1950 appear to some persons to be drastic. Our experience in 1942 will indicate, however, about what portion of going civil works can qualify as essential to national defense. As I have stated, appropriations for the fiscal year 1943 were on a peacetime basis. This appropriation bill was pre- pared on a peacetime basis. The Ko- rean war had not then broken out. The total appropriation for Army civil func- tions in the fiscal year 1943 was to be $234,394,300. In the following fiscal year the freeze order was in effect on projects not essential to national de- fense, Appropriations for that year were under certification of defense require- ments, The total amount appropriated under those circumstances was $52,500,~ 200. Mr. President, the cut-back from fiscal 1943 to fiscal 1944 in recognition of the emergency amounted to 78 percent. To- day essentially the same conditions pre- vail as prevailed in 1942. Only 22 per- cent of civil functions could then qualify as essential. On that basis, we do not think a 50- percent cut-back today is unreasonable by any standard which recognizes the character of nonessential public works programs as an unwarranted drain upon our resources in these times. It is very vital at this time in our history. Mr SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, I rise to support the position taken by the Senator from New Hampshire {Mr. Bripces! and the Senator from Michigan (Mr, Frrcvson] on the amendments of- fered to reduce certain amounts provided for in the civil-functions chapter of the appropriation bill. I have always felt, Mr. President, that when we have too big a load to carry, the security part of the Joad comes first. Let me use the exam- ple of a man going to a well with two empty buckets to fill. We have gone to the well to get two buckets of water. If, when we return from the well, trying to carry the two buckets of water, they ap- ear too heavy for us, we lighten one ucket. We may not empty it, but we lighten it. I think our present situation is similar to that of a man who goes to the well to get two buckets of water which are too heavy for him to carry. One bucket is the bucket of our security and national defense; the other is the bucket of civil functions, that is, inter- nal improvements. Obviously, we can- not have interna] improvements unless we have security. Mr. President, throughout my term in Congress I have tried to vote for security measures. I voted for the ECA bill, the MAP Act, and other measures that have had to do with the national security. I have voted the amounts required for the national defense, I have always felt these came first. Today we are in a struggle in Korea. How extensive that struggle may become, mo man can tell us. All we know is that the President has requested increased ap- propriations for the military. ‘These in- creases are going to amount to Jarge sums of money. To me these increases repre- sent the bucket of security, It is become CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE ing more and more full, and we have to be sure to be able to carry that bucket. It is most important for us to get that bucket home safely. So, Mr. President, I have joined with the Senator from New Hampshire and the Senator from Michigan in offering the amendments. In committee we voted for the original appropriation several months ago when there was no sign of a struggle in Korea. As the Senator from Michigan has well said, the President has ordered all departments to cut expendi- tures. Congress can help by simply re- fusing to give them money. Congress takes the responsibility from them. The primary responsibility is that of the Con- gress, We have a problem of procuring equip- ment for our boys who are fighting. We must help them to fight as efficiently and as Safely as is possible. That is the re- sponsibility of Congress. It is a respon- sibility which we all want to fulfill, So it seems to me, Mr. President, that the buckets of water we are carrying have grown too heavy for us. In order to get our budget as near in balance as possible and in order to keep down our expenses as far as possible, we must favor the bucket carrying our security, and we in- tend to favor it. Therefore, we must postpone the internal improvements which we all want to have in due course, but which we cannot expect to enjoy unless we have a more peaceful world than we have at the present time. It is with that underlying thought that I am happy to join the Senators from New Hampshire and Michigan in what I believe to be helpful amendments in the situation in which we find ourselves. The VICE PRESIDENT. The ques- tion is on agreeing to the amendment on page 359, after line 16. The amendment was agreed to. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Secre- tary will state the next committee amendment. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Signal Corps—Alaska com- munication system,” on page 360, line 24, after “(28 U. S. C. 2672)”, to strike out “$1,000,000” and insert “$2,877,920”; on page 361, line 2, after “(1)”, to strike out “a cost per family unit in excess of $28,- 000” and insert “an average cost in ex~ cess of $24,000”; and in line 4, after the word “including”, to insert “but not Umited to.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Corps of Engineers—Rivers and harbors and flood control,” on page 361, line 25, after the word “exceed”, to strike out “$1,450,000” and insert ‘'$1,- 600,000.” Mr. BRIDGES. Mr. President, on be- half of myself, the Senator from Michi- gan [Mr. Fercuson], the senior Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. BaLToNnsTALL], the senior Senator from New Jersey (Mr, Situ), the Senator from Delaware [Mr. Wru114Ms)j, the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Wnuerry], the junior Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Henpricxson!, the Sen- ator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Martin], and the Junior Senator from Massachu- 11177 setts (Mr. Lonce), I send amendments to the desk and ask that they be stated. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Sena- tor has offered amendments which deal with several items in the bill. Does the Senator wish to have them considered en loc? Mr. BRIDGES. Because they are all on the same basis, involve the same issues, and all concern construction items, I ask unanimous consent that they be considered en bloc. In that way, we may save some time. The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there ob- jection to the consideration of the amendments en bloc? Mr. McKELLAR. In that way would one vote settle the whole matter? Mr. BRIDGES. We would have one vote on all the amendments. In that way we could save time in the discussion of the amendments. The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there ob- jection to the request of the Senator from New Hampshire? Mr. McKELLAR. We shall have no more discussion about the subject? Mr. BRIDGES. No. I am merely trying to expedite consideration of the n11, Mr, McKELLAR. I have no objection to having one vote on all of them. Mr. BRIDGES. That is all I ask. Mr. McKELLAR. But I think they should be discussed. Mr. BRIDGES. Yes. The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there objection to the unanimous-consent re- quest of the Senator from New Hamp- shire that the amendments be consid- ered en bloc? Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, reserv- ing the right to object, will the Senator explain what items are covered by the proposed 50 percent? The VICE PRESIDENT. The Secre- tary will state the amendments for the information of the Senate. The LecrsLarive CLERK. On page 361, line 25, it is proposed to strike “$1,600,- 000” and insert ‘$800,000; on page 364, line 2, to strike “$221,244,500” and insert “$110,622,250”; on page 365, line 9, to strike “$900,000” and insert $450,000”; line 20, to strike “$436,933,000" and in- sert “$218,466,500"; on page 367, line 3, to strike “$66,778,000” and insert ‘$33,- 889,000”; on line 9, to strike “$450,000” and insert “$225,000”; and on line 14, to surike “$2,524,500” and insert “$1,262,- 250.” The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there ob- jection to the consideration of the amendments en bloc? The Chair hears none. The amendments are open for discus- sion, if Senators wish to discuss them individually. Mr, DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I hope very much that the distinguished and eminent Senator from Tennessee, the chairman of the Committee on Appro- priations, will agree to a very great cut in the appropriations for rivers and har- bors. Although I have devoted a large amount of time and study to this mat- ter, and have prepared some amendments myself, I was delighted to see our friends
