, 920, 000 40, 252, 828 40, 483, 975 2, 323, 326 2, 54, 075 10667 qlireatt of Fadian Atalrs | Wella actizall : 5,150, OOM) 6, 500, 000 7, 800, 000 2) 150, 000 3 500, ON) 1073211 Bureau of Roclamation: General ins estigations. 5, 150, , 500, 1 800, 150, 3, 500, Sait, Construction... 2. 22.222 eee eee cn eee cece eee ee eee eee 297, 467,000 | 4 264, 714, 000 325, 066, 500 60, 713, 000 121, 966, 500 107371%, eau of Reclama non: General a strative ex- National Park Service: Maintenance and rehabilitation 6 90, 268 7 950, 000 7, 448, 100 », 470, 000 198, 100 20, ce 1009 Sic “ili OS nn ce wwe nema w wn cme ewer wenn new wee ’ a 9 oem, , , MN a mul 4 ie Coreen NS ons ss sereoresconcoeeetenne morro 14,505,813 | 20.542.000 ai, ooo | 2,707,000 | 4,07 7,67, 00 11000 , rHldlife Sorvico: Investigation of resource B 3,324, 200 3, 900, 000 4, 125, 000 3, 900, GOO . 575, (1 : Coshuetion a Bervice: Taye ugntton of Tesouree nen 1, 707, 100 2, 401, 000 2, 423, 420 2, 376, 000 623, 450 576, OO be Exccutive Office, Bureau of Budget: Balartes and expensns. - , 800, 8,386, 000 8, 412, G00 8, 486, COO 26, (00 100, 600 Wi Piero? Alien Property Administranion, Salanes ond oe 250,000} 160,000] 215,00 215, 000 Bs,000 | 3,000 ye Cw Borvico Comrainion’ Ralaries und expenses. ....-...0- 16, 000, 000 15, 201, 913 15, 761, 913 16, 560, 000 600, 000 » 298, 08: 5 eneral Services Administration: . 1189 Advance, planning of public works, contract authority... 17, 000, 000 a, 00, 000 a on, tin AY 900, 00 * O00, me * oe 000 u 150 porating expenses ...-.--.---..-------0---2--- waewwowe| smween ans. aaa 5e RA 2. 6 02, 3, ¢ 113, 000 11150 Interstate Cominerce Commission’ General sesranrd oxperiscs Bee Oop 130, 000 TU aan O00 Baan O00 200 O00 295, 000 11159 ecuriticsand xchange Commission: Salar x . h, 750, W230), 1 380), , 420, q 363. 5.0 1115) Smithsonian Institution: Salaries and expenses... .-- 2, 300, 000 2, 600, 490 2, 770, 000 2,770, 000 163, 510 63, bs 5 Mantime reer ssion: Ship-construction sub (o ( 64, 875, 000 0 41, 100, 000 #41, 000, 000 1100 tract authority). .----.--  seeeeeneeeee ’ 82n Inp’ 1721" O00 1159 Pperating differential subsidies and navigation volectss Pn 26, 450, 000 30, 108, 000 98, 880, 000 8, 658, 000 4, 721, 00 11360 ivers, harbors, and flood control an / : l Limitation on additional tectnical oxpenses.-..0---4+0 woe! (?) 1, 450, C00 1, 600, 000 (y) 960, 000 () 1 Mction for reconsideration pending. 3 Contract anthortaation, . 2} lus $100,000 in contiact authorizatlons, «Plus $8,339,700 in contract authorizations, 4 Plus $3,000,000 In contract authorizations, ¢ Eatended contuact authority, TNo comparable figure, SApproxitiate no comparable figure, § Plus $55,200,000 su reappropriations,
11316 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE JULY 28 Itemized reductions in omnibus appropriations Dill (H. R. 7786) proposed by Senator Douglas—Continued Dopartment, agency, and purpose of funds Rivers and harbors project......2--------------e--- eee nee Flood contro! and navigation projects.....----------------- Flood control: Mississipp! River. ....0.-------ceeeeen enn e ee nn nn eeee eee Sacramento Rivor...-2-..----- ne een ee ane eeeeeenerens Appropriation | 4 mount voted Amount in for fiscal year 1950" by House $197, 985,600 | 185,878,000 | $221, 244, 500 866, 408, 400 841, 035, 000 436, 933, 000 67, 000, 000 65, 000, 000 66, 778, 000 3, 600, 600 2, 824, 500 3, 700, 000 Budget esti- Senate bill mate $240, 714, 000 478, 447, 000 72, 000, 000 9, 805, 000 Proposed reduction For reasons seo CONGRES- SIONAL HEC- Below Senate Below budget | onp, p. Na. — 11386-11337 11359-11360 11363-11866 11330-11337 11359-11360 11363-11366 11336-11337 11359-11360 11863-11366 11336-11837 11889-11260 11463-11366 $130, 495, 000 | $149, 064, G00 263, 483, 000 304, 997, 000 40, 078, 000 45, 300, 000 1, 514, 500 1, 795, 000 On other proposals for limitations, amounts cannot be computed. Total number of items, 68; total amount of proposed reductions below Senate committee recommendations, $746,574,478, ‘Total amount of proposed reductions below budget estimates, $43,426,972. Mr. DOUGLAS. Now, Mr. President, I am well aware of the fact that knives are dangerous. But, with a deficit of $5,000,000,000 facing us even before the Korean situation, a major surgical op- eration was even then in order. With the present international crisis, which is not a possibility but actually upon us, such an operation is already well under way and, while increasing taxes are needed, we simply must cut civilian ex- penses as well. For we are confronted with needs far greater than combating inflation. Manpower and resources are needed for our very security, and if we precommit ourselves to huge expendi- tures for nonessential items, what hap- pens when we find we should have been using these resources to protect our own safety? MAY HAVE TO RESORT TO A MEAT AX For this reason, since I have not had what would be called marked success in my attempts to use a surgeons’ knife, I shall probably be forced to resort to the good old meat ax. In my office this morning I looked at & surgeons’ scalpel and at a meat ax, and I debated for some time whether I should bring those two instruments to the floor of the Senate. I decided that it would be somewhat undignified to do so, Therefore, following the example of the Senator from Maryland [Mr. Ty- biIncs] I will say that I have them here in a suitcase. If anyone wishes to look at them, I shall be very happy to show them, and admission will be by ticket only. The use of the surgeon's knife requires great care and I can certainly vouch for its being difficult and time consuming, The meat ax Is easy. Just raise it above your head and come down on the bu- reaus with a resounding whack. But before doing this—being reluctantly pushed into wielding an unscientific meat ax— A “BIIARP MEAT AX WIELDED WITH CARE” I intend to try one more approach; namely, a very sharp meat ax wielded with care. I send to the desk an amendment for myself and the Senator from Missouri [Mr. Kem] and the Senator from Dela- ware (Mr. Wiriturams] which I shall call “The sharp meat ax wielded with care.” It is a substitute for the committee amendment striking out the Thomas- Taber features of the House bill. Section 1001 of this amendment reads: Reductions in appropriations contained in this act are hereby made in the sum of 81,- 000,000,000. Such reductions shall be made in the following manner: I may say that the amendment pro- posed by the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Bripaes] and the Senator from Virginia [Mr. Byrp] pro- poses a reduction of $800,000,000 across the board. Our amendment proposes a reduction of $1,000,000,000, and orders those reductions to be made in selected areas, This I quote from the first part of this amendment: (a) Funds appropriated in this act for sunplies and materials, for lands and struc- tures, and for Federal aid postwar highways, shall be reduced by $500,000,000: Provided, That the Director of the Bureau of the Budget is empowered to make such reduc- tions among the departments and agencies in the executive branch of the Government in such a manner as to provide for the most efficient use of the Nation’s manpower and resources consistent with prevailing needs for an adequate national defense and a sound national economy. FIVE-HUNDRED~MILLION*-DOLLAR REDUCTION IN CONBTRUCTION ITEMS Thus, the one-half of the reduction would be made on civilian construction. Most of it, of course, would have to be taken from rivers, harbors, navigation, fiood control, reclamation projects, and highways, but not necessarily all of it. Throughout the bill we find a great many construction items which could be re- duced. Furthermore, part of these re- ductions would be made from supplies and materials, most of which go for con- struction, but by no means all of it. Paragraph (a) therefore specifically gives to the Bureau of the Budget the power to make these cuts, but it also specifies the areas in which reduc- tions are to be made. Paragraph (a) also charges the Budget Bureau with the responsibility to see that these cuts are made in such a manner as to provide for the most efficient use of the Nation's manpower and resources consistent with prevailing needs for an adequate national defense and a sound national economy, The total amounts budgeted for con- struction—and on this point Members of the Senate should consult page 13 of Summary of Obligations by Objecuis, pre- pared by the Bureau of the Budget—for nonexempt items, the exemptions being listed in section 1002 of my amendment, is about $1,040,000,000. Total budgeted amounts for supplies and materials which are nonexempt in my amendment is about $820,000,000. The total amount in the bill for Federal aid postwar highways will be between $405,000,000 and $385,000,000 depending on the final figure adopted in conference. This makes a total of about $2,225,000,- 000 from which the $500,000,000 reduc- tion provided for in paragraph (a) would be drawn. This is a 22-percent reduc- tion below the budget although since some reductions have already been made in the bill before us, the actual cut would amount to about 25 percent in this area. FIVE-HUNDRED-MILLION-DOLLAR REDUCTION IN ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE The rest of the billion-dollar reduction or the other five hundred million is made in pragraph (b), which reads: (bo) Funds appropriated in this act for personal services, travel, transportation of things, communications services, rents and utilities, printing and reproduction, other contractual services, and equipment shall be reduced by $500,000,000 which reduction shall be made among the departments and egencies in the executive branch of the Gov- ernment on a pro rata basis: Provided, That reductions in personnel shall, where practi- cable, be made by eliminating a total of 5 percent of the personnel provided for in the President's budget and the filling of 4 total of not more than one-half of all vacancies which occur by reason of death, resignation, or otherwise: Provided further, That the re- ductions provided for in this subsection among the departments shall be made on a department-wide basis and the secretaries of the departments are empowered by means of transfer and adjustments, to keep the agencies within their respective depart- ments at a maximum of efficiency: Provided Jurther, That the Director of the Bureau of the Budget is empowered, by means of trans- fera and adjustments to administer the re- ductions provided for in this subsection among the nondepartmental and tndepend- ent agencies In such a manner as to provide for a maximum of efficiency: Provided fur- ther, that hereafter, the amount of annual leave for Government employees, including employees of the Postal Service, shall be at the rate of 20 days per year and the amount of sick leave shall be at the rate of 12 days per year for classified and wage-board em- ployees (except that no annual leave nor sick leave shall be granted to any Govern- ment employee who has not been in con- tinuous Government service for at least 1 calendar year).
