10964 Mr. McKELLAR. I will say that there is nothing in the world in the bill that affects that battlefield. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The next committee amendment will be stated. The next amendment was, under the heading “Tariff Commission,” on page 324, line 8, after “(5 U. 8S. C. 55a)” to strike out “$1,290,700” and insert ‘$1,- 340,700.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the heading “The Tax Court of the United States.” on page 325, line 4, after the word “services”, to strike out “$820,000” and insert “$826,900.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the heading ‘United States Maritime Com- mission,” on page 325, line 17, after the figures ‘$63,000,000’, to strike out the colon and the following proviso: “Pro- vided, That no part of this appropriation or contract authorization shall be used to start any new ship construction for which an estimate was not included in the budget for the current fiscal year, nor to start any new ship construction the currently estimated cost of which ex- ceeds by 10 percent the estimated cost included therefor in such budget unless the Director of the Bureau of the Budget specifically approves the start of such ship construction and the Director shall submit forthwith a detailed explanation thereof to the Committees on Appropria- tions of the Senate and of the House of Representatives; and, as used herein, the term “budget” includes the detailed justification supporting the budget esti- mates” and in licu thereof to insert “Provided, That no part of this appropri- ation or contract authorization shall be used (1) to start any new ship construc- tion for which an estimate was not in- cluded in the budget for the current fiscal year or (2) to start any new ship con- structicn the currently estimated cost of which exceeds by 10 percent the esti- mated cost included therefor in such budget unless, in either case, the Director of the Bureau of the Budget specifically approves the start of such ship construc- t10n and the Director shal] submit forth- with a detailed explanation thereof to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and of the House of Representa- tives, and, as used herein, the term “budget” Includes the detailed justifica- tion supporting the budget estimates: Provided further, That not to exceed $64,875,000 of the funds and contract authority made available for new ship construction, including reconditioning and betterment, in the Independent Of- fices Appropriation Act, 1950, shall] con- tinue to be available until December 31, 1950.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, on page $26, line 24, after the word “amended”, to strike out “$26,450,000” and insert “$30,108,000”, and on page 328, line 11, efter the word “contracts”, to strike out the colon and the following additional proviso: “Provided further, That no part of the foregoing appropriation shall be available for obligation, nor any obliga- tion made, for the payment of an oper- ating differential subsidy for any num- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE ber of ships in excess of the number of ships which are ‘entitled to receive an operating differential subsidy pursuant to provisions of any contract, authoriza- tion, commitment or obligation by the Commission in existence on January 1, 1950, including within said limitation as to number any ships being constructed or contracted for on said date under a con- struction-differential subsidy contract and including also any ships the opera- tion of which may be authorized by the Commission under any contracts which may result from any formal applications filed with the Commission prior to Jan- uary 1, 1950.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, on page 330, after line 2, to strike out: Maritime training For training personnel for the manning of merchant marine (in- cluding operation of training stations at Kings Point, N Y.; Sheepshead Bay, N Y.; Alameda, Calif.. and the United States Maritime Service Institute), including not to exceed $2,229,300 for administrative per- sonal services in the District of Columbia and elsewhere; purchase of three passenger motor vehicles, for replacement only, print- ing and binding, health service program as authorized by law (5 U.S C 150), not to exeed $2,500 for contingencies for the Su- perintendent, United States Merchant Ma- rine Academy, to be expended in his dis- cretion, not to exceed 877,000 for transfer to applicable appiopriations of the Public Health Service for sei vices rendcred the Com- mission; $3,342,660, including uniforms and textbooks for cadet midshipmen, to be pro- vided in kind at an average yearly cost of not to exceed $200 per cadet: Provided, That no part of this appropriation shall be used for compensation or allowances for trainees or cadets And in lieu thereof, to insert the fol- lowing: Maritime training: For training personnel for the manning of the merchant marine (in- cluding operation of tialning stations at Kings Point, N. Y, Sheepshead Bay, N Y,; Alameda, Calif, and the United States Mart- time Service Institute), including not to ex- ceed $2,477,000 for administrative personal services (exclusive of pay of cadet midship- men and other trainees) in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, purchase of three passenger motor vehicles, for replacement only, printing and binding, health service program as authorizd by law (5 U 8 C 150); not to exceed $2,500 for contingencies for the Superintendent, United States Merchant Ma- rine Academy, to be expended in his discre- tion, not to exceed $77,000 for transfer to applicable appropriations of the Public Health Bervice for services rendered the Commission; $3,930,520, including the pay of cadet midshipmen and other trainees, Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, I have an amendment to offer. I am not sure of the page on which it comes, and I do not want action to be taken at the point at which my amendment should be offered. The amendment is at the desk and I ask that it be stated. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated. The LeciswaTive CLERK. On page 331, line 3, after the word “elsewhere’’ it is proposed to insert “which may be used to provide pay and allowances for person- nel of the United States Maritime Serv- ice comparable to those of the Coast Guard as authorized by law (46 U. 8. C. 1126, 14 F. R. 7707)”. JuLy 25 On page 881, line 10, it is pronosed to strike out $3,930,520 and insert $4,348,520. Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, this is an amendment which I have dis- cussed with the senior Senator from Wyoming. It relates to the pay of the officers and personnel of the Maritime Training School. As I understand, these men have always been paid by law on the same basis as the Coast Guard is paid. The Coast Guard received an in- crease in pay by the act passed a year ago. By mistake in the committee the act did not include the same raise in pay for the maritime officers and men who are at this training school. Pro- vision was made for pay for the cadets but the amount appropriated was not sufficient to cover an increase. If my amendment is not adopted, these men will have a decrease in their present pay rather than the increase to which they are entitled, I believe the Senator from Wyoming is thoroughly informed with the situa- tion and is in accord with the amend- ment I have just offered, but I should prefer to have him speak for himself. Mr. O’MAHONEY. Mr. President, I think I should say for the Recorp that the committee in its search for ways and means of reducing the appropriation to the lowest efficient amount cut $418,- 000 from the appropziation for maritime training in the belief that the officers to whom the Senator from Massachusctts has referred were not entitled to the increase In pay which was granted to them by the administrative action of the Maritime Commission at the beginning of the year. We checked the pay-in- crease law of last year and found that 1t did not deal specifically with this group. Later, however, after the committee had acted upon the measure, my atten- tion was called by the Senator from Massachusetts and by others to the fact that the law establishing this organi- zation specifically provides that the of- ficers in maritime training shall receive the pay which is provided for Coast Guard officers in similar grades. So it would be legislation for us to cut out the appropriation, and I have no objection to the Senator's amendment. Mr FERGUSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr, O'MAHONEY. I yield. Mr. FERGUSON. Does the Senator consider it legislation if the amendment is allowed to be acted upon? Mr, O’MAHONEY. No. Mr. FERGUSON. But it would be legislation to attempt to cut it out, that is, to change the law which provides that the men in question shall receive the same pay as the others. Mr. O’MAHONEY,. Inasmuch as the law provides that they shall receive the same pay as the officers of the Coast Guard, I think there is nothing we can do about it on an appropriation bill. Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. O'MAHONEY. I yield. Mr. AIKEN. May I inquire if the of- ficers assigned to the maritime training schools are employed on the same basis as the officers of the Coast Guard? In other words, are they officers who have enlisted for a period of years or are they
1950 employed as instructors, as college and high school instructors are employed? Mr. O’MAHONEY. They are em- Ployed on the same basis as other offi- cers in the Coast Guard. That is true of the men also. . Mr. AIKEN. And they enlist for a period of years? Mr. O’MAHONEY. Yes. Mr. AIKEN. I thank the Senator. Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. O’MAHONEY. I yield. Mr, LEHMAN. I simply wish to say that I believe the committee amendment is very definitely a proposal in the na- tional defense. One of the largest of the merchant marine academies is situated in the State of New York, at King’s Point. Mr. O'MAHONEY. The Senator is discussing the committee amendment, to which there is no objection. The ques- tion now before the Senate is on agree- ing to an amendment offered from the floor by the Senator from Massachusetts, to restore $418,000, which was voted by the committee to be stricken out. In taking that action, the committee was under a misapprehension as to the ex- isting law. Mr. LEHMAN. I thank the Senator for guiding me in this matter. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amend- ment offered by the Senator from Massa- chusetts [Mr. SALTONSTALL] to the com- mittee amendment on page 331, in line 3. The amendment to the amendment was agreed to. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now is on the second amend- ment offered by the Senator from Massa- chusetts to the committee amendment, which will be stated. The LeoisLaTive Clerk. To the com- mittee amendinent beginning on page 330, after line 2, and ending on page 331 in line 11, the following amendment is proposed: On page 331, in line 10, strike out “$3,930,520”, and insert “$4,348,520.” The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amend- ment proposed by the Senator from Massachusetts to the committee amend- ment. The amendment to the amendment was agreed to. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now is on agrecing to the com- mittee amendment as amended. The amendment, as amended, was agreed to. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The next amendment of the committee will be stated. The next amendment was, on page 331, after line 11, to strike out: State marine schools: To reimburse the State of California, $50,000; the State of Maine, $50,000; the State of Massachusetts, $50,000; and the State of New York, 50,000; for expenses incurred in the maintenance and support of marine schools in such States as provided in the act authorizing the estab- lishment of marine schools, and so forth, approved March 4, 1911, as amended (34 U 8. C. 1121-1123); $158,000 for the mainte- nance and repair of vessels loaned by the United States to the said States for use ‘im connection with such State marine CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE schools, and €340,000 for uniforms, text- books, and subsistence of cadets at an avers.ge yearly cost of not to exceed $475 per cadet; $668,000, together with not to exceed 826,000 of the unobligated balance for this purpose contained in the Inde- pendent Offices Appropriation Act, 1960. And in lieu thereof, to insert: State marine schools: To reimburse the State of California, 850,000; the State of Maine, $50,000; the State of Massachusetts, $50,000; and the State of New York, $30,000; for expenses incurred in the maintenance and support of marine schools in such States as provided in the act authorizing the estab- lishment of marire schools, and so forth, approved March 4, 1911, as amended (34 U. 8. C. 1121-1123); $153,000 for the mainte- nance and repair of vessels loaned by the United States to the said States for use in connection with-such State marine schools, and $749,050 for the pay of 710 cadet mid- shipmen at ¢65 per month and $275 per annum for the subsistence of each cadet midshipman; $1,102,050. The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, on page 332, line 22, after the word “the”, to strike out ‘Independent Offices Appro- priation Act, 1950” and insert “Third Deficiency Appropriation Act, 1949.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the heading “Veterans’ Administration,” on page 336, line 12, after the word “appli- ances”, to strike out “$875,847,795” and insert “$887,621,000.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, on page 340, line 1, after the word “application”, to strike out “therefore” and insert “therefor.’’ The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, on page 342, line 16, after the word “exceed”, to strike out “4” and insert “6.7"; and on page 343, line 3, after the word “exceed”, to strike out “7” and insert “10.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the heading “War Claims Commission—Ad- ministrative expenses,” on page 345, line 15, after the word “Commission”, to strike out $600,000" and = insert “$700,000.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Independent offices—General provisions,” on page 349, after line 5, to insert: Sre. 110. None of the sections under the head “Independent offices, General provi- sions” in this title shall apply to the Hous- ing and Home Finance Agency, the Inland Waterways Corporation, or the Tennessee Valley Autholity. The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the head “Housing and Home Finance Agency,” on page 353, line 24, after the word “exceed”, to strike out “$17,724,000” and insert “$17,524,000.” The amendment was agreed to. The PRESIDING OFFICER. That completes chapter VIII of the bill. The clerk will state the first commit- tee amendment appearing in the next chapter. Mr, DOUGLAS. Mr. President, have we passed from the portion of the bill 10965 dealing with independent-offices appro- priations, and are we now considering the portion of the bill dealing with civil- functions appropriations? The PFESIDING OFFICER. Yes. Yesterday the Senator from Illinois was granted permission to offer any amendment he might wish to offer to the committee amendments from page 277 to page 283. Accordingly, the Senator from Mlinois is recognized at this time. Mr. O’MAHONEY. Mr. President, will the Senator from Illinois yield to me for a moment? Mr. DOUGLAS. Certainly. Mr. O’MAHONEY. At the close of consideration by us of the committee amendments in this chapter, it had been my intention to advert to a certain mat- ter Mr. DOUGLAS. I am glad to have the Senator do so. Mr. O’MAHONEY. Mr. President, on page 304, beginning in line 19, is a sec- tion, referring to public works advanced planning. It reads as follows: Public works advance planning: The un- expended balances on Junc 30, 19£0, of funds made available for public works advance planning under title V of the War Mobiliza- tion and Reconversion Act of 1944 (58 Stat. 791), are hereby continued available for expenditure until June 30, 1951. I have been checking into this matter since the conclusion of the consideration of this section of the bill by the commit- tee; and I find that it will be possible to make a reduction there. So I now move that on page 304, in line 19, the word “The”. be stricken, and there be inserted in lieu thereof the words “Not to exceed $4,000,000 of the,” so that this action by the Senate will re- sult in cutting out $2,000,000 of the un- expended appropriation. Then in line 24, after the-—— Mr. McFARLAND. Mr. President, may we act first on the amendment al- ready stated by the Senator? Mr. O'MAHONEY. It is all one amendment. Mr. McFARLAND. Is the Senator from Wyoming going to ask that all of it be handled as one amendment? Mr. O'MAHONEY. Yes. Mr. FERGUSON. On what page does this amendment appear, Mr. President? Mr. O’MAHONEY. It is on page 304. Then, ‘Mr. President, in line 24 on that page, after the numeral “1951”, I move that the following be added: The sum of $2,000,000 carried in the sald unexpended balance shall be carried to the surplus fund and covered into the Treasury immediately upon the approval of this Act. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator offer that as a committee amendment? Mr. O’MAHONEY. Yes. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the commit- tee amendment just stated by the Sen- ator from Wyoming. The amendment was agreed to. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yester- day the Senator from Illinois was granted permission to offer amendments to certain items, and he is recognized at this time,
10966 Mr. MURRAY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield, to permit me to ask a question? Mr. DOUGLAS, I yield. Mr. MURRAY. I should like to ask the Senator in charge of this portion of the bill whether any provision is made in the bill for the stockpiling program. Mr. O'MAHONEY. Oh, yes. Mr. MURRAY. On page 300, in line 19, I notice that the language stricken from the bill, as the bill is reported by the committee, seems to indicate that no provision is being made for a stockpil- ing program under which provision would be made to permit the purchase of materials for stockpiling in the United States. Mr. O’MAHONEY. No; the language which came over to us in the bill as it was passed by the House of Representa- tives, I am sure, was a technical error. In line 19, on page 300, after stating the amount of the appropriation, it read as follows: Of which not to exceed $25,000,000 may be expended in accordance with the purposes of said act of July 23, 1946— And so forth. That would have meant that there would have been a limitation upon the expenditures for stockpiling within the United States. However, I am sure that was not the intention of the House committee or of the House of Representatives when they acted upon this matter. In the Senate committee we voted to strike all of it out, because the Stock- piling Act of July 23, 1946, in securing the passage of which the Senator from Montana was of such great help, pro- vides specific authority for the purchase of strategic and critical materials within the United States. Indeed, that Act spe- cifically encourages the development of such materials, So I am sure that any difficulty can be straightened out in conference. Mr. MURRAY. I thank the Senator for that explanation. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois has been recog- nized. Does he wish to offer an amend- ment at this time? Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I re- gret that I was not present when con- sideration of the appropriation bill was resumed today. I have been in my office, keeping somewhat close tab on the prob- abilities in regard to the time when con- sideration of the bill would be resumed. At 5:10 p. m. this afternoon, I was informed that the senior Senator from Missouri [Mr. DONNELL] was speaking, and that the probability was that he would speak for some time thereafter. Therefore, I did not think that the con- sideration of the appropriation bill would be resumed here so suddenly. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the reservation made yesterday, the Sen- ator from Illinois has received permis- sion—— Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I un- derstand about that, but I should like to make a further statement at this e. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may proceed, certainly. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. DOUGLAS. Continuing Mr. Presi- dent, at 5:15, I received a telephone message that the appropriation bill was again being considered by the Senate. So I hurried here, arriving here at 6:20 p.m. When I arrived, I found that in . that space of 5 minutes the Senate had moved from the consideration of the committee amendments on page 283 to the consideration of the committee amendments on page 329, or 46 pages, in 5 minutes, So I wish to congratulate the reading clerk for the speed and celerity with which he moved through those complicated pages of the bill. Yesterday in open-eyed amazement, I saw him move from page 277 to page 283—-some 6 pages—in 6 seconds. How- ever, I was not certain that he could maintain that pace over a long period of time. [Laughter.] Nevertheless, Mr. President, today I find that due to the great ability of the reading clerk, the Senate covered over 45 pages in 5 minutes. SoIcan say that the Senate’s reading clerk not only is qualified as a dash man, he is not only a@ verbal Jesse Owens, but he is also qualified as a middle-distance runner, for in running the half-mile he has demonstrated that he can sprint all the way. At the appropriate time I am go- ing to move that we award to the read- ing clerk a medal for the celerity with which he has helped us get through this measure. [Laughter.] Mr. President, the result of this speed—almost exceeding as it did the velocity of light—is that I missed being on the floor of the Senate at the time when the Senate was considering the committee amendments from page 283 on. Accordingly, I must throw myself upon the mercy of the Senate in craving its indulgence and pardon for not having been here while the committee amend- ments on those pages were being read by the reading clerk and while the Sen- ate deliberated at high speed upon them. I believe that the Presiding Officer has ruled—and very properly—that because of the understanding arrived at on yes- terday, I am privileged to request the reconsideration of the items up to page 283. However, I think I should now serve notice that I am going to request the reconsideration of a number of items from page 283 on. Whether the Senate will permit those items to be reconsid- ered, of course, is a matter for the Senate itself to determine. Mr. President, on page 280, in line 9, in the item dealing with appropriations for the Bureau of the Budget, let me say that I hope we do not grant the $26,000 increase, but, instead, hold to the amount voted by the House of Representatives. Mr. O'MAHONEY. Mr. President, let me say to the Senator from Illinois that the House of Representatives cut this appropriation by $100,000. In its re- port the House committee explains that it was intended to deny funds to open @ new central office in the fleld. How- ever, upon examination of the figures it was discovered that only $76,000 had been allocated to that purpose. The Senate committee agreed that the new field station should not be opened, but JULY 25 the additional $26,000 reduction above the $74,000 which was intended to be cut out would, in the opinion of the committee, be a matter for the Bureau of the Budget, which actually has served a perfectly splendid purpose in cutting down the budget estimates. I am glad to be able to tell the Sen- ator that we went into the matter of the budget estimates at great length. The estimates which have come to the Congress on this bill were, by reason of the action of the Bureau of the Budget, some $3,000,000,000 less than the re- quests made by the various bureaus and agencies. I think it would not be a wise reduction to cut that additional $26,000. Mr. DOUGLAS. I want to thank the Senator from Wyoming for his very clear and, of course, very accurate state- ment of the amounts to be appropri- ated for the Budget Bureau, which the Budget Bureau itself proposed. But I should like to point out that the House figure was $86,000 above the amount for last year. The Senate figure will be $112,000 above the amount for last year. Mr. President, we are in a situation where we must cut virtually every bu- reau, in order to release energies for the war. The Budget Bureau is a very fine organization, but like most other gov- ernmental agencies it should absorb some reductions. There is fat in the Budget Bureau. They will deny it, but there is certainly some fat there, as else- where. I do not wish to prolong the dis- cussion, but I hope we can save $26,000 and reject the committee amendment. I move that we reconsider the vote by which the committee amendment was agreed to. Mr. O'MAHONEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote may be reconsidered, but that the argu- ment of the Senator from Tllinots be denied, and the committee amendment be again approved. The PRESIDING OFFICER. With- out objection, the vote by which the committee amendment was agreed to is reconsidered. The question now is upon agreeing to the committee amendment. The amendment was agreed to. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I now move that on page 281, line 6, the Sen- ate reconsider the vote by which the com- mittee amendment was agreed to which substituted $215,500 for $160,000 on the appropriation for the Philippine Alien Property Administration. I hope we may hold to the smaller House figure of $160,000. Mr. President, the work of this organ- ization has diminished. Mr. O7MAHONEY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. DOUGLAS. Certainly. Mr. O’MAHONEY. I merely wish to ask unanimous consent that we recon- sider the vote by which the committee amendment was agreed to, in order that the Senator may make his argument. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered, The Senator may now proceed, Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, the amount appropriated by the House was $160,000. The committee increased this