11178 on the other side of the aisle propose a cut of 50 percent 1n these appropriations, and I am glad to see them persevering jn well-doing. However, I think we can very well cut even more than is pro- posed by the eminent Senators on the other side of the aisle. In view of the national emergency we should not re- strict ourselves to 50 percent, but should cut 60 percent. The proposal of the Sen- ator from New Hampshire | Mr. Bripces], the Senator from Michigan |Mr. Fercu- son], and the Senator from Massachu- setts |Mr SaLTONSTALL] will mean a@ sav= ing of approximately $363,500,000. TI propose a cut of 60 percent Mr. BRIDGES. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? My figure is $366, 000,000, plus. Mr. DOUGLAS. I thank the Senator. We are together within a few hundred thousand dollars I propose a saving, approximately, of $435,000,000. I hope that the Senators on the other side of the aisle will support the amendments which I intend to offer at the proper time. The adoption of my zmendments would bring about even greater savings. If my amendments are voted down, I promise that I shall then support the proposals made by the Senator from New Hampshire, the Senator from Michigan, and the Senator from Massachusetts. However, before we come to the concrete proposals, I wish to make an appeal to ‘the eminent Senator from Tennessee that he will accept a 60-percent cut or a 50-percent cut in the appropriation. As has been said, the provisions and appropriations contained in the bill were drafted prior to the Korean situation. The hearings were held prior to the Ko- rean situation. The recommendations were made prior to the Korean situation. Even if they could have been defended at the time the appropriations were recom- mended—and I think Senators know that I probably would have been critical even under those conditions—certainly they cannot be defended at this time in view of the general emergency. How can it be said that an appropria- tion for harbors for fishing boats and recreational craft along the Atlantic coast is a part of the war effort? How can it be said that provision for a 9-foot channel or the attempt to construct a 9-foot channel from Sioux City, Iowa, to Kansas City, Mo., 1s @ part of the war effort? How can it be said that the deepening of the intracoastal channel along the coast of Florida is a part of the war effort? How can it be said that the starting of the construction of great dams in the Southwest and in South Dakota, which will not come to maturity for years and years, isa part of the war effort? Mr. President, I think this is a time when we should adjust our thinking to the great emergency which has come upon us. I hope very much that the senior Senator from Tennessee, who has given such valiant service to the Nation over @ period of many years, will crown his great career by voluntarily accepting a 60-percent cut or a reduction of $435,- 000,000. If he is not willing to do that, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE I hope he will accept a 50-percent cut, If he is not willing to do that, I hope he will accept a 40-percent cut. Furst, I look toward him with great hope in my eyes that he will lift this is- sue above all partisan considerations and all local geographical considerations, and will voluntarily accept & $435,000,000 cut. When that happens I want to say that the whole Senate and the whole coun- try will applaud the Senator from Ten- nessee, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Pres- ident, will the Senator yield? Mr. DOUGLAS, I yield. Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I wish to commend the Senator from Illinois for what he has said. I am happy to find him cooperating with the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. SALTONSTALL], the Senator from Michigan [| Mr. Ferauson], the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Brioces), and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Byrp]. Mr. DOUGLAS, I hope the Senator from New Jersey will go along with an additional 10-percent cut, and will be willing to reduce these appropriations not only by 50 percent, but by 60 per- cent, Mr. BENTON. Mr. President, in asso- ciating myself with the Senator from Tllinois, I should like to ask him how he reached the figure of 60 percent. Why did he take 60 percent instead of 65 percent or 6224 percent? At what point is the percentage properly to be fixed according to his studies? Mr. DOUGLAS. I may say that first we should eliminate all new starts, or substantially new starts. Secondly, we should eliminate all items which were not included in the House bill. Mr. McKELLAR. My. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. DOUGLAS. Let me finish, please. Furthermore, we should eluminate doubt- ful and deferable projects on which the benefit-cost ratio is less than one to one, projects that have been previously dis- approved by the Bureau ‘of the Budget, or from which benefits are extremely speculative. In the third place, we should eliminate the Senate committee’s increases and make reductions of ap- proximately 45 or 50 percent in all other items, thus slowing down the rate of expansion of these projects. All this will result in a total aggregate reduction of almost precisely 60 percent in the com- mittee’s estimates. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr Git- LETTE in the chair). Does the Senator from Illinois yield to the Senator from Tennessee? Mr. DOUGLAS, I yield to the Senator from Tennessee. Mr. McKELLAR. Mr. President, I have a few words to say about the pro- posal of the Senator from Tllinois. Mr. McFARLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. McKELLAR, I yield. Mr. McFARLAND. I wish to ask the Senator if he will yield for the purpose of having a quorum call, I feel that the matter he is about to discuss is im- JULY 27 portant, and there are not very many Senators present. Mr. McKELLAR, Iam happy to yield for that purpose. Mr. McFARLAND, I suggest the ab- sence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee asks if he may yield for the purpose of having a quorum call. Is there objection? Mr. McKELLAR. I do not want to lose my right to the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair hears no objection, and the clerk will call the roll. The roll was called, and the following Senators answered to their names: Benton Hendrickson Magnuson Brewster Hickenlooper Malone Bricker Hill Martin Bridges Aoey Maybank Butler Holland Mundt Byrd Humphrey Murray Capehart Hunt Myers Chapman Ives Neely Chavez Jenner O'Conor Connally Johnson, Colo. O'Mahoney Cordon Johnson, Tex. Pepper Darby Johnston, 8.C, Robertson Donnell Kefauver Russell Dougies Kem Saltonstall Dworshak Kilgore Smith, Maine Eastland Knowland Smith, N J. Ecton Langer Sparkman Ellender Leahy tennis Ferguson Lehman Taft Flanders Lodge Thomas, Okla. Frear Lucas Thye Geoige McCarran Tydings Gillette McCarthy Watkins Greham McClellan Wherry Green McFarland Wiley Gurney McKellar Williams Hayden McMahon Young The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quo- rum is present. The Senator from Ten- nessee is recognized. Mr. McKELLAR. Mr. President, un- der our system, as all Senators know, a bill involving appropriations for civil functions of the Army, is sent to a sub~ committee. I desire to give the names of the subcommittee having charge of the civil-functions chapter of the pend- ing appropriation bill. The subcommit- tee consisted of the Senator from Ari- zona [Mr. Haypren], the Senator from Georgia [Mr. Russe.u], the Senator from Oklahoma {Mr. Tomas], the Senator from South Carolina (Mr, Maysanx], the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. ELLen- per], the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. McCuiettan], the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. CuHavez], the Senator from New Hampshire {Mr. Brrwces], the Sen- ator from South Dakota [Mr. Gurney], the Senator from Michigan [Mr. Ferr- cuson], the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Corvon], and the Senator from North Dakota {Mr, Younc]. I was the chair- man of the subcommittee, Under our system there are also ex officio mem- ‘8, whose names I will read to the Senate, and I hope Senators will listen to the reading of them, because the matter involved is one of great im- portance. They are the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Stennis], the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. CHapman], and the Senator from Washington {Mr. Carn]. Mr. President, we are faced with the question, Are we going to disregard the time-honored method of having pro-