1950 This paragraph apportions a $500,000,- 000 reduction among the departments and agencies on © pro rata basis. But it specifies the areas where the reductions are to be made so that Congress would not be completely abdicating the power of appropriations. Paragraph (b) would empower the secretaries of the various departments, however, to maintain a maximum of ef- ficiency by means of transfers and ad- justments between the various bureaus within the respective departments. The Bureau of the Budget would have this power with respect to the nondepart- mental and independent agencies, some of which may be too small to completely absorb these cuts by themselves while others can absorb more than their pro- rated share, The total amounts budgeted for those items in the nonexempt agencies in the categories from which reductions would be made are approximately as follows: Personnel ~.--.--.-.----... $3, 560, 000, 000 Travel___._.--------------. 138, 000, 000 Transportation of things... 42, 000, 000 Communications -...-.--.. 35, 000, 000 Rent and utility services... 103, 000, 000 Printing and reproductions. 28, 000, 000 Other contractual services_. 347, 000, 000 Equipment .....-.--------- 298, 000, 000 0) 7:) 4, 551, 000, 000 Thus, the $500,000,000 reduction would amount to a cut of about 11 percent of the total amounts budgeted for these purposes. However, since the amounts provided for in the bill before us are somewhat less than the budgeted amounts the actual reduction would be closer to 12 or 12% percent. PERSONNEL REDUCTIONS Reductions in personnel are to be made by eliminating 5 percent and then filling only one-half the vacancies to accom- plish further reductions. This amendment differs very sharply from the Thomas-Taber and the Jensen amendments, because the combination of the Thomas-Tahber and Jensen amend- ments in the House provided for filling only one-tenth of the vacancies, with a cut of 10 percent superimposed upon this. This would mean a reduction in person- nel of over 30 percent by the end of the year and an average cut for the year of over 20 percent. My proposal is for a cut of 5 percent, and then for filling only one-half of the vacancies. I may say that my initial estimate of a cut of 5 percent is built up from two items, first, eliminating the 2 percent of Government employees who are the most inefficient; then, if we cut the leave of classified and wage-board employees from 26 working days to 20, or a cut of from five and a half calendar weeks to four calendar weeks, and reduce sick leave from 3 weeks to 2% weeks, we effect a@ saving of around 3 percent in the num- ber of governmental employees. So that by dismissing the most inefficient 2 per- cent, and reducing Government leave, which will save 3 percent, we can effect @ personnel reduction of 5 percent, and, in addition to that, fill only half the vacancies which occur, With increasing needs for manpower in the Defense Establishment and war CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE production, I cannot believe this would work any great hardship on the workers themselves. The displaced workers would be able to find jobs elsewhere. They would be transferred from the de- partments which are overstaffed into agencies of the national defense or into private jobs which will be understaffed. The net result would be a transfer from places where the employees are less effi- cient into places where they are more efficient. This is especially true since only 5 per- cent are to be subject to a reduction in force while other personnel reductions would be made by filling only one-half of the vacancies which occur because of death, resignation, or otherwise. Per- sonnel turn-over is about 26 percent so that filling one-half of the vacancies which occur during 1 year would amount to about 7 percent. When this is combined with the 5 per- cent eliminated by a reduction in force we would have a total over-all reduction for the first year of 12 percent. The paragraph contains the qualifications “insofar as practicable” to allow for ex- ceptional cases where turn-over is at an unusually high rate or where the pro- vision would work a hardship on agencies in keeping staffed with key per- sonnel. Meanwhile, personnel generally is only one of several categories where reductions would be made. It may be that some agencies would prefer to make greater cuts in travel or other categories and less in personnel. This flexibility would operate with respect to all the areas selected for reductions since the location of soft spots may vary from agency to agency, REDUCE AND EQUALIZE ANNUAL AND SICK LEAVE While reductions in personnel would ordinarily be made to the extent of 12 percent, actual manpower would be re- duced only about 10 percent. This is true because reducing the annual and sick leave of classified und wage-board employees to 20 days would mean that each employee so reduced would put in about 3 percent more actual working time. Since postal workers’ leave would be increased, however, the net gain in actual hours worked per employee would be only about 2 percent, which can be subtracted from the cut of 12 percent to make a net manpower reduction in the civilian agencies of 10 percent. Further- more, the leave provision would apply to all Government employees, whether they work for agencies in the exempt or non- exempt categories. This would increase the manpower in the Defense Establish- ment and other agencies which are doing work vital to national defense. I have previously presented the case for setting annual leave at 20 days, and I will not burden the Senate with further arguments on this point. I will simply say that 20 working days, or 1 month with week ends, is long enough for a vacation, and is still very liberal in com- parison with that given by private em- ployers. This would still be better than the leave given by 994409 percent of pri- vate employers. The present 26 days of leave is excessive, because that number of days, on a basis of a 5-day week, is 5% weeks. When there are added 15 11317 days of sick leave, which makes 41 days, and 8 holidays, making 49 days, plus the other days of leave on the occasions of visits of Brazilian and other Presidents and when the weather is hot, the total leave given to Government workers is much larger than appears on its face. It is unjustified at any time, and cer- tainly in the period which is close to a national emergency. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. DOUGLAS. Iyield for a question. Mr, WHERRY. I merely wish to ask aquestion. I did not hear the beginning of the Senator’s address. Is the pro- posal the Senator is now speaking of a general over-all cut in the bill? Mr. DOUGLAS. Yes. I shall be glad to furnish the Senator a copy of my address. Mr. WHERRY. I should like to have it. Does the distinguished Senator set out item by item what he intends to cut? Mr. DOUGLAS. Yes. Mr. WHERRY. In all the chapters? Mr. DOUGLAS. Oh, no; it is a gen- eral cut, but it is to be applied to spe- cific areas. In brief, it calls for a reduc- tion of $500,000,000 on construction, sup- plies, and materials, and $500,000,000 on transportation, personal services, com- munications, and so forth. The cuts are divided in that manner. The total cut is $1,000,000,000, or approximately $200,- 000,000 greater than that provided in the so-called Bridges-Byrd amendment. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for another question? Mr. DOUGLAS, I yield. Mr. WHERRY. I do not want to be- labor this matter. I am trying to get the picture. Would the proposed cut apply to all construction projects throughout all the chapters of the bill? Mr. DOUGLAS. Yes. Mr. WHERRY. And the same is true with respect to transportation? Mr. DOUGLAS. Personnel and trans- portation and other areas. I hope the Senator will be given a copy of my ad- dress. Mr. WHERRY. Will the Senator yield for one more question, please? Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield. Mr. WHERRY. Is the cut to be made by the department heads, or does the Senator in his amendment provide for the cuts? Mr. DOUGLAS, Within the depart- ments the personnel and other cuts are to be made by the departments. For the nondepartmental and independent agencies the Bureau of the Budget will make the apportionment of the person- nel and other cuts. The Bureau of the Budget will make the cuts for construc- tion materials and supplies. But there are certain standards which we lay down which will direct them in doing this, namely, on the personnel item a 5 per- cent cut in the number of persons aided by a reduction in annual Jeave and then filling only one-half of the vacancies which occur. Mr. WHERRY. Will the Senator yield for another question? Mr, DOUGLAS. I am glad to yield for another question,
11318 Mr. WHERRY. Will the head of the department be the one who can use his best judgment as to where the cut is to be applied? Mr, DOUGLAS. On everything except construction. Mr. WHERRY. That is what I want to know. Does the Senator provide for the cut on construction by items then, or does the department head with re- spect to each chapter of the bill make the cuts? Mr. DOUGLAS. The FPureau of the Budget makes the construction cut of $500,000,000. The Bureau is directed to cut materials, construction and supplics for the nondefense and the nonexempt agencies $500,000,000. Mr. WHERRY. So the Senator’s amendment applies only to appropria- tions for construction outside of military needs? Mr. DOUGLAS. Oh, yes. As a mat- ter of fact, the list of exemptions is very similar to that provided for in the so-called Bridges-Byrd amendment, with one or two exceptions which I shall men- tion later. Mr. WHERRY. Will the Senator yield for one more question? Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield. Mr. WHERRY As I understand, the Senator’s amendment provides for a cut of $500,000,000 in construction, and so forth, and a cut of $500,000,000 on trans- portation and personal services and so forth. Mr. DOUGLAS. Yes. Mr. WHERRY. So the amendment provides for a total cut of $1,000,000,000? Mr. DOUGLAS, Yes. Mr. WHERRY. I thank the Senator. Mr. DOUGLAS. I thank my genial friend from Nebraska for his inquiries. Mr. President, as I said the present 26 days of leave is excessive, because it is not measured by calendar days but by work days. It amounts therefore to 5% weeks. It should be lowered in normal times, but our manpower needs to main- tain adequate defense make it espe- cially imperative that we make this change immediately. The leave provision also increases the postal workers from 15 to 20 days. In the future, the national manpower sit- uation will force postal workers to work harder and I believe it worth while to give them a month's vacation. Leave provisions should be equalized anyway within the Government service. CONGRESS WOULD DECIDE WHERE TO CUT WHILE ALLOWING ADMINISTRATIVE FLEXIBILITY The reduction provided by para- graphs (a) and (b) of my amendment are made while providing two safe- guards. First. The areas where the re- reductions are to be made are deter- mined by Congress. Thus Congress de- termines where the reductions are to be made. It does not merely turn the problem over to the administrative agencies. Second. Flexibility to allow efficient administration is allowed. I do not assert that this is any final answer. Reducing expenditures should be car- ried out selectively item by item. That is what I have been trying to do without much success, but to the best of my ability, during the past two weary CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE weeks, But I assert that this amend- ment is preferable to an across-the- board percentage cut, and that, if it is a meat ax, it is a sharp meat ax wielded with care. EXEMPTIONS The exemptions provided are the ob- vious ones. They are similar to those provided for in the Bridges-Byrd amend- ment with a few important exceptions, Foreign aid, which is, in my judgment, a defense expenditure, is exempt, The Post Office is only exempt in its expend- iturcs for railroad transportation of the mail The Post Office is included ex- cept for railway mail transportation. I shall, however, if others of my colleagues do not do so, offer a specific amendment on the question of railway mail trans- portation costs. I would also exempt subsidies where the amounts paid are get by law. This will prevent agencies from making their reductions in subsidies and then coming back for deficiency appropriations. I wovld also exempt the Coast Guard, which is now an agency of war and na- tional defense, and not merely an agency of domestic administration. I have made no provisions for reduc- ing loans. I am afraid that under the Bridges-Byrd amendment, a department might make its total 10 percent reduc- tion by holding up 2 or 3 large loans such as those given by REA or the Farm Credit Administration. If this were done, no waste weuld be eliminated at all. I would, however, urge that all loans be scrutinized very carefully and that only those which will be in the national interest be given. The Thomas-Taber and Jensen amendments have been thoroughly dis- cussed and I will not burden the Senate with further talk about them. They are both too inflexible and they would be administratively difficult. In appealing to the Senate favorably to consider my amendment, I ask that Senators read the amendment. I have additional copies at my desk. I shall also be happy to talk to anyone who desires more information and will welcome all who care to join me in sponsoring it. Any Senator who wants to add his name to the amendment will be welcome. In closing I will simply say that I have spent a great deal of time studying these appropriations, and while the surgeon’s knife approach of carefully cutting indi- vidual items is best, I believe this amend- ment, which is a sharp meat ax wielded with care is preferable to a blunt meat ax of an across-the-board percentage cut. Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- sent that the amendment offered by my- self, the Senator from Missouri [Mr. Kem], and the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Wiiirams] be printed at this point in my remarks. There being no objection, the amend- ment was ordered printed as follows: In Meu of the matter proposed to be stricken on pages 444, 445, and 446 by the committee amendment, insert the following: “CHAPTER X-A-—CGENERAL REDUCTION IN APPROPRIATIONS “Bec. 1001. Reductions in appropriations contained in this act are hereby made in the JULY 28 sum of §81,000,000,000. Such reductions shall be made in the following manner: “(a) Funds appropriated in this act for supplies and materials, for lands and struc- tures, and for Federal ald postwar highways shall be reduced by 500,000,000: Provided, That the Director of the Bureau of the Budg- et is empowered to make such reductions among the departments and agencies in the executive branch of the Government in such @ manner as to provide for the most efficient use of the Nation's manpower and resources consistent with prevailing needs for an ade- quate national defense and a sound national economy. “(b) Funds appropriated in this act for personal services, travel, transportation of things, communications services, rents and utilities, printing and reproduction, other contractual services, and equipment shall be reduced by $500,000,000 which reduction shall be made among the departments and agencies in the executive branch of the Government on a pro rata basis’ Provided, That reductions in personnel shall, where practicable, be made by eliminating a total of 6 percent of the personnel provided for in the President’s budget and the filling of a total of not more than one-half of all vacan- cies which occur by reason of death, resigna- tion, or otherwise. Provided further, That the reductions provided for in this subsec- tion among the departments shall be made on a department-wide basis and the secre- taries of the departments are empowered, by meuns of transfers and adjustments, to keep tho agencies within their respective de- partments at a maximum of efficiency: Pro- vided further, That the Director of the Bu- reau of the Budget is empowered, by means of transfers and adjustments to administer the reductions provided for in this subsec- tion among the nondepartmental and inde- pendent agencies in such a manner as to provide for a maximum of efficiency: Pro- vided further, That hereafter, the amount of annual loave for Government employees, in- cluding employees of the postal service, shall be at the rate of 20 days per year and the amount of sick leave shall be at the rate of 12 days per year for classified and wage- board employees (except that no annual leave nor sick leave shall bé granted to any Government employee who has not been in continuous Government service for at least one calendar year). “Src. 1002. The reductions provided for in this chepter shall not apply to the following (except that the annual- and sick-leave pro- visos shall apply to all classified and wage- board employees and postal workers). “(o) Chapter X, chapter X-B and the amount appropriated to the General Bervices Administration for carrying out the provi- sions of the Strategic and Critical Matertals Stockpiling Act of July 23, 1946; “(b) Appropriations in title I of chapter VITI for the Executive Office of the President under the headlines “Compensation of the President,” “The White House Office,” “Emergency Fund for the President,” and “Executive Mansion and Grounds.” “(c) Appropriations for the atomic-energy program; “(d) Trust funds; “(e) Funda of Government corporations excluding those made available in this act (1) for administrative expenses and (2) by appropriation from the general fund of the Treasury; “(f) Amounts (other than under the Veterans’ Administration) for furnishing medical and hospital services and domiciliary care, excluding (1) administrative expenses not directly connected with the operation of a specific hospital, dispensary, or clinic, and (2) expenses for employee health service programs; “(g) Amounts provided in this act for payment of obligations incurred under prior appropriations or authorizations, and obli- gated balances of reappropriations;
1950 “(h) Appropriations of, or measured by, receipts, “(i) Amounts appropriated by this act for the operation of law-enforcement agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investiga- tion, Bureau of Customs, Immigration and Naturalization Services, and the Secret Serv- ioe, or for the payment of compensation and expenses of agents and auditors of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, and such other officers and employees of other agencies whose duties primarily portain to intelll- gence operations (including funds trans- ferred pursuant to section 6 (a) of the act of June 20, 1949; 63 Stat. 211), or to the in- vestigation, apprehension, prosecution, or detention of persons suspected or convicted of offenses against the criminal laws of the United States; “(j) Amounts provided for any program of the Veterans’ Administration, excluding (1) administrative expenses not directly con- nected with the operation of a specific hos- pital, dispensary, clinic, or facility, and (2) expenses for employee health service pro- grams, “(k) Grants (other than those for Federal~ ald postwar highways), subsidies, and con- tributions where amounts are determined by laws; “(1) Amounts provided to make payment of or contributions toward pensions, retire- ment and disability annuities and benefits, employee's death or injury benefits, or other items of a similar nature, “(m) Appropriations for refunds, awards, and indemnities “(n) Appropriations for the Coast Guard, and “(o) The amount appropriated to the Post Office Department for railroad transporta- tion of the mail.” Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I move to insert in lieu of the matter stricken by the committee amendment on pages 444, 445, and 446, an amend- ment which I have sent to the desk, which I now ask to have read and made the order of business. Mr. KEM. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, a par- liamentary inquiry first, please. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it. Mr. WHERRY. Is unanimous con- sent required to have the amendment made the pending business in view of the fact that the amendment runs into an- other chapter? The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes; it would be out of order to consider the amendment in its present form, because it relates both to the chapter which we are just finishing and the following chapter, which has not been stated and is not before the Senate. Mr. WHERRY. Yes. I have no ob- jection to the amendment being printed and to have it lie on the table to be of- fered at the proper time. Mr. DOUGLAS. The proper time will come in just about a fraction of a second, Mr. WHERRY. I make the point of order, Mr. President, that the amend- ment is not in order. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment would not be in order as a portion of it relates to the next chap- ter, which is not now before the Senate. Mr. KEM. Mr. President, will the Senator from Tlinois yield? ti Mr. DOUGLAS, I yield for a ques- on, Mr KEM. I should like to associate m~:elf with what the Senator from Illi- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE nois has stated about the necessity of reducing the nonmilitary expenses of the Government, I have voted for most, if not all, of the selective amendments proposed by him. In my opinion, the Senator from Illinois has performed a fine public service in his effort to make a selective reduction in the appropria- tion bill. I think he has some qualms about the results to some of his col- leagues of what he has done, but I wish to say that, in my judgment, the way in which he has used the scalpel has been so skillful that it has left no scars. I think there can be no doubt about that. So I hope he will continue his efforts. I believe that time will show the great necessity for the Congress to do what the junior Senator from Illinois is seeking to have done. Mr. DOUGLAS. I thank the Senator from Missour1. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent—— Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, a par- liamentary inquiry. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, I have the floor; and in order that the Senator may propound a parliamentary inquiry, I have to yield first. Mr. President, no chapter of the ap- propriations bill is now before the Sen- ate at this time, I believe. Is that cor- rect? The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. Mr, WHERRY. Iask unanimous con- sent that the Senate pass over chapter X-A and proceed to the consideration of chapter X-B. I shall be glad to yield now to the Senator from Illinois for a question. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, re- serving the right to object, let me inquire why the Senator wishes to pass over chapter X-—A, which logically would come before the Senate at this time. Mr, WHERRY. I am merely asking that it be passed over temporarily. Mr. DOUGLAS. Would it not be well to consider chapter X-A now? Mr, WHERRY. The reason why I think the subject matter of chapter X-A or the subject matter the Senator from Illinois, himself, has been discussing should properly be taken up by us at the end of the bill is that before an amendment such as the Bridges-Byrd amendment or the so-called Douglas amendment is considered by the Senate it seems to me the Senate should proceed to consider the foreign-aid section of the bill, and should see whether a cut is to be made in that section of the bill, Then we can con- sider as the last chapter, the one to which, really, either the so-called Doug- las amendment or the Bridges-Byrd amendment would apply. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, the foreign-aid section of the bill can be dealt with by means of amendments of- sae either to chapter X-A or chapter I may say that Iam very much pleased with what the Senator from Missouri has said. Unless I am abusing his compli- ments, I wish to say that I think the amendment should not be known sole- ly as mine, but should be known as the Kem-Williams-Douglas amendment. 11319 Then we shall have awaiting our con- sideration both the Bridges-Byrd amend- ment and the Kem-Williams-Douglas amendment—thus indicating that a fine spirit of nonpartisanship urge for econ- omy pervades this Chamber. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, in that spirit, I ask unanimous consent that chapter X-A of the bill be passed over temporarily, for the reasons already stated. Mr DOUGLAS. Mr. President, reserv- ing the right to object, I am not satis- fied in my own mind that that would be the proper course. It pains me very much to have to object, but I am afraid I shall have to object. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, I think my request is an absolutely constructive one. There are many Members of the Senate who would like to have all the chapters of the bill considered before the amendment now known, as the Sen- ator from Illinois has said, as the Doug- las-Kem amendment or before the Bridges-Byrd amendment is considered and adopted, if one of them is adopted, depending upon whichever one is con- sidered by the Senate to have merit. It seems to me that the proper time to consider them is after the bill has been amended in all other respects, at which time we shall have before us the bill in its entirety, and then we can consider whether to make an over-all cut. Mr. President, if I am not able to ob- tain unanimous consent for the purpose I have requested, I shall move that the Senate temporarily pass over chapter X-—A of the bill, and proceed to the con- sideration of the chapter X-B, I sup- pose that I must include in the motion a date, so as to provide that chapter X-—A be taken up at a time certain, Mr McFARLAND, Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. WHERRY. I am glad to yield to the Senator from Arizona, if he wishes to propose a modification of my request or make a motion. Mr. McFARLAND. Mr. President, I hope the distinguished junior Senator from Illinois will not object to the re- quest that we temporarily pass over chapter X-A of the bill, because before we pass upon the amendments calling for over-all reductions, I believe we should know just what other provisions the bill is going to contain So, Mr. President, personally I think we should take up the ECA chapter of the bill, and then should proceed to con- sider the amendment which the distin- guished Senator from Washington [Mr. Macnuson] has proposed, and should dispose of it. After having done that, and efter we know what other provi- sions the bill is going to contain, we shall be better able to pass upon other amend- ments which may be offered. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President—— Mr. WHERRY. Mr. Prosident, I have the floor. I yielded to the Senator, did I not? The PRESIDING OFFICER The Senator from Nebraska has the floor. Mr. WHERRY. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I shall be glad to yield to the Senator from Illinois, if I may do so without prejudice to my right to the floor.