1950 by $55,000, bringing the total to $215,000, The House committee, in its report, on page 201, states that the bulk of the $55,- 000 cut which it imposed, as compared to the budget request, was for funds re- quested for terminal leave. In the judg- ment of the House committee, these funds can be absorbed in the 1950-51 funds, and therefore they put into effect their cut below the budget estimate. The Senate committee has restored this figure, but, in view of the diminished work which the Philippine Alien Prop- erty Administration Is carrying on, I hope that we shall reconsider the com- mittee amendment and will not approve Mr. O’MAHONEY. Mr. President, I should like merely to say that the com- mittee restored the budget estimate, and upon this estimate, after having exam- ined the members of the Philippine Alien Property Administration, and in the belief that providing the budget esti- mate, that is to say, by increasing the amount that the House had cut, we would expedite the completion of the work. War claims have dragged out in past in- stances to a great period. This, I think, will expedite the disposal of all the work of this commission, and will be decidedly in the public interest. In any event, it will be clearly before the Congress. I hope the amendment will be adopted. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the commit- tee amendment. The amendment was agreed to. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I must now throw myself on the mercy of the Senate, from now on, because the pages 283 to 329 were covcred in the 5 minutes between the time I left my ofiice and the time I arrived on the floor of the Senate. I may say that I am going to ask reconsideration of appro- priations as follows: Page 288, line 4: This is an item for salaries and expenses of the Civil Service Commission. We should reject the com~ mittee increase of $500,000 because the House committee report on page 204 pointed out the degree of overstaffing in this agency which was borne out in the House hearings, especially on pages 1459 and 1460. By rejecting the committee amendment we would save $500,000. Page 303, line 19: This is an item for advance planning of public works by the General Services Administration. I hope we may reconsider this item so that I may offer an amendment to reduce the amount to $17,000,000, which would leave this program at last year’s level. I do not believe we should increase these funds at the present time since this pro- gram was designed to get works planned in case of a depression and since, under the old program, we still have $2,000,- 000,000 in works already planned not counting those for rivers, harbors, flood control, reclamation, and a host of others. If my amendment is adopted we will save $10,000,000. Page 307, line 12: This is an item for operating expenses of the General Serv- ices Administration. This new category of expenditures should be able to absorb the 7 percent cut provided for by the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE House. If we reject the committee amendment we will save $6,225,000. Page 314, line 13: An item for general expenses of the Interstate Commerce Commission, The House has already in- creased last year’s appropriation by $280,000. I see no reason for giving this agency its full budget request, as the committee has done, when we have not done so for most agencies. I hope we can reject the committee’s amendment and save $113,000, Page 321, line 11: An item for salaries and expenses of the Securities and Ex- change Commission. The House figure has already allowed an increase of $380,000 for this Commission over funds expended last year should be enough. By rejecting the commitiee amendment we can save $200,000. Page 322, line 20: Salaries and expen- £es of the Smithsonian Institution—an- other case of allowing the full budget request while we have not done so in most agencies. We should reject the committee amendment and save $163,510. Page 325, line 17: If we accept the amendment which I shall offer, for rea- sons I hope to develop, we will save $41,- 000,000. Page 326, line 24: I hope we will reject this amendment and save $3,658,000. The sum total of these amendments which I hope will be adopted would save approximately $60,000,000 in funds and contract authorizations I now move that the Senate reconsider the action by which it has approved these items, and that we take them up one by one. Mr. O’MAHONEY. Mr. President, I hope that I am not indulging in an cx- cess of optimism in what I am about to say in my appeal to the Scnator from Tnois. I hold 1m my hand the volume of the hearings by this committee on thus chapter of the bill. It contains 1,136 pages of printed testimony. I assure the Senator that the members of the committee went into these items with the greatest care, and with the purpose of cutting appropriations wherever there was a possibility of cutting them. We had new estimates which were not be- fore the House. Neverthcless, we have reported to the Senate a bill which is below the amount appropriated by the House. The very unusual aspect of this chap- ter, different from any other chapter which is before the Senate, is that of the total amount of cash carried in the bill, 90 percent is for war-connected expendi- tures, and with respect to contract au- thorizations, 93 percent is for war-con- nected expenditures. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. O’MAHONEY. I shall be very -glad to yield. Mr. DOUGLAS. The amendments I am proposing do not deal with war-con- nected expenditures, unless we can take the Maritime Commission expenditures to be of that nature. The proposals Iam now making are largely for a reduction of administrative costs. Mr. OMAHONEY. Imay suggest that the Maritime Commission certainly is 10967 war-connected. There are many vessels in storage which may very shortly be used. JI think it would be very unwise at this moment, when we are engaged in transporting men and materials across the Pacific Ocean because of what is go- ing on in Korea, to cut the appropriation for the Maritime Commission below that which is provided for in the bill. I am quite sincere in saying to the Senator that I am confident that in ask- ing for the reconsideration of these vari- ous items, he is asking the Senate to re- ject the considered opinion of the mem- bers of the subcommittee on independ- ent offices who carefully and judiciously, if I may say so, examined every one of the appropriations for the purpose of cutting wherever we could cut. Mr. DOUGLAS. I may say to the Senator from Wyoming that, of course, we all respect him and we also respect the work of his committee, and one of the things which has always endeared him to the other Members cf the Senate has been his constant willingness to hs- ten to points that are made both on and off the floor, and to preserve an open mind regarding matters in dispute. I want to make it clear that I do not pretend to omniscience. I make many mistakes, myself. It is quite possible that I am in error regarding some of the amendments which I am going to pro- pose. But I should be grateful if the Senator from Wyoming, with his usual courtesy and gentleness, would at least allow me briefly to make my proposals for economy, and then he, doubtless, will be able to refute my arguments; and I am sure he probably has the votes to support him, no matter what may hap- pen in the course of the argument Itself. Mr. McFARLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. DOUGLAS. yield. Mr. McFARLAND. Mr. President, inasmuch as the Senator from Illinois fecls that way, to converve time would the Senator mind making his metion to reconsider all the amendments en bloc, and then if to any one of them the Sen- ator wants to move an amendment, that may be done. Mr. DOUGLAS. That would permit my proposals to be killed all at once, rather than their dying a slow death one by one. I had been hoping that one or two of my suggestions might appeal to the Members of the Senate and that my efforts would not be entirely unavailing, Iam not merely trying to make a record, Mr. President; Iam hoping to save some money. I can promise the Senator from Wyoming that I shall try to be brief in discussing each one of the items, with the exception of the Maritime Commis- sion. In that case there are enormous sums of money involved and both the General Accounting Office and a sub- committee of the House have indicated gross waste, negligence, or even worse in the payment of the construction and op- eration subsidies. Mr. PEPPER. Mr. President, @ par- Mamentary inquiry. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it. I shall be glad to
10968 Mr. PEPPER. Will the Chair kindly state the pending question? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the motion made by the Senator from Illinois to reconsider the vote by which the amendments which he has mentioned were adopted. His mo- tion was to reconsider them en bloc. Mr. PEPPER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. DOUGLAS. Iyield for a question, but before I yield may I say that if unani- mous consent is going to be refused, I should like to have an opportunity to make an argument on the largest item, which is that for the Maritime Commis- sion. So, before the guillotine falls, I shall be glad to yield to my good friend, the gentle and able Senator from Florida. Mr. PEPPER. I thank my distin- guished friend for his customary cour- tesy. I am interested in an item involving the maritime program, at page 330 of the bill, and it well may be that I would ap- proach the subject from a little different angle, because I should like to add an item rather than to subtract one. Never- theless, since we have an identity of geo- graphic interest in this bill, I should like to concur with him in the hope that he migtft let it be open for consideration, Mr. DOUGLAS, I am glad the able Senator from Florida finds his interest coinciding with mine in the desire to re- consider this item, although, unfor- tunately, I regret that he is trying to 1n- crease the amount in the bill and is not joining in an effort to diminish it. Mr. PEPPER. I propose construction Tather than subtraction. Mr. McFARLAND. Mr. President, may I suggest that we eliminate that one item, and vote on the others? Mr.DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I think that is a very constructive suggestion. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of the Senator from Illinois to reconsider the action by which the amendments have been adopted, with the exception stated by the Senator from Arizona. (Putting the question.) The “noes” have it, and the motion is not agreed to. The question now is on agreeing to the motion of the Senator from Illinois to reconsider the action of the Senate in adopting the amendment relating to the Maritime Commission. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I should like to have the Members of the Senate turn to pages 324, 325, and 326 of the bill which is before us. It will be noticed that line 17 on page 325 car- ries an appropriation of $63,000,000 for new ship construction, which was made by the House and continued by the Sen- ate. If Senators will turn to page 326 they will note that on line 17 there is a fur- ther authorization of $64,875,000 made available, or a combined total of $127,- 875,000. The figure of $64,875,000 is, presumably, merely to carry over pre- vious authorizations which have been made. But, Mr. President, we are, put- ting at the disposal of the Maritime Commission a total sum of more than $127,000,000 for subsidies on new ship construction. It should be real- ized that these sums are not all di- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE rectly connected with any immediate war cffort. They were put into the budget and inserted by the commit- tee prior to the war situation. They were designed to carry out a permanent merchant-marine and not to meet any sudden need for shipping in connection with the Korean war. If additional maritime shipping is needed in connec- tion with hostilities, it can be covered in any war appropriations bill which is introduced. So that the issue before us, Mr. Presi- dent, deals really with the long time merchant-marine policy of the Nation. The Members of this body are aware of the investigations of the Maritime Commission which have been made by the General Accounting Office under the direction of Mr. Lindsay Warren, and also, on two occasions, by a House sub- committee headed by Representative Porter Hardy of Virginia. We are all acquainted with the head of the General Accounting Office, Mr. Lindsay Warren, of North Carolina, a fellow North Caro- linian of the distinguished Senator who is presiding at the moment. He is a man of great integrity, a man of great ability, and is a noble public servant. Mr. Warren has found that the Mari- time Commission made gross overpay- ments in connection with construction subsidies and in connection with operat- ing subsidies, and these charges by the head of the General Accounting Office, the Comptroller General of the United States, were investigated by the House committee headed, as I have said, by Representative Harpy of Virginia. Representative Harpy comes from a district close to the great shipbuilding center of Norfolk. Therefore certainly he is not a man who would be prejudiced against the shipbuilding interests. Yet on two occasions, last year and this year, the House committee, I be- lieve, unanimously made its report say- ing that excessive operating and exces- sive construction subsidies had been paid by the Maritime Commission apparently involving many of these same items that are included in the appropriation bill. It will be remembered that last year the distinguished Senator from Vermont {Mr. Arken] mentioned a similar item in the appropriation bill for that year, involving the ships Mariposa and the Montercy. We had a long colloquy on that subject on the floor of the Senate. I have gone into this matter in some detail and some weeks ago I addressed a letter to the Acting Administrator of the Maritime Administration, because, as we know, the organization has changed somewhat in the last few weeks. I wrote to Mr. John T. Koehler, and in the letter I asked four questions con- cerning the $63,000,000 item for con- struction subsidies: 1, What are the vessels to be covered by the contract authority? 2, Have formal applications been filed by the companies which would benefit from this contract authority? 8. According to present calculations, is It reasonable to assume that these contracts will be let before June 30, 1951? 4. What is the status in detail of these negotiations? On July 18, Mr. Koehler replied to my letter. I ask unanimous consent that at JuLy 25 this point in my remarks a copy of my letter to Mr. Koehler and his reply be inserted in the Rscorp. There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in the Rrc- orD, as follows: JUNE 29, 1950. Mr. Jonn T. KOEHLER, Administrator of Maritime Adminis- tration, Department of Commerce, Washington, D. C. Dear Mr. Korum: In my studies of the pending appropriations bill I find an item of $63,000,000 in contract authority for mari- time subsidies. This has raised four ques- tions in my mind and I would be grateful for the answers to the following questions: 1, What are the vessels to be covered by this contract authority? 2. Have formal applications been filed by the companies who would benefit from this contract authority? 3. According to present calculations 1s it reasonable to assume that these contracts will be let before June 30, 1951? 4. What is the status in detail of these negotiations? I would very much appreciate a reply to this letter as early as possible. Sincerely, Paut H Dovucras. Unrrep STaTes DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, MARITIME ADMINISTRATION, Washington, D. C., July 18, 1950. The Honorable Pauu H. Doua.as, United States Senate. My Dear Stnator Dovucuas: Relierence is made to your letter of June 29, 1950, con- cerning an item of $63,000,000 in the 1951 appropriation bill. Our 1951 construction budget as submitted to Congress after approval by the Bureau of the Budget called ior contract authority of 75,000,000, made up as follows: 1 prototype naval auxiliary vessel... --- ee $10, 000, 000 2 passenger vessels for New York and east coast South America BCTVICE. ne ene eee ne eee 65, 000, 000 75, 000, 000 The cash required with respect to the above was estimated at $5,000,000 for fiscal year 1951. The remaining contract authority bal- ance of $70,000,000 was reduced to $63,000,000 by the House, which represents a straight 10 percent reduction. We shall endeavor to answer your questions in the order listed by you. “1, What are the vessels to be covered by the contract authority?” There is now being operated on Trade Route No. 1, between New York and ports on the east coast of South America, under bare- boat charter to Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc., the Government-owned “Good Neighbor Fleet" (comprised of the steamships Argen- tina, Brazil, and Uruguay). The vessels in- cluded in our 1961 budget as listed above would replace the ‘Good Neighbor Fleet,” all three vessels in this fleet having already be- come 20 years old. “2, Have formal applications been filed by the companies who would benefit from this contract authority?” No forma) applications have been filed for the construction of passenger vessels by any company or companies for operation on Trade Route No. 1. Further in this connection see answer to question No. ¢ hereinafter. “8. According to present calculations is it reasonable to assume that these contracts will be let before June 80, 1951?” At the time our 1951 budget was filed, it was believed that it would be possible to ex- ecute contracts for the construction and sale to a private company of the necessary pas- senger-carrying vessels to replace the ‘‘Gocd
1950 Neighbor Fleet.” Our latest and very recent estimate is that contracts with respect to such new vessels cannot be awarded until about November 1, 1951. Further in connec- tion with this question see answer to No. @ hereinafter. “4. What is the status in detail of these negotiations?” The former Maritime Commission having been unsucessful in effecting an agreement with the present charterers of the “Good Neighbcr Fleet” whereby they, prior to the expiration of their current charter, wculd agree to purchase new vessela for this serve icc, the Maritime Administration is prepar- ing to send out an invitation for bids with respect to the charter of the “Good Neighbor Fleet” after the expiration of the current charter, which charter, as recently extended, will expiro not later than June 30, 1951. The invitation for bids, will also require that cach bidder submit such replacement program as will, in its opinion, adequately replace the “Good Neighbor Fleet.” The three vesecls have a total passenger capacity of 1,557, As each bidder will be given some leeway as to the general characteristics of the replace- ment vessels, it is possible that the success- ful bidder will be required to build anywhere from two to four vessels. However, the amount requested for this project appears to reprezent as close an estimate, as can be made at this juncture, of the total construction cost of all of the vessels to be constructed for Trade Route No.1. The delay in getting out bids for a new charter of the “Good Neighbor Fleet” and thereby extending the possibie date for letting a contract for replacements has been due to a combination of circum- stances not foreseen when the budget in question was prepared, which delay is the reason why we now estimate that it is not likely that the replacemonts will ke cone tracted for during the fiscal year 1961. H.R. 7786 as it passed the Houee carries the following proviso with respect to the $63,- 000,000 item: “Provided, That no part of this appropriation or contract authorization shail be used to start any new ship construction for which an estimate was not included in the budget for the current fiscal year, nor to start any new ship construction the currently estimated cost of which exceeds by 10 per- cent the estimated cost included therefor in such budget unless the director of the Bu- reau of the Budget specifically approved the start of such ship construction and the di- rector shall submit forthwith a detailed ex- planation thereof to the Committees on Ap- propriations of the Senate and of the Houce of Representatives; and, as used herein, the term budget includes the detailed justifica- tion supporting the budget estimates.” Some of the 1949 appropriation authority ‘was earmarked for the construction of a com- bination vessel for account of the Mississippi Shipping Co. estimated to cost $16,000,000. However, the 1949 appropriation authority lapsed before a construction contract could be executed. In the 1980 Appropriation Act, the follow- ing contract authority also lapsed as of June 30, 1950: 2 combination passenger vessels for Grace Line Inc. for op- eration in New York to Car- ribboon service.......------- $31, 500, 000 2 trailerships for the Pacific Coast Steamship Co. for op- eration in the United States west coast intercoastal service. Design for national defense 22, 000, 000 8, 900, 000 Miecellaneous betterments....-. 875, 000 Total.......---e--------. 58, 275,000 We have applications on file with respect to the construction of the trallerships, with- out construction subsidy, as listed above and also applications from the Arnold Bernstein CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Line for the purchase of war-built vessels, the General Pope and General Wetgel, and for a construction-diffcrential allowance with respect to the conversion of these two ves- sels for commercial operation, the total cost of such convorsion having been estimated at & maximum of 89,600,000, While Grace Line Inc. has indicated a strong interest in the construction of two combination vessels, with the ald of a construction-differential, for its Caribbean cervice, no formel application with respect thereto has been filed as yet. The American President Lincs, Ltd., under date of April 13, 1960, filled applications for con- struction-differential aid in the construction of four combination vessels for operation in its round-the-world service, It is our understanding that, subject to the prior approval of the Bureau of the Budget, the provision in H. R. 7786, quoted above would make it possible to use any or all of the &63,000,000 with respect to the con- struction or improvement of vessels not listed in the 1951 budget should it develop, as it now aprears, that no contract authority will ba utilized in connection with the vessels for replecing the “Good Neighbor Ficet’ until after the close of the fiscal year 1951. Baced on the latest estimates of our staff, it does not now appear possible to award contracts with respect to any of the vessels mentioned herein prior to July 1, 1951, except contracts applicable to vessels for the Pacific Coast Steamship Co., the Arnold Bernstein Line and the construction (810,000.C00) and dezign ($2,500,000) of the Navy prototype vesscl However, since contract cuthority cannct bho used until and unlerzs there are properly cxecuted contracts and es it is more satisfactory to consider and dispose of ap- plications for new construction on their morit under the 1936 act where the contract authority is available, we suggest that it would be desirable not to reduce the $63,000,+ 000 contract authority now in the 1951 appro- priation bill. Moreover, by not reducing same it would give us more leeway in dealing with new avplications, if any, that may be filed in the meantime and also in meeting the situation, should it develop that a better schedule can be met, than we now contem- plate, for executing contracts with respect to applications now pending, Sincerely yours, JOHN T. KOEHLER, Acting Administrator, Mr. DOUGLAS. I want to say that I think Mr. Koehler is to be commended for his frankness and for his coopera- tion in helping to provide Congress with information which is necessary for our purposes. . He stated that the $63,000,000 in con- tract authorizations—and that is the amount provided by the House—were to be used to replace Government-owned “Good Neighbor Fleet” operated by the Moore-McCormack Line between New York and South America. However, no further applications have been filed for this program, While at the time the 1951 budget was filed the Maritime Com- mission thought it could execute these contracts, the present estimates of the Maritime Administration are that they cannot be awarded until about Novem- ber 1, 1951. This means that all of the $63,000,000 authorization provided by the House cannot possibly be reached during the ensuing fiscal year for the purpose for which it is provided. It should therefore be eliminated. How- ever, we can now deal with the matter in part by continuing the House appro- priation and cutting down on the addi- tional contract authorizations provided in the Senate amendment, 10969 Subject to the approval of the Bureau of the Budget the provisions of the bill would allow the Maritime C.mmission to use $63,000,000 in authorizations for other contracts. According to the last paragraph of Mr. Koehler’s letter it does not now appear possible to award before July 1, 1951, any contracts presently un- der consideration except the following: $22,000,001 for the Pacific Coast Steam- ship Co. for trailer ships on the west coast. Now note the next item in the case of the Arnold Bernstein Line: Con- version of two war-built troop vessels for commercial use—$9,500,000 for that. Not for the conversion of commercial ships to troop use, but conversion of troop ships to commercial use. Construction of Navy prototype ves- sels, $10,000,000. Design of Navy proto. type vessels, $2,560,000. Mr. President, the total amount that can possibly be awarded for the fiscal year 1950-51 on the basis of contracts under consideration is $44,000,000, not $83,000,000. The pending Arnold Bern- stein contract calls for the conversion of two troop ships, the General Pore and the General Weigel, to commercial use. In the race of the present, world situa- tion I cannot believe that the Maritime Administration would permit the con- versicn of troop transports into com- mercial vessels. So it seems that the total amount of $44,000,000 could be re- duced by the further amount of $9,500,- 000, leaving $34,£00,000 for contracts now pending, and about which information is now available. Furthermore $6,600,- 000 of the $64,875,000 extension allowed by the committee has already been awarded, so that will not be needed, This is a total of $41,100,000 not needed. Mr. President, I therefore intend to offer an amendment to the committee amendment striking the figure of $64,- 875,000 and inserting in lieu thereof the figure of $23,775,000. I think that explains a somewhat com- plicated situation in as few words as it is pessible for me to explain it. It would effect a saving of $41,100,000. I now move to strike out “$63,875,000,” and to insert instead “$23,775,000.” Mr. AIKEN. Mr, President, I wish to support the amendments of the Senator from Hiinois. With the possible excep- tion of the RFC, the operation of the Maritime Commission has been probably the greatest scandal of government in the last 10 years, I believe it is due to the fact that those who have profited by the misspending, wastefulness, and loot- ing of the appropriations for the Mari- time Commission have been in effect run- ning the Commission. I do not think any more temptation than is necessary should be put in their way. When Con- gress approved the reorganization plan of the President transferring the opera- tion and functions of the Maritime Com- mission to the Commerce Department, it was made possible for the President to correct the very unsavory situation in the Martime Commission. It is my be- lief that the President has failed to take advantage of the opportunity to perform this duty. I feel that we are going to see a continuation of the same wasteful and illeral—according to the Comp- troller General—manipulations of the