1950 posed legislation considered by commit- tees, committees whose members are, for the most part, trained men of long ex- perience? As Senators will agree, after having heard read the names of the mem- bers of the Civil Functions Subcommit- tee of the Appropriations Committee, it is one of the best committees, if we ex- clude the name of the senior Senator from Tennessee, in the Senate of the United States. Is the Senate going to pass a bill presented to it after 6 months of careful study by a committee, or is the Senate going to write a bill on the floor? Of course, the Senate can do the latter. The Senate has a perfect right to disregard the report of the commit- tee. The question, however, is: Is that the right thing todo? Or should we pay attention to the Senators who are mem- bers of the committee, many of whom have been members of the committee for @ great number of years? Some of the members of the committee have been Members of the Senate for more than @ quarter of a century. They are good men, The very reading of their names indicates what kind of a committee it is, That committee has heard proof for not quite 6 months. The committee re- ported the bill on July 6. The members of the committee have been working on it for more than 6 months. The reason this particular subcom- mittee was appointed was that Repre- sentative CANNON, onc of the finest men I know, whom I have known for many years, a great parliamentarian in the House, had a plan, which was adopted by Congress. He came before Members of Congress with his plan. He was a Member of Congress before some of them were old enough to vote, I have the greatest respect for him. He got the idea that all appropriation bills could be brought together into one bill, that the appropriations could be considered in a much better manner if they were all brought together in one bill. He presented a measure providing for one Single appropriation bill. The House passed the measure, and the Senate aft- erward passed it, As I said a while ago, we made every effort in the world to carry out that plan. It was a new plan. Everyone has to have a plan now, it seems, Mr. President. I do not believe & man can be considered to be a states- man unless he has a plan. We have tried to work out Mr. Cannon’s plan. It will be a big blow to him if we now re- fuse to work under his plan, but agree to a plan that is brought up on the floor of the Senate at the last minute, with- out study for the most part, and pass the bill under that new plan. Mr. President, I do not believe any- thing like that should be done. I do not believe that is the way to legislate. Let me show what would be the effect if we should act in accordance with the plan now proposed. The pending amendment would cut many items by 50 percent, The Signal Corps item is included in the 50-per- cent cut as well as the other items. Should we make a cut in the Signal Corps at this time, when there is threat CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE of war? I do not believe it to be wise. I believe it would be much wiser to adopt the provisions of the bill as they were prepared by the committee after exten- sive hearings, Mr. President, let me call the hearings to the attention of the Senate. On this one bill there were hearings which fill 1,132 small-type closely printed pages. The testimony bears on every possible issue that was in existence at that time. Since that time there have been 165 pages more of supplemental testimony. The committee has gone into the matter exceedingly well. I do not believe any committee of the Congress could im- Prove upon what has been done by this committee. I do not believe a better bill could be devised on the floor of the Senate. There are 96 Members of the Senate. I think probably 90 Members will be present before consideration of the bill is completed. Suppose every Member has a plan such as that of my esteemed friend, the Senator from Illi- nois [Mr. Dovanas]. He said he wants to reduce expenses. All of us would like to do that. No Senator would rise on the floor and say he would not like to reduce expenses as much as possible. I know that my record shows that I have been uniformly in favor of an economi- cal Government from the time I came here 35 or 40 years ago. Mr. KILGORE. Mr, President, will the Senator yield? Mr. McKELLAR. I shall yield in a moment. The Senator from Tlinois has another plan. He says he wants to reduce some items by 50 percent. He says he wishes to save half of a great sum of money by making a 50-percent reduction. By the same token all he would have to do would be to amend his amendment and move to strike out 100 percent of the appropriations; thus he would cut the whole amount, and would save twice as much as he now proposes tp save. His proposal is not based on evidence. The Senator said the other day that he did not have the evidence; that he had not taken any evidence of his own. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Tennessee yield, and if so, to whom? Mr. McKELLAR. I was about to say that I am glad to yield to the Senator from Illinois. But will the Senator from Tilinois excuse me for a moment, inas- much as the Senator from West Vir- ginia had risen previously and it is right and proper that I should yield to him first. After that I shall yield to the Senator from Illinois. Mr. KILGORE. I wanted to ask the Senator from Tennessee a question. The report of the committee, as compiled, is the guiding hand, is it not, in the actual application of funds appropriated? Mr. McKELLAR. That is true. Mr. KILGORE. Is it not a fact, there- fore, that if a 60-percent blanket cut is made it means throwing the report out the window, and leaving absolutely no 11179 guide for those who will be called upon to do the work required? Mr. McKELLAR. Yes; I think that is BO, Before I yield to the Senator from Mllinois I should like to say that, in a very eloquent speech the Senator said he was in favor of a cut of 50 percent; indeed, I believe he went up to 60 percent. I was wondering whether he was losing his interest in cutting down expenditures when he was so mild with respect to the amount he wanted to cut from the bill, when he wanted to cut simply 60 per- cent of it, regardless of whether it was @ proper cut of any individual item of appropriation. Some items of the ap- propriation bill can not be cut at all. We cannot cut down on the amount of money we must pay for interest on the public debt. No one is going to do that. The Senator would have to rearrange that. I suppose his idea is to get some Senators to join with him in rearrang- ing the bill on the floor of the Senate, and adopt his plan, because he proposes to save 60 percent. Well, he could save 100 percent as well as 60 percent. I digress long enough to say to the Senator that, after all the proposals he has made to amend the bill since it has been under consideration on the floor, by cutting down appropriations some here, some there, and some yonder, sometimes a few dollars and sometimes more and sometimes less, I am amazed at his modesty in simply wanting to cut the bill down 60 percent. Mr. KILGORE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a further question? Mr. McKELLAR. I yield for a ques- tion. Mr. KILGORE. I wish to ask a fur- ther question: When we adopt percent- agewise cuts, is it not a fact that in that case we abdicate our power of determin- ing how the money appropriated shall be spent, and therefore we make one step toward a totalitarian form of govern- ment, by handing that power ovcr to the executive departments, and letting them spend the money as they will? Mr. McKELLAR. Absolutely. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President——— Mr. McKELLAR. Now I shall yield to the Senator from Illinois; but before doing so, I wish to thank him for the good things he has said about me. The Senator from Illinois seems very much interested in cutting down the ap- propriations, although I do not believe he has yet succeeded in having any of them reduced. Mr. DOUGLAS. I have not yet been very successful, but I have hope; one must always live in hope. Mr. McKELLAR. The Senator from Illinois has submitted only about 50 or 100 amendments, I believe. Mr. DOUGLAS. Approximately 67. Mr, McKELLAR. I understand that the Senator has several more to submit, although the ones he already has sub- mitted have not been adopted. So I understand that he has hope, as he says. However, I say to the Senator that I hope it will not tear down what has been built up in this body for more than 150