11320 Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I wish to thank the Senator from Nebraska. Mr. WHERRY. The Senator from Minols is certainly welcome. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I think I should state what is the real issue behind this parliamentary maneuvering : We are really jockeying to see whether the Bridges-Byrd amendment shall be acted on first or whether the Kem- Douglas amendment shall be acted on first. I have no personal feeling about this matter, but I have going on within me a real mental and ethical struggle, which I wish to have resolved in the easiest manner possible. I regard the Bridges-Byrd amendment as the worst possible way in which to cut the budget. However, the need for cut- ting the budget is so great that if all other methods fail, then, with certain qualifications, I shall be compelled to vote for the Bridges-Byrd amendment. But I do not wish to do so unless first we have exhausted every other alter- native. I am approaching the Bridges-Byrd amendment with the same alacrity that a cat exhibits when it is grabbed by the tail and is pulled backward across a thick rug, at which it claws energetically, doing its utmost to resist. In short, as each amendment is defeated, I find myself nearer and nearer the rapids and nearer and nearer the Bridges-Byrd amend- ment, Mr. WHERRY. Then, Mr. Pres- ident—— Mr. DOUGLAS Mr. President, will the Senator from Nebraska permit me to continue? Mr. WHERRY. Yes. Mr. DOUGLAS. I thank the Senator for not imposing the guillotine upon me; I thank him for his characteristic cour- tesy. The point I want to make is this: I have tried selective cuts and have not been successful. However, I think a blunt, meat-ax approach like the Bridges-Byrd amendment is wrong. With reservations, however, I will be forced to vote for it if we fail in all other attempts to reduce expenditures. But before voting for it I would like to pre- sent my general amendment which calls for a larger cut, and which specifies the areas where the cuts are to be made. That is why I wish to have my amend- ment called up first I think it isa much better way for Congress to make re- ductions. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Let the Chair state to the Senator from Illinois that 1f the unanimous-consent request is agreed to, the amendment of the Senator from Jilinois will occupy exactly the game position which it will occupy otherwise. Mr. DOUGLAS, Would it be the first to be acted upon? The PRESIDING OFFICER, Yes; the first to be acted upon——. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, that is the whole issue. If that is the case, Iam satisfied. Mr. WHERRY. dent-———- The PRESIDING OFFICER. In order for the amendment of the Senator from Illinois to be first considered, the Sen- Oh, no, Mr. Presi- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE ator from Tlinois would have to be the first Senator to obtain the floor at that time. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, that fs a very important point. So the ques- tion will be which Senator obtains the floor first. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, I have the floor, have I not? ‘The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska has the floor. Mr. WHERRY. If my motion is acted upon favorably, that will mean that the Senate will proceed to take up the ECA chapter of the bill. So the amendment of the Senator from Tlinois will not be prejudiced in that case. In such event he will be just as well off at the time when he wishes to present his amend- ment as he is now. He does not have the floor now. If he agrees to the unanimous-consent request, then it will simply be a question of which amendment comes up first. If the Bridges-Byrd amendment is offered first, the Senator from Illinois can move to strike out the language of the amend- ment and insert the language of the Douglas-Kem amendment; or if the Douglas-Kem amendment is offered first, the Bridges-Byrd amendment could be offered as a substitute for it. So, Mr. President, I hope the distin- guished junior Senator from Illinois will not object to the requested unanimous- consent agreement, for he is always charitable and courteous, and wishes to go along in a good bipartisan spirit. However, the motion already has been made to postpone until Wednesday of next week, for final consideration, chap- ter X-A of the bill. So far as the handling of the amend- ments is concerned, that will depend on whick Senator obtains the floor and which amendment prevails, either the s.-called Dougslas-Kem amendment or the Bridges-Byrd amendment. Mr. President, I have made the mo- tion. Now I shall be glad to yield for a question. Mr. McFARLAND. Mr. will the Senator yield? Mr. WHERRY. I yield to the acting mojority leader. Let me say now that if I may obtain unanimous consent, I shall withdraw the motion. Mr. McFARLAND. Mr. President, I do not wish to be classified as associated with any jockeying in favor of one side or another side, so far as the amend- ments are concerned. I did not have that in mind. I supported the course suggested by the Senator from Nebraska because I thought it was the most or- derly way to proceed. Mr, WHERRY. That is correct Mr. McFARLAND. Although I favor temporarily laying aside chapter X, I certainly would resist a motion to take it up at a definite time. I do not think that would be the proper procedure. I think we should lay it aside temo- rarily, and then proceed. Of course, the distinguished junior Senator from Illinois is just about as quick on the jump as is the minority leader——- Mr. WHERRY. Hc is better, Mr. President, (Laughter.) President, JULY 28 Mr. McFARLAND. In other words, the Senator from Illinois should be able to obtain the floor. So I hope the Senator from Illinois will agree to the request to temporarily lay aside this chapter of the bill. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I wish to be very obliging. I have a very co- cperative mood at all times, and par- ticularly this afternoon, If we can reach a unanimous-consent agreement that when we take up chapter X-A of the bill, my amendment will be the first order of business, I shall be very glad, indeed, to agree to the re- quested unanimous-consent agreement. Mr. President, I believe I have the floor now—— Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, I have the floor; I yielded for a question or, if there was no objection, for a comment. Do I not have the floor? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska has the floor. Mr. WHERRY. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I wish to be fair—— Mr. DOUGLAS. I wish to be fair to the Senator. Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, why do not both Senators be fair to me, and yield to me? Mr. WHERRY. I shall be glad to yield once again to the junior Senator from Illinois, providing I do not preju- dice my ¥ights to the floor, I ask unan- imous consent that I may do so. Mr DOUGLAS. I thank the Senator from Nebraska. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request? Mr. LANGER. I object. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objec- tion is heard. Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Nebraska yield to the Sen- ator from Washington? Mr. WHERRY. I yield to the Senator from Washington for a question. Mr. MAGNUSON. As the Senator knows, there are two very important amendments pending. Mr. WHERRY. That is correct. Mr. MAGNUSON. As to those amend- ments, it was generally understood we would finish the committee amendments and would then consider the two amend- ments because they are in the nature of new matter. They are probably the two most important amendments, and I was wondering whether, under this arrange- ment, we would go on with the bill, Mr. WHERRY. Oh, certainly. Mr. MAGNUSON. And finish the committee amendments? Mr. WHERRY. My motion is to tem- porarily pass over chapter X-A, and I feel that the majority leader should then bring up the so-called Douglas-Kem amendment, at the conclusion of the bill, for the reasons I have already stated— that if cuts are made in the ECA items, it will then be necessary to adjust the so-called over-all cut amendment, whichever one prevails. Mr. MAGNUSON, It makes a differ- ence, Mr. WHERRY. The only time that could be done would be following the conclusion of the bill, at which time each
1950 and every Senator will have his right to the floor, I have to make a motion, however, to postpone it to a day certain. I did so Wednesday. I should like to modify that motion to, say, Monday, and when Monday comes, if we are not ready for it, we shall have to modify it, I pre- sume, and extend it for a longer period. I do not want to delay passage of the pending bill, but the motion necessitates a day certain. I shall make the motion on Monday. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator first want to let the Chair put the unanimous-consent request? Mr. WHERRY. The Senator from Dlinois objected to it. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr President, I de- sire to be thoroughly obliging, thoroughly cooperative in all respects on these mat. ters, and I am willing to withdraw my objection. Mr. WHERRY. That is fine. Mr. DOUGLAS. But I hope that the Chair or whoever may be occupying the chair, will cast his glance all around the Chamber when it comes time to recog- mz2 Senators, when this matter comes up. Mr WHERRY. Mr President, I with- draw the motion I made, and I thank the Senator from Illinois for his coopera- tion. But I do not want the glancing part of the argument to prevail upon the occupant of the chair when the time comes to consider chapter X-A. Mr. DOUGLAS. I merely said I hoped the eyes of the Presiding Officer would describe a semicircle—an arc, so to speak, and that he would not ignore the junior Senator from Illinois when the proper time came. The PRESIDING OFFICER Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and it 1s so ordered. Chapter X--A will be passed over. CONTROL OF ANCHORAGE AND MOVE- MENT OF FOREIGN-FLAG VESSELS IN UNITED STATES WATERS The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hoey in the chair) laid before the Sen- ate the amendment of the House of Rep- resentatives to the bill (S. 3859) to authorize the President to control the anchorage and movement of foreign- flag vessels in waters of the United States when the national security of the United States 1s endangered, and for other purposes, which was to strike out all af- ter the enacting clause and insert: That section 1 of title II of the act of June 15, 1917 (40 Stat, 217; U. S.C, title 60, sec. 191), is amended by adding at the end there- of the following new paragraph: “Whenever the President finds that the security of the United States is endangered by renzon of actual or threatened war, oF invasion, or insurrection, or subversive ac- tivity, or of disturbances or threatened dis- turbances of the international relations of the United States, the President is author- ized to institute such measures and issue euch rules and regulations— “(a) to govern the anchorage and move- ment of any foreign-flag vessels in the terri- torial waters of the United States, to inspect such vessels at any time, to place guards thereon, and, if necessary in his opinion in order to secure such vessels from damage or injury, or to prevent damage or injury to any harbor or waters of the United States, or CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE to secure the observance of rights and obll- gations of the United States, may take for such purposes full possession and control of such vessels and remove therefrom the offl- cers and crew thereof, and all other persons not especially authorized by him to go or remain on board thereof; “(b) to safeguard against destruction, loss, or injury from sabotage or other subversive acts, accidents, or other causes of similar nature, vessels, harbors, ports, and water- front facilities in the United States, the Canal Zone, and all territory and water, con- tinental or insular, subject to the jurisdic tion of the United States. Any appropriation available to any of the executive departments shall be available to carry out the provisions of this title.” Sec. 2. Section 4 of title II of the act of June 15, 1917 (40 Stat. 220; U. 8. C, title 50, sec. 194), is amended to read as follows: “The President may employ such depart- ments, agencies, officers, or instrumentali- ties of the United States as he may deem necessary to carry out the purpose of this title.” Src. 3. Section 2 of title II of the act of June 15, 1917 (40 Stat. 220; U S C, title 50, sec. 192), as amended, is amended by adding at the end thereof the following subsection: “(a) If any other person knowingly fails to comply with any regulation or rule issued or order given under the provisions of this title, or knowingly obstructs or interferes with the exercise of any power conferred by this title, he shall be punished by im- prisonment for one more than 10 years and may, at the discretion of the court, be fined not more than $10,000.” Sec. 4. The provisions of this act shall expire on such date as may be specified by concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress. Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, I wonder whether I might impose upon the distinguished chairman of the Ap- propriations Committee and the minor- ity and majority leaders long enough for a brief statement. Last Friday we passed a piece of highly emergent legislation pertaining to waterfront security of the United States. The bill went to the House, and the House has passed it with two minor clarifying amendments. I ask unani- mous consent that the Senate return to consideration of the bill (S. 3859) and I move that the Senate agree to the House amendments Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, I am not going to object to the unanimous- consent request, because I have already talked to the distinguished Senator from Maine [Mr. Brewster], about this matter. Mr. MAGNUSON. Let us take action on the House amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Unani- mous consent is not required The House action is laid before the Senate as a matter of right. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, is this a conference report? The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is an amendment of the House transmitted by message. The question is on agreeing to the House amendment. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, that is what I wanted to have explained. I wanted to know what the House amend- ment was, Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, I shall explain the House amendment, 11321 The House has added two clarifying amendments, The only one of any im- portance is the following on page 1: Whenever the President finds that the security of the United States is endangered by reason of actual or threatened war, or invasion, or insurrection, or subversive ac- tivity, or of disturbances or threatened dis- turbances of the international relations of the United States, the President is author- ized to institute such measures and issue such rules and regulations— In other words, the President is then authorized to do certain things for the protection of the water front. The House added “or insurrection, or sub- versive activity.” I think it makes the bill much stronger Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, to the bill as passed by the Senate, the House has made this additional amendment, which I think Is a good one. Mr, MAGNUSON. It makes the bill stronger. Mr, WHERRY. For that reason, I hope the House amendment will be agreed to Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, I merely want to say as a matter of in- formation for the Recorp that I do not know whether the President will exer- cise this authority. I understand that if the bill is passed by the Senate today, as Iam sure it will be, the President will sign the bill immediately, and that will give him authority to proceed at once on our water fronts. This is not a na- tional emergency measure; it is only a limited emergency measure to take care of the water front security of the Nation. It is to prevent the entry into our ports of foreign-flag ships without notice either to the Coast Guard or the FBI, and enable them to make a search of the ships before they reach our territorial waters, in case they might have in their holds something which might be destruc- tive. It also has this purpose, which I think is a good one: As I have said before, the last stronghold of subversive activity in this country, in my opinion, or at least the last concentrated stronghold, has been around our water fronts. It would be impossible for destruction to come to any great port of the United States, of which there are many, as the result of a ship coming into port with an atomic bomb or with biological or other destruc- tive agency, without some liaison ashore. This would give authority to the Presi- dent to instruct the FBI, in cooperation with the Ccast Guard, the Navy, or any other appropriate governmental agency, - to go to our water fronts and pick out people who might be subversives or se- curity risks to this country. I think it goes a long way toward taking care of the domestic situation, as related to this subject, particularly in view of the large amount of talk we have had in the Sen- ate within the past few days about Com- munists. The bill also protects that last loophole which is left, by which there might be some actual destruction along the shores of the United States. It also includes the Territories of the United States. I am thinking in particular of the Territories of Alaska and Hawaii, into whose ports many foreign-flag ships