10970 maritime affairs that we have seen over the past 10 years. It is safe to say that the Maritime Commission expenditures have cost hundreds of millions of dollars, and perhaps even billions of dollars, to the taxpayers. Through their manipu- lations we have put the merchant marine in a state of absolute dependency on Government so that very few ship lines will go on the high seas and attempt to operate a shipping business as it should be operated. There are a few notable exceptions, Mr. President, I do not know whether we are in an emergency. I understood the President to ask for emergency war powers, but he has not proclaimed any emergency. If there is an emergency, as the Senator from Illinois says, then the amount provided here will in the long run be only a drop in the bucket, and might as well not be considered at all. I believe the President should tell the people of the country whether there jis an emergency or whether there 1s not, and proclaim one if there is. I believe that here is a chance to save forty or fifty million dollars from a peacetime program and which will have a great deal of labor and material for the war effort. I think the Senate should support the amendment of the Senator from Illinois, and I for one would like to see a record vote on it. Mr. O’MAHONEY. Mr. President, I sympathize completely with everything that can be said for congressional action to prevent waste. I submit that it is perfectly clear that the action of the President in sending a reorganization plan to the Congress for the Maritime Ccynmission was a step which was in- tended to inject a very much higher de- gree of efficiency and care in the admin- istration of the funds appropriated for the activities carried on formerly by the Maritime Commission, and now to be carricd on under Reorganization Plan No. 21 of 1950, which became effective on May 24, 1950. The committee in examining the ap- propriations for the Maritime Commis- sion had in mind the fact that we did have a legislative reorganization, and the committee felt that while scrutinizing these expenditures and these estimates it should not undertake to destroy the ef- fectiveness of the agency of the Gov- ernment which, under the reorganization plan, the President and the Congress are trying to reform. I say to the Senator from Mlinois that the commitee reported an appropriation which was $63,000,000 below the esti- mates. There was no charge of waste leveled before our committee with respect to the current administration. No repre- sentation was made to us, except through our own examination of the witnesses, which prompted us to make cuts. Weare dealing here with a program which ex- tends over a period of years. It is im- possible to build an ocean lines in a month, or 2 months, or 6 months, or a year. Sometimes the operation takes several years, because the building of a modern liner which plies the ocean is a great enginecring undertaking. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE In providing cash, we had a program of $13,700,00 to pay for obligations for the years 1947 and 1948. No one had charged that there was anything wrong about those obligations. Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. O'MAHONEY. I yield. Mr. AIKEN. Did the obligations in- clude any payment to the owners of the Mariposa or the Monterey? Mr. O’MAHONEY. No; not a penny. We werit into that question, I will say to the Senator from Vermont. The bill also provides cash for the 1949 program. The House reduced the cash appropriation, to which the Senator from Illinois referred, from $70,000,000 to $63,000,000, as I recall the figures. So, I say to the Members of the Sen- ate, let us not condemn the program and the new administrators of the program upon the basis of charges which were made against a commission which no longer exists. Mr. AIKEN. I should like to ask to what new administrators of the program the Senator refers. The President has appointed the old administrator, whom the House committee roundly con- demned for failing to carry out his work properly for the last 2 years. Mr. O'’MAHONEY. The reorganiza- tion plan divided the functions into the Federal Maritime Board and the Mari- time Administration. Of course, Gen- eral Fleming has been reappointed to a position of importance in the new organ- ization, but General Fleming was not in the other administration for a Jong time. Mr. AIKEN. I understand General Fleming was the chairman of the Mari- time Commission. Mr. O’MAHONEY. For scarcely a year. Mr. AIKEN. I like Gencral Fleming personally. I did not have the heart to vote against his confirmation even though I did not consider him qualified for the post. But the Senator must be familiar with the House report on mari- time affairs, which cited case after case in which money was wasted, squandered, spent illegally under the General’s administration. Mr. O’MAHONEY. I point out to the Senator that those cases all took place before General Fleming was appointed. Mr. AIKEN. According to the House committee, they continued at an accel- erated rate even after he took over the chairmanship Mr, O'MAHONEY. Iam not ready to acknowledge that to be a fact. I would say to the Senator from Vermont that the members of the subcommittee who heard the testimony this year and last year, feel I am sure, as the Senator from Vermont has just said he feels, that Gen- eral Fleming is a man of character and ability. The Senator from Vermont, though he did a very excellent piece of work in the criticisms he voiced upon the floor of the Senate with respect to the administration of the Maritime Commis- sion in times past, was unwilling to con- demn General Fleming by voting against his nomination. All I am saying now is, do not deprive the reorganized group of JULY 25 the funds which they need to carry on the work which the legislative authority of the Government has directed them to do. If there is any change of policy, to be made it should be made, not in the appropriation bill, but by proceeding be- fore the legislative committee in charge. I will say to the Senator from Vermont and to the Senator from Illinois that if I am correctly advised an opportunity will be presented to them before we are through with this appropriation bill to give their views and exercise their right to oppose amendments which, if agreed to, will greatly increase the expenditures, Mr. AIKEN. Mr, President, will the Senator yield? Mr. O’MAHONEY. I yield. Mr. AIKEN. I would first like to say that I hold President Truman wholly responsible for the work of the Maritime Commission from now on. It 1s his ap- pointees that will have this work to do. What I want to ask the Senator from Wyoming—and I ask him this question as chairman of the Joint Committee on the Economic Report—Does the Sena- tor from Wyoming believe that this Na- tion is in a state of emergency at the present time, and is that emergency likely to last until the next Congress con- venes? Mr. O’MAHONEY. Indeed I do be- lieve it is in a state of emergency, and I think the emerzency will last through- out the life of the next Congress. Mr. AIKEN. Does the Senator believe it would be good business to start the construction of ocean liners, which scarcely can be completed for years, in competition with the war effort, which may require all the men and materials which otherwise would be used 1n start- ing the construction of these long-range projects? . Mr. O’MAHONEY. If this emergency develops, as every indication would sug- gest, we will certainly need the vessels which are authorized in this program. Mr. AIKEN. Does the Senator then believe that we are in for a permanent emergency? Mr. O’MAHONEY. The Senator is merely bandying words when he asks that question. Mr. AIKEN. Considering the length of time it takes to build a liner I would say that that is probably the Senator’s assumption. Mr. McFARLAND. Mr. President, if there is going to be a prolonged discus- sion of this particular amendment, may I suggest that we pass it over and come back to it later? Mr. O’MAHONEY. I do not know whether there will be prolonged discus- sion. I have finished speaking. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I should like to point out one feature. The total of $127,875,000 which will be provided for the Maritime Administra- tion by these two amendments is vastly in excess of the amounts which the Mari- time Administration itself says {t can spend during this period. It is approxi- mately $41,000,000 more than the Mari- time Administration can spend. Mr. KERR. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. DOUGLAS, I am glad to yield.
1950 Mr. KERR. Do I understand the Sen- ator to say that it is that much in excess of either what the Commission can spend during the 12 months, or contract to spend at a later date under contracts made within thet period? Mr. DOUGLAS. That is correct. The Senator from Oklahoma has put the situation very well. Mr, LEHMAN, Mr. President, will the Senator yleld for a question? Mr. DOUGLAS. I am glad to yield. Mr. LEHMAN. I should like to ask whether the amounts set forth in the appropriation bill, $63,000,000 and $64,- 000,000 are earmarked for specific pur- poses? In other words, must the amounts be used for the construction or repair or reconstruction of specifically named vessels, or can the amounts he used for the construction of an entirely different set of vessels? Mr. DOUGLAS. I may say that the $63,000,000 was to be used to replace the “Good Neighbor Fleet” operated by the Moore-McCormack Line, but that no formal applications have been filed for the program; and the present estimate of the Maritime Commission is that it cannot award such contracts until about November 1, 1951, or after the expiration of the current fiscal year for which we are appropriating. In effect, these two appropriations and authorizations would give to the Maritime Commission $41,- 000,000 which they could use for any pur- pose that they personally sce fit without proposing any program to Congress for approval. And carrying out the point made by the senior Senator from Ver- mont |Mr. ArKeNn!, I want to say that I do not belleve that the rccord of the Mari- time Administration personnel is such that we should give them $41,000,000 of blank checks with which they can carry out further subsidies beyond those which they themselves now say they can imple- ment. Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr, DOUGLAS. I yield. Mr. AIKEN. I may point out that the management of the maritime operations of the country has not been changed materially by the recent transfer. The most striking change has been the firing of Commissioner McKeough, of Illinois, who over the years has been struggling against odds to maintain some degree of integrity and efficiency in the Maritime Commission, and he has fought against overwhelming odds to do that. Yet when the time came when the President could revamp the Maritime Commission in accordance with the desires cf the Congress, he fired Commissioner Mc- Kecugh and left most of those respon- sible for the sins of the past in a position to continue to commit those sins in the future. I had hoped that Secretary Sawyer, if he remained in the Cabinet, would be able to exercise some degree of control over the operations of this ex-commis- sion. But I understand that whenever the Director or the Under Secretary in charge of transportation matters is in Washington, Secretary Sawyer will have very little to say about it, It is only CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE when the Director {s away that an Assist- ant Director, who is appointed by the Secretary of Commerce, will have some control over the situation. Mr, SALTONSTALL, Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. DOUGLAS. I shall yield to the Senator from Massachusetts in a mo- ment. First I want to comment on the remarks of the eminent senior Senator from Vermont. No one regretted more than I did the dropping of Commis- sioner McKeough from the Maritime Commission. We in Illinois are very proud of him because of the courageous fight he made to eliminate unnecessary and even illegal subsidies. We regret very much that he was dropped. In justice to the President it ought to be said, however, that the other members of the Commission, with the exception of the chairman, General Fieming, were also dropred. General Fleming was made Assistant Secretary of Commerce in general charge of transportation. My feeling is very similar to that of the Senator from Vermont. The general had given good service prior to the time he went on the Maritime Commission, and I personally did not have the heart to vote against confirmation of his nomi- nation although I did not approve of his policies on the Maritime Commission. Mr. AIIXEN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. DOUGLAS. I am glad to yield. Mr. AIKEN. I may add that most of thoce in charge of operations in the past have bcen continued in the new set-up, except some of those who tried their best to assist Commissioner Mc- Keough in maintaining, as I said, some degree of integrity and efficiency in the Commission, have been demoted. Mr. DOUGLAS. That is precisely the point to which I was coming, that al- though some good men have been put in at the top of the new Maritime Admin- istration, the personnel down below is in the main the same personnel that oper- ated under the Maritime Commission, and whose work was accompanied by the gross scandals which Mr. Lindsay War- ren and the House committee said exist- ed. It is in view of that fact, as well as the need for economy. I do not want to see the United States giving them a check for $127,000,000, when the new ad- ministrator says that about all that he can possibly spend under existing pro- posals will be about $81,000,000. I do not think the record of the personnel of the Maritime Administration group is such that we should put into their hands these great powers to spend additional sums of money for purposes not at present con- templated, I feel that these sums would probably be spent but also probably not for the right purposes. Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. DOUGLAS, I yield. Mr. LEHMAN, As I have stated on the floor of the Senate on a number of occasions, I am going to vote against the construction of public works so far as lt it possible to do so, whether such public works are flood control, rivers and har- bors, or construction of buildings, I shall 10971 vote deep cuts in those appropriations. But, as I have also stated, Iam unwilling to vote against anything that is a defense measure. Even though {t may not be possible for some months to use these moneys under the schedules that have been read by the Senator from Illinois, neverthe- Jess, in view of the fact that the appro- priation is not hmited to the particular projects set forth in the language of the bill, it would appear to me that this is a defense measure pure and simple, and it is my opinion further that we are foing to be required to spend a great deal more money, vastly larger sums, for the development of our merchant marine during the emergency. I wonder why the Senator from IIi- nois should be opposed to a measure which to me looks like a defense meas- ure, regardless of the fact that the par- ticular projects, or the particular pur- poses enunciated in the bill may not be carried out, because there is no limita- tion with regard to the purposes which these sums can be used for in this emer- gency as a part of our defense mecha- nism. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I may say to the Senator from New York that this proposal did not originate as a de- fense measure when these items were inserted in the bill, which was before the Korean situation developed, so that the original purpose was not keyed to any national emergency. It was keyed to ordinary peacetime cold-war needs. My amendment would not cut any de- fense programs. Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. DOUGLAS, IfI may finish, I shall b> glad to yield to the Senator from Florida. Fundamentally, I suppose what it boils down tc—and this is a hard thing to say—is that I simply do not sufficiently trust the personnel running the Maritime Commission to be willing to give them a blank check for $41,000,000, in excess of the amounts required for the ships which are under consideration, for them to do with as they wish. Their past rec- ord is not such as to justify any such public trust. Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield for a question. Mr. HOLLAND. Is not it true that, instead of being a defense measure, a goodly portion of this proposed appro- priation is exactly the reverse, in that it proposes that some millions of dollars be used to convert into commercial ships some ships which now are troop ships, and are qualified for the moving of troops, and were built for that purpose? Mr, DOUGLAS. Mr. President, the Senator from Florida is entirely correct as to that. Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr, DOUGLAS. Mr. President, first jet me reply to the Senator from Flor- a. The Senator from Florida is com- pletely correct in his suggestion that, as I said originally, this is a proposal in the case of the Arnold Bernstein Line, that
10972 two troop ships, the General Pope and the General Weigel, be converted for commercial purposes, as the Senator from Florida has pointed out. So part of this program is one for national de- fense in reverse. Mr, LEHMAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Mr, DOUGLAS, I think I should first yield to the Senator from Massachu- setts, and I do so now. Mr, SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, I was going to ask the Senator from Illi- nois if he would yield to me for the pur- pose of permitting me to make a very brief statement, and then perhaps I shall end up by asking a question of the Sen- ator from Wyoming, who is in charge of the committee’s report on this por- tion of the bill. I sat on the subcommittee which lis- tened to a great deal of the testimony regarding this portion of the bill. As I understand, the program for 1947 through 1952 calls for estimated obliga- tions in the amount of $321,737,830, and there have been cash appropriations of $141,878,685, leaving unfinanced obliga- tions of $179,859,145. What we are appropriating this year, if we carry through with the program, will cut down the unfinanced obligations by the amount of the cash appropria- tions made now, and reduce delay on work already started. On that point we do not have much to say. But, as I understand the matter, this {tem calls for the building of two new passenger ships and one Navy prototype vessel. I do not recall just what that vessel is to be. However, the two pas- senger ships are for the South American and Caribbean trade, if I recall cor- rectly. My question is this: If we adopt the committee recommendation, there will be nothing to be taken to conference in regard to this item, because the figures as reported by our committee are the same as those voted by the House of Representatives, However, if we adopt an amendment to this item, then in the conference it will be considered, and at that time there will be a question as to whether the construction of the two passenger vessels should be begun at the present time or whether the program should be changed. Under those circumstances, would it not be advisable to accept an amend- ment~-I do not say that the amendment of the Senator from Illinois is the cor- rect one—in order that there may be something in connection with this item to be considered by the conference com- mittee, so as to give it an opportunity to determine what should be done in this matter, and thus giving the Senate an- other opportunity to act and to see whether the present proposal {s the cor- rect one, in view of the situation which has developed since the committee con- sidered this item? Mr. O'MAHONEY. Mr. President, if Imay be permitted to speak now, let me say that the Senator from Massachu- setts has always been a most persuasive member of my subcommittee in dealing CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE with these matters. Of course, the pro- gram is based on the premise that mari- time construction is in the interest of the national defense. As the Senator from Massachusetts has said, it is true that the plan calls for the construction of two passenger vessels and a prototype naval vessel. I should like to read the first paragraph of the material which we obtained in support of this item: In the interest of national defense and 6 well-balanced American merchant marine, it is proposed to contract in fiscal year 1951 for the construction under title V of the Mer- chant Marine Act, 1936, as amended, two or three passenger-carrying vessels and‘for the construction, under title VII, of a prototype craft which, in an emergency, may be massed-produced as naval auxiliaries. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield at this point for a question? Mr, O'MAHONEY. Certainly. Mr. DOUGLAS. Is the Senator from Wyoming referring to the possibility of replacing with new vessels the ships in the so-called “good neighbor fleet?” Mr. O’MAHONEY. That is a part of the matter, yes. However, I was about to say—— Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, the Senator from Wyoming has a copy of the letter from Mr. Koehler, I believe, in which Mr. Koehler says that he does not believe those contracts can possibly be executed during the ensuing year. Does not the Senator have a copy of that letter? I ask that question because the letter which Mr. Koehler addressed to me had a notation to the effect that a copy was being sent to the Senator from Wyoming. Mr. O’MAHONEY. Yes. It was un- derstood, of course, that the House made some reduction, Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me? Mr. O’MAHONEY. I yield. Mr, LEHMAN. Is it not true, as I have stated, that in the use of these funds the Maritime Commission is not limited to using them for any specific projects? Mr. O’MAHONEY. Not unless a con- tract is made. Mr. LEHMAN. Yes. But in these matters it is not limited to using these funds for the good neighbor fleet or for the Arnold Bernstein vessels or for ships of the character of those to which the Senator from Massachusetts has re- ferred. Is not that correct? Mr, O'MAHONEY. Yes. Mr. LEHMAN. But the Commission can use these funds for the development of vessels or for the construction of ves- sels in the national defense; is that cor- rect? Mr. O’MAHONEY. Yes, Let me say that I think it is extremely unwise to reduce this appropriation, because I be- lieve that at the present moment the United States is in a position in which it must maintain an adequate merchant marine. If, unfortunately, we should find ourselves compelled to transport more men and more materials for mili- tary purposes, then vessels will be of great value, JULY 25 However, when Senators on this side of the aisle and Senators, such as the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Sit- TONSTALLJ, on the other side of the aisle rise and ask, “Why should we build a passenger vessel at this time?” I am moved to reply that I would be quite willing to take an amendment of this kind to conference, so that in the con- ference we may determine whether to construct the passenger vessels. So, Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Mlinois, if I may do so, how he ob- tained the figure of $34,500,000 which he offers in his amendment. Mr. DOUGLAS, Mr. President, that is the amount that can be awarded during the applicable fiscal year. It is taken from the letter written by Mr. Koehler. If the Senator from Wyoming has a copy of the letter with him, he will find this statement appearing on page 3 of that letter—and I refer now to the final para- graph, as follows: Except contracts applicable to vessels for the Pacific Coast Steamship Co., the Arnold Bernstein Line and the construction ($10,- 000,000) and design (62,500,000) of the Navy prototype vessel, Those totals, including contracts in re- gard to the Arnold Bernstein Line, come to $44,000,000. However, I could not believe that at this time any of us would vote to carry through the Arnold Bernstein project for the conversion of troop ships into com- mercial ships, So if from the $44,000,000, we eliminate $9.500,000. that will leave $34,500,000. Mr. McKELLAR. Mr. President, I call for a vote on this amendment. Mr, AIKEN. Mr. President, on that question I ask for the yeas and nays. Mr. KERR, Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. O’MAHONEY. I am glad to yield to the Senator from Oklahoma. Mr. KERR. Was the amount reported by the committee in contemplation of the building of the vessels to which the Koehler Ictter refers? Mr. O’MAHONEY. We allowed the measure in this respect to stand in ex- actly the same way it stood when the House passed it. The Koehler letter it- self was not before our committee. It has been written since then, and I have not had an opportunity to examine it. But I feel very strongly that we should not at this time suspend the funds for the construction of vessels which we may certainly need upon the seas within the next couple of years. Mr. KERR. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Wyoming yield to the Sen- ator from Oklahoma? Mr, O’MAHONEY. I yield. Mr. KERR. Does the Senator think that authorizations should be made for an amount of money which the agency itself says cannot be spent within the period of time for which the authoriza- tions are made? Mr. O'MAHONEY. That is a very per- tinent question, I may say to the Senator. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of