11180 years. There is no reason in the world why we should undertake a guessing contest. I doubt that the Senator from Tilinois could tell, unless he had the fig- ures submitted to him, what the interest on the public debt is. I doubt that he could tell how much we have to pay in various ways to or for the veterans of the late war. Can the Senator state that amount at thistime? If the junior Sen- ator from Tennessee is helping him, per- haps he can tell. Mr. DOUGLAS, Mr. President, I do not pretend to have great knowledge, but it is my memory that the interest on the public debt amounts to approxi- mately $5,500,000,000; I do not think that figure is very far wrong. Mr. McKELLAR. Weill, Mr. Presi- dent, the Senator from Illinois makes a guess as to that; and no doubt if we are to prepare this bill on the floor of the Senate, as he proposes, we should pro- ceed in just that way—by making guesses. But if we do, we will become tremendously mixed up. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield at this point? Mr. McKELLAR. I yield. Mr. DOUGLAS. Will the Senator tell me when the last hearings on this part of the bill were held? Mr, McKELLAR, Ina moment I shall tell the Senator. Mr. DOUGLAS. Will the Senator turn to page 1139 of the committee report and to page 204 of the supplemental re- port? ‘There he will find a statement in regard to when the hearings were concluded. Mr. McKELLAR. The last hearings were in the month of June, but previ- ously they had been stopped in April. Mr, DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I read from the main hearings, at page 1139, the last sentence: Whereupon, at 4: 40 p. m., Monday, March 6, 1950, the hearings on civil-functions ap- propriations for 1951, were concluded. I now hold in my hand a volume on supplemental hearings on civil-functions appropriations; and the last sentence in it reads as follows: Whereupon, at 11: 20 a, m., Tuesday, May 2, 1950, the supplemental hearings on civil- functions appropriations for the fiscal year 1951 were concluded; and the subcommittee proceeded in executive session, Mr. President, the invasion of Korea occurred on June 24, approximately 7 weeks after that. It is obvious from the committee report that although it was submitted on July 1, the decisions had been made prior to the President's an- nounccment on June 27. So I say that it is the committee which has not taken into consideration the changed circumstances of the world and of the country. For the committee to insist that we must appropriate approxi- ‘mately $750,000,000, indicates to me— in view of the change in conditions and the fact that supplies and equipment are needed for our armies—that, although ,with the best intentions in the world, the committee is sticking to tradition, rather than to the needs of the situation, That is all I shall say, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. McKELLAR. Mr. President, I can understand the Senator’s view. He 4s one of those who is in favor of world government, is he not? Mr. DOUGLAS. May I ask this ques- tion of the Senator—— Mr. McKELLAR. No; I should like to have an answer to my question. Is the Senator in favor of world government, or of the United States Government? Mr. DOUGLAS. Iam not certain that that matter is related to the present dis- cussion. What is its relationship? Mr. McKELLAR. Of course, the Sen- ator from Illinois has knowledge of everything. Mr. DOUGLAS. I certainly do not. Iam trying to discuss this subject matter, Mr. McKELLAR. I thought the Sen- ator from Illinois had sufficient infor- mation to be able to prepare on the floor of the Senate a bill which the committee spent weeks in going over, and on which it took more than 1,100 pages of testi- mony. Mr. DOUGLAS. But that work was ended 6 weeks before the Korean war. Mr. McKELLAR. Oh, yes; but does the Senator from Illinois know what it takes to conduct a war? Mr. DOUGLAS. It takes money, for one thing—money which the committee is dissipating on these nonessential proj- ects. In the second place, it takes material and men, for which money is only one symbol. Mr. McKELLAR. And the Senator from Illinois has hope that he will be able to reduce the amount of money ap- propriated. Mr. DOUGLAS. I have hope that we shall be able to save some money, so that we shall be able to devote sufficient money and materials to the war. Mr. McKELLAR. The Senator from Tilinois would destroy all business as much as possible, and he hopes to get money for the Government in some other way. What other way is there to get money, except by taxation? Mr. DOUGLAS. One way is to save money, and one way to save money is to cut $435,000,000 from the appropriations designed to be expended for rivers and harbors and fiood control, and to trans- fer that money to the appropriations for materials and men in connection with national defense. Mr. McKELLAR. The Senator from Illinois is only opposed to rivers and har- bors and flood-control appropriations, it seems. He has a special reason for being opposed to them; he is not in favor of rivers and harbors and flood-control projects, Mr. DOUGLAS. Iam in favor of them, but I am not in favor of spending so much for them. This is a time, above all others, when we should cxercise economy. Mr. McKELLAR. Mr. President: let us consider cotton for a moment. I used to make cotton on a farm, and sold it at 8 cents a pound. Later on, it rose in price to 20 cents a pound; and then the South and sections where cotton is raised went wild; they thought that price for cotton was wonderful. JULY 27 However, since the war cotton has in- creased again in price, to nearly 40 cents & pound; in fact, I think that for at least a few hours it went up to 40 cents a pound. Is the Senator from Illinois going to reorganize that, and is he going to cut down the expenditures wherever they affect cotton? Cotton is used for war purposes, Then let us consider wheat for a mo- ment, The Senator’s own State of Illi- nois raises enormous quantities of wheat, and is one of. the large wheat- growing States; and all around it, on the west and north and east, there are other large areas which produce tremendous quantities of wheat. Surely expenditures relating to the production of wheat are expenditures relating to war efforts. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. McKELLAR. I ask the Senator from Illinois to wait a moment, please. I am not going to talk long. Mr. President, it is said that there is no other way to handle this matter. I was perfectly delighted when I heard two distinguished Republican Senators earlier today endorse what the President has said. Of course, one of them en- dorsed only one paragraph of the Presi- dent’s message or letter, but the other Senator endorsed two paragraphs of it. I was delighted to hear those two Sen- ators endorse those parts of the Presi- dent's letter. Mr. President, at this point I ask unanimous consent to have the Presi- dent’s message or letter inserted in the Remon, so that all of it may be avail- apie, There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Tur Wire House, Washington, July 21, 1950. My Deak Mr. Secretary: In my message of July 19 to the Congress, I announced that I was directing the executive agencies ‘‘to conduct a detailed review of Government programs, for the purpose of modifying them wherever practicable to lessen the demand upon services, commodities, raw materials, manpower, and facilities which are in com- petition with those needed for national de- fense. The Government, as well as the pub- lic, must exercise great restraint in the use of those goods and services which are needed for our increased defense efforts.” In order to adjust the programs of the Federal Government, I am writing to you and the heads of the other agencies whose programs involve substantial use of ma- terials and other resources needed for the defense effort. Please reexamine your pro- grame, giving particular attention, to the extent applicable to the following: 1, All civil public works, both direct Fed- eral programs and grant-in-ald programs, should be screened with the objective, as far as practical, of deferring, curtailing, or slow- ing down those projects which do not directly contribute to defense or to Civilian require- ments essential in the changed international situation sot forth in my message. 2. Consistent with the restrictive policy already in force for housing credit, other credit programs should be tigthened. The only exception should be those which directly contribute to meeting our defense and inter- national responsibilities, 3. Procurement of supplies and equipment should be held to minimum amounts, es-