11322 enter and from which they leave. Iam sure that the Senate and House, in act- ing with due speed on this measure, have done a really fine job in adding to the security of America. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of the Senator from Washington [Mr. Macnuson] to the House amendment, The motion was agreed to. THE KOREAN WAR MADE A POLITICAL ISSUE Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, I have just obtained a copy of the Washington Evening Star of today. I was horrified to find on page 1 the following headlines: “Democratic pamphlet makes Korean war major election issue—Kirwan group charges GOP obstructionism hastened Red aggression.” I want to call the attention of the Sen- ate to the fact that across page 1 of the Evening Star is the screaming headline, “Reds pressing all-out attack in Korea.” Under that headline is another headline, “Decisive battle on, MacArthur aide de- clares.”” Over the two adjacent columns on page 1 is the headline, 100,000-man draft expected to mean 505 quota for District of Columbia.” Next to that, Mr. President, it says, “News on Korea still expected to get worse.” So, Mr. President, at the very time thousands and thousands of our boys are over there dying or getting wounded, we find the Democratic National Commit- tee issuing a pamphlet attacking the Re- publican Party. Mr. President, to my mind, the issuing of this pamphlet is so contemptible, so out of place in a coun- try such as ours, in time of danger and crisis, that I want to read the article to show what men will stoop to in politics at the very time when our boys are in Korea fighting for their very lives. The article is by Gould Lincoln, one of our best newspapermen, and it reads as follows: The Korean war today was thrust officially into the coming congressional campaign as a major issue. The Democratic congressional committee, headed by Representative Krrwan, of Ohio, put out a 17-page memorandum, entitled “Background Infurmation on Korea,” to be used by Democratic candidates for the House. In it the committee charged the Red attack on southern Korea had been hastened by Republican opposition to the Mutual De- fonse Assistance Act of 1949 and to the Eco- ° nomic Assistance for Korea Act of 1049. The memorandum ts Leing placed tn the hands of each Democratic candidate. Chairman Kirwan said the committee was forced into taking this action by attacks on President Truman by Republicans in Con- gress and by the Republican National Com- mittee, in connection with the Korean war. I invite attention to the fact, Mr. President, that the vote supporting the President of the United States when we got into trouble in the Korean matter was unanimous on this side, I continue reading from the article: PARTISAN SPEECHES CHARGED “It has been the hope of responsible Dem- ocratic leaders,” Mr, Kirwan said, “that the Korean war and the emergency it has brought in the affairs of our Government would not be approached within the frame- work of partisan politics. However, Repub- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE lican leaders tn both Houses have made par- tisan speeches on the Korean war, in some cases even going so far as to blame the ad- ministration for the results of their own obstruction; and the Republican National Committee has issued a bitter partisan attack on our President in connection with the Korean war, notable chiefly in that it fol- lows the line of the Daily Worker, in some instances word for word.” The background information memoran- dum asserts that, since the close of World War II, a strong isolationist bloc in Congress has refused to accept the sound principle that political partisanship should stop at the water's edge. It charges this has done harm to international cooperation, “The Democratic Party adheres to the principles of a bipartisan foreign policy,” the memorandum continues, “and although the Democratic Party is justly proud of its rec- ord on the Korean aid bills, we do not wish to negate the bipartisan principle by starting & political fight over Korea. On the other hand, it is important to keep the record straight, if our party is subjected to isola- tionist attack because of Korea.” RECORD SINCE 1943 The record of the United States policy toward Korea since 1948 is set down, It be- gins when at Cairo, when the postwar indc- pendence of Korea was guaranteed by the United States, Britain, and China. At Pots- dam, in 1945, Russia joined in this guaran- ty. The memorandum recites the manner in which the United States and Russia joined in liberating Korea from Japanese rulers, and continues: “The present division of Korea along the thirty-eighth parallel was never intended by the United States; and after Japanese forces had been disarmed, this country sought to restore the unity of Korea,” but was blocked by Russia's refusal. This opposition by Rus- sia has been responsible for the continued division of the country up to the present, the statement says. It recites, too, the fact that the Soviet Government had organized a North Korean Army and equipped it with Russian material. In detail the millions of dollars contrib- uted by this country for Korean aid ts set forth in the memorandum—#856,000,000 for economic assistance for the years 1946 through 1949. Military assistance to Korea was included in the Mutual Defense Act of 1949, when that country shared 827,640,000 with Iran and the Philippines. GOP OPPOSITION CITED This Mutual Defense Act was opposed, the Memorandum said, by many Republicans, who supported crippling amendments, and voted against its passage. President Truman proposed, it adds, a little ECA for Korea in 1949, and that, too, was fought by Republicans. The bill for this purpose was defeated in the House by a@ vote of 192 to 191, although a Korean aid measure subsequently was passed. The memorandum insists, however, that the first vote in the House was a great blow to South Korea and that “the Communists logically concluded that, if the United States was so unwilling to grant aid to democratic Korea with money, it certainly would never provide aid with men.” I invite attention again to the fact, Mr. President, that in the House it was de- feated by a vote of 192 to 191. The article continues as follows: PARTIES SPLIT ON VOTE It points out that Republican opponents of the program said “that any aid to the Democratic Government of South Korea was ‘pouring money down a rat hole,’” and that the Communist radio so quoted them. The Arst vote in the House on the Korean economic aid bill showed 130 Republicans JULY 28 and 61 Democrats voting against, and 21 Re- publicans and 170 Democrats voting for it. The sole American Labor Party vote was cast against the bill, by Representative Marcantonio, of New York, who, the memo- randum says, follows the Communist line. In other words, Mr, President, at this very crucial time, we find the Democrats sending out such a pamphlet squarely dividing the House by a vote of 192 to 191, and creating an untold amount of trouble. I continue reading: The Democrats’ memorandum brought quick response from the Republicans. Representative Haiy, of New York, chair- man of the Republican Congressional Cam- paign Committee, declared in a statement: “It will take a lot more than 18 pages of distortion and misrepresentation by the Democratic Congressional Committee to con- vince the American people that Mr. Truman, Mr. Acheson, and the Democratic Party could condone Communist conquest of Asia for five long years and then cancel out that colossal blunder by sending American soldiers un- prepared into Korea.” RED HERRINGS NOT EXHAUSTED “No amount of alibling and lint-picking will cause the American people to forget that it has been the Republicans both in and out of Congress who have opposed this policy.” The Republican National Committee said in a separate statement: “The Democrats haven't exhausted their supply of red herrings. The latest one won't deceive the people, who know that the Re- publican Party has led the fight against Com- munists at home as well as abroad. Look at the record.” A top Republican strategist in the House, asking not to be identified by namo, made clear that Republicans won't hesitate to use Mr. Kinwan’s weapon fn local political cam- paigns against the 61 Democrats who voted against the Korean measure. “If it’s good enough to use against Repub- licans,” he said, “it ought to be good enough to use against Democrats.” Mr. President, at this very crucial time we find a fight is on between Republi- cans and Democrats, started by the Democrats, who are looking for votes to get into Congress, and as a result, they create a great deal of misery and strife among the people of this country, whose sons in the last analysis must do the fighting. While I am on the subject, Mr. President, and as a Republican, I wish to bring to the attention of the Senate a very important bill which I in- troduced. It was defeated by the peo- ple now in power, by the administration. It was Senate bill 761. I introduced it on February 3,1949. I want every Sena- tor to note this carefully. The bill pro- vided for the admission into the United States of a few persons of the Korean race. It would have made them racially eligible for naturalization. When I in- troduced the bill, and at various other times, I said that although we may have nations sitting around one table, as in the United Nations, where we may find India, China, Pakistan, and other coun- tries, we say to them, “Our people can go to your countries, but you cannot come to ours.” Mr. President, I remember the fight we had here only 5 years ago, to admit per- haps no more than 3,500 West Indians, some of whom had lived in this country since 1917 and whose sons had fought in our Armed Forces. I remember how
1950 hard we had to fight to get a law through Congress to give them the opportunity of becoming naturalized. Up to that time those men and women, who had lived here, could not even get a driver's license to drive an automobile, get mar- ried, own land, or testify in court. In 1924, the Supreme Court, in a decision written by Justice Sutherland, said that they were neither Caucasian nor Negroid, and they were absolutely ineligible to become citizens of the United States, After some 3 years of good hard work we finally got the law through Congress. Over in the House the fight was led by Congressman CELLER, a Democrat from New York, and Mrs. Clare Boothe Luce, a Republican. Iled the fight in the Sen- ate. Mr. President, that was only a be- ginning. Anyone who has read the book The Gentlemen Talk of Peace, written by William Ziff, must have known how very important it was a concession of some kind should be made so that people living in Asia would have a chance to re- ceive some kind of recognition—even token recognition—by being allowed to come over to this country under our naturalization and immigration laws. When I introduced the bill to provide for admission into the United States of persons of the Korean race, I received some letters. I have one letter in my hand, dated March 5, 1949, on the sta- tionery of the Korean Immigration and Naturalization Committee, Post Office Box 1706, Washington, D.C. I shall ask unanimous consent to introduce the let- ter in evidence, because it shows that the full committee of Koreans wanted the measure passed. The letter reads: KorEAN IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION COMMITTEE, Washington, D. C., March 5, 1949. Senator WILLIAM LANGER, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. Dear SENATOR LANGER: On March 1, 1949, by a majority vote the House passed H. R. 199 (Judd bill) and it is now in the Senate, No doubt it will reach the Senate subcom- mittee, of which Senator PaT McCarran is chairman. Our committee is of the opinion that your past interest for Korea and her people will bear rich fruit when the Judd bill comes to the Senate Judiciary Committee and the floor of the Senate. And we further believe the recent passage of the Judd bill was due to serious considerations given by the Mem- bers of the United States Congresses. Our first Korean bill was introduced by Delegate JosrrH R. FarRINGTON from Hawaii on June 1944, In all there were 12 Korean immigra- tion and naturalization bills in various Con- gresses including the 6, 3 each in the Senate and House, introduced in the present Eighty- first Congress. Because of such introductions heretofore, Members of Congress felt the urgent need of repealing and amending some of the present unpleasant features in the immigration and naturalization laws. There- fore, our committee knows that your efforts were not in vain, Owr committee urges upon you to continue your interest for Korea by supporting the Judd bill in the Senate subcommittee and in the Senate itself. We wish to go on record ag such and hope you will continue to enjoy good health and with best regards. Very sincerely yours, WALTER JHUNG, In a moment I shall show what became of that bill. I want to discuss first what happened to the bill that I introduced, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE I introduced a bill on February 3, 1949. On February 6 I received the following letter from the Korean Immigration and are wana Committee dated March Dear Senator LANGER: We wish to sincerely thank you for introducing your Senate bill 761 on February 3, 1949, in behalf of our com- mittee. Koreans everywhere will watch your bill with the greatest of anxieties. Without any doubt, successful legislation of your bill as well as the ones now under consideration in the House Judiciary Com- mittee will have tremendous moral uplifting of the people in Korea. It will act as a shock absorber for the rough-going on the highway to full democracy in Korea. ‘That highway is now filled with Communists’ propaganda and falsifications. As soon as we have finished with our new brief on Korea we will present to you a copy along with other pertinent materials on that country and its people. Thanking you again, we are, Respectfully yours, WALTER JHUNG, On March 22, 6 weeks after I intro- duced the bill, I got a letter from the Korean National Association from Hon- olulu, T. H., dated March 22, 1949. In Honolulu they were watching what was happening to the bill I had introduced in behalf of these people. On March 22 they wrote: Dear Sm: It is with inexpressible gratitude that we, the officers of the Korean National Association, an Hawallan eleemosynary cor- poration, take this means to convey our heartfelt appreciation for your efforts and action by the introduction of your 8. 