1950 the Senator from Mitnois to reconsider the vote by which the committee amend- ment on page 325, tine 17, was agreed to. Mr. DOUGLAS. I ask for the yeas and nays, The yeas and nays were not ordered. Senators seconding the request for the yeas and nays be asked to rise. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senators destring to second the demand for the yeas and nays will rise. The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. McFARLAND. Mr. President, may I suggest that this amendment go over to the end, and that we proceed with the other committee amendments? Mr. O'MAHONEY. Mr. President, I rise to a point of order. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it. Mr. O'MAHONEY. There fs no recon- sideration involved. The Senator from Illinois is moving to amend the figure in the bill, which was not touched by any Senate amendment. The iG OFFICER. No, this is a parliamentary question. The Senator from Illinois made a motion to reconsider a number of amendments, and omitted from the motion the amendment relating to the Maritime Commission. The Senate voted against reconsideration of the other amend- ments. Mr, O’MAHONEY. Precisely. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- ator from Illinois then moved to recon- sider the vote by which this amendment was agreed to, because it has to be recon- sidered, if the Senator from Illinois ts to be permitted to offer his amendment. Mr. O'MAHONEY. Mr. President, I may be in error, but I have before me the printed amendment of the Senator from Tlinois. Mr. DOUGLAS. May I say, Mr. Presi- dent, that the amendment which I of- fered from the floor differs from the printed amendment. The amendment I have just offered is directed to page 326, and it propases to strike out $64,875,000 and to substitute $23,775,000, and thus to effect a saving of $41,100,000, the amount fn excess of the sums which the Mari- time Administration has committed. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment offered by the Senator from Mlinois relates to the Senate commiitee amendment. Mr. McFARLAND. I ask that this amendment be passed over for the time being, and that we proceed to less con- troversial matters. Mr, WILLIAMS. Mr. President, I un- derstand this is the only amendment which remains in this chapter. Mr. AIKEN. May I ask what would be gained by passing it over? When would the vote be me taken? The Senator from Vermont must be absent from the Senate one day and was hoping this amendment would be taken up today. Mr. McFARLAND. I suggest that we we proceed with the other amendments, and then if the Senator insists on taking up this amendment this evening we can return to it later on. Mr, AIKEN. May I inquire what the other amendments are which are more xXcvVI-——691 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE important than this? And ff this con- cludes one chapter of the bill, why not finish tt now? Mr. McFARLAND. I did not essay that the other amendments were more im- portant than this. I sald “less contro- versial,” Mr. THYE. Mr. President, it seems to me we are ready to vote on the ques- tion, and if it is delayed some Senator may have a happy thought and enter into another argument. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of the Senator from Llinois to reconsider the vote by which the Senate adopted the committee amendment. Mr. McFARLAND. Then if we are going to vote, Iam going to have to sug- gest the absence of a quorum. That is what I wanted to avoid at this time. I thought we could proceed with other amendments and then return to this a little later, if the Senate insists upon thet being done. remaining amendment in this chapter. Mr. McFARLAND. I know it is the only remaining amendment in this chapter, but there are three or four other chapters. Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, will the Senator from Wyoming accept the amendment which has been sug- gested and take it to conference? It is an entirely new amendment on the part of the Senate, and will be in controversy. Mr. McKELLAR. Mr. President, one of the best subcommittees in the Ap- propriations Committee considered this chapter of the bill. They heard the proof. They took the evidence. They have gone through weeks of hearings, and I say that I am unwilling to agree to take the amendment to canference. In my opinion, it would not be right to do so. I should be opposed to it, and so, probably, would most of the other Senators. If the amendment were taken to conference and not retained we would then be put in a false position. Someone would say, “We are not treating the Senate fairly, because the Senate voted to include it in the bill.” If Senators agree to the amendment, very well, but I oppose it. Mr. AIKEN. Is it not true that the hearings on this peacetime program were held by the committee before the start of the Korean war, or the Korean police action? Mr. McKELLAR. That made it all the more necessary that the committee amendment be agreed to. Those ships are vitally needed in the defense, not of Korea, but of the United States. Sen- ators are voting against the United States, when they vote for what is now proposed. Mr, AIKEN. Mr. President, I resent that statement. The Senator from Tennessee knows that these ships can- not be finished for 3 years. Does the Senator think it will take 3 or 4 years to put an end to the Korean invasion? That is a silly thing to say, and it is an unkind thing, too. Mr, MCKELLAR. It is also a very im- proper thing for one Senatar to rive and gay that another Senator is acting silly or talking in a silly manner. Mr. AIKEN. It is no more appropri- ate for the Senator from Tennessee to say that the Senator from Vermont is working against the United States than it ts for the Senator from Vermont to say the same thing about the Senator that is the attitude of the Benator from Vermont, and if that is the way he feels about it, I refuse to yield further. The PRESIDING OFPICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion, as the Chair stated it. The yeas and nays having been ordered, the clerk will call the roll. Mr, McFARLAND. I suggest tle ab- sence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The elerk will call the roll. The Chief Clerk called the roll, and the following Senators answered to their names: Aiken Hoey Maybank Anderson Holand Morse Bricker Humphrey Mundt Bridges Hunt Myers Byrd Ives Neely Capehart Johnson, Colo, O’Mahoney Chapman Johnson, Tex, Pepper Chavez Kem Russell Darby Kerr Saltonstall Donnell Kilgore Schoeppel Douglas Knowland Smith, Maine Eastland Langer Smith, N. J, Ecton Lehman Sparkman Ferguson Lodge Stennis Frear McCarran Taft Graham McCarthy Thye Green McClellan Tobey Gurney McFariand ‘Tydings Hayden McKellar Watkins Hendrickson McMahon Wiley Hickenlooper Malone Williams Hill Martin Young The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quo~ Tum is present. The question is on agreeing to the motion of the Senator from Illinois DMr. Dovcias] to reconsider the vote by which the Senate amendment appearing on page 826 was adopted. On this mo- tion the yeas and nays have been ordered. Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, a par- liamentary inquiry. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it. Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, does the proviso on page 323 apply to the amount involved? The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is a part of the committee amendment, The clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk called the roll. Mr. MYERS. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Burrow], the Senator from Texas (Mr. Conary}, the Senator from Georgia [Mr. Groacr), the Senator from Yowa (Mr. Guzerrsl, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Kr- Favvser], the Senator from Rhode Island {Mr. Leany), the Senator from Montana (Mr. Murray], the Senator from Mary- land [Mr. O’Comwor], the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Rosertson], the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr, Tomasi, and the Senator from Utah [Mr. THomas] are necessarily absent. The Senator from California (Mr. Downey] is absent because of illness. The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. ELLenpeR], the Senator from Arkansas
10974 (Mr. Fu.sricHT], the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. JoHNsTON], and the Sena- tor from Illinois [Mr. Lucas] are absent on public business. The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Lone], the Senator from Washington (Mr, Macnvson], the Senator from Idaho {Mr. Taytor], and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Wirners] are absent by leave of the Senate Mr, SALTONSTALL. I announce that the Senator from Washington [Mr. Carn], the Senator from Colorado | Mr. MILLIKIN], and the Senator from Michi- gan [Mr. VANDENBERG] are absent by leave of the Senate. The Senator from Idaho [Mr. Dwor- SHAK] is absent on official business. The Senator from Maine |Mr Brew- BSTER], the semor Senator from Nebraska {Mr. Butrer], the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Corvon], the Senator from Vermont (Mr. FLanprrs], the Senator from Indi- ana [Mr. JenNneR], and the junior Sena- tor from Nebraska [Mr WHERRY] are de- tained on official business. The result was announced—yeas 34, nays 32, as follows: YEAS—34 Aiken Hickenlooper Schoeppel Bridges Holland Smith, Maine Byrd Ives Emith, N. J. Capehart Kem Stennis Darby Kerr Taft Donnell Langer Thye Douglas Lodge Tobey Eastland McCarthy Watkins Ecton Matone Wiley Ferguson Martin Williams Gurney Mundt Hendrickson Saltonstall NAYS—32 Anderson Hunt Maybank Bricker Johnson, Colo. Morse Chapman Johnson, Tex, Myers Chavez Kilgore Neely Frear Knowland O'Mahoney Graham Lehman Pepper Green McCarran Russell Hayden McClellan Sparkman Hill McFarland Tydings Hoey McKellar Young Humphrey McMahon NOT VOTING—30 Benton Fulbright Millikin Brewster George Murray Butler Gillette O'Conor Cain Jenner Robertson Connally Johnston,S C. Taylor Cordon Kefauver Thomas, Okla, Downey Leahy Thomas, Utah Dworshak Long Vandenberg Ellender Lucas Wherry Flanders Magnuson Withers So Mr. Doveras’ motion to reconsider was agreed to. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I move on page 326, line 17, to strike out “$64,- 875,000” and to substitue in lieu thereof “$23,775,000”, making a saving of $41,- 109,000 and giving the Maritme Commis- sion along with the $63,000,000 provided on page 325, a total of $86,775,000 with which they can carry out all the con- struction for which they have made commitments. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amend- ment offered by the Senator from IIli- nois to the amendment of the com- mittee. Mr, DOUGLAS, and nays. The PRESIDING OFFICER. [Putting she question.] The ayes have it. I ask for the yeas CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. McFARLAND. Mr. President, I insist that the yeas and nays were de- manded before the result of the vote was announced. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the demand for the yeas and nays sufficient- ly seconded? The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. MCKELLAR Mr, President, may we have the question stated? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amend- ment offered by the Senator from INinois to the committee amendment, on page 326, line 17, to strike out “$64,875,000,” and to insert in lieu thereof “$23,775,- 000” Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it. Mr. FERGUSON. Is it not true that the Chair had announced the vote? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair had announced it, but it was brought to the attention of the Chair that the demand for the yeas and nays had been made before the announce- ment was made, and the Chair wants to be fair to every Senator. Mr. TOBEY. Does not the Chair think that was a figment of the magina- tion? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would not pass on that. Mr. McFARLAND. Mr. President, the amendment about to be voted on is most important. The appropriation recom- mended should not be eliminated at this time, when the United States needs ships for both troops and supplies. I insist that a vote in favor of this reduction in the appropriation would be a vote against the defense of the United States of America. Senators may say what they care to about 3 or 4 years being required to build these ships; suppose it takes 5 or 6 years. We may need them 5 or 6 years from now more than we need them today. Merely because some of us might not have liked the work of the Maritime Commission is no excuse for the Senate to take action which will adversely affect the defense of the United States. If Senators want to do that—and I do not believe they do—then they will cast their votes in favor of the proposed reduction. To say that this appropriation was placed 1n the bill before the Korean war broke out is not a valid argument. If the appropriation was needed at the time the bill was drawn, it is needed threefold today, and I plead with the Senate not to vote against the defense of the country, not to vote against giving supplies which are needed by the boys who are fighting in Korea. Mr. President, we hear question raised as to whether the President has declared anemergency. Thatisimmaterial. We know that the United States is in a period of emergency. There is no dis- pute about that, There is no dispute that the boys of the Nation are dying on the battle front, and I say for the United States Senate to vote to cut down appro- priations with which to build ships and furnish supplies is to vote against the JULY 25 defense of the Nation, to vote against those who are fighting for us in Korea, Mr. President, I plead with my col- leagues with all the power at my com- mand to stand by the committee which heard the evidence. There are many items which could be cut with more rea- son than this one. The people will be looking at this vote. They are going to look to see whether the Senate is willing to support the boys on the battle front. I hope the 1tem will not be cut. Mr SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, I intend to vote for the reduction in the appropriation for a completely different reason from that referred to by the Sen- ator from Arizona. I am just as strongly in favor of providing adequate Gefense as he is—and we all are for that. But the situation is simply this: Since 1947 there has been for ship construc- tion an estimated obligation of approx- imately $321,000,000 I am _ speaking from memory, and these figures may be somewhat out of line All that we have paid in cash 1s about $141,000,000, leav- ing approximately $179,000,000 still to pay. For new ship construction this year there is appropriated, approximately, in contract authority, $63,000,000 and $5,- 000,000 cash. That money is for two new passenger ships to go into the South American and Caribbean trade; a third ship, to cost $10,000,000, 1s a Navy proto- type ship I believe that is a ship that 1s an experiment, intended to go from San Francisco to Los Angeles. It will take on trailer trucks in San Francisco, and put new mules on the trailers in Los Angeles. I may not be correct in that, but I believe I am. Mr. O’MAHONEY. Mr. will the Senator yield? Mr. SALTONSTALL. Let me com- plete a very brief statement. The amounts agreed upon by the House and the Senate committee are the same. I believe we should send this matter to conference, not necessarily with the idea of ultimately cutting down the appro- priation, but of keeping control of the situation so that we can see what is going to be built in this time of crisis. The Senate committee approved these ships prior to the Korean crisis. If we put this matter into conference by this reduction, we can work out the question of what kind of ships should be built, and keep control of it in Congress. If my understanding is correct, and we approve the committee action, as I did approve it in the subcommittee, we will have no more control over what ships shall be built, we will leave it entirely to the Maritime Commission and the ad- ministration to decide, Mr. President, I believe we should keep our control on this subject up to the last minute. Mr. FERGUSON and Mr. O' MAHONEY addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Massachusetts yield, and if so, to whom? Mr. SALTONSTALL. I yield first to the Senator from Michigan, and then I will yield to the Senator from Wyoming. Mr. FERGUSON I wish to ask whether or not the evidence shows that President,
1950 the contracts have been let on the two South American vessels for the South American service? Mr. BALTONSTALL. I cannot an- swer that question. Mr. FERGUSON. The Senator is sure these vessels are not for our war effort, $s he Mr. SALTONSTALL. If my memory of the testimony is correct, they are new- er, faster passenger ships, for the trade with South America. Mr. FERGUSON. The one vessel that was to carry trailers from Los An- geles to San Francisco, and back and forth, would not be considered a defense vessel, would it? Mr. SALTONSTALL. It might be considered a defense vessel. It could be used for carrying tanks, and that sort of thing, if a war came. As I under- stand, they take the trailer aboard in San Francisco, and put a new mule on it in Los Angeles. Mr. FERGUSON. Would it not be used for shipments to and from San Francisco? It is for the local traffic, is it not? Mr. SALTONSTALL. It is for local traffic, but it could be used in time of war by being taken over by the Navy. That is my understanding, but I may be wrong, Mr. O’MAHONEY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. SALTONSTALL. I yield. Mr. O'MAHONEY. I think the Gen- ator is mistaken in his idea of the amendment which is under considera- tion. We would be taking this matter out of the hands of the conferees by supporting the amendment. We are dealing with the language which appears in italics on page 326, line 17. Of the amount there, $5,500,000 has already been obligated for certain cargo proto- type ships, and $1,100,000 has been as- signed to some other work. Of course, there are the two trailer ships to be run by the Pacific Coast Steamship Co. This appropriation was carried in last year’s appropriation bill at a very much larger sum, but the committee in ap- proving it did so with the purpose of taking the matter to conference, where we could then decide exactly how much was needed. I suggest to the Senator from Massa- chusetts that in voting to reject the com- mittee amendment he would merely be voting to deprive the Senate and the Congress of the opportunity to examine the whole matter in conference, as we had intended to do. The vessels of which the Senator spoke to me earlier in the evening are covered in an appro- priation item on the previous page. 60 this is evidence that we are legislating by guesswork, and I suggest to Members of the Senate that it is much better and much wiser to accept the judgment of the committee, and work the matter out in conference. The argument here would seem to con- vey the impression that the members of the commitiee were not concerned with saving money for the United States; that they were concerned only in making ap- propriations which could be wasted by & Maritime Commission no longer in CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE existence, which has been reorganized out of existence. Whereas the commit- tee was motivated solely by the idea of providing the funds by which the United States should acquire the maritime fleet necessary in the judgment of the legis- lative committees for the national defense. The amendment should be defeated. Mr. KERR. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. O'MAHONEY. I yield. Mr. KERR. No Member of this body has a higher regard for the great Com- mittee on Appropriations than I have, and no Member of this body has any deeper consciousness of the need for every provision for the national defense. As I understand, we are voting on a mo- tion to reduce the amount of an author- ization in the bill, and we are doing so after the evidence has been brought before us that the agency to which the authorization is being made has told a Member of the body that they are unable to commit the $64,000,000 either within the 12 months for which the appropria- tion is made, or to give the committee or the Senate information as to what they would do with it if the money were made available to the:n. The Senator from Oklahoma asked the chairman of the subcommittee, the Sen- ator from Wyoming [Mr. O’Manoney]) if that was correct, and if information was before him that this amount was in excess of that which the agency had ad- vised him they were either able to spend or to contract within the fiscal period. The distinguished chairman of the sub- committee replied that that was a very pertinent question, for which he compli- mented the Senator, and then he ignored it. Isee no reason, Mr. President, to vote for an authorization with reference to which the agency to which it is author- ized is unable to spend it or commit it in the period for which it is made. Mr, O'MAHONEY. Mr. President, I suggest to the Senator from Oklahoma that when he asked me that question, for which I complimented him, he was talk- ing about an altogether different section of the bill. Mr. KERR. Mr. President, the distin- guished chairman of the subcommittee may have misunderstood the Senator from Oklahoma, but his statement just made has to be elther a misunderstand- ing or a statement based on the wrong impression. Mr. McKELLAR. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me? Mr. KERR. I yield to the great Sena- tor from Tennessee. Mr. McKELLAR. The Senator spoke of the amendment as an authorization. It is not an authorization at all. It is an appropriation of cash. Mr. KERR. Then the answer goes to the amount of the cash, because the agency has said {t can neither spend it nor contract for it. Mr, JOHNSON of Colorado. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. KERR. I yield. Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. Does the Senator from Oklahoma know that our shipping capacity today is less than it was at the beginning of World War II 10975 after Pearl Harbor? Does the Senator realize the deplorable condition of our shipping? How does the Senator figure that we can raise more troops, spend more money, prepare for war across many seas, over great distances, and neglect the important point of ship- ping? How can the Senator reconcile those great differences? Mr. KERR. The Senator from Okla- homa does not understand the wisdom either of authorizing or appropriating money to an agency which says it can neither spend it nor contract for it within the period for which it is made. With reference to its being an appro- priction or an authorization, as I read the language of the bill, it is: That not to exceed 664,875,000 of the funds and contract authority—— Mr. McKELLAR. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. KERR. I yield. Mr. McKELLAR. Will the Senator read the testimony which has been fur- nished him to the effect that the agency will not use this money? There was no such testimony before the committee. I am wondering where the Senator ob- tained the testimony. Mr. KERR. I believe the Senator was on the floor when the letter was read, anc if it was {maccurate, the chairman of the committee has not so advised the Senate or the Senator from Oklahoma. Mr. O'MAHONEY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me? Mr. ERERR. I yield the floor, and the Senator from Wyoming may claim it in his own right. Mr. O MAHONEY. I will say to the Senator from Oklahoma that a few mo- ments ago I told the Senator that he was talking about a different amendment from that about which he was talking when he addressed his inquiry to me. Mr. KERR. Mr. President, the Sen- ator from Oktahoma is probably the best judge of what he had in his mind both when he addressed the question to the Senator from Wyoming and when he addressed his remarks to the Senate. Mr. O'*MAHONEY. Mr. President, I am not altogether certain about that matter, Mr. KERR. Then let me assure the Senator from Wyoming that I accord him the privilege of telling this body what is in his mind, and I reserve the privilege of telling the Senate what is in my mind. Mr. O’MAHONEY. If I may ask the Senator from Oklahoma a question or two: Did he address an inquiry to me which was based upon the letter of Mr. Koehler, which was read by the Senator from Tllinois? Mr. KERR. It was related to it. Mr. O*MAHONEY,. I have a copy of it in my hand now and I will read from the letter: Reference is made to your letter of June 28, 1050, concerning an item of 963,000,020 in the 1951 appropriation bill. The Senator is talking about an item of $64,875,000. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. OMAHONEY. Certainly.