1950 pecially purchases of motor vehicles, type- writers, and other equipment using critical materials Inventories should be reduced to the lowest practical levels, and excess sup- plies and equipment should be made avail- able immediately to the General Services Administration. In addition, I shall expect that in the reexamination of the programs of your agency, you will give first priority to those activities which contribute directly to na- tional defense, including requests of other agencies for assistance. I am asking the Director of the Bureau of the Budget to work closely with you in this review and to report to me on the steps which you have taken in revising your pro- gram to meet these objectives. Sincerely yours, Harry 8. TrRoMan. Mr McKELLAR. Mr. President, I wish to say, further, that I hope all Senators will read that letter. Incidentally let me say that by a pro- vision of law carried over from the last war, the President has the right, during war, to reduce avpropriations. A great deal has been said about Korea and about the fact that the problems connected with the Korean situation have arisen since the Appropriations Committee submitted its report on this measure. That is true; those matters have de- veloped since that time However, the President can reduce the appropriations during a war. Of course, we are not yet in a war, and I hope to heaven we never are in another war; but we may be So the President himself can, in time of war, cure practically all the supposed shortcomings of this measure; at such a time all the economies now suggested by the junior Senator from Mlinois can be put into effect by the President of the United States, under the present law. I am quite sure the President of the United States will do the right thing. I digress long enough to say that I was very happy to serve for quite a number of years in this body with the then Sena- tor Truman, now our distinguished President. I am very happy to say that he was a member of this committee, and that he made a splendid member of it. He was an able, honest, and efficient man. I am one of his great admirers. In the present crisis, I believe the Pres- ident will do his duty, and I believe he is in a better position than is the Senator from Mlinois to say where cuts should be made and where appropriations which may help the country to carry on this war, or so-called police action, should be allowed to remain. There are other places in the bill where cuts might be made without detriment to the inter- ests of the United States. Mr. President, I shall detain the Sen- ate but a few moments longer. I have read the President's letter of July 21, a@ portion of which was read earlier to- day. The letter was sent by the Presi- dent to various departments and agen- cies. In the letter he sets forth the need for screening and cutting down where practical on the 1951 construction pro- grams. The subcommittee of the Senate Com- mittee on Appropriations, by direction of the full committee, held long hear- XCVI-——704 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE ings upon this bill. I have in my hand and hold up for Senators to see, a volume showing the immense amount of work done. It contains the evidence regard- ing every appropriation except one. The subcommittee held dong hearings and spent many hours working out recom- mendations on the numerous projects and items of the bill. I urge Senators to keep in mind that we are threatened with a serious war. It is not Korea that we are fighting: it is Russia. Everyone knows that Rus- sia, not Korea, is the enemy we will"have to fight. I urge upon Senators that they approve the bill as reported by the Sen- ate committee. As I said before, I realize the superior knowledge of the distinguished Senator from Illinois. I take off my hat to him for the very great knowledge which he displays on the Senate floor, A major- ity of those who were in attendance on the committee did not agree with him. I desire to read the names of the com- mittee members who voted for the bill. There are 21 members of the committee, and 4 ex officio members. Of the ex officio members, 3 were absent, only 1 was present. There were 22 Senators who voted on the bill. Those who voted for the bill were the Senator from Ari- zona [Mr. HAYDEN], the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. THomas], the Senator from Georgia [Mr. RUSSELL], the Sena- tor from Nevada |{Mr. McCarran], the Senator from Wyoming {Mr. O’MAHONEY], the Senator from New Mexico {Mr CHaveEz], the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Maybank], the Senator from Louisiana | Mr. ELLENDER), the Senator from Alabama [Mr. HrIx], the Senator from West Virginia {Mr. Ki.core], the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. MCCLELLAN], the Senator from Vir- ginia [Mr. RoBERTSON], the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Gurney), the Sena- tor from Oregon [Mr. Corpon], the Sen- ator from Massachusetts [Mr. SALTON- STALL], the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Younc], the Senator from Cali- fornia [Mr. KNowtanp], and the Sena- tor from Mississippi [Mr. STENNIS]. To that tremendous majority in favor of the bill, I want to add one other—the Sena- tor from Tennessee (Mr. McKE.uarl, who happens to be chairman of the com- mittee, and who voted as one of the 19 members of the committee for the bill, against 3 who voted against it. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Tennessee yield to the Sen- ator from Nebraska? Mr. MCKELLAR. I yield. Mr, WHERRY. Inasmuch as the dis- tinguished chairman of the committee has called the roll of those who voted for the bill, I should deeply appreciate it if he would call the roll of those who voted against it. a Mr. MCKELLAR. I certainly shall lo SO, Mr. WHERRY. I thank the Senator. Mr, McKELLAR. Those who voted against it were the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr, Bripczs], the Senator 11181 from Michigan [Mr. Ferauson], and the Senator from Nebraska {Mr. Wuerary], who, I believe, came in late, 1 Mr. WHERRY. No, I was there all day long. Mr. McKELLAR. Was the Senator there all day long? Mr, WHERRY. Indeed I was, Mr. McKELLAR. I apologize. Mr. WHERRY. I accept the apology. Mr. McKELLAR, I would not do the Senator from Nebraska any injury in the world There were, as I say, three Sena- tors who were entitled to vote, but who did not vote. Mr. President, I have read the names of Senators who are behind this bill, to which I am asking the Senate to agree. If there are items in the bill which need straightening out, that will be done in conference. I hope the Senate will not go back on its tradition and its record and defeat the bill. We should continue our program which has served us so well since 1789. Mr. President, the statement has been made that we should do away with these appropriations for the home front. If we do away with them, what shall we do about appropriations for the foreign front? Are we going to leave appropria- tions for foreign nations as they are, but vote to reduce appropriations for our own people to the amount of 60 percent, regardless of whether the money is to pay interest on our debt and regardless of whether we provide for the veterans who fought for us in three wars? Is that what we are going to do? Mr. President, I do not believe I could get by with that in Tennessee. We are all Americans. How could we get by in our several States with such a proposi- tion? If any Senator thinks he can get by in his State by voting to cut domestic appropriations by 60 percent and not cut other appropriations, I should like him to explain how it can be done. I know I could not do it in Tennessee I do not believe other Senators can do it in their respective States. We were elected by the people of the several States. It requires votes in order to be elected, just as it takes money to carry on wars. It cannot be done with hopes. Hopes are fine things. It ts said that “hope springs eternal in the human breast” But I do not believe we can operate the Govern- ment on hope, It requires money to operate the Government. I sincerely hope the Senate will not go back on the committee, the subcommit- tee, and the proposals by which we have stood for years. I hope the Senate will defeat the amendment and pass the bill, STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. President, I should like to assure the Senator who has charge of the appropriation bill that I do not intend to take any great length of time. Mr. McCKELLAR. I thank the Senator very much. I have sat here for 3 wecks under very trying circumstances We have not made the progress which we should have made. I hope we can make