761 to make available unto the thousands of Koreans residing upon American soil the great privilege of becoming American citizens Although these persons had been liv- ing in Hawaii for many years, and their sons had fought in the war, they were held to be ineligible for citizenship in the United States. Mind you, that was at the very time when we sat in the United Nations, but race after race of brown people are still being barred by us. We ask for their cooperation. We send our boys to fight for them, but at the same time we say, “Although you may be good enough to fight for, not one of you can be naturalized as a United States citizen.” What hypocrisy, Mr. President. letter proceeds: We are certain that the opening of the door of citizenship to us Koreans will result in not only a further strengthening of the close bond between the new Korean Gov- ernment and the United States of America but also in the creation of new American citizens who will be a credit and service to your great Government. Thank you very kindly. Sincerely yours, Sona Soon Sur, President, Wiiuiam K. Ler, Secretary. This was from the Korean National Association, with headquarters at Hono- u. Not only that, Mr. President, but there is here in Washington an organization which is interested in Korea, and their officials came to see me. My bill was postponed indefinitely by the full committee on the 16th day of May, and I want the record to be indel- The 11323 {bly clear that on every committee in the Senate about which I know anything a majority were Democrats. So even as late as May 16, 1949, the committee re- fused to report out this measure I had introduced. They refused to have any- thing to do with these Koreans, these people for whom our American youth are now fighting, and in whom they are trying to inculcate the principles of liberty. Mr. President, I wish to call to the at- tention of the Senate a great speech made on Tuesday last on the floor of the House of Representatives by Hon. Dewey Snort. It was at a time when we had passed, by suspending the rule at the request of the distinguished senor Senator from Maryland [Mr. Typ1nes], a bill providing for an extension of 1 year of the terms of those who had previously enlisted in the Army, Navy, and Air Force. Mr. SHort, speaking on Tuesday, said this: Mr. Chairman, I had not intended to speak a word on this particular measure because I am wholeheartedly in favor of it, as I am the next bill we will consider to lift the ceilings on the personnel of our armed s8erv- ices, und I think practically every Member of this body on both sides of the aisle is. It is a very simple measure, similar to the one we passed, both at the outbreak of World War I and at the outbreak of World War II. Realizing that there will be approximately $00,000 members of our armed services—the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, and the Air Force—whose enlistments will expire during the next calendar year, our committee, and I am sure the Congress, are thoroughly con- vinced, that it is imperative and inescapable that we extend the enlistments for the next 12 months. Again, Mr. President, I call attention to the fact that the vote to extend those enlistments was unanimous. Every Re- publican who was present voted for the bill, and it comes with ill grace from the National Democratic Congressional Com- mittee to issue such a scurrilous pam- phlet attacking the Republican Party, such as that which has been issued, Representative SHort continued: In ordinary peacetimes over 50 percent of those whose enlistments expire would re- enlist. They are trained personnel. They are experienced personnel. It is not easy— indeed, it is next to impossible—to supplant them overnight with raw, green recruits. Many of them are now fighting in distant parts of the world, or are stationed for secu- rity reasons at different posts all over the globe, and it is exceedingly difficult for us to bring back these men, as their enlistments expire from day to day and week to week and month to month, when a war is raging. 8o the whole purpose of the bill, 8. 3937, a bill to authorize the President to extend the enlistments in the Armed Forces of the United States, is to hold the men who are now in the various branches of the armed services long enough until replacements can be obtained by enlistment, by call of Reserves and the National Guard, or by the draft, and properly trained to take their place. Mr. President, some Senators criticized me when I introduced a bill a little while ago, shortly before this Korean situation became serious. As I remember now, it was on Wednesday, after the President had ordered the troops to go over to Korea on Monday. I introduced a bill providing that farm boys should not be
11324 taken right away. One of the great tsolationist papers attacked not only me, but attacked the State of North Dakota. How well do I remember, Mr. Presi- dent, how in Worid War II almost over- mght the Government took boys who were engaged in raising crops, took them away almost without notice, took them before the draft boards were even offi- cially organized. Some of them had herds of cattle, some of them had hun- dreds and hundreds of acres of wheat and other grains which they could not harvest because they were taken away. Look at the newspapers of those days for the proof. I went to the heads of the draft boards at that time and said that those boys should be given time to get their affairs in order. Later General Hershey and I gave a joint radio address to the farmers of the country. This year all over the great Northwest the spring was 5 or 6 weeks late. The result is the crops are going to be 5 or 6 weeks late in maturing and it will be necessary to have the boys out there longer this year than at the time World War II broke out. For this reason I promptly served no- tice, by the bill I introduced, and it had a good effect, in that the draft boards, through those in authority in taking the farm boys away from home, are going to take into consideration the fact that the crop is 5 or 6 weeks late. In view of the fact that those in au- thority have now considered that matter so carefully, and the further fact that the bill has accomplished its purpose, and because the situation in Korea is 100 times worse, at least 100 times worse, than it was at the time the bill was introduced just a few short days ago, I am withdrawing it. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr Hot- Land in the chair). Does the Senator wish to postpone indefinitely the bill in question? Mr. LANGER. I do The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator have the number of the bill? Mr. LANGER. I will give it to the Chair later. I wish to continue reading the state- ment of Representative SHort: Now that is all the bill provides for. It is bad policy for the Government to break a contract with any of its citizens. It is tough for a 30-year-old man, fighting in the rice addies of Korea, his wife and a couple of jds in Japan or back home in the States, to be held on at the exptration of his 8- or 4-year service, particularly when there are some unmarried individuals between the ages of 26 and 80 back home who perhaps are not contributing their full share in this crisis, to the defense of the Nation. But, ladies and gentlemen, liberty is the first casualty of war. Truth Js usually next. Mr. President, I say the truth usually is the next casualty. That is one rea- son why I condemn the pamphlet issued by the National Democratic Congres- sional Committee, issued in the very midst of what may turn out to be one of the most trying periods through which our country has ever passed. Yet, be- tween now and election we are going to see the pamphlet handed out all over the country in an effort by the Demo- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE crats to obtain a few more votes for their candidates Mr. President, I say it is contemptible, and it ought to lose votes for the Demo- crats wherever they circulate that kind of scurrilous pamphlet. Representative SuHort continued: When you engage in an armed confilct, freedom is gone. All of us are going to be required to do things we do not waht to do. We are going to have our activities curbed. There will be allocations, priorities, ration- ing, and certain controls, no doubt, if the flames touched off in Korea engulf the world. Painful as that is, it is inescapable. You cannot fight a painless war. It is just im- possible. I want to say one or two things in a gen- eral way, aside from this bill, particularly since our distinguished and able chairman took considerable time to talk about the over-all picture In order to win a modern, mechanized war, the victor must possess at least three mate- rials, He has to have tron and steel, rubber, and oj] Soviet Russia has secured a lot of iron and steel and industry in Manchuria, a territory twice as large as the State of Texas, which is the industrial heart of all Asia. Manchuria was turned over to the enemy by the Democrats, Mr. President, by a Democratic administration, which now has the gall, in the midst of the war, to issue that kind of a pamphlet against the Republicans, the majority of whom at least, under the leadership of the Senator from Michigan {Mr VaAnpENn- BERG] certainly have cooperated with them I continue to read: And she would not have that steel if the Chinese, after being promised at the Catro Conference that Manchuria would be re- turned to them at the end of the war, had not been sold down the river, and Manchuria turned over to Soviet Russia. Who sold them down the river? Why a Democratic administration, Mr. Presi- dent. The same kind of an admuinis- tration which is now circulating this scurrilous pamphlet in tume of war, Representative SHort continued: Who is responsible for that action? Rus- sia has got to have not only iron and steel in Manchuria and the rich metals and min- erals of China, that have gone completely under Everyone knows China is the head, the heart, the bowels, and legs of Asta; and because of the recent weak, indecisive, vacil- lating, contradictory foreign policy, all China has been lost to Red communism. Who is responsible for that? What Members of the House and Senate have stood and pled week after weck, month after month, for a strong far eastern foreign policy? The Republicans, as the record will show. Now that China has gone under, after being told that we should keep hands off until the dust settled, after being told by the Secretary of Defense that it was not our responsibility to defend Korea, or any other spot in the Orient; and after being told by the Secretary of State we will have nothing to do with the defense of Formosa; after the Secretary of Defense told us re- peatedly, before our committee and in pub- lic addresses during the past 6 months, that if we were attacked at any place at 4 o’clock in the morning we would be ready to an- ewer at 5 o'clock; after being repeatedly told by members of the administration that South Korea was capable of defending her- self; after all of these miscalculations and misrepresentations, not only to the Amer- ican people but te your Committee on Armed Services, we have now completely reversed our foreign policy in Asia, and we have de- JULY 28 cided to go into the one spot with its tough terrain, with its foul weather, the most difi- cult place on earth to pit our strength against the force of the ground armies of Soviet Russia, namely, Korea. Russia’s strength always has been ia her ground forces. Recently the President of the United States has repeatedly told the American peo- ple, at the commencement exercises at the University of Missourt in Columbia last month and at the dedication of the Thomas Jefferson Memorial in St. Louis the following day, that we are closer to peace than any time since the shooting stopped in 1945 At Korea, a little sort of finger, an ap- pendix of the Asiatic Continent about the size of Mlinois, 600 miles long, 135 miles wide, we go in to defend only the south half of it, and defend it with what? Who with- drew Lieutenant Gcneral Hodge and his 40,000 American troops from Korea south of the thirty-eighth parallel a year ago last month, tn June 1949? The gentleman from Florida [Mr Sixxs}, the gentleman from California [Mr JOHN- son], and others here with me in 1946 were in Korea. We went up and down that arbi- trary thirty-eighth parallel that has no mili- tary significance; there is not ® mountain range, there is no river, there is nothing geographical about it; it is just a line that was blindly, arbitrarily, and stubbornly drawn so that the Japs noith of the thirty- eighth parallel would surrender to the Rus- sians, and the Japs south of the thirty- eighth parallel would surrender to the Amer- icans General Hodge, with his 40,000 troops, repatriated over 5,000,000 Japanese soldiers, not only from Korea but from Manchuria and China. When we returned from our trip in October 1946— I want every Senator to listen care- fully to these words of Dewey Sxorzt, one of the outstanding men in the House of Representatives— we unanimously agreed that the moment we pulled out of Korea the Russians or the Communists would move in. That ts what we told the Congress; that is what the gen- tleman from Florida [Mr. Sikes} and I told the American people in a broadcast over 4 Washington radio, with Ernest K, Lindley acting as moderator. Oh, yes, Mr. Chairman, we are in for It; for the third time in our generation we are engaged in a bloody and devastating war. Of course, in 1916 an administration was elected to power because it kept us out of war; in 1940 another administration for the third time was returned to power because it promised again, and again, and again, that American boys would not have to fight and die on foreign soil; and now, today for the third time we are engaged in war, and Congress has not declared it. We are not requested or asked for counsel or advice; but we were told on a half sheet of paper when we were called down to the White House 4 weeks ago on Tuesday, I think it was 4 weeks ago today, that the Chief Executive, the Commander in Chief, had ordered naval and air support for the ground forces in Korea after we had with- drawn our own forces over a year ago We cannot now debate the legality of constitu- tionality of the action of the President. The die 1s cast, The poor southern Koreans, most of them farmers—it is an agricultural section—with bamboo poles and spears try- ing to stop 50-ton Ruséian tanks. Oh, yes; I feel that there will be no peace in our time; there will be intermittent wars the rest of our days. The moment we squelch the war in Korea it will break out in Formosa, it will pop up in Iran; it is Just like the measles, you do not know whether they are going to break out around your ankles or your eyes,
1950 Mr. President, I wish to say that in in- troducing my bill to exempt from the draft the young men all over the North- west, I did so because, a8 I have said before, I remember so well what hap- pened in World War I, when this body debated time and time again, day after day, the question of whether the boys who were drafted should have a year’s training before they were sent over the water, or whether they should have 8 months’ training or 10 months’ training. That question arose when it was dis- covered by the senior Senator from Ohio (Mr. Tart] that the son of one of his neighbors in Ohio had been killed after he had been in the service only 8 weeks. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Let the Chair inform the Senator from North Dakota that the number of the bill to which he has referred is 8. 3880. Without objection, the Committee on Armed Services will be discharged from the further consideration of the bill (S. 3880) to provide deferment from training and service under the Selective Service Act of persons engaged in raising agricultural food crops, and the bill will be indefinitely postponed. Mr LANGER. I thank the Chair. Mr President, I hold in my hand a book written by the great military expert for the New York Times, Hanson W. Baldwin. Mr. Baldwin received a Pu- litzer prize for his reporting of World War II, and is today considered a leading authority on the politics and technology of modern warfare. He attended the sec- ond atom bomb test at Bikini, and has recently inspected guided mussile and rocket-launching installations through- out the Nation. His last book, The Price of Power, an analysis of American se- curity and international obligations, won the highest praise from both political and military sources. The New York Herald Tribune said that “it well ex- emplifles Mr. Baldwin’s outstanding virtues of courage, intellectual tough- ness, and honesty.” The Chattanooga Times called it “required reading for anyone interested in our Nation's future.” Mr. President, I wish to call the atten- tion of the Senate to what Mr. Baldwin has to say about the situation in Asia; at this time I refer to his book entitled Great Mistakes of the War, and I turn to page 77, where we find a subhead, “Appeasement in Asia.” Mr. President, I wish to call attention again and again to the fact that for all these years all of us have been under a Democratic administration, including the men who now have the audacity to issue this pamphlet against the Republi- can Party—a pamphlet which, I repeat, is one of the most out-of-place pam- phlets which has ever been published in a long, long time in the midst of a war. Mr. President, Mr. Baldwin, who re- ceived a Pulitzer prize for his reporting, and who is the military expert for the New York Times, in his book really dis- cusses the record of the Democratic Party in dealing with Asia. He says: 2. APPEASEMENT IN 46I4 Perhaps the saddest chapter in the long ‘history of political futility which the war recorded was the Yalta Conference of Feb- XCVI——713 ruary 1945. As former Secretary of War Btimson writes, “much of the policy of the United States toward Russia, from Tehran to Potsdam, was dominated by the eager- ness of the Americans to secure a firm Rus- stan commitment to enter the Pacific war.” This eagerness was first manifest at Tehran when Russia's need for warm-water ports was discussed and Roosevelt suggested the establishment of Dairen in Manchuria as an international free port. It reached its crescendo at Yalta, where we attempted to pin down prior elusive Soviet promises to take up arms against Japan. The negotia- tions about future action against the Japa- nese were interspersed with discussions of the peace settlement and the German question in Europe, and their political implications were made secondary to the President's prime ob- jective at Yalta—‘the brave new world,” the establishment of the bastc framework of the