10976 Mr. DOUGLAS. The two items have to be considered together, the authori- zation for $63,000,000 made by the House, and the additional authorization of $64,875,000 made by the Senate com- mittee. Mr, O'MAHONEY. That might be. Mr, DOUGLAS. Or a total of $127,- 875,000. Mr, O'MAHONEY. Very good. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, the total possible appropriations for ships which the Maritime Commission, accord- ing to its own statement, can consider, would be $86,000 000. or $41,000,000 less than the sum total in these two features. Since we at present are considering only committee amendments, and it is not appropriate at this time to consider House language, my amendment strikes out the committee authorization by re- ducing 1t by $41,100,000 in order to bring the global or total sum provided on pages 325 and 326 to the maximum amount which the Maritime Administration, ac- cording to its own statement, says it can spend, namely $86,775,000. Mr. O’MAHONEY. Mr. President, that is precisely the point to which I am addressing myself. It is highly tech- nical. It indicates the difficulty of com- ing to an understanding about matters of this kind in a hectic debate upon the floor of the Senate. But the issue arose here: “Where is the evidence that the money is not to be expended?” The evi- dence was the letter of Mr. Koehler. That is the evidence that was cited by the Senator from Illinois. All in the world I am saying is that the Senator’s inquiry to Mr. Koehler, and Mr Koeh- ler’s reply refer solely to an item on page 325, whereas we are now discussing an amendment on page 326 It might be advisable to cut appro- priations I am not discussing that question now. But I am merely point- ing out the confusion to which the de- bate has led. I cite that confusion as evidence of the fact that in my judg- ment the Senate would do much better to trust the judgment of its committee and take this matter to conference than merely to cut the appropriation on the basis of an argument which is obviously not based on evidence. Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. O’MAHONEY. I yield. Mr. SALTONSTALL. The statement by the Senator from Wyoming respect- ing the amount of page 326 is entire:y correct, I thoughy we were dealing with page 325, and that this Nem will be taken to conference, will be considered in conference. Mr. O’MAHONEY. I am very happy to have the Senator say that. SoI say let us vote down the amendment, and take the matter to conference. Mr. FERGUSON. Mtr. President, the amount in line 17, page 326, is a carry- over. It is a carry-over of both kinds of funds. Mr. DOUGLAS, I would prefer to say “extension.” Mr. FERGUSON, At any rate, the money is now committed for that pur- pose, and they have the money, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 1 think the Senator from Illinois is correct in saying that if we cut that figure, our action will be the same as cutting the figure on page 325. Mr. DOUGLAS. That is correct. We thus reduce somewhat the total amount. Mr. FERGUSON. Yes, we reduce somewhat the total amount. Mr. DOUGLAS. That is correct. Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, I think the testimony on page 180 indi- cates that these contracts are not let at the present time, because Mr. Marshall said: The budget presentation, Mr. Chairman, was to provide for the construction of either two or three combination passenger-cargo vessels for use in the North Atlantic, East Coast, South American trade, to be purchased by Moore-McCormack Lines with a constiuc- tion differential subsidy, They are not even sure whether the Moore-McCormack Lines will purchase them, at the present time. Certainly they will have no connection with the war effort at the present time. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amend- ment of the Senator from Illinois to the committee amendment on page 326, in line 17 On this question the yeas and nays have been ordered. Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, of course there is some point to the remarks made by the Senator from Wyoming to the effect that there are two items here, one in line 17, on page 325, in the amount of $63,000,000, which should be a@ new appropriation for the construc- tion of new commercial ships, not de- fense ships, but new commercial ships for passenger traffic, in the main; and one of the next page, page 326, where there is an almost equal item—in the amount of $64,875,000—that being a lim- itation on the amounts previously ap- propriated in the 1950 act to be per- mitted to be expended for a particular subject, namely, the construction of new ships, including reconditioning, better- ment, and so forth. The Senator from Illinois has ad- dressed his amendment to a proposed reduction which certainly is justified on the basis of the specific statement of the Acting Administrator of the Mari- time Commission. The amendment is certainly justified by that statement. The Senator has addressed his amend- ment to the latter amount, rather than to the former one. Mr McKELLAR. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me? Mr. HOLLAND. Yes, if the Senator from Tennessee will not permit me to make my statement on this matter with- out interruption. Mr. McKELLAR. Mr. President, I wish to call the Senator’s attention to the proviso on page 326, to which refer- ence has been made. Objection has been made on the ground that these ships will not be built because the appropriation will expire at the end of the fiscal year. However, the language there is: Provided further, That not to exceed 664,- 875,000 of the funds and contract authority made available for new ship construction, including reconditioning and betterment, in JULY 25 the Independent Offices Appropriation Act, 1960, shall continue to be available until December 31, 1950. So that extends the time, and there- fore the ships can be built. Mr. HOLLAND I thank the Senator. Mr. McFARLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. HOLLAND. I yield. Mr. McFARLAND. The Senator has said that these ships are to be used for commercial purposes. However, does the Senator think for a moment that every ship needed for the transportation of troops or for other military purposes will not be converted, if conversion is necessary, just as was done in World War I and in World War II? Does the Sena- tor think that the ships needed for such purpose will be used for other purposes? As was well pointed out by the distin- guished chairman of the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee, the Sen- ator from Colorado |Mr. JoHnson], who has given careful consideration to this matter, our supply of ships now is smaller than it was at the beginning of World War II So I simply cannot understand the Senator’s argument that these ships would not be available and valuable for national-defense purposes, Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, I ap- preciate the remarks of the Senator from Arizona If he were correct in his understanding—but he is not—that this appropriation would be used for defense shipping, I would be in there pitching with him. However, the Senator from Arizona is incorrect in his understand- ing. No mere statement on the floor of the Senate that this particular appropri- ation 1s a defense appropriation makes it so. This is not by any manner or means a defense appropriation As a matter of fact, Mr President, the amendment proposed by the Senator from Illinois to the committee amend- ment is addressed to a carry-over from an appropriation made in 1950. It could more properly have been addressed to the appropriation of $63,000,000 pro- posed to be made this year. In either case, {t would not have been a defense appropriation, because in either case it was an appropriation for the building or the reconditioning of merchant vessels; and instead of being a defense appropri- ation, I call the attention of the Senator to the fact that it is crystal clear from the statement of the Acting Administra- tor that some of this item is actually defense 1n reverse, as was stated by the Senator from Illinois, because it is pro- posed to spend $9,500,000 in converting ships now available for troop transporta- tion, ships which were built for use as troop transports, and to convert them into use as commercial liners. So in- stead of having accomplished something in the national defense, we would have gone in reverse, away from national defense. Therefore, Mr. President, I wish to say again to the Senate—because I think every Senator wishes to support defense appropriations and defense spending and planning—that this particular appro- priation is not a defense appropriation.
1950 In making this statement, I address my- self again to the distinguished Senator from Colerado. This appropriation is one addressed to the last amount men- tioned, which 1s a carry over from 1950, or to the first amount mentioned—the amount of $63,000,000. Im either case the appropriation is not a defense ap- propriation. To the contrary, it is an appropriation for the construction of commercial vessels or for the conversion of troop ships into commercial ships. Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. Mr. Pres- ident, if the Senator will yield, let me ask whether he is referring to the con- struction of the vessels General Pope and General Wewel. Mr. HOLLAND. I do not believe that is what is involved. I do not believe the Senator was present when this matter was first discussed. Let me say that I do not believe this is an occasion for heat; and if I appear to be heated, certaimly I do not mean to be. Mr. JOBINSOMN of Colorado. However, the Senator from Illinois tells me that this teem relates to the General Pope and General Weigel. My. HOLLAND. Yes, they represent a part of it. Mr. JQHNSON of Colorado. those ships have been ordered out. Mr, HOLLAND, Mr. President, the fact is that this has to do with two items, one appropriated in 1950—and certainly it was not a defense appropristion—and the other proposed to be appropriated this year, on the basis of a bedget sab- mitted lest fall, and certeémly that item 4s not a defense appropriation. The best proof of the fact that it is not a defense eppropriation is the letter ob- tained by ‘the Senator from Hlinois (Mr. Dove.as! specifically answering special questions with reference to what was proposed to be done with the $63,000 800 ttem of newty requested funds under the appropriation bil to go into effect at the beginning of the oeming fiscal year, Mr President, Y shall not weary the Scnate by rereading each of those provi- sions. However, it will be foand that tm anewering the questions, the Acting Administrater stated to the Senator from Tilineis that the vessels which were to be covered by the contract authority, under the $63,008,800, were new vessels for the “Good Neighbor Fleet” vessels to replace some vessels now 20 years old, operating aleng the east coast of South America. The second question was: Have ny formal applications been filed by the companies whe would benefit from this contract wathority? The answer was: No forrnal applications have been filed for the construction of passenger weesels by any company or fer operation on Trade Route No.1. Further 4m this con- nection, see answer to questian No, “4,” ap- pearing hereinafter. But to operate aiong the east coast of South America, in the Atiantic Ocean; and tt is sid that wp te the time of the writing of that letter on July, no application for CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE replacement ships had been filed by any of the companies which now are asing the 20-year-old ships. Go this item is Proposed in connection with looking a good long way ahead. The next question was: According to present calculations, ts tt reasonable to assume that theese sontracts will be let before June 30, 1951? In other words, before the end of the fiseal year for which the eppropriation bill now before the Senate is to be passed. I particularly call this matter to the attention of Senators, Mr. President, The answer was: At the time our 1951 budget was filed, it Was believed that 1t would be possible to execute contracts for the construction and sale to a private company of the necessary passenger-carrying vessels to replace the “Good Neighbor Fleet.” Our latest and very recent estimate is that contracts with re- spect to such new vessels cannot be ewarded until about November 1, 1051, That is after this fiscal year has passed and the fall of next fiscal year is at hand. Mr, KERR. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Myr. HOLLAND I yield. Mr KERR What is the date of the letter contaming that statement? Mr. HOLLAND. The date of the tet- ter is July 18, 1950, and it 158 written by the Acting Administrator of the Mari- time Commission to the distinguished junior Scnator from THinois, reptying to specific questions; and these questions were designed to bring out—tI call this to the attention of the Senate—whether this was defense constroction; if so, how soon it could be gotten wnder way; and, if it was not defense construction, then what type it was, and how soon they would expect to get that unter way. If there ever was a clear showing of the fact that this is not defense construction but is a construction project for the fu- ture, and some of it for the very remote future, a construction of commercial Imers, not at all designed to take part in the defense effort, of course, this letter és crystal clear on both those points IT shall not continue to read the rest of the informetion that is in the letter. It is perfectly clear, at least d0 the junior Senator from Fivrida, that the wise thing to do is to lay the predicate fer a real conference on the amount—2i emphasize, on the amount—between the House and the Senate. So far as the funior Senator from WMorida is concerned, if by the time this bill is in conference there are items of posed Senators again that the conversion here ts nondefense, it is away from defense— if there are specifie items which can be approved by the conference commit- tee in its judgement, of course the Bemate Tam sure will want to approve them, and the entire Congress will want to approve them. We are being asked here to approve the extension of a jarge number of pence- time tions made last year, for the fiscal year 1950, and a greet deal of mew appropriation proposed to be made this year for peacetime construction and peacetime conversion. Izy te the Sen- 16977 ate that instead of being a defense meas- ure, this is operating in reverse, exactly as the Senator from Iinois has said, and that it seems to me that tive Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. SaLrowersar1) has indeed put his finger on the real pros- pect of getting something constructive out of this; that is, to take this amend- ment to conference and insist upon there working out 2 defense program for Mari- time Commission conversion, and, if nec- essary, construction. Mr. O'MAHONEY and Mr. McKEL- LAR addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Florida yield, and if so to whom? Mr. HOLLAND. I yield first to the distinguished chairman of the com- mittee. Mr. McKELLAR. Mr. President, I may say that if the amendment of the Senator from Diinois goes to conference, the $64,000,000 item will not then be in conference. The only thing that wiil be in conference will be the $23,000,000; and the House has already fixed it at that sum The conference will be able to do nothing with it. The Senator is just not familiar with tt. The members of the committee who had it in charge were famitier with it They worked hard on tt, They gave their best judgement to the matter, and the full committee, regard- Jess of whether they were Democrats or Republicans, overwhelmingly voted to report the committer amendment; end now we find Senators who voted in com- mittee to report the biti, with this amount, now opposing tt. Mr HOLLAND I share the remarks of the Senator from Tennessee. I may say, however, I think some Senators on this foor know a little more about this appropriation than the distinguished Senator seems te think. We know that the 1950 appropriation wes a peacetime appropriation for peacetime work, and we know that the budget sabmitted iast yeer for appropriation this year was again a peacetime budget for peacetime construction. We also know the letter which is before the Senate, and the facts in it are within the knowledge of every the Acting Administrator to the effect that a large part of this appropriation
10978 available but not now of course ready to be used overnight. Mr, O’MAHONEY and Mr. HUM- PHREY addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Florida yield, and if so to whom? Mr, HOLLAND. I yield first to the Senator from Wyoming Mr. O’MAHONEY. Mr. President, I should like to ask the Senator from Flor- ica to turn to pare 326 of the bill, where in line 17, he will see the item to which the amendment of the Senator from Tilinois is directed. The Senator will observe that that item is in italics. All thal item, from lne 4 down to line 21, will be in conference, and by any amend- ment that the Senate now makes with respect to that figure, we shall be re- ducing the area of the conference. The Senator from Massachusetts was of the opinion that we were dealing with a pro- vision which the House had passed, but when I called his attention to the fact, he saw that it was an amendment added by the Senate committee, and that the elimination of this amendment would be removing the matter from conference. Now, I can understand a Senator’s vot- ing to reduce an appropriation; I can understand arguments that may be made for that. But I want to assure the Senator from Florida, and all who have listened to his very eloquent argument, that 1f, as he said a moment ago, it is a constructive thing to take this matter to conference, then the only way to do it is to allow the amount reported by the Senate committee to remain in the bill. Of course, if it is reduced—I must be quite frank, then the amount that may be allowed will remain in conference. But if Senators think we are wasting money, or trying to waste money, I should like to read some of the other language of this amendment: Beginning in line 4 I read: Provided, That no part of this appropria- tion or contract authorization shall be used (1) to start any new ship construction for which an estimate was not included in the budget for the current fiscal year or (2) to start any new ship construction the cure rently estimated cost of which exceeds by 10 percent the estimated cost included therefor in such ‘/udget unless, in either case, the Director of the Bureau of the Budget specifi- cally approves the start of such ship con- struction and the Director shall submit forthwith a detailed explanation thereof to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and of the House of Representatives. I am pointing that out because I want the Senate to realize that its committee has been endeavoring to protect the Treasury. I do not pretend, Mr. President, that we are building warships. When I read the showing with respect to defense, I was not pretending we were building troop ships. But I say to the Senator from Florida, and to every other Senator, that by the degree we build up communi- cation by sea with other areas and other lands, we shall be serving the interests of the United States, The fund which would be provided by the $64,875,000 would cover the following items: Some passenger vessels for the Caribbean serv- ice; two trailer ships for the Pacific coast, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE The Senator from California pointed out to us that with respect to those trailer ships for the Pacific coast, through no fault of the shipowners, the contracts were delayed, and they asked specific action by the committee not to make it available for 12 months, but to make it available until December 31, 1950. So, Mr. President, we can act wisely and intelligently only by a parliamen- tary method. Arguments may be made for the reduction of an appropriation which the House approved and the Sen- ate did not touch but such an amend- ment would go to conference, of course, and would fall into an utterly different category from that of this amendment; and if we strike it out, we deprive the conferees of the opportunity of deter- mining whether the money should be spent for those vessels. Mr. HOLLAND Mr. President, I think the distinguished Senator has fallen into error, and if he will follow me I believe he will see that I am correct. The House bill dees not end with the $63,000,000 figure on line 17, but has itself a proviso somewhat of the same nature, covering the same subject mat- ter of the committee amendment down to line 17. But on line 17, the Senate committee, and I think it was very wise, began to treat as one great, going mat- ter the business of the Nation, with the hold-over or carry-over appropriation from last year with the proposed new one for this year. There is, of course, some change in the proviso, and I should not want to be considered as saying that there is not. There 1s some change in the first part of the amendment over the House provision, but the second part of the amendment is entirely new mat- ter, so far as this bill is concerned. Mr. O'MAHONEY. The Senator is quite correct. Mr. HOLLAND. The result of mak- ing this reduction would be to cut down the amount of the carry-over, or that part of it which would be applied to new construction, by the amount which is so clearly shown by the letter of the Acting Administrator to be not needed. Mr. O’MAHONEY. And the Senate would be taking that much commerce from the Nation. Mr, HOLLAND. It seems clear to the junior Senator from Florida that while that amendment could very properly have been addressed to the $63,000,000, and while, in his judgment, as he stated a while ago, that would have been the preferable place to apply it, at the same time, that was not pending. The matter pending was the adoption of a proposed committee amendment which, if it were adopted and the House provision left un- disturbed, would have provided for $63,- 000,000 plus a carry-over of $64,875,000 for new construction, which is not, by any stretch of the imagination, defense construction. It seems clear that the item which the letter from the Acting Administrator says is not needed, which does not apply to defense, and will not be used because the contracts cannot be let, according to his letter, until 1951, should be omitted. So there are left in the lap of the confer. JULY 25 ence committee two things: First, what the specific provision shall be as to the limitations based on the $63,000,000; and, second, how much of the preceding carry-~ over appropriation shall be left avail- able for new construction. It seems to me there is no question about that, and, so far as the junior Senator from Florida is concerned, without turther debate he is perfectly willing to vote. Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. HOLLAND, I yield. Mr JOHNSON of Colorado. The Senator says that by no stretch of the imagination can this appropriation be considered a defense measure All the ships as they are constructed must, in every case, be approved by the Navy. I am sure that if the Secretary of the Navy were here tonight and were per- mitted to testify on the floor, he would say to the Senate, ‘‘These are the kinds of ships we need—fast, new, modern ships, which can be converted to the carriage of troops.” I am sure that is exactly what he would say. I do not believe he would agree with the Sen- ator from Florida that by no stretch of the imagination can they be considered defense ships They are certainly de- fense ships. They are approved by the Navy in each case, and they cannot be constructed unless the Navy approves them, Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr HOLLAND. I yield SEVERAL Senators. Vote! Vote! Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, de- spite the desire of Senators to vote, I should lke to have some information. The purpose is to provide for the recon- ditioning and repair of vessels, in other words, the so-called Liberty ships. I should like to know whether this amount of money is for new construction or whether all or a part of it is to be used for the purpose of repair or renovation of ships now lying in dock and which are not in a good state of repair Mr. HOLLAND. In reply to the Sen- ator, I would say that the portion of the construction provided for under the 1950 appropriation act, which is stated in the letter to which I have referred, does not touch the item the Senator has mentioned, but, instead, relates to various passenger vessels for the Grace Line and trailer ships for the Pacific coast. It has no relation whatever to the'subject matter which he mentions. I think the Senator has put his finger on exactly the same question on which the Senator from Massachusetts put his finger, namely, that by adopting this amendment we can leave it in the discre- tion of the conference committee, with the guidance which it will have from the Maritime Commission and the Navy, to convert the program, in as great an amount as it can be converted, into a defense program Mr. HUMPHREY. That is what the Senator from Minnesota wanted to know. Mr. O’MAHONEY. Mr. President, I should like to answer the Senator by reading the law. The Senator will not take my opinion; he will take the law. The trouble with this debate is that we
1950 talk without facts and do not depend upon the law. The amendment which is before the Senate is as follows: Promded further, That not to exceed 664,- 875,000 of the funds and contract authority made avallable for new ship construction, in- cluding reconditioning and betterment, in the Independent Offices Appropriation Act, 1960, shall continue to be available until December 31, 1950. I have in my hand Public Law 266, Eighty~-first Congress, and I read from it as follows: . New ship construction, including recon- ditioning and betterment, ag authorized by title V of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936 (except for construction of two prototype vessels under title VII of said act), 826,875.~ 000, of which $12,000,000 is for payment of obligations incurred under authority granted under this head in the Supplemental Inde- pendent Offices Appropriation Act, 1949, to enter into contracts for new ship construc- tion an amount not to exceed $75,000,000; and in addition, the Commission is authorized to enter into contracts for new ship construction in an amount not to exceed $50,000,000. So the amendment now before the Senate ‘would provide the authority for $14,000,000 for reconditioning and better- ment, and $50,000,000 for new construc- tion. That can be any sort of construc~ tion the Government may deem essential in the present crisis. Mr. HUMPHREY. In other words, the Senator is saying that we can use $14,- 000,000 of the $64,000,000 for the purpose of repairing the Naval Reserve ships. Mr. O’MAHONEY. Absolutely. Mr. DOUGLAS. Or $14,000,000 of the $23,000,000, which would be provided un- der my amendment. So the recondition- ing of ships would be taken care of under my amendment as well as under the com- mittee amendment. Mr. O"MAHONEY. And $50,000,000 for new construction, which may be very essential. Mr. McKELLAR. parliamentary inquiry. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator will state it. Mr. McKELLAR. I invite the atten- tion of the Presiding Officer to page 326, line 17, to the figure “$64,875,000.” If the amendmen. of the Senator from Tlli- nois is agreed to, and $23,775,000 is sub- stituted for the $64,875,000, what amount would go to conference? The PRESIDING OFFICER. In the opinion of the Chair, the conferees could not consider a greater amount than is included in the amendment of the Senator from Tllinois, if adopted by the Senate. Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, I merely wish to point out, in the light of the question asked by the Senator from Minnesota, that the Reserve Fleet is covered on page 330, line 1: Reserve Fleet expenses, $8,978,600. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amend- ment of the Senator from Illinois to the committee amendment on page 326, line 17. The yeas and nays having been ordered, the clerk will call the roll. ‘The legislative clerk called the roll. Mr. MYERS. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Brenton], the Senator from Texas [Mr. ConNnaLLy¥], Mr. President, a The CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE the Senator from Georgia [Mr. Groreel, The Senator from Iowa (Mr. Qruutetre), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Ke- Fauver], the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr, Lxany], the Senator from Montana iMr. Murray], the Senator from Mary- land (Mr. O'Conor], the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. THomas], and the Sen- ator from Utah [Mr. THomas] are neces- sarily absent. . The Senator from California [Mr. Downey } is absent because of illness. The Senator from Louisiana {Mr. ELLENDER], the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Fuusricut!, the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Joxnnston], and the Senator from Mlinois (Mr. Lucas] are absent on public business. The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Lonal, the Senator from Washington [Mr. Macnuson], the Senator from Idaho {Mr. Tayitor], and the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. WITHERS] are absent by leave of the Senate. Mr. SALTONSTALL. I announce that the Senator from Washington [Mr. Cain], the Senator from Colorado [Mr. MILLIKIN], and the Senator from Michi- gan [Mr. VAaNDENBERG] are absent by leave of the Senate. The Senator from Idaho [Mr. Dwor- SHAK] is absent on official business. The Senator from Maine [Mr. Brew- STER], the senior Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Butter}, the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Corpon], the Senator from Ver- mont (Mr. FLanpErs], the Senator from Indiana [Mr,. JENNER], and the junior Senator from Nebraska [Mr. WHERRyY] are detained on official business. The result was announced—yeas 30, nays 37, as follows: YEAS—80 Aiken Hickenlooper Schoeppel Bridges Holland Smith, Maine Byrd Humphrey Smith, N. J. Capehart Kem Stennis Douglas Kerr Eastland McCarthy Thye Ecton Malone Tobey Ferguson Martin Watkins Gurney Mundt Wiley Hendrickson Robertson Williams NAYS—87 Anderson Ives Maybank Bricker Johnson, Colo. Morse Chapman Johnszon, Tex, yers Chaves Kilgore eely Darby Knowland O'Mahoney Donnell Langer Pepper Frear Lehman Russell Graham Lodge Saltonstall Green McCarran Sparkman Hayden McClellan Tydings Hill McFarland Young Hoey McKellar Hunt McMahon NOT VOTING—29 Benton Fulbright Millikin Brewster George Murray Butler Gillette O'Conor Cain Jenner Taylor Connally Johnston, 8.C, Thomas, Okla. Cordon Kefauver ‘Thomas, Utah Downey Leahy Vandenberg Dworshak Long Wherry Ellender Lucas Withers Flanders Magnuson So Mr. Dovuctas’ amendment to the committee amendment was rejected. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now recurs on the committee amendment, Mr, DOUGLAS. Mr. President, a par- Namentary inquiry. 10979 The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it. Mr. DOUGLAS. I should like to in- quire of the Chair whether the amend- ment which I offered to the provision on page 326, line 17, has been rejected. b The PRESIDING OFFICER, It has aan, Mr. DOUGLAS, I should like to in- quire whether it would be appropriate, after the consideration of committee amendments has been concluded, to offer the same amendment to the House ap- Ppropriation of $63,000,000 on line 17, page 325, of the House text? The PRESIDING OFFICER. That language would be open to amendment after the committee amendments have all been completed. Mr. DOUGLAS. I shall offer the amendment at that time. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now is on agreeing to the com- mittee amendment on page 326, line 17, The amendment was agreed to. Mr. McFARLAND. Mr. President, does that complete the committee amendments in this chapter? The PRESIDING OFFICER. That completes the amendments in this chap- ter, and up to page 358. INVITATION TO SENATORS TO VISIT WILLIAMSBURG Mr. ROBERTSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Recorp at this point a letter from the executive vice president of the Jamestown Corp., Mr. Allan R. Mat- thews, in which he extends a very cor- dial invitation to all Members of the Senate to come to Williamsburg next Sunday, July 30, at the fourth annual legislative day, to be the guests of the corporation for the beautiful historic pageant, The Common Glory. Each Senator who can go will be furnished with two free tickets to the pageant. The letter states that ample accom- modations can be secured for those who wish to spend the night in Williamsburg. Any Senator who wishes to take ad- vantage of this offer should let me know, so that I can make reservations for the tickets to the pageant. There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: THE JaMESTOWN CorP., Williamsburg, Va., July 24, 1050. Hon. A. WiLLIs RoRerrson, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. My Dear Sanaror Ropertson: On July 30, 1950, the Jamestown Corp., in cooperation with the Governor of Virginia, wil) be host at its fourth annual legislative day, a day which commemorates the date on which the Virginia House of Burgesses, the first freely elected governing body on the North Ameri- can Continent came into existence. In observance of the day, the General As- sembly of Virginia will hold a commemora- tive session at the Old Jamestown Church at Jamestown Island, site of the first perma- nent English colony on this continent. Speakers will include Vice Admiral J. Leslie Hall, former Commandant of the Fifth Naval District, and Virginia's Governor Battle. After that meeting, members of the gen- ral assembly and other guests will partici- pate in a picnic-box supper on the grounds at Jamestown, and at 8:15 p. m., that day, the same group will be guests of the James- town Corp. at 2 performance of Paul Green’s
10980 historical drama, The Common Glory, which tells the story of American Colonies’ fight for independence. In view of the nature of the observance and of the significance at this time of the drama's message, the Jamestown Corp. will be happy if you will invite your colleagues in the United States Senate to attend both the commemorative session and the per- formance of the play and we earnestly hope many of them will be able to be present, We should like tc hear from those who plan to come in order that arrangements may be made for thetr suppers. Two complimentary tickets to The Common Glory will be set aside at our box office for each Senator who is able to be here. For your information, I am notified that sufficlent space 1s available at the Williams- burg Inn on Sunday to accommodate those who would like to remain overnight in Willtamsburg. Looking forward to having you with us on Sunday, I am, Sincerely yours, ALLEN R. MATTHEWS, Executive Vice President. MISSION OF STANLEY EARL TO KOREA Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I wish to ask to have an editorial inserted in the ReEcorp, and have a minute or two to explain the insertion. I ask unanimous consent to have printed as a part of my remarks in the body of the Recorp an editorial which appeared in the Portland Oregonian of July 21, 1950, entitled “Mr. Earl’s Mis- sion.” There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Mr, EARL’s Mission It has been inevitable that Stanley Earl, of Portland, returning from his duties with the Economic Cooperation Administration in Korea and speaking out with admirable frankness on the conditions which have ex- isted in South Korea and which have abetted Communist penetration, should be quoted and misquoted in the Communist press of the United States and the world. This page also, having pointed out in a number of editorials that all was not well below the thirty-elghth parallel, has been quoted and misquoted by the rats among us who lie in wait for such opportunity. Mr. Earl's position seems to be exactly the position which this page has taken—that the laboratory test of war has shown that we had neglected reiorm during our period of Korean Occupancy and that consequently there was no loyalty for us among the masses of the people. These people had, and have, no de- sire for communism. Generally speaking, they appear to detest it. But they have been under a police state from which American occupancy had failed to release them, and apathy hus been the result. This is unsavory stuff, but it 1s material that all of us need to assimilate, and par- ticularly our Government. We have to make the decision as to whether, when we go back into command of Korea, we are going to make democracy a true force for reform. Or is it to be a repetition of our lending ourselves to what Mr. Earl has described as a police state. Mr. Earl has been called to Washington. We hope he continues to tell the facts as he sees them, It is a mission of the highest patriotism, Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I wish to say, in regard to this editorial, that Mr. Earl, an Oregonian, was appointed some months ago as the representative of ECA in behalf of the labor mission of ECA in Korea, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. Earl found conditions in South Korea very unsatisfactory so far as the free-labor movement was concerned, and upon his return to the United States some days ago he made some statements in an interview with a newspaper cor- respondent of the Portland Oregonian concerning conditions in South Korea as he found them to be. The Daily Worker picked up Mr. Earl’s comments and gave widespread publicity to them, seeking, of course, to give the impres- sion that Mr. Earl was in effect a wit- ness for the Communist position in Korea. This editorial of the Portland Oregonian goes to that question. Mr. President, I desire to say that I have known Mr. Stanley Earl for a great many years. He is an avowed enemy of everything communistic. He has fought the Communists in the CIO, both in Oregon and in the country generally. He is known as a labor leader within the right wing of the CIO. I happen to know that his appointment as a labor repre- sentative for the labor mission in Korea by ECA had the support of the A. F. of L. and of the CIO, and when he spoke in South Korea he spoke for the American labor movement, the CIO, the A. F. of L., the brotherhoods, indeed, the entire American labor movement, Any criticism of Mr. Earl because of any statement he has made in regard to conditions as he found them in South Korea is not justified on the basis of any ground that Mr. Earl in any sense is the least bit sympathetic to commu- nism. It is true that as we read his in- terview—and I understand it is also true if we will read some of the reports which Mr. Earl during the past few months has sent back to ECA and the State Department—we discover he found some conditions in South Korea in need of great improvement, just as the junior Senator from Oregon some time ago on the floor of the Senate tried to forewarn the Senate with regard to some of the internal conditions in South Korea which needed the immediate attention of the United States, which they did not get, but, instead, apparently we with- drew from Korea, when, in my judg- ment, we should have been moving into Korea with both military aid and eco- nomic aid. Our failure to do so raises a question which calls for an answer, in my opinion, on the part of the State Department. Let me say, in this great hour of cri- sis, as one who is going to give unlimited support to the administration in meet- ing the crisis, that I am not going to jus- tify any of the mistakes in Korea, and particularly the mistakes of the State Department, which I think helped aug- ment the seriousness of the situation in which we now find ourselves in Korea, For my part, I am glad there was someone in the Korean Mission who, when he returned to the United States, in an interview with an Oregonian cor- respondent spoke out and told what he found to be the conditions in Korea, It behooves us to take steps now to see to it, not only in Korea, but in some other parts of the world where we find our- selves coming to the assistance of some very reactionary governments, that JULY 25 American principles are put into opera- tion, so that we will not have a repetition of some of the causes of the Korean crisis which now confronts us, causes which are leading now to the death of American boys in Korea. Mr. President, it is a pretty serious matter when we find that conditions ex- isted in South Korea as they did exist prior to this conference. I want the Recorp to show that I en- thusiastically support the finding which the Portland Oregonian hands down in its discussion of Mr. Earl's mission, when it defends his Americanism, and when it points out very clearly that he is anti- Communist not only in his beliefs, but in his whole record as a labor leader in the United States. THE CASE OF MR. KRIPS—EDITORIALS FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES AND NEW YORK HERALD TRIBUNE Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have placed in the body of the Recorp tw: editorials, both entitled “The Case of Mr. Krips,” one from the New York Times of July 21, and the other from the New York Herald Tribune of July 20. I shall read the concluding portion of both of them. At this time there is a great deal of talk about rearming western Germany. Yet when two of the outstanding men of Germany and Austria come to the United States they are met by the Immi- gration and Naturalization Service and sent back by the Department of Justice, without one single word of testimony being introduced against them. How do Senators suppose the German people felt when Walter Giesinger was sent back? How do Senators suppose the Austrian people felt when the great Austrian musician, Mr. Krips was sent back to Austria? The editorlals will give some idea of what these great news- papers, the New York Herald Tribune and the New York Times, think about it. I read the last paragraph of the editorial from the Herald Tribune as follows: There is no excuse for someone to be granted permission to come here on one side of the ocean and be deprived of it on the other. When as in this case, the per- s0nN involved is a man of eminence, the affair makes America appear downright ridiculous. Surely some explanation is due in the case of Mr, Krips, and possibly an apology as well. I read the last paragraph of the New York Times editorial as follows: Rumor, hearsay, slander—these may be the bases on which an alien is excluded, and under our present practice he may not merely have no chance to fight back but he may not even know the nature of the charges. This is an outrageously undemo- cratic procedure. It demands revision, Surely, if they put their minds to it, Con- gress and the State and Justice Departments could work out @ better and more democratic method of protecting the security of the United Btates against aliens suspected of subversion. Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- sent that the two editorials may be printed at this point in the body of the Recorp.