11182 progress today. Iam sorry that some- thing arose this morning which required me to talk for a little while. I want to thank the Senator for the assurance he has just given. Mr. McCARTHY. Let me say for the Senator's benefit that I shall not take more than 5 minutes. I merely want to present to the Senate @ small amount of evidence in one of the cases which the subcommittee of the Foreign Relations Committee was ap- pointed to investigate, evidence which the committee refused to consider. It has to do with a rather unusual picture of a transfer of property by the State Department’s architect of far. eastern policy. Mr, Owen Lattimore has recently transferred the ownership of property in Bethel, Vt., under circumstances which raise some interesting questions, This property is located in or near the Hiss colony of Communists and Communist sympathizers. Before going into that, I desire to give the background of the two persons to whom the property was transferred, It was transferred to Ordway and Mary Southard. Mr. Ordway Southard was a candidate for the governorship of Ala- bama, on the Communist Party ticket, in 1942. His wife, Mary Southard, is de- scribed in the Daily Worker as district secretary of the Young Communist League. She also was a candidate for office in Alabama on the Communist Party ticket This gives a fairly clear picture of the persons to whom the prop- erty was transferred. The record shows that Mary Southard has frequently written for the Daily Worker under her own name and that she lectured for the Communist Party’s Jefferson School of Social Science dur- ing the past winter. Furthermore, the record shows that Ordway Southard was a member of the State committee of the Communist Party of Massachusetts. On the 12th day of September, 1949, Owen and Eleanor Lattimore acquired a half-interest in certain property near Bethel, Vt. In other words, they be- came co-owners of the property. The deed, which I shall ask to have inserted in the Recorp later, was in consideration of $1 and other valuable considerations. It is possible to know the dollar value of the considerations from the amount of Federal stamp on the deed. As Senators know, there must be a 55-cent Federal stamp for every consideration of $500 or less paid for real estate This deed contains a stamp representing $1.65, in- dicating that the consideration was be- tween $1,000 and $1,500. It has been previously testified, and there is no secret about it, that the way the Communist Party handles contribu- tions is often by the transfer of property. In other words, a person buys some- thing for $1, and it is transferred to some one in the party for $1,001 if the contribution is to be $1,000. The purchase by Lattimore and his wife took place on September 12, 1949, according to the date on the deed. It was not recorded in the Bethel town CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE clerk’s office until April 10, 1950, at 8 o'clock a.m _ The certified copy of the deed is attested to by Gladys C. Bundy, assistant town clerk. At an interview in June 1950 by an investigator with the town clerk, Robert E. Bundy, and assist- ant town clerk, Gladys C. Bundy, his wife, Mrs. Bundy said that Lattimore was ready to sell his interest in the property which he owned jointly with another individual because he needed money to defend the charge of com- munism. Incidentally, the man who owned the property jointly with Latti- more at that time belonged to 12 organi- zations which has been listed by the At- torney General as fronts for the Com- munist Party Senators will understand that these are not organizations listed by the House committee, by the California committee, or by any congressional com- mittee as being Communist fronts. He belonged to 12 front organizations named by the Attorney General as be- ing fronts for the Communist Party. I shall name them. This is the co-tenant of Lattimore, the man who is the new co-tenant, with the Communist candi- date for governor of Alabama. He is listed as, first, a member of the American Committee for Protection of Foreign Born. His name is shown as a sponsor on a letterhead dated February 8, 1949. Second, the American Council tor Democratic Greece. He was shown to be a member on the letterhead dated October 30, 1946. Third, American Council on Soviet Relations. He is shown as a participant in the conference according to the Daily Worker of May 20, 1940, on page 4. Fourth, he was a sponsor of the American-Russian Insti- tute, according to one of the official folders. Fifth, he was a sponsor of the American Relief for Greek Democracy. He is shown as a sponsor in the New York Times of December 4, 1946, at page 11. Sixth, he was a sponsor of the Cit- izens Committee to Free Earl Browder, according to an official leaflet. Seventh, he was a signer of press releases for the Council for Pan-American Democracy, He signed press releases on June 8, 1945. Senators will understand that I am not reading a list of organizations cited by any congressional committee. I am reading the names of organizations to which he belonged which had been offi- cially cited by the Attorney General, These are some of the organizations to which Mr. Lattimore’s co-tenant be- longed. Eighth. Sponsor of the meeting of the League for American Writers. Ninth. He signed the call of the official Council of American-Soviet Friendship, as reported in the magazine Soviet Russia Today, in the issue of July 1948, at page 5. Tenth. He was a member of the Reichstag Fire Trial Anniversary Committee. Eleventh. Sponsor of the United Spanish Aid Com- mittee, He was a sponsor of the meet- ing, according to the program dated Oc- tober 9, 1941. Twelfth. He was a sponsor of the “Win the Peace Conference,” ac- Bina. to an official program of April JULY 27 That will give Senators an idea of the connections of the co-tenant of Mr. Lat- timore. Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. McCARTHY. I am glad to yield. Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Can the Sen- ator tell us, with reference to this co- tenant, how this co-tenant happened to become a co-tenant with Mr. and Mrs, Lattimore? Mr. McCARTHY. He owned the prop- erty himself and sold an undivided one- half interest to Mr. Lattimore. Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for another ques- tion? Mr. McCARTHY. I am glad to yield. Mr. HICKENLOOPER, Did I under- stand the Senator to say that Mr. Latti- more and his wife have now sold this undivided one-half interest? Mr. McCARTHY. That is correct. Mr. HICKENLOOPER. To another couple? Mr. McCARTHY. Yes. Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Whom the Senator charges as having been active in the Communist Party? Mr. McCARTHY. Yes. I do not charge them with being Communist but merely give the public record to show they were. There 1s no question about it. These are not hidden Communists Ordway Southard, the husband, ran for Governor of Alabama on the Communist ticket in Alabama in 1942. His wife ran for the senate on the Communist Party ticket in Alabama, Mr. HICKENLOOPER Was it for the State senate or the United States Senate? Mr. McCARTHY. She ran for State Senator. The Daily Worker describes her as district secretary of the Young Communist League, also, Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Does the Sen- ator feel that having run for office on the Communist ticket is any proof at all of association with the Communist Party or approval of the Communist Party, or is it an attempt to establish guilt by as- sociation? I should like to get the Sen- ator's reaction. Mr. McCARTHY. Well—— Mr. HICKENLOOPER. It seems that we have had a great deal of proof in the last few weeks which 1s about as strong with reference to other people. Iam not talking now about the subject of the Senator’s remarks. I wonder whether running as a candidate for office on the Communist ticket comes under the clas- sification of attempting to prove guilt by association. Mr. McCARTHY,. I might say that according to the whitewash committee, which went out of existence this week, that would be smearing Mr. Southard and trying to prove him guilty by asso- ciation. Mr, HICKENLOOPER. Mr. President, may ask the Senator ome more ques- jon Mr. McCARTHY. I am glad to yield. First, let me give the Senator some fur- ther information.