United Nations. For all these reasons—and because of a fundamental military as well as political misconception—Russia held the whip hand, and the United States representatives placed themselves in the amazing position of “giving away” territories which did not belong to us, and of unccrtaking to secure concessions which impaired the sovereignty of a friendly Allted state. The political misconception, so obvious now, should have been apparent then, it was not to our interest, or the in- terests of China or of the world, to make Russia a Pacific power; it was not to our interest to beg or barter for Russia's entry into the Pacific war Nor should military considerations have affected this political Judgment. At the time of Yalta, Japan was already beaten-—not by the atomic bomb, which had not yet been perfected, not by conventional bombing, then just starting, but by attrition and blockade. The home islands were severed from the Empire by our conquest of the Philippines and the Marianas, and the submarine and surface blockade already had brought the pinch of hunger and the stress of severe raw material shortages to Japan. Even be- fore the first bomb was dropped by our B~29’s on the Japanese home islands, the enemy aircraft industry was disrupted and on the decline; shortages due to the blockade and e@ chaotic program of decentralization, dis- persion, and underground development, badly carried out, already had reduced se- verely the output of Japanese factories. The full seriousness of the Japanese plight was not then, of course, completely understood. Our military men were preoccupied and con- cerned with the flerceness of the Japanese de“ense, the tactical situation obscured the hopeless strategic position of Japan, and some of our commanders took, therefore, far too pessimistic a view. Mistakes in intelli- gence, or rather in evaluation, also con- tributed to an erroneous assessment of Japa- nese intentions and capabilities. We feared that even after the main Japanese islands had been conquered, the enemy resistance would continue on the continent of Asta with the much-vaunted Kwantung Manchurian Army as its core. Yet, our intelligence officers in Wash- ington and throughout the Pacific for months had been fdentifying units of the Kwantung Army and of its air sup- port which had been transferred from that quiet area to various battle sectors. By late 1944 it was—or should have been—-apparent that what remained of the Kwantung Army was largely com- posed of green conscripts and second- rate troops, with virtually no air sup- port, incapable of a prolonged cam- paign; it had been bled white to provide reinforcements for other fronts. We also confused Japanes: capabilities with Japanese intentions. We believed the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 11325 Japanese would resist to the last man, no matter how hopelessly beaten. ‘ These beliefs, which were completely er- roneous— Mr. President, whose beliefs were erro- neous? ‘Those of the Democratic Party, which has just issued the scurrilous sheet to which I have referred. We pro- vided them with money enough. Heav- en knows, there were hundreds of mil- lions of dollars available to them. But apparently, as this military expert says, the Democratic administration knew nothing of the results of that terrible sit- uation which arose, which gave Russia a part of Manchuria and turned over to Russia the Kurile Islands and North Korea. I continue: These beliefs, which were completely erro- neous, influenced materially the politico- military approach made at Yalta. They were not held, at the time, by all our experts; but they were, unfortunately, the controlling opinions. Mr WHERRY Mr. President, will the Senator yield? The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from North Dakota yield to the Senator from Nebraska? Mr, LANGER, I yield for a question. Mr WHERRY Does the Senator re- call that but 2 or 3 weeks ago on the floor of the Senate, when the Senate was discussing military assistance to Korea, it was brought out that last year the Senate voted an appropriation of $10 600,000 for a military mission to Korea, and that not one dime of it had been spent all last year, and that after the investigation was started the star- tling information was brought forth that $200 had been charged against the ac- count and that the $200 was for the pur- pose of rehabilitating $30,000 worth of signal wire that was to be shipped to Korea, which has not even yet reached Korea? The $200 represents the com- plete history of what this administration spent in Korea during the last fiscal year. Does the Senator know that? Mr, LANGER. I know it only too well. It is one of the great tragedies of our time. In my reading, Mr. President, I now want to skip over a little and come to another part of this book, written by the military expert for the New York Times, who received the Pulitzer prize, Hanson W. Baldwin. I want to indicate the division among those high in author- ity in the United States for the purpose of showing that while our boys were dying the men appointed under this Democratic administration could not even agree among themselves. At page 82, Mr. Baldwin says: General Marshall was then convinced that an invasion of the Japanese main islands was essential, and he insisted that help from Russia on the mainland of Asia was neces- sary. Admiral King seemed to share this view. But there were divergences of opinion as to the necessity of this operation, Admiral William D Leahy, who feared the cost in casualties of invasion, and who correctly as- sessed the crippling effect of the blockade on Japan, opposed the invasion The com- promise eventually reached—a sensible one— was to prepare for invasion, but in the mean- time to utilize the blockade and air bombard- ment to the utmost to bring Japan to her knees.
11326 These strategic differences—and a failure to appreciate fully the hopeless strategical position of Japan-—colored the military thinking at Yalta and helped to lead to indefensible political arrangements. There you have it, Mr. President. That is the kind of leadership our Gov- ernment had at that time. I continue: “Certainly,” as the Washington Post has commented, “the Chiefs of Staff made & blunder to advise Roosevelt and Churchill at Yalta that Japan would last 18 months after VE-day. Our military men underrated Japan at the beginning of the war, then overrated it, and refused to see the patent fact, obvious to the Navy, that Japan was through even while the brass hats were meet- ing at Yalta.” Yet at Yalta—and even at the Potsdam Conference in July 1945, when Hitler lay dead and dishonored near the ruins of his bunker in Berlin and the Third Reich was broken and shattered—one month before the sure render of Japan, there were still many Ameri- cans who were interested primarily in get- ting a firm commitment from Russia to enter the Pacific war. This mistaken policy stemmed In part from the basic political misconceptions outlined at the beginning of this book, in part from strategic misconceptions, some of them based on inadequate logistical planning As General Deane points out in his book, our planners were obsessed with two ideas—to bring Russia into the Pacific war and to utilize Russian territory as bases for our war effort agiinst Japan. Repeatedly, General Deane and other United States representa- tives had pressed Soviet leadeis long before Yalta for permission to utilize Russian ter- ritory as air bases for our attacks on Japan Yet the cart was put before the horse—we made diplomatic representations for this per- mission before we had estimated, logistically, the value of such bases to us. The author then goes on to tell how utterly useless those bases would have been to us. I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of page 84, page 85, and page 86 be printed in the Recorp at this point in my remarks. There being no objection, the excerpt was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows, Our attempts to get firm Soviet commit- ments about the war against Japan reached a@ preliminary crisis in October 1944, more than 4 months before Yalta, when Churchill and a British entourage visited Moscow, General Deane describes the resulting con- ferences which he attended as the principal American military representative. Stalin reiterated his intention, first announced to Cordell] Hull at Moscow in October 1943, then more or less formalized at Tehran, of enter- ing the Pacific war, said he needed 3 months after VE-day to stockpile supplies in Siberia, declared that the United States could have air bases and one naval base in the Far East; but added that “if the United States and Great Britain preferred to bring Japan to her knees without Russian participation, he was ready to agree" Furthermore, there was a little item of additional supplies that Russia would require to help her build up a 2 months’ reserve in Siberia. All in all, Stalin said the Russians would need more than 1,000,000 tons of cargo, and they must be delivered by June 80, 1945, the deliveries to be tn addition to those already being made under the fourth lend-lease protocol. In Moscow, in 1944, Stalin made many glowing promises, but, “despite these promises, the end result was that the Russians got their supplies and the United States got nothing except a belated and last-minute Russian at- tack against the Japanese.” CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE As the Soviets stalled on their promises and we delivered supplies, the months drew on into the winter of 1944-45, and at Yalta, in February, President Roosevelt, pressed by the United States Chiefs of Staff, again took up the questions of bomber bases in Siberia and the date of Russian entry into the Pacific war, Stalin again agreed in principle, and set the date at 8 months after victory in Europe had been won. He said the United States could establish bases in the Komso- molsk-Nikolaevsk area and eventually in Kamchatka. But he got down in black and white his price: The Curzon line for the eastern border of Poland, the Kurile Islands and controlling economic and strategic concessions in Manchuria, (Stalin’s Manchurian price for Russia's entry into the Pacific war had first been broached apparently with no grave ob- jections on our part, at Tehran in Decem- ber 1943, just a fow days after Roosevelt, Churchill, and Chiang Kai-shek had agreed in the Cairo Declaration that Manchuria and Formosa should be restored to China ) But it was not until the spring, when Ger- many was at her last gasp and Japan near the end, that, in the words of General Deane, “it was found that the net increase that would result from putting four groups of B-29's in the Amur River district would be 139 percent of the total bomb tonnage we could place on Japan without using Russian bases” This was convincing proof, adds Deane, “that the slight increase in our bomb- ing effort and the advantage of an added direction of approach for our bomber forma- tions were not at all commensurate with the logistical effort involved in establishing our forces in Siberia, A little late—after more than 3 years of United States participation in the war and numerous major concessions to Russia, con- cessions which were to affect the peace—to be making this ABC logistical discovery By then Russia had most of the supplies she had demanded; and she had carefully recorded the secret concessions of Yalta Mr. LANGER Mr President, I wish now to pay my respects to a Democratic convention. The convention that met and nominated President Roosevelt for a third term. I say that everyone of the delegates at that Democratic convention who voted to break the traditional two terms for the President of the United States should hang his head in shame for having foisted upon this country for a third term a man who ultimately, ac- cording to this military expert of the New York Times, brought ruin to the United States of America. Oh, they wanted to win, Mr. President. They said, “We can elect Mr. Roosevelt for a third term.” I talked to some of the delegates from North Dakota upon their return home. The substance of what they said to me upon their return was, “Sure, he should not have been nom- inated. But we want to win. We can win with Roosevelt.’ In substance they said, “To hell with the Constitution,” which does not specifically prohibit it. “To hell with George Washington,” who said that two terms were enough. We have got to hold our jobs, and to hold them we will break away from the two- term tradition. So those delegates to the Democratic national convention sold the country in order to gain what little miserable political advantage they could secure by nominating him instead of nominating some other one of the great Democrats who were candidates at that convention and they had many good JULY 28 ones—able, efficient, God-fearing men who would have been good Presidents. There is one thing I say to the ever- Jasting glory of Jim Farley. If every- thing else about Jim Farley is forgotten as the years go by, one thing will forever, in my opinion, cause him to be remem- bered as a patriotic American, namely, that he dared, at the risk of obscurity, which I hope will never come to him, to fight the third term. Of course, after the Democrats had won a third term for Mr. Roosevelt, they wanted him for a fourth term. Why? To protect their jobs. What happened to him in his fourth term? I have here a book writ- ten by the great military expert of the New York Times telling what happened to Mr. Roosevelt in his fourth term. Here is what he did. Thousands and thousands of American boys paid with their lives for that un-Amcrican demo- cratic convention because the Democrats wanted to win. I remember, Mr. President, sitting in the House Chamber at the joint session when Mr. Roosevelt came back. I saw him only a few short weeks before he died. Anyone looking at him knew he had only a few short weeks to live Here is what the New York Times military expert says: Russia drove a hard bargain at Yalta Stalin promised to enter the war against Japan within an estimated 90 days after the end of the war against Germany, but for it he got the Kurile Islands, all of Sakhalin, half interest in the rallways in Manchuria, Port Arthur, a Russian-contiolled ‘free port” in Daiien, and thus strategic hegemony in important northeast Asia “It is my belief,” writes Sherwood— Mind you, Mr. President, of all the apologists for Mr Roosevelt, even Sher- wood said: “It is my belief,” writes Sherwood, “that Roosevelt would not have agreed to that final firm commitment had it not been that the Yalta Conference was almost at an end and he was tired and anxious to avoid further argument. I belleve that he was hopeful that when the time came to notify the Chi- nese, he would be able to straighten the whole thing out with Chiang Kai-shek—but that hope, of course, was not realized.” Of course the very sick Mr. Roosevelt was “tired.” So, Mr. President, because there were at the Democratic Convention a lot of weak men who wanted to win, who wanted to get a few more votes by nomi- nating Roosevelt for President for a third term, they were willing to take this man and sell out the country. That 1s why a sick man went to Yalta, a man who, in the absence of the Secretary of State, and without even his knowledge, gave away the countries and the advan- tages which I have already named. That is why we today have our boys fighting for their lives in Korea—and why our beloved country is facing ruin and destruction. Mr. President, I do not desire to de- tain the Senate a long time, but I should like to invite the attention of Senators to the bottom of page 87 of this great book, from which I read the following: The fault was doubly grievous We not only hurt our own interests and those of a