1950 There being no objection, the editorials were ordered to be printed in “ihe Reo- ORD, as follows: [From the New York Times of July 21, 1950] Tue Casx or Mz. Kxtrs Refusal of the authorities to reveal why they barred Josef Krips, conductor of the Vienna State Opera, from entering the United States is the latest but not the worst in a long series of incidents that have made cer- tain aspects of our immigration procedure look little short of ridiculous. Josef Krips wag scheduled to make his American debut leading the Chicago 8ym- phony Orchestra Tuesday night, and to re- turn to Austria within a few days. He re- ceived his visa from the American consul in Vienna without trouble; but on arrival here Sunday was detained without explana- tion by the immigration authorities for further investigation. Rather than wait at Eliis Island for the investigation to be com- pleted, with the possibility that he would be deported without a hearing anyway, Mr. Krips decided to return to Europe without further ado. The upshot of this case is that no one—except perhaps the Immigration and Naturalization Service of the Justice Depart- ment—knows why he was barred from this country, nothing has been proved for or against him, a blot is inferentially left on his record, and an American audience has been deprived of becoming acquainted with &@ gifted conductor. There is no question but that the Attorney General and the Immigration and Naturali- gation Service are acting within the law. The Attorney General has the power to deny admission to the United States of any alien whose presence he feels would be prejudicial to the interests of this country, and to deny admission without ea hearing. But there is a very large question as to the wisdom of re- fusing to hold such @ hearing, except perhaps in the most extreme emergency. What we are doing is to say to aliens who seek access to our shores that our democracy functions for everyone within our borders, but our democratic principles do not necessarily apply to those knocking at the gates. Rumor, hearsay, slander—these may be the bases on which an allen is excluded, and un- der our present practice he may not merely have no chance to fight back but he may not even know the nature of the charges. This is an outrageously undemocratic procedure. It demands revision. Surely, if they put their minds to it, Congress and the Btate and Justice Departments could work out e better and more democratic method of protecting the security of the United States against aliens suspected of subversion. [From the New York Herald Tribune of July 20, 1950] Tux Cass or Mz. Kxips The departure from these shores of Joseph Krips, conductor of the Vienna Opera, points up anew the curious lack of Maison that ex- ista between the State Department and the Justice Department when it comes to al- lowing foreigners into the United States. Mr. Krips was invited here to conduct the Chicago Symphony Orchestra; he received a visa from the American Embassy in Vienna. Yet when he arrived he was taken to Ellis Island and told he must either depart volun- tarily or elee be detained pending an investi- gation of certain unspecified information against him. Mr, Krips, who shortly will begin to conduct at the Salzburg Festival in Austria, chose to leave. Mr. Krips obviously is no nazl. He evi- Gently was one of the few conductors with clean enough hands to be allowed to lead the Vienna Philharmonic immediately after the lUberation; he has taken it on tour of all western Europe; he has achieved wide popularity in England, his phonograph CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE records are well known here. He conducted in Rusala in 1947 under the auspices of the Austrian Government, and in the absence of any statement by the immigration author- fties, 1t must be presumed that this is the stumbling block to his admission, If this is so, the people who want to hear this mu- siclan perform are entitled to have the ob- jection specified, so that they may judge its validity for themselves. There is no excuse for someone to be granted permission to come here on one side of the ocean and be deprived of it on the other. When, as in this case, the person involved is a man of eminence, the affair makes America appear downright ridiculous, Surely some explana- tion is due in the case of Mr. Krips, and possibly an apology as well. THE WRECK OF A ST. LOUIS-BOUND FRISCO TRAIN—ARTICLE FROM THE WASHINGTON TIMES-HERALD Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, yester- day we heard a great deal from the junior Senator from South Dakota about the Mundt-Nixon bill. He said that one of the reasons we should immediately act upon the bill was that there had been a train wreck, he first said, in Maine, but when the distinguished Senator from Missouri rose and reminded him it must have been in Missouri, then the Senator from South Dakota changed the location to Missouri. But time and again during his speech he referred to the train wreck, and suggested that, in lis opinion, sub- versive elements caused the wreck. I have here the Washington Times-Herald of this morning, in which there is an article entitled “Boy Confesses Train Wreck.” The article is from Holland, Mo., July 24, and reads in part as fol- lows: Pemiscot County authorities arrested a 15- year-aid sharecropper’s son today and said he has admitted throwing a switch which caused the wreck of a St. Louls-bound Frieco lines train yesterday. That is the first paragraph of the item, Mr. President. It all goes to show that in a time of hysteria, anything which may happen anywhere in the United States, no matter how bad, may be blamed on some organization or some person who is not at all guilty. To my mind what was said yesterday fs a perfect example of what happens in a time of hysteria. Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- sent that the article may be printed in the bedy of the Rzcorp at this point. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Rzcorp, as follows: Boy Conrzssrs TRAIN Warck Hoitany, Mo., July 24.—Pemiscot County euthorities arrested a 15-year-old share- cropper's son today and said he has admitted throwing a switch which caused the wreck of a St Louis-bound Frisco-lines train yes- terday. The train's engineer, Ira H. Woods, was killed and the fireman seriously injured when the locomotive struck the open switch, Thirteen passengers were slightly injured. The boy reportedly told officers that he got the idea of wrecking the train from a moving picture he had seen. He said he stole « saw and threw it in 4 field after using it to saw the lock on the switch Saturday afternoon, The saw was recovered when the boy led investigators to the scene. He was taken to jail at Caruthersville pending the filing of formal charges. 10981 BILLS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE OALL OF THE CALENDAR Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, in connection with the call of the cal- endar tomorrow may I ask the Senator from Arizona whether there has been printed in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD a Nst of bills which will be called, which appear on the calendar prior to the point at which the call of the calendar was ended on the last call? Mr. McFARLAND. Yes; such a list was ordered printed in the Recorp earlier today. Mr SALTONSTALL. I thank the Senator. RECESS Mr. McFARLAND. I move that the Senate stand in recess until noon tomor- row. The motion was agreed to; and (at 8 o’clock and 26 minutes p. m.) the Senate took a recess until tomorrow, Wednes- day, July 26, 1950, at 12 o’clock meridian. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TueEspay, JuLy 25, 1950 The House met at 12 o’clock noon. The Chaplain, Rev. Bernard Bras- kamp, D. D., offered the following prayer: © Thou whose resources of grace are inexhaustible and abundantly adequate, we pray that we may be numbered among the seekers and finders of God, for we need Thee so greatly and des- perately in all the strange and various experiences of each new day. Thou hast given us victory in days gone by and we are committing and commending ourselves to Thy care and keeping in the days to come. May we have the courage to believe that the kingdom of God, the kingdom of brotherhood, will be established upon the earth, and may we be eager to hasten the coming of that blessed day of pre- diction when peace and good will shall prevail everywhere, Hear us in the name of the Prince of Peace. Amen. The Journal of the proceedings of yesterday was read and approved. MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT A message in writing from the Pres!- dent of the United States was commu- nicated to the House by Mr. Miller, one of his secretaries, who also informed the House that on July 22, 1950, the Presi- dent approved and signed a bill of the House of the following title: HR. 38532. An act for the relief of Mrs. Birvert Arsenian, BPECIAL ORDER GRANTED Mr. LANHAM asked and was given permission to address the House for 20 minutes on tomorrow, following the leg- islative program and any special orders heretofore entered. BRITISH OIL POLICY IN CHINA Mr. MEYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend my ree marks at this point in the Recorp.
10982 The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Kansas? There was no objection. Mr. MEYER. Mr. Speaker, on July 17 I called attention of the House to the report from Hong Kong that the British Asiatic Petroleum Co. was continuing sales of petroleum products to Chinese Communists and in fact were expanding sales to fill some of the gap left when two American companies, Socony and Caltex, quit doing business on the Chinese main- land I now arise to call attention to the news report of July 18 to the effect that the British policy on o1] sales to China had been reversed. It is my hope that this will continue to be the policy of the British and of the companies which are under the influence of the British Government. In these critical days every precaution should be taken to see that no materials and sup- plies from the United States or any of the countries allied with the United States in the effort to confine communism should reach the forces arrayed against us TAXES, TAXES—-WHERE TO GET THE MONEY Mr. RICH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unani- mous consent to extend my remarks at this point in the Recorp. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania? There was no objection. Mr. RICH. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Truman did not spell out a tax program in his speech, although he indicated that addi- tional taxes should be raised in order to pay for this Korean war in which he has entered our country. Nov, his first suggestion should be that he eliminate his $50,000 a year tax-ex- empt salary, which he receives in addi- tion to his regular yearly salary of $100,000 and $40,000 expense money. He should also suggest the elimination of the $20,000 a year tax-exempt expense money which the Vice President and the Speaker of the House receive. These items were included in the first bill the President of the United States signed in the early days of the Eighty-first Con- gress, The $2,500 tax-free money all Members of the Congress receive in addi- tion to their yearly salaries should also be taxed. Let the pinch come to those who are behind this war and let them show that they are willing to lead the way. There is no better way to set an example to the people who are not responsible for this Korean expedition, as Mr. Truman calls it, but which seems to me to be a war of great magnitude. Let us lead the way in taxes, Mr. President and Mr. Speaker. FOREIGN EXCHANGE Mr. DOLLIVER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend my re- marks at this point in the Recorp and include excerpts from a letter from a constituent. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Iowa. ? There was no objection, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Mr. DOLLIVER. Mr. Speaker, an il- lustration of the contradictions found in our foreign policy is found in the for- eign exchange field. For example, from Canada, I am informed United States citizens are permitted to bring in only $12,500 annually, At the very same time this administration can be expected to try to get Canada to participate more heavily in the present military effort in Korea by larger sharing in war con- tracts. Certainly this ought to be an oppor- tune time to secure exchange concessions from our neighbor on the north. Doubt- less additional war contracts in Canada will ease the alleged dollar shortage there, and make possible much freer transfer of Candian funds to the United States. 5 I feel sure there are thousands of American citizens who would like to withdraw capital from Canada, but can- not now do so. In addition, relaxation of exchange controls would encourage investment in Canadian enterprises. Who will send capital there knowing they cannot get it back, except in small annual amounts? Relaxation of exchange controls throughout the world, and especially in English-speaking countries, would be a real contribution to better economic conditions and greater international stability. Under unanimous consent granted by the House, I include portions of a letter on this subject received from a constit- uent: Dear Mr Douturver’ There is talk that Can- ada will obtain a bigger share of United States war contracts and certainly Canada will make a contribution in line with the Atlantic Pact. In that event Canada will receive a large volume of dollar increase This will enable her to buy American products needed for her own economy and she should ease foreign exchange regulations I am interested because I have been pe- malized due to Canadian foreign exchange regulations * * * Iam only allowed to export $12,500 annually and I am seriously hampered due therefrom and would like the use of this capital in Iowa now. There are thousands of people in the United States similarly situated who want to withdraw capital from Canada but are pre- vented due to Canadian Foreign Exchange Board regulations. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE PROGRAM Mr SCUDDER Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend my re- marks at this point in the Recorp The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from California? There was no objection. Mr. SCUDDER. Mr. Speaker, the United States Government today owns the dried equivalent of two dozen eggs for every man, woman, and child in the country. These eggs have been bought under a Department of Agriculture pro- gram designed to insure prosperity on the farms of this country through main- tenance of high prices. While the Agriculture Department has carried on this program, another Gov- ernment department—the State Depart- ment—has continued its downward re- JULY 25 vision of tariff rates on eggs, as well as on many other products. At Geneva 2 years ago, the 27-cents-a-pound duty on dried eggs was reduced to 17 cents. The 27-cent figure was established in 1931 after an investigation of foreign egg pro- duction costs, What happened after this decrease In import duty? In 1948, the United States imported 235,061 pounds of dried eggs from China. The following year— 1949—that figure shot up to 1,903,038 pounds. For the first 5 months of 1950, the United States imported 1,744,285 pounds of dried eggs from China. A Department of Agriculture circular fore- casts an increase in these figures. American dollars are pouring into that Soviet satellite while our own Govern- ment buys surplus American eggs and stores them in a Kansas cave. Every pound of Chinese dried and frozen eggs bought in this country decreases the purchases from American farmers on the open market This increases the Government’s purchases, boosts our taxes, and increases the farmer's reliance upon the Government for his livelihood, Mr. Speaker, we can do two things to end this intolerable situation. We can— and we should—call upon the State De- partment to take immediate action to restore the tariff rate to its former level. And, as a safeguard against future sit- uations of this kind in our entire import trade, we should enact my bill, H. R. 6902, to restore the peril point and escape clause to the Reciprocal Trade Agree- ments Act. This would protect the American farmer, producer, and worker from competition by the cheap labor markets of the world. CURSE OF COMMUNISM Mr. SMATHERS. Mr Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend my re- marks at this point in the Recorp. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Florida? There was no objection. Mr. SMATHERS Mr. Speaker, the curse of communism threatens the lib- erty of all people throughout the world. The job of fighting its tyranny belongs to every person and every country which desires to preserve democracy and freedom. On June 24, when the Communists of North Korea inexcusably attacked the South Koreans, the United Nations promptly called on the Democratic coun- tries of the world to join together and resist that aggression. The people of the United States responded to that call. Today our young men are fighting and dying in the cause of freedom. Today our resources are being mobilized for whatever sacrifice may lie ahead. It 1s a deadly serious struggle that is taking place in Korea, and the time has now come when all the nations who wish to preserve their independence should begin to assume their proportionate share of the burden of resistance. I am sure that no one wishes to ask a nation to do that, which because of its lack of resources or limited manpower, it is in- capable of doing, but we must remember that the free peoples of the world are faced with a common threat to their
1950 liberty, and that they have a common task to perform. Surely the sense of fairness which motivates the member nations of the United Nations will prompt them to make the same proportionate sacrifice in manpower and in resources as are the people of the United States. We, here in America, are mobilising our industry and our wealth; we are drafting our manpower, and the time has arrived when all the other countries of the United Nations believing in the ideals of freedom must take similar steps to ready themselves to meet their fair share of the job of turning back the Red forces of tyranny and oppression. Let us hope that it will not be long before the combat troops of the various countries in the United Nations will be standing shoulder to shoulder as symbols of continuing democracy and freedom. SPECIAL ORDER GRANTED Mr. DOLLIVER asked and was given permission to address the House for 15 minutes on Thursday next, following the legislative program and any special or- ders heretofore entered. NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL ON IN- TERNATIONAL MONETARY AND FINAN- CIAL PROBLEMS—MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES (H. DOC, NO. 658) The SPEAKER laid before the House the following message from the Presi- dent of the United States, which was read, and, together with the accompany- ing papers, referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs and ordered to be printed, with illustrations: To the Congress of the United States: I transmit herewith a Report of the National Advisory Council on Interna- tional Monetary and Financial Problems covering its operations from October 1, 1949, to March 31, 1950, and describing in accordance with section 4 (b) (5) of the Bretton Woods Agreements Act, the par- ticipation of the United States in the In- ternational Monetary Fund and the In- ternational Bank for Reconstruction and Development for the above period. Harry 8. TRUMAN, Tus Write Hovsr, July 25, 1950. EXTENSION OF REMARKS Mr. CAMP asked and was given per- mission to extend his remarks and in- clude a letter from an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of Georgia. Mr, FLOOD asked and was given per- mission to extend his remarks in three instances and include extraneous matter. Mr. HAYS of Ohio asked and was given permission to extend his remarks and include extraneous matter. Mr, MARTIN of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to extend his remarks and include an editorial. Mr, FARRINGTON asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in three instances and include extran- eous matter. Mrs, ST, GEORGE asked and was given permission to extend her remarks and insert four separate articles by Frank C. Waldrop. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Mr. COLE of New York asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in two instances and include newspaper articles. Mr. CANFIELD asked and was given permission to extend his remarks and include a newspaper article. Mr. PATTERSON asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in two instances and include newspaper articles. Mr. McGREGOR asked and was given permission to extend his remarks and in- clude a speech he made before the American Road Builders Association. Mr. SHAFER asked and was given per- mission to extend his remarks in three instances and include extraneous matter. Mr. MASON asked and was given per- mission to extend his remarks. Mr. JONAS asked and was given per- mission to extend his remarks and in- clude extraneous matter in connection therewith. CALL OF TH! HOUSE Mr. ARENDS. Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present. The SPEAKER. Ividently a quorum 1s not present. Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, I move a call of the House. A call of the House was ordered, The Clerk called the roll, and the fol- lowing Members failed to answer to their names: (Roll No. 317] Abbitt Gamble Norton Allen, 11! Gary O'Brien, Mich Alien, La. Gillette Passman Anderson, Calif.Glimer Pfelfer, Barden Gordon Joseph L. Barrett, Wyo. Gore Pfeiffer, Bates, Mass, Gwinn William L, Bennett, Fla. Phillips, Tenn, Bentsen Edwin ArthurPickett Boggs, La. Hare Plumley Boykin Harris Powell Breen Hébert Quinn Brehm Hil Rains Brooks Hinshaw Ramsay Buckley, N.Y. Irving Regan Bulwinkle Jackson, Calif. Richards Burton Jenison Roosevelt Byrne, N. Y. Jennings Babath Carrot) Jensen Badoweki Cavalcante Johnson Banborn tham Karst Scott, Hardie Chiperfield Keefe Bime Christopher Kelley, Pa, Smith, Ohio Combs Kilday Smith, Va. Cooper Klein Stanley Corbett Larcade Sutton X Lucas Tackett Davies, N. ¥. McCarthy Teague Daweon McGrath Trimble Dingell McGuire Vureell Douglas McMillen, Il. Wagner Eaton Madden Welch Engel, Mich Marcantonio Werdel Evins Marshall White, Idaho Foga: Morrison Wier Frasier Moulder Willis Fulton Murray, Tenn. Winstead Furcolo Murray, Wis. Zablocki The SPEAKER. On this roll cail $15 Members have answered to their names, @ quorum, By unanimous consent, further pro- ceedings under the call were dispensed with. EXTENSION OF ENLISTMENTS IN THE ARMED FORCES Mr. VINSON. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into the Gommittee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration 10983 of the bill (S. 3937) to authorize the Pres- ident to extend enlistments in the Armed Forces of the United States. The motion was agreed to. Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the con- sideration of the bill 8. 3037, with Mr. Younc in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill, By unanimous consent, the first read- ing of the bill was dispensed with. Mr. VINSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 minutes. Mr. Chairman, this is the first measure to come before the House in response to the war in Korea. It is legislation of a type that Congress has previously en- acted in similar times in World War I and World War II. However, before discussing the bill, I want to make a few general observa- tions on the present world situation as I see it. To me it looks like our country is in this kind of shape. Paras us take the international picture In international! affairs, all the world today is a tinder box. Global war could begin at any time. Communist partisans have resorted to the use of arms in Korea and Indo-China. They have just con- quered China. Malaya is in troubie. Burma is in trouble. Late news indi- cates that we may have trouble in For- mosa, despite the President’s warning to the Chinese Reds. Iran is a potential battlefield. The Balkans are, as usual, a powder keg. Border incidents are oc- curring all along between Yugoslavia and Bulgaria, Rumania, Hungary, and Al- bania. Greece is being threatened. The Russians keep the pressure on in Berlin. The Germans in the eastern part of that nation are organized into a Red army of dangerous size. Russia has, in effect, walked out of the United Nations. Russian propaganda is violently attacking all western nations. Despite the United Nations action in re- spect to Korea, Russia is apparently fur- nishing military assistance to the north- ern Koreans. <A Russian fifth column is working actively in all of the free nations of the world. So, in the international arena, there is dynamite everywhere. We could have a world-wide explosion at any time. And no one knows what may happen tomor- row. I think the international picture is as grim as it was at any time in the late 1930's when Hitler and Mussolini and Japanese leaders were completing their Plans for World War 1. And how about the military picture? It is not much more encouraging, to be frank about it. Russia has almost 300 submarines. That is about six times as many as Nasi Germany had on the outbreak of World War II, and with her less than 60 sub- marines Germany almost ran us off the high seas before we could et our anti- submarine warfare well under way. Russia has some 40,000 tanks. She outnumbers us in tanks at least by 7 to 1, and some of her tanks are far superior to ours, ‘