1950 Mr. HICKENLOOPER. This may he on the same point, if I may ask the Sena- tor the question. Mr. McCARTHY. I am glad to yield, Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Does the Sen- ator have any evidence or does he have any suggestion to make as to the com- pensation the Lattimores may have re- ceived from these new people who appear in this transaction as owners of the land? Mr. McCARTHY. Yes; I have, I shall be glad to give it to the Senator. The deed whereby Lattimore and his wife transferred the property to Ordway and Mary Southard carried internal revenue stamps in the sum of $4.95. As stated, the law js to the effect that 55 cents in Federal stamps are required for each $500 or less paid for property. Ac- cording to the revenue stamps, it would appear that he received somewhere be- tween $4,000 and $4,500 for a piece of property which he had bought about 6 months before for somewhere between $1,000 and $1,500. Therefore he made a profit of around $3,000 in that 6 months’ period. Mr. HICKENLOOPER Mr. President, will the Senator yield further? Mr. McCARTHY. I am glad to yield. Mr, HICKENLOOPER. Does the Sen- ator have any evidence to show that uranium oxide may have been discov- ered on this property which would treble its value within a few months of the original purchase of the property by the Lattimores? I mean uranium oxide or any other highly valuable or sought- after metal in the ground which would enhance its value by 300 percent within a few months Mr.McCARTHY. No. There is noth- ing to indicate that the property value had changed. The Senator may know something about the colony near Bethel. It 1s part of the old Hiss colony. The place has not changed. Mr. HICKENLOOPER. I merely wanted to inquire whether the Senator in his investigation was able to discover anything that would contribute to ex- plaining this tremendous enhancement in value of the property within a few months, Can the Senator explain the 300-percent advance in price as shown by the revenue stamps? Mr. McCARTHY, I have discovered nothing to indicate why the value of the property should have increased. How- ever, I have found something which would indicate perhaps why Mr. Latti- more was paid a profit of $3,000. When Mr. Bundy, the town clerk, was inter- viewed he made the statement that the reason Lattimore was selling the prop- erty was that he had to have some addi- tional money because of the charges of Communist activities which had been made against him. So we find a well- known Communist giving him a $3,000 profit, which he indicated he wanted to use in connection with his defense against the charges of Communist ac- tivity on his part. Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator, because he has cer- tainly intrigued me this afternoon. He has brought out some interesting facts. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE I assume, of course, that anyone who Pays a substantial amount of money for something gets value received for the money that is paid. I assumed there was & quid pro quo some place in the mat- ter, and I was merely searching to see whether there were any unusual de- posits of minerals or the like which had been discovered on this land and in- creased its value 300 percent, I assume the Senator will pursue his inquiries on that phase, if he does not have full an- swers, Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. President, I have a sizable number of additional affi- davits covering not so much this transac- tion, but other activities of Mr. Latti- more, which I intend to present to the Senate when I have more time to do so. I would do it today except that I do not wish to take an unnecessary amount of time from the consideration of the ap- propriation bill. Mr. KEM. Mr. President, will the Sen- ator yield? Mr. McCARTHY. I yield. Mr. KEM. I should like to ask the Senator to state the nature of the prop- erty which was conveyed by Mr. Latti- more to Mr. Southard. Mr. McCARTHY. Frankly, I have not seen the property myself. I understand it is a residence. Mr. KEM. Ina summer colony? Mr. McCARTHY. It is a summer col- ony. However, I think there are more appropriate adjectives to describe the colony rather than “summer.” Mr, KEM. The Senator spoke of the colony as the “Hiss” neighborhood or community, Does the Senator refer to Alger Hiss? Mr. McCARTHY. Yes. Mr. KEM. Was he one of the owners of the property in this community? Mr. McCARTHY. He spent consider- able time there. Whether he owned property in his own name or not, I do not know, but it is one of his favorite hang- outs. It is up close to the Canadian border, and a sizable number of—to put it at least conservatively—fellow trav- elers were in that general colony. Mr. KEM. Was that before or after the conviction of Mr. Hiss? Mr. McCARTHY. He was there for. considerable time before he was con- victed. I do not know whether he has been there since he has been convicted. Mr. President, I am not sure that I covered this next point in answer to the questions of the Senator from Iowa, but the investigation revealed that a war- ranty deed was recorded on July 1, 1950, transferring an undivided half-interest in the property to the two Southards, ‘Mary and Ordway Southard. Internal revenue stamps in the amount of $4.95 were attached to the warranty deed of July 1, 1950. This was three times the amount of internal revenue stamps on the warranty deed of April 10, 1950. So from April to July a profit of about $3,000 is indicated. I stand corrected; while the deed was recorded in April, the actual purchase had been made in September, so we find a profit made be- 11183 tween the 12th day of September 1949 and the lst day of July 1960. Frankly, I have no documentary evi- dence and no testimony to the effect that Lattimore was or was not being paid off. These are questions which I think any committee which might investigate this architect of our far-eastern policy might want answered. They might want to know why this tremendous profit was made. They might want to know some- thing about the neighbors of Mr. Latti- more when he was there, and also infor- mation about the general colony. I might say that a complete and thorough investigation of that rather unusual colony would shed considerable light on a@ number of subjects, Mr. McCARTHY subsequently said: Mr. President, I wish to take about 10 seconds to answer a question to which I was unable to reply a short time ago. A Senator asked me whether Mr. Hiss was living in the area then referred to. I have just been informed that he is liv- ing there at this time—that is, in that general area, VISIT OF EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF FUTURE FARMERS OF AMERICA TO SENATE GALLERY The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr, Hot- LAND in the chair). Will the Senator from Wisconsin yield for a brief observa- tion by the Chair? Mr. McCARTHY. I am glad to yield. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Nebraska [Mr. But- LER! has suggested to the present occu- pant of the chair that he feels that the Senate could well give recognition at this time to the fact that the executive com- mittee of the Future Farmers of America are in the gallery visiting the Senate. Yesterday, the Senate voted to grant the Future Farmers of America a con- gressional charter. I believe the House has not yet acted on the bill. The Chair thinks the suggestion of the Senator from Nebraska is an excellent one, and the Chair asks the young men to stand so the Senate can sce them. (The delegation in the gallery rose, amid applause on the part of Senators.) Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. President, I thank the senior Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Butter] and the Chair very much for calling attention to these outstand- ing young men now in the gallery of the Senate. GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS, 1051 The Senate resumed the considera- tion of the bill (H. R. 7786) making appropriations for the support of the Government for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1951, and for other purposes. Mr. McCLELLAN. Mr. President, I wish to address my remarks to the pend- ing amendment to the appropriation bill. Mr. MAGNUSON. A parliamentary inquiry. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it. Mr. MAGNUSON. What page of the bill is the Senate now considering?