1950 friendly ally, but at Yalta—inferentlally, at least—we broke our pledged word to that ally, For at Cairo in 1943, before the Tehran con- ference and after Stalin had told Hull in Moscow that Ruasia would enter the Pacific war, we promised publicly the restoration of Manchuria to Chine. And to a pragmatic politician, Russian control of Port Arthur and a half interest in the Manchurian Rail- ways could only mean Soviet strategic he- gemony over Manchuria, Nor was this all. During the discussions, it was suggested by President Roosevelt that perhaps the Russians ought to have a com- mercial outlet to the Persian Gulf; and may= be the Trans-Iranian Railway, built by Amer- ican engineers, with the help of American capital, ought to be partially owned by Rus- ela, or at least Russia should have certain transit rights. Fortunately wiser counsel soft-pedaled the proposal, and Stalin, ap- parently suspicious, showed no interest. No wonder Stimson wrote that the meet- ing at Yalta dealt “a good deal in altruism and idealism instead of stark realities.” Yet, Mr, President, with this terrible record staring the Democratic Party in the face, in a time of war, when our boys are dying in Korea, when we are sending thousands of unprepared and untrained boys to Korea, the Democratic National Committee chooses this time, of all times, to issue a political pamphlet which is being circulated all over the country attacking the Republicans. The Demo- crats come upon this floor and ask for Republican cooperation. They say, “Please, please, Republicans, we have got this country into a hell of a mess, and we need help. Please, please, and please come to our aid and help. Please, please, and please vote for these bilis.” Within 12 hours after we give them help, Mr. President, they issue a shameful pam- phlet, a political pamphlet, published by the Democratic National Committee, misrepresenting and lying about the Re- publicans, I suppose that tomorrow or the next day, or the day after that, they will be standing up again in the Halls of Con- gress asking for the cooperation of the Republicans, and saying, “Do what you can to get us out of this terrible situa- tion which has been brought about be- cause of the fact that the Democratic Party did not have good leadership.” And for all of this the people in the last analysis can thank that Democratic con- vention that broke the second-term tra- dition—and regretfully think back on “what might have been.” GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS, 1951 The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (H, R. 7786) making appro- priations for the support of the Gov- ernment for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1951, and for other purposes. Mr. FLANDERS obtained the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Before the Senator from Vermont proceeds, the clerk will state the first committee amendment in chapter X-B, on page 447 of the bill. Mr. KEM. Mr. President, if the Sen- ate is about to consider a new chapter in the bill, a very important one, I sug- gest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Vermont yield for that purpose? CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Myr. FLANDERS. Iyleld for that pur- pose, The PRESIDING OFFICER. The elerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk called the roll, and the following Senators answered to their names: Brewster Hayden Maybank Bricker Hendrickson Mundt Bridges Hickenlooper Murtay Butler Hill Myers Byrd Hoey Neely Capehart Holland O'Conor Chapman Humphrey O'Mahoney Chavez Hunt Pepper Connally Ives Robertson Cordon Jenner Russell Donnell Johnson, Colo. Smith, Maine Douglas Johnson, Tex. Smith, N J, Dworshak Kefauver Sparkman Eastland Kem Stennis Ecton Langer Taft Ellender Lehman Thomas, Okla Ferguson Lodge Thye Flanders Lucas Tydings Frear McCarran Watkins Fulbright McCarthy Wherry George McClellan Wiley Gillette McFarland Williams Graham McKellar Young Green Magnuson Gurney Malone The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quo- rum is present. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, in dis- cussing the next chapter and its subdi- vision marked “X-B,” which has to do with foreign aid, being the portion of the bill beginning on page 447, we have more or less reached an agreement to vote on chapter X~B and all amendments thereto on Monday next. SoIam going to submit a unanimous-consent request in line with my understanding of what we have been discussing and considering for the last few moments while the quo- rum call was being had, I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Presi- dent, that on Monday next, beginning at 2 p. m., the Senate proceed to vote upon chapter X-B, foreign aid, page 447, and all amendments thereto; that following the disposition of that chapter and the amendments thereto, and not later than 3 hours thereafter, the Senate vote upon the amendment, to be offered by the Sen- ator from Nevada (Mr. McCarran], in- volving Spain; that no amendments which are not germane shall be offered; and that under the agreement the right to raise points of order shall not be waived. Mr. KEM. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, that is the substance of the proposal, and it will be written up by the Parliamentarian. Mr, KEM and other Senators ad- dressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Illinois yield; anc if so, to whom? Mr. LUCAS. I yield first to the Sen- ator from Missouri, Mr. KEM. Let me call attention to the fact that the Senator from Illinois did not provide for a division of the time, Mr, LUCAS. ‘The Senator is correct, Mr. President, I modify my request by including in it a provision that on Mon- Gay next, the time between 12 noon and 2 p. m. shall be divided equally between the Senator from Missour! (Mr. Kem] and the Senator from Tennessee [Mr, McKx.iar.] 11327 The PRESIDING OFFICER. Did the Benator from Tlinois mean to include a provision for division of the time avail- able for consideration of the amendment to be offered by the Senator from Ne- vada? Mr. LUCAS. I think perhaps the time on the amendment to be offered by the Senator from Nevada should be di- vided equally between the Senator from Nevada and the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. McKELzar]. The PRESIDING OFFICER. May the Chair ask a further question: Did the Senator from Illinois mean to include in his unanimous-consent request a provi- sion in regard to all motions, in addition to all amendments offered or which may be offered? Mr. LUCAS. Yes, we can include the word “motions,” too; that will be per- fectly satisfactory EIGHT BILLION FROM PEACETIME BUDGET FOR NATIONAL DEFENSE~—TOTAL OF $21,545,000,000 FOR DEFENSE Mr MALONE. Mr. President, reserv- ing the right to object—and I may say that I have no intention of objecting to the proposed unanimous-consent agreement—if the Senator from Illinois will yield, I should like to ask a ques- tion of the junior Senator from Nebraska [Mr WHERRY]. Mr. LUCAS. I shall be glad to yield f-r that purpose, if I may obtain consent to that effect. I so request. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tilinois asks unanimous consent that he be permitted to yield to the Senator from Nevada, to permit him to ask a question of the junior Senator from Nebraska, Without objection, it is 80 ordered, INCREASE PRCPOSED REDUCTION OF DOMESTIC BUDGET FROM 15 TO 20 PERCENT Mr, MALONE. Mr. President, I should like to ask the junior Senator from Ne- braska, whether he would consent to in- creasing the percentage of the proposed reduction of the peacetime domestic budget, but without any relationship to the $6,080,000,000 for veterans’ services and benefits or the $5,625,000,000 for interest and service on the public debt or the $13,545,000,000 for the national de- fense, but to have it apply to the re- maining $17,189,000,000 of the domestic budget. I should like to ask the distin- guished Senator from Nebraska whether he will consent to amend his amend- ment to provide for a 20-percent cut, rather than a 15-percent reduction, in the domestic budget, which is covered in the portion of the bill discussed yes- terday, Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, if I may reply without prejudicing the nght of the majority leader to the floor—~ The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair understands that the Senator from Tilinois has yielded for that pur- pose. Mr, WHERRY,. Then, Mr. President, let me say to the distinguished Senator from Nevada that what I am sure he is attempting to do is to increase the pro- posed reduction under the so-called Bridges-Byrd amendment from 15 to 20 percent, That amendment includes all
11328 the exemptions—and a few more, so far as that is concerned—that the Senator from Nevada has just listed or that he would wish to list. However, I am per- fectly willing to give the Senate a chance to vote on a proposed 20-percent re- duction. On the other hand, I have already requested that the reduction proposed in the amendment be increased to 15 per- cent, Therefore, a further amendment, so as to change the percentage from 15 to 20, would constitute an amendment in the second degree. If the Senator from Nevada will check over the proposed amendments, I am quite sure he will find that the senior Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Bur.er] proposed an amendment, in his own right, to provide for a 20-percent re- duction. So I shall be glad to join with the two Senators in an amendment to accom- plish the same result, but which still will not jeopardize the standing of my amendment. Mr. MALONE. Mr. President, I am aware of the amendment offered by the junior Senator from Nebraska, and I should hke to join with him in sponsor- ing 1t with the 5-percent increase—mak- ing a total of 20 percent. In fact, I had intended to offer such an amendment myself, but I now want to join the junior Senator from Nebraska. Mr. WHERRY. Very well. Mr. MALONE. So we shall join in sponsoring that amendment. TRANEFER $3,000,000,000 FROM ECA TO NATIONAL DIFENSE FUND Mr President, if the Senator from Il- Hnois will yield further—— Mr. LUCAS. I yield to the Senator from Nevada. Mr. MALONE. I have intended, and I believe this is the proper place, to offer an amendment to the ECA provision in the appropriation bill. The junior Sen- ator from Nevada is not entirely clear at the moment how the amendment may be made, but it will be worked out. It is an amendment to transfer to the Na+ tional Defense Fund or at least to dis- pense with the $3,000,000,000, or approxi- mately $3,000,000,000, now available or being made available to ECA nations. ECA NATIONS 120 PERCENT RECOVERED We are, of course, all familiar with the fact that the ECA nations are approxi- mately 120 percent recovered, on the basis of the 1937-38 index of industrial development, and that this is a peace- time development that we have been financing. There may have been some question over the last 3 years as to the necessity, but now there can be none. It is impossible to develop peacetime in- dustry while we are engaged in a war- time development, The two things are not compatible. I shall propose an amendment which will propose to dispense entirely with the $3,000,000,000 or such an amount as may be available to ECA under this bill. But what the junior Senator from Nevada wants to do is to make that money avail- able, to be included in the $10,000,000,000 defense fund requested by the President of the United States—I do propose such an amendment. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE TWENTY-PERCENT REDUCTION—$3,500,000,000—- $500,000,000 PUBLIC WORKS FUND With the 20-percent reduction in the $17,189,000,000 of the domestic budget, this approximately $3,000,000,000 and the $1,150,000,000 for the arming of the Atlantic Pact nations—which should be included in one budget; then add the $500,000,000 appropriated for public works—the additional $8,000,000,000 is available for the national-defense fund. We will give the junior Senator from II- Jinois {Mr. Douctas] something to really vote for—the amendment will propose to dispense with the public works entirely, of $500,000,000, except such amounts as the President may believe to be really emergency work until this Congress con- venes again in January 1951. It could mean only a few months’ de- lay at most—and by that time the situ- ation should clerify so we will know ex- actly what is needed. UNIVERSAL TRAINING The junior Senator from Nevada joined the senior Senator from Maryland early in 1949 in the introduction of a universal training bill. This legislation has since been buried in a democratically controlled commit- tee—such legislation 1s needed to protect this Nation and to protect the boys through better knowing their business and protect themselves in combat. EIG- T BILLION DOLLARS OF THE PRESIDENT’S TEN BILLION REQUEET Certainly there will be no public works, except emergency works, during this pe- riod, so that with the amount allocated to such works, it adds up to $8,000,000,- 000 available for the $10,000,000,000 pro- gram. The junior Senator from Nevada here- by offers such amendment. I thank the Senator from Llnois. Mr, LUCAS obtained the floor. Mr. FLANDERS. Mr. President, a par- Mamentary inquiry. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, may I first answer the Senator from Nevada? Mr. FLANDERS. Mr. President, the parliamentary inquiry is, Who has the floor? I believe I have the floor, ap- pearances to the contrary notwithstand- ing. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair thinks the Senator from Vermont is correct, The Chair was perhaps in error in recognizing the Senator from Nllinois. Mr. FLANDERS. I gladly yield to the Senator from Illinois. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont yielded solely for the purpose stated, Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, we have not finished the unanimous-consent agreement yet, and I have been stand- ing here yielding to Senators, hoping we might get it accomplished. I did not think I had lost the floor, otherwise I should have taken my seat. The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator from Vermont will bear with the Chair for a moment, it seems that the consent request can be worked out shortly. JULY 28 Mr. FLANDERS. I gladly yield for that purpose, with the understanding that I do not lose my position on the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will later recognize the Senator from Vermont. The Senator from Tli- nois. Mr. LUCAS. I should like to answer the Senator from Nevada by simply say- ing that under the parhamentary situa- tion there will be no reason why he can- not offer the kind of amendment he has been discussing, as I understand. Cer- tainly I shall have no objection. What I should like to do is to get the unani- mous-consent agreement on its way and have the Senate confirm it Mr MALONE. Mr President, I do of- fer such an amendment, to be properly written by the clerk of the Senate. Mr CHAVEZ. Mr President, Iam not going to object .o the unanimous con- sent requested by the Senator from Illi- nois, but I should like to propound a par- liamentary inquiry. Mr. LUCAS. I yield for that purpose. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it. Mr. CHAVEZ. After the Senate con- cludes work on the ECA chapter, what else will be left 1n the appropriation bill? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair understands that there are still some chapters of the appropriation bill that have not been acted on, and that after the consideration of the committee amendments, if any, to those chapters which have not been acted on, the Sen- ate will then take up amendments: of- fered by individual Senators. Mr. CHAVEZ. I may say to the Sena- tor from Illinois and to the chairman of the committee that what I had in mind was this: Chapter V has been concluded, with the exception of the items of health and cancer research funds, the heart in- stitute, mental hygiene, and dental ac- tivities. I was wondering whether it was the intention of the Senator from Illi- nois, in making his unanimous-consent request, to conclude with the bill on that particular date? Mr LUCAS. I should like to finish the bill then, if possible, but that situa- tion is perhaps more or less in the lap of—— Mr. CHAVEZ. The gods? Mr. LUCAS. It is more or less per- hap 1m the lap of Senators, as to when we shall get through with the bill. Mr. CHAVEZ. I merely wanted to know in order to get ready for the items in chapter 5 which have not been concluded. Mr, LUCAS, If we run out of some- thing to do, the Senator can certainly offer amendments at that time. Mr. WILEY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. LUCAS. I yield. Mr. WILEY. Reserving the right to object, I find myself in a rather peculiar situation. I had already spoken to the leader on this side of the aisle several days ago. I understood that the final vote would not come up until Tuesday or perhaps Thursday. I should like to ask the distinguished majority leader whether that is true. I am particularly interested in the vote on the 10-percent