10984 Russia has some 175 ground divisions, as contrasted to our 10, with only one of our 10 at battle strength. Russia has a vast air force well trained to work with the Russian ground forces. The tactical air support for our Army is notoriously weak, due mainly to our fail- ure to carry forward our 70-group pro- gram for the American Air Force. Russia is situated in an enviable stra- tegic position. She is right on the edge of western Europe and can concentrate vast military power there much more rapidly than it can be provided from the United States. She has satellite armies rimming her whole border. She can use satellites here and there in the world— in Germany, in the Balkans, in the Near East, in Asia—and, if we let her, she can pi American forces down here and there to such an extent as to prevent serious resistance in western Europe. Moreover, Russia has a police-state organization. She can do as she pleases, and when she pleases, with her people and her armament. She can attack without warning. She can thereby gain the great advantage of initiative and surprise and concentration of force that is denied the nations which refuse to commit acts of aggression. Our potential allies in Europe are still far from recovering from the last war. Britain has only recently been able to relax her extremely strict economic con- trols. Her budgetary situation has been very weak. Vast strides have been made there and in western Europe since 1946, but those nations have been almost pros- trated by the past war and have needed far more time than they have had to get back on their feet. We were well on our way to getting them there, but still had far to go. By contrast, the Russian economy is state controlled. Dollars and money are responsive to the dictates of the rulers of the state. Budgetary considerations have little meaning, as compared with our own problems, In Russia it has been guns in place of the necessities of life during and since the war, Civilian dis- content is ruthlessly suppressed. The discontented are brutally eliminated, and the secret police and propaganda con- trols place the entire nation in a strait- jacket so that the entire national effort can be channeled in this or that direc- tion according to the desires of the rulers. All of these things face us today in the world. It is one of the most dan- gerous—in my opinion, the most dan- gerous—situation ever to confront the American people. It is a situation that demands the utmost concentration of effort, the greatest forbearance, the greatest willingness to sacrifice we have ever had. Above all, it requires that for the in- definite future our people and this Con- gress must keep as our first thought the maintenance of an adequate defense. If we fail to do so, our very national existence may be critically jeopardized. And what are our strengths in. this dangerous world today? Governmentally we are far stronger than our potential enemies, for any sys- tem of government responsive to the will of the people has a broader, firmer CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE base than a government controlled by a dictator. In any long-term effort, I am certain that our system can outlast and surpass the dictated, regimented system of the Communists. Moreover, our com- petitive system has produced an indus- trial potential which is the envy of the world. Even though our standing mili- tary strength is very inadequate today, American potential is feared and re- spected the world over. Once our Na- tion turns to in an all-out military effort, near miracles of military production are achieved, and will again be achieved in case of another world-wide war. That lesson is not lost or the rulers of Russia, and we ourselves must not forget how tremendous that advantage is. Our sea power is vastly greater than that of Russia and her satellites. Our strategic air power is unmatched any- where in the world. We are still far ahead in the atomic-erms effort and will probably stay ahead for some years in the future. Our transportation system, our indus- trial system, our communications sys- tem, the intelligence and educational level of our people, our magnificent sci- entific institutions and research labora- tories, the level of development of our natural resources—all of these are a vast reservoir of strength unmatched on earth. And let us not forget that these things are not unmeasured by Russia. So to sum it up, this is our situation today. We are seriously short at this critical moment in standing military strength. We have to build up, just as fast as we can, our ground troops in the Army, en- large our Marine Corps, increase and improve our tactical air arm in the Air Force and enlarged the Marine Corps air a.m, activate aircraft carriers, build many more tanks for the Army, activate destroyers and enlarge the ant!subma- rine patrol squadrons of the Navy, build more artillery for the Army and marines, expedite production of the newest anti- tank weapons, increase the number of transport vessels in the Navy—all of this over and above our efforts in Korea. And, of great importance, we must do all of this as rapidly as we can, because, as we have seen in Korea, weakness in- vites aggression, and there is little doubt that we have let ourselves get far too weak in the light of existing world cons ditions. To do this, the President has asked the Congress to make available some $10,000,000,000 more during this fiscal year. Part c* these funds must defray the cost of the Korean effort; the re- mainder must go into the rebuilding and strengthening of our Armed Forces to meet the threats so evident in other parts of the world. In addition, the President said more funds must be provided for the military support of other nations in the world. So that means well over $10,000,000,- 000 to be added to the 1951 Federal budg- et of about $43,000,000,000. Now, that puts us in this kind of a situation. We have to ruthlessly eliminate un- necessary projects from the Federal budget. We have to stand up to the JuLY 25 pressures t’iat will come to continue proj- ects in our congressional districts even though those projects have no direct re- lation to the defense effort. We have to do away with business-as-usual attitudes here in the Congress, in the executive branch, and in industry. We have to give military items first priority. We have to produce fewer television sets and automobiles and radios and such like and turn out more planes, guns, tanks, ships, and artillery, and it must be done in a great hurry. We must grimly re- spond to the dangerous times in which we are living, and do, without delay, what we knovr’ must be done in order to preserve the security of our Nation. Later on, I am sure we will have to increase taxes. It is likely to be neces- sary to authorize the President to im- pose various controls over our economy to prevent runaway inflation, to prevent hoarding, to prevent deferment of essen- tial military work, to prevent strikes in var industries, and so on. But all of this readjustment in our national habits and outlooks has, I am convinced, the wholehearted support of the American people. There is not an American but who knows that the chips are down today in international life. Brute force respects only force, and it is up to us to obtain adequate force as quickly as we can. In my judgment, if we build up the required force quickly, we can save peace im the world. But ?f we falter, if we refuse to do the job quickly, if we cling to business-as- usual attitudes in the Congress and in industry, our weakness and indecision will surely invite further aggressions and ultimately foment the very world-wide crisis we are so anxious to avoid. So I call upon the House to rise as one to insist upon a stern, a strong, a vigor- ous national program—to demand the elimination from the Federal budget of the frills and nonessentials—to replace optimism with realism—to reject peace- time, business-as-usual attitudes in the Governmen* and in industry and get the necessary armed strength created just as quickly as possible. As for the military side of the problem before us, my great concern is not that our military expansion is going to be too large, but I am apprehensive that it may be too small. I feel, for example, that it is very un- realistic to limit the size of the American Army to below its authorized strength of 837,000 in view of the stupendous ground armies available to potential enemies in today’s world. Iam unsatisfied with present plans for increasing the size of the Navy and Air Force, for I believe there is too much conservatism in the program. The Navy needs more aircraft carriers in commis- sion—and needs them swiftly—and naval air requires prompt expansion. The marines must be substantially en- larged, and their budgetary ceiling of 16 squadrons must be lifted. The Congress should return at once to its goal of 70 air groups in the Air Force so that provision can be made for reason- able air support for the Army. The Army tank program must be ene larged many times and greatly expedited.
1950 Our antisubmarine warfare program, in hoth ships and planes, must be greatly enlarged im view of the size of the sub- fanzine Geet available to Soviet Russia I think many of us have been a bit too complacent. This is no time to run around trying to shift the biame for this or that deficiency to this or that person in the executive branch. Let us be real-~ istic about tt. Our great need right now is to get the ox out of the ditech—not spend a lot of time and effort trying to find out who Pushed him into the ditch. Let's not spend our time looking backwards while Americans are being killed in Korea and our defenses urgently need strengthen- ing. It is time 6o get action. Let us get on the road and get up speed. This is no time to take a detour to hunt for scapegoats. The simple truth of the matter is— and it is high time the Congress gave full consideration to it—yes; the grim and unpleasant truth is that a giobal war is a real, a distinct, possibility at any ‘ime. No one can teli what tomorrow may bring. It is equally a real possibility, members of the committee, that we are to be treated to the new strategy of using the armies of satellite countries here and there in the world instead of the great military power of Soviet Russia herseif. Either of these contingencies requires CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE initiative and demand the fulffliment of & well-rounded, ample military program that will truly provide this mighty Na- tion the defense it must have. Let us have much less risk, and much more calculation, in our defense pro- gram. Let us have less talk about doilars, amd more talk about strength, in our defense program. The defense of this country must not be measured in dol- lars. Its measurement must be what a bedy that Russia and her satellites have been working night and day for the past om their armaments—and I re- gret to say that, in some areas, we have many enlistments will expire in the 12 months. Forty-four thousand of them are General MacArthur's com- that be might lose some 4,000 men a month during this critical period. | enlistment terminations: In the Army, 145,000; 1n the Navy, 62,000; m the Air tary testimony supported the commit- tee’s position, that a 12-month extension would be sufficient, for in that period of ample precedent for this type of legisla- tion. The Congress did it before on August 18, 1941, except that at that tine—44 months before Pearl Harbor— the Congress extended the enlistments for 18 months instead of for 12 mouths, as proposed in this bill. The same thing was done in World War I. So the bill is not a Twice previously, in response to a critical world situation, the has found it necessary bo ex- tend enlistments for a temporary period, I think the Committee should also know that General MacArthur has urgently requested this leetsiation. He is very anxious for its immediate enact- ment so he can get on with the Korean effort without the heavy attrition and administrative burdens produced by en- listment terminations in his theater. The other provisions of the bill are administrative in nature. I will mention one of them—section 3 of the bill, That 10885 provision suspends old Nevy law which gave pay and s quarter to persons whose enlistments expired while they were at sea or abroad, Its purpose was not to take care of any situation of the type new confronting the United States. Its purpose was to provide the additional pay on the ground that the men couki not be discharged since they happened to be away from the country at the time of the enlistment expirations. They were kept at their stations until their return to the country and during that period received pay and a quarter. Other ex- isting law will give the men kept in in- voluntarily under this bill the normal enlistment bonuses if they reenlist in- stead of submitting to involuntary reten- tion. Now, I wish to leave with the House this final thought. We have heard about too little too iate. ‘We have heard that it is later than you think. We have heard time end again that weakness invites aggression. We have been told over and over again that Russia respects only force. have we heard these things in recent years that I am afraid we them now without much thought and tend not to de much about them. Well, let us this troubled globe. Let us pondcr on the real meaning, in this atomic age, of the saying that “it is later than you think.” In moder war there is no second prive for the runner- up. Let us not jet time run through our fingers. Again, I say iet us get down to the job and get this program into action and get it completed just as promptly as possibile. And, once agnin I say to the House, as I have said so many, many times in the past, “weakness invites argression.” Upon our speed of preparation, upon our determination in the Congress to give the Nation the strength it must have, Gepends the peace of the world. Let us get America's muscles hardened to the point where the international pullies will respect what America stands ‘or. In that way, we can preserve peace. In that way, we can preserve America. Mr. COUDERT. Mr. Chairman, will Mr. COUDERT. I want to say to the gentleman from Georgta that I am sure the House has heard with ercat interest his very and instructive ex- position of the difficult and dangerous situation that faces us. I am sure what he has said about our position strateri- cally in the wortd and the strong posi- tion of Russia and the difficulties that we face, was heard with interest. I am sure we all agree that the time is cer- tainly here to strengthen the military forces of the United States. But T think the Members of the House and the peo- ple of the United States will be inter- ested in an erswer that he might make
10986 with respect to an omission in the gen- tleman’s statement. Can the gentleman advise the House whether at this time the administration has as yet been able to evolve a consistent foreign policy and has it as yet been able to evolve a stra- tegic plan? Mr. VINSON. Let me answer the question. Mr. COUDERT. This is just as im- portant. The mere development of the great Armed Forces that we are going to develop and must develop is only half the game The other half of the game is intelligent use of the military power available Mr. VINSON, I will say to the distin- guished gentleman that the next tame I have permission to address the House I will try to answer his question. Mr. SHEPPARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. VINSON. I yield to the gentle- man from California. Mr. SHEPPARD. Relative to the in- tent that is contamed in the bill as it relates to men who are going to receive their discharge in the Regular Service within possibly the next months, and who wish to make a profession of a mill- tary career, what will be involved in their getting their emoluments under the dis- charge procedure that has heretofore prevailed if this bill is enacted? Mr: VINSON. If anyone whose term of enlistment expires, and who is frozen in the service, reenlists, he gets the re- enlistment bonus provided by law. Mr. RICH. Mr, Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr VINSON. I yield to the gentle- man from Pennsylvania. Mr. RICH. Iam very much interested im the gentleman’s statement, as I al- ways have been because he knows his subject. As far as preparation for any eventuality is concerned, I think the gen- tleman is most sincere. I am interested in knowing what our policy is, and what we are going to raise this big army for. Mr. VINSON. I am trying to lay down here in the House of Representa- tives a policy of preparedness. I am try- ing to get the gentleman from Penn- sylvamia to stop measuring the defense of this country by dollars and, instead, measure the defense of this country by the potential strength of our enemy. Mr. RICH. Are we expected to go at this alone? Are we going to get the aid and assistance of foreign countries under the United Nations? Mr. VINSON. I hope the nations that are members of the United Nations will meet the call the United Nations has put upon them as speedily as possible. Mr. RICH. Suppose they do not? Mr. VINSON. If they do not, then we have to assume the responsibility as one member. Mr. RICH. Are we going to go it alone? Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. will the gentleman yield? Mr. VINSON. I yield to the gentle. man from Massachusetts, Mr. McCORMACK. Over and above all, we have the duty and responsibility ol looking out primarily for our own na- tional interest, Mr, VI;SON, Of course; that is right, Chairman, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Mr. SHORT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Min- nesota [Mr. O'Hara], Mr, O’HARA of Minnesota. Mr, Chairman, I have asked for this time in order to ask a couple of questions of the gentleman from Georgia, the distin- guished chairman of the Committee on Armed Services. My first question is with reference to what, as I get it, has particularly tusturbed the minds of the people of this country and my own as well. They are asking what is the trou- ble in Korea that we are being beaten as we are and being continually driven back. Is it a question of lack of tanks and heavy artillery, or what? Mr. VINSON. I may say to the gen- tleman that the main trouble is 5,000 mules of distance from our base of sup- ply. Of course, when the Korean trou- ble broke out there was no equipment in Korea of the kind necessary to fight a modern war. The Government is doing, everything humanly possible, as rapidly as distances will permit, to put forces there to meet the forces of the Reds. Mr O’HARA of Minnesota One other question: Is it not true that at the start of the war over there our forces had to depend only on what could be flown in; consequently none of the heavy tanks or heavy artillery was in Korea or prob- ably is in Korea today? Is not that true? Mr. VINSON. I think the gentleman is as well aware of all that information asIam, I think the gentleman gets his information from the same source I get &@ great deal of it, from the newspapers. Mr. O'HARA of Minnesota, I am sure the gentleman flatters me out of all measure if he thinks I can get as much information as he can, Mr. VINSON. Let me say this: We are doing everything humanly possible to get equipment and men into Korea, but you have to bear in mind one thing: This Nation must not be sucked in at this and that point of the globe. We have to be cautious in what we de. Mr. O’HARA of Minnésota One fur- ther question, if I may: Who made the decision that Korea was defensible at the tame of the outbreak of this war? Mr. VINSON. I regret that I cannot advise the gentleman as to that. Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. O’HARA of Minnesota I yield to the gentleman from Michigan. Mr. CRAWFORD. The gentleman from Georgia, whom we all love and for whom we have great respect, has left on my mind the impression that he thinks this Congress has been stingy with dol- ars, Mr. O'HARA of Minnesota. Yes; that is true. Mr. CRAWFORD. May I ask the gen- tleman from Georgia if during the past 5 years he has brought to this House a single bill for the defense of the United States that this Congress and this House have not supported? Mr. VINSON, May I say to the gentle- man from Michigan I appeared, speaking for the Committee on Armed Services, before the Committee on Appropriations on March 30, 1949. I was the spokes- man for the Committee on Armed Serv~ ices and accompanying me were the dis- JULY 25 tinguished gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Snort], the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Kmpay), the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. DurHam)], the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. ARENDS], and others. I asked that the budget at that time be increased We appeared before the Committee on Appropriations and asked for $2,674,000,000 more than was in the budget. Mr. CRAWFORD, That does not an- swer my question. Mr. VINSON. Of course it answers the gentleman’s question. Mr. CRAWFORD. That does not an- swer my question. Mr. VINSON. The Armed Services Committee has no authority over the money. We have authority only over the legislative authorizations, Mr. CRAWFORD. That is correct, Mr. VINSON. That is all we have. Mr CRAWFORD. And this House has passed your bill. I do not recall in 16 years the gentleman from Georgia LMr. Vinson! bringing a bill to the House for the defense of this country that the House has failed to sustain. Mr. O'HARA of Minnesota I do not recall it in the past 10 years that I have been here Mr. CRAWFORD. I do not recall it for at least 16 years. Mr. VINSON. May I say I am very grateful for the confidence that the House has shown in the Committee on Armed Services during that period of time and to the former Committee on Naval Affairs. The point is that there are certain things that the Committee on Armed Services has been fighting for. Only 90 days ago we pointed out certain things. But we could not get the money. We did not get the money. Mr. SHORT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 20 minutes. 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 services, and I think practi- cally 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 approx!i- mately 300,000 members of our armed services—the Army, the Navy, the Ma- rine 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 ines- capable that we extend the enlistments for the next 12 months, In ordinary peacetimes over 50 percent of those . whose enlistments expire would reenlist. They are trained personnel. They are experienced personnel. It is not easy, indeed it is next to impossible to sup- plant them overnight with raw, green recruits. Many of them are now fight- ing in distant parts of the world, or are stationed for security reasons at differ- ent posts all over the globe, and it 1s ex- ceedingly 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.