11184 The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is on a group of amendments being considered en bloc, beginning at page 361 and going through to page 367 of the printed bill, the amendments being offered by the Sena- tor from New Hampshire [Mr. Brrocrs], for himself and other Senators. Mr. McCLELLAN. Mr. President, I understand that the pending question is on agreeing to the Bridges amend- ments. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. Mr. McCLELLAN. The Bridges amendments would make several cuts in the appropriations provided in chap- ter IX of the bill with reference to the civil functions of the Corps of Engineers. Mr. President, in the beginning I wish to say that I yield to no Member of the Senate in my good faith, desire, and pur- pose to bring about and effectuate as much sound economy in the Govern- ment as is possible without doing injury to those things which are essential for necessary governmental services and for the preservation and strengthening of our economy, World conditions are such, and our fiscal policies and affairs are such, that it does behoove us in th’: crisis to make every practical saving, to make every re- duction in domestic expenditures, either in the area of the chapter the bill now being considered or in any other, that it is possible for us tor make, and at the same time maintain the services of the Government which are indispensable either in time of war or in time of peace; and also to support and provide funds for the projects having to do with rivers and harbors and flood control which are now in course of construction, and which will also make a valuable and material contribution to any war effort we may be called upon to make. Mr. President, the position I shall take with respect to the pending amendments and with respect to every effort to re- duce our expenditures is not inconsist- ent with the position I have taken in the past. It is true that when the sub- committee which worked on this portion of the bill heard testimony, and at the time the bill was reported, the Korean situation had not developed. That sit- uation, Mr, President, I will say in all candor and frankness, has not only shed @ different light upon the money that is proposed to be appropriated for rivers and harbors and flood control but it di- rects our attention to and requires our diligent inquiry and reexamination into every other expenditure provided in the bill. With respect to the military and the national defense, we shall need to review all items dealing therewith, be- cause of the necessity of revising those figures upward, not necessarily in this particular bill but in the supplemental appropriation legislation which will soon come before this body in line with the President's request to increase the mili- tary expenditures for the next fiscal year, or appropriations therefore, by some $10,500,000,000, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. President, not only have we pend- ing before the Congress now a request for an increase of $10,500,000,000 in ap- propriations for national defense and national security, but I am advised that the pending request will be followed in a day or two by another request for ex- penditures of $4,000,000,000 plus for mill- tary ald to the Atlantic Pact nations. Yes, Mr. President, circumstances have changed, and we must make revi- sions in the pending bill. I shall sup- port the amendment of which I am a cosponsor, offered by 32 Senators, to re- duce many of the expenditures in the bill by 10 percent. The amendment to which I refer is lettered “A,” and dated July 14, 1950. It is signed by the senior Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Bripces} and 31 other Members. It would have the effect, if adopted, of reducing the appropriations in the pend- ing bill by some $600,000,000. I helped work on that amendment. Work was begun on it by some of those of us who have signed it. Consultations were had on it, and work on drafting it was begun before the Morean war developed. Mr. President, I call attention to the fact, which I am sure every Senator who was a Member of the Senate at that time remembers, that even last year, in view of the fiscal situation of our Gov- ernment, I sponsored an amendment to one of the appropriation bills to require the President to inake cuts in all the ap- propriations for domestic purposes, to bring about a reduction of from 5 to 10 percent, which would have reduced the expenditures for the last fiscal year by from $2,000,000,000 to $4,000,000,000. I have stood for economy in the past. I stand for it now. I made a hard fight for that amendment. Notwithstanding that some 63 Senators signed a petition addressed to the majority policy com- mittee and the minority policy commit- tee, urging that the original resolution I had introduced be brought on the floor for a vote, that opportunity was denied to the Senate, Thereafter, those of us who then foresaw the danger of deficit spending and who are conscientious ani sincere in wanting to bring about a re- duction in nonessential expenditures in- sofar as it is possible to do so in order to get our fiscal affairs back in order and to operate the Government in this time of prosperity on a cash and carry basis, were not permitted to vote on the reso- lution in its own right and for its own purposes, Therefore we were compelled, as a last resort, to offer that resolution as an amendment to an appropriation bill. By reason of the fact that the amendment was legislative in character a parliamentary objection was raised to it. Therefore we had to move to suspend the rule which required a two-thirds vote of the Senate. In order that we could offer the amendment and have it con- sidered in connection with the appro- priation bill it was necessary to secure that two-thirds vote so as to suspend the rule. We were not able to secure the two-thirds vote which the Senate rule requires, but I rejoiced when we did re- JULY 27 ceive 49 votes for the amendment, a ma- jority of the full membership of this body. Yes, Mr. President, some of us here have not merely in this emergency come onto the floor of the Senate and cried out against wasteful and unnecessary ex- penditures, Therefore the position I shall take today is consistent with the position I have taken in the past. I shall further point out that when taking the position I do in respect to the pending amendments I am not