1950 over-all reduction, with the exceptions enumerated, and I am interested in the passage of the bill. I had therefore planned to be absent Monday, and to re- turn Tuesday morning. Apparently I shall lose my opportunity to vote on the Spanish loan, which I would favor, be- cause I feel that Spain is decidedly in the world picture. I know of nothing else to be done except to carry out my obligations already incurred. But I should like an answer to this question: Certainly the Senator does not expect a vote on final passage or on the 10-percent cut until Tuesday, at any rate, does he? Mr. LUCAS. Probably not until Wednesday. Ido not know, but we hope we may get a vote on Tuesday, but cer- tainly we shal] not vote on it on Monday, I may say to the Senator from Wisconsin. Mr. WILEY. Therefore, I shall not object. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, reserv- ing the right to object, will the clerk please read the unanimous-consent re- quest, as far as we have gone? If he has not been able to reduce it to writing yet, I should like to ask: Did the ma- jority leader request that on amend- ments pending or which may be offered, 5 minutes be allowed to each side on each amendment? I do not anticipate that any amendments will be offered, but I think the unanimous-consent agreement should contain such a provision. The PRESIDING OFFICER. That was not included. The Chair will advise the Senator from Nebraska that that was not included in the unanimous-consent request. Mr. WHERRY. If the majority leader will modify his request to include a pro- vision that on each amendment pending or to be offered, 5 minutes shall be al- lowed on each amendment to each side, I think it will be satisfactory. Mr, LUCAS. I have no objection. The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is, 5 minutes to each side, on each amend- ment. Mr. WHERRY. Yes. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection at this time to the unanimous- consent request? Mr. KEM. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I want to be sure that the last request of the majority leader has nothing to do with the divi- sion of time prior to 2 o’clock. Mr. LUCAS. The Senator is correct. Mr. BRIDGES. Mr. President, reserv- ing the right to object, would the Chair state in substance what the request is? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will endeavor to state his under- standing of the unanimous-consent re- quest. It is that on Monday next the time shall be divided from the conven- ing of the Senate until 2 o’clock between the proponents and the opponents, the time to be controlled, respectively, by the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Mc- Ketiar] and the Senator from Missouri [Mr. Kem]; that at 2 o’clock a vote shall be taken upon any amendment pending or that may be offered, or on any mo- tions, with 5 minutes allowed to each side for debate on any such amendments or motions; that the requirements of the unanimous-consent request as proposed are that amendments must be germatie, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE that any right to raise a point of order js not involved or limited by the request; that upon disposition of the matters which will come on for vote at 2 o’clock an additional 38-hour period shall be allowed for debate on the amendment to be offered by the senior Senator from Nevada [Mr. McCarran] relating to the giving of aid to Spain. Mr. LUCAS. May I suggest it is to be not later than 3 hours thereafter. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Not later than 8 hours after the vote, which will begin at 2 o’clock, the vote will also begin upon the amendment of the senior Senator from Nevada, and the time will be divided and controlled, respectively, by the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Mc- Kevzar] and the Senator from Nevada (Mr. McCarran] as to that second period of time, and the 5-minute limitation on debate to apply to any amendment pro- posed thereto. Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. LUCAS. I yield. Mr. DONNELL. I understand that the succinct statement made by the Chair relates to chapter X-B and has no refer- ence to any other portion of the bill. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. The Chair intended to state that. Mr. LUCAS. And we shall not only vote on amendments, but on the chapter itself after we make disposition of the amendments. The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. Is there objection to the unanimous- consent request? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered. The unanimous-consent agreement, as subsequentiy reduced to writing, is as follows: Ordered, That on the calendar day of Monday, July 31, 1950, at the hour of 2 o'clock p. m., the Senate proceed to vote, except as hereinafter provided, on any amendment or motion that may ke pending or that may be offered to the committee amendment beginning on page 447 and ex- tending down to and including page 461, In- clusive, being Chapter X~B—Foreign aid, to the bill H. R. 7786, the general appropriation bill for 1951: Provided, That no amendment that is not germane to the subject matter shall be in order and that points of order may not be waived under the agreement. — Ordered further, That the time between 12 o'clock noon and 2 o'clock p. m. shall be divided equally between those favoring and those opposed to the committee amendment and controlled, respectively, by Mr. McKet- Lar and Mr, Kem, Ordered further, That after said hour of 2 o’clock p. m., debate on any amendment or motion shall be limited to not exceeding 10 minutes, to be equally divided between the mover thereof and the chairman of the Com- mittee on Appropriations, Ordered further, That with reference to the amendment intended to be proposed by Mr. McCargan, providing that $100,000,000 of the appropriation shall be used for assist- ance to Spain, debate shall be limited not to exceed 8 hours, to be equally divided and controlled by Mr. McCarean and Mr. McoKx.ar. Ordered further, That upon the dispost- tion of the amendment proposed by Mr. McCarran, the Senate proceed to vote, with- out further debate, upon the committee amendment, whether amended or not. 11329 Ordered further, That after the period for debate on the so-called McCarran amend- ment has expired, debate upon any amend- ment thereto shall be limited to not exceed- ing 10 minutes to be equally divided between the mover thereof and Mr. McCarran. Mr, BRIDGES. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment to the cur- rent chapter of the bill. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be received, printed, and lie on the table. The Senator from Vermont is rec- ognized. Mr. FLANDERS. Mr. President, I agreed to yicld to the Senator from Ten- nessee, provided I may do so without losing my right to the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator from Vermont may yield for that purpose. Mr. McKELLAR. Mr. President, chapter X-B of the bill appropriates money for foreign aid. This part of the bill probably will give rise to a great deal of discussion as it involves the question of money and aid extended to foreign governments. Last year we appropriated the enor- mous sum of $5,513,890,000 for foreign aid. The estimate for this year is about $650,000,000 less and amounts to $4,855,- 073,729. The House did not pass on these items of foreign aid at all, although the House took the lead in having a uni- fied appropriation bill, We need not in- quire as to why the House left out of the bill these huge gifts to foreign countries, but we shall go ahead and keep the for- eign-aid chapter in with the other ap- propriation chapters, The committee recommends a much smaller sum than the amount authorized for foreign aid for fiscal year 1951. The committee has allowed the sum of $4,- 522,158,729, which is approximately a billion dollars less than the appropria- tion for fiscal year 1950, and {ts $332,915,- 000 below the budget estimate. The committee thinks that, under all of the circumstances, it is justified in making this reduction. . Mr. President, I shall refer briefly to some of the larger items of foreign aid iu this chapter. The largest single appro- priation is to the ECA. The budget esti- mate for ECA is $2,657,700,000 and the committee recommends that the esti- mate be cut 10 percent to provide an appropriation of $2,391,930,000. This amount is $1,236,450,000 under the 1950 appropriation. The committee also agreed to allow ECA to use the 1950 carry-over funds of approximately $277,- 000,000. The committee arrived at these recommendations after very careful con- sideration and I hope the Senate will approve of them. The next large item in the chapter is for mutual-defense assistance. The committee was unanimous in recom- mending the full amount of the budget estimate of $1,678,023,729. On the funds for International De- velopment, commonly referred to as point 4, the committee originally recom- mended an appropriation of $10,000,000 in this chapter. I would like to make it clear to the Senate that the $10,000,000 recommended is in addition to other funds for point 4 programs carried under
11330 the Department of State appropriations in chapter III. In the Department of State appropria- tions under the Institute of Inter-Ameri- can Affairs. the committee recommends an appropriation of $5,000,000 and in the appropriation for International In- formation and Educational Activities there is an appropriation of $2,600,000, for point 4 programs. Since the committee recommended the appropriation of $10,000,000 in this chapter for point 4, I have conferred with the President, and I have also re- ceived a letter from the President urging that the appropriation of $10,000,000 be increased to the full amount of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE budget estimate of $26,900,000. The President told me that the amount of $10,000,000 was not enough in his opinion as we were at war and more funds would be necessary to carry out the program to the best advantage of our defense. I at once submitted the request to the Appropriations Committee and we have reconsidered it and the committee has voted to allow the President the amount of money he asked for, namely, $26,900,- 000 for the purpose of carrying out the point 4 program which the President recommended and the Congress has agreed to. We are at war, the President is our Commander in Chief, and the committee thinks that we should leave JULY 28 no stone unturned to back him up. I hope the Senate will agree with our recommendations. There are several other items in this chapter which I will not explain in de- tall since they are referred to in our committee report. I do, however, Mr. President, ask unanimous consent to insert in the record a table which I have had prepared by the staff showing the individual appropriation items, the amounts for 1950, the amounts of the budget estimates, and the amounts recommended by the committee. There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Comparative statement of appropriations for 1950, budget estimates and amounts recomm ded in the bill for 1951 nce een tnteeeeensenreepaneensaianeseateeneanetnenenmntan Funds appropriated to the President: Economie Cooperation Adminstration. .........--..- Assistance to Greece and Turkey-...- Assistance to the Republic of Korea. International children’s welfare work International development (point IV Mutual defense assistance. 02.2.2... Tepartinent of Deiense, Department of the Army, civil functions’ QARIOA. 2.222022 2-2 --- eo - eee eee eee Department of State Government in occupied areas of Germany-........-.- Aid to Palestina refugees... .2.----- eee e ewe ne nee ne enee Grand total... 2-20 - ence ween eee nn ene eeneneceeenee Ineroase (4+) or decreaso (—) Senate bill compared with— Appropriations, | Budget estimate, Committee ; Pree tsi "| recommendation Appropriations, 1950 Budget ostimate, 1951 Amount Percent Amount Percent 1 $3, 628, 380, 000 | 2 $2, 657, 700, 000 $2, 301, 930,000 | —$1, ti 450, 000 34.1 —$265, 770, 000 10.0 5,000, 000 |..2.2. 22 --------[-eeee ee wee eee — 45, 000, ee Penns Seren nnn irs 110, 000, 000 100, 000, 000 90, 000, 000 —20, 000, O00) ), 000, 000 10.0 ween neee 15, 000, 000 12, 500, 000 +12, 500, 000 —2, 500, 000 16.7 a . 26, 900, 000 10, 000, 000 +10, 000, 000 16, 900, 000 62.8 3814, 010, 000 41, 078, 023, 729 #1, 678, 023, 729 864,013,720 | =: 106, 1 J nee eel ene ene ind 912, 500, 000 320, 000, C00 288, 000, 000 624, 500, 000 68.4 ~32, 000, 000 , (Q) 30, 000, C00 27, 000, 000 27,000, 000 |.....------- —3,000, 000 10.0 4, 000, 000 27, 450, 000 24, 705, 000 +20, 705, 000 417.6 —2, 745, 000 10.0 5, 513, 890, 000 4, 855, 078, 720 4, 622, 158, 720 901, 731, 271 17.9 —332, 015, 000 6. 85 In additton, loan authority In the amount of $140,000,000 or a total of $3,778,380,000, +Original subtuission in H. Doe, No, 479 was in the amount of $2,050,000,000, Revised estimate submitted in $, Doe. 176 in the amount of $2,657,700,000, In addition, contract authontv in the amount of $500,000,000 Includes $455,523,729 for liquidation of prio-year contract authorlly, 8. Doe No. 194 SFormenly under “Government and relicf im occupied areas.” The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will state the first committee amendment to chapter X-B. The first amendment was, at the top of page 447, to insert: CHAPTER X-B—ForeIcn AID TITLE I—-FUNDS APPROPRIATED TO THE PRESIDENT Economie cooperation For expenses necessary to enable the Presi- dent to carry out the provisons of the Eco- nomic Cooperation Act of 1948, as amended by the act of April 19, 1949 (Public Law 47), and as further amended by the act of June 5, 1950 (Public Law 535), including expenses of attendance at meetings concerned with the purposes of this appropriation (not to exceed $30,000); hire of passenger motor ve- hicles; maintenance and operation and hire of aircraft; payment of damage claims pur- suant to law (28 U.S. C. 2672); health service program as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 150); rents in the District of Columbia; trans- portation of privately owned automobiles; entertainment (not to exceed $20,000); ex- change of funds without regard to section 38651 of the Revised Statutes; and loss by exchange; $2,391,930,000, of which not to exceed $50,000 shall be available for expendi- tures of a confidential character (other than entertainment) under the direction of the Administrator or the Deputy Administrator, who shall make a certificate of the amount of each such expenditure which he may think it advisable not to specify, and every such certificate shall be deemed a _ sufficient voucher for the amount therein specified: Provided, That this appropriation shall be consolidated and merged with funds here- tofore made available for the purposes of the Economic Cooperation Act of 1248, as amended, and such consolidated appropria- tion may be used during the fiscal year 1951 within the limitations herein specified: Provided further, That not to exceed $15,- 255,000 of such consolidated appropriation shall be available for administrative expenses during the fiscal year 1951, of which not more than $25,000 shall be available to the Administrator for any further action he may consider advisable to carry out the provisions of section 115 (f) of the Economic Coopera- tion Act of 1948, as amended: Provided further, That not to exceed 600,000,000 shall be available for transfers under section 111 (d) of the Economic Cooperation Act of 1948, as amended: Provided further, That no part of the funds herein appropriated shall be expended in a manner that will permit any of the local currency equivalents, derived therefrom in compliance with section 115 (b) (6) of the Economic Cooperation Act of 1948, as amended, to be placed at the disposal of any recipient country so long as any de- pendent area of such country falls to comply with any treaty to which such dependent area and the United States are parties. Mr. FLANDERS. Mr. President, I wish to invite the attention of the Sen- ate, in connection with chapter X-B, to lines 17 to 24, on page 448, commenc- ing with the words “Provided, further.” This section relates to the difficulties which have been encountered under the ECA by certain American merchants in Morocco. Those difficulties stem from treaty in- terpretations, as I understand, relating to treaties of this country with France and with Morocco and the relations be- tween France and Morocco. Mr. President, I would object, under any circumstances, to this provision in this chapter of the bill. I would object to anything which used an incident which, however serious, is yet of com- paratively small proportions, as a means by which the work of the ECA to sup- port the Republic of France might be removed. It seems to me, from all I can learn, that there are two elements of the situation. One element is that the problem is one which should be solved, if not by negotiation, by international judicial action, Furthermore, I am in- formed that a modus vivendi has been arranged and is in process of develop- ment with some success, and that the situation is improving as time goes on. Mr. President, the remarks I have made I would make under any circum- stances, but at this point I raise a point of order as to the language which I have just defined as commencing with the word “Provided” on line 17 of page 448, through line 24 of the same page. This seems to me to be very clearly legisla- tive material in an appropriation bill, and therefore I raise the question as to whether it belongs in the bill at all. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont raises a point of order to that portion of chapter X-B of the bill beginning with the third word on line 17 of page 448 and going down to the end of line 24 on the same page. Does any Senator wish to be heard? If not, the present occupant of the chair is prepared to rule. In the opinion of the Chair, the point of order should lie, and the point of order is sustained. Mr, WILEY. Mr. President, in con- nection with this amendment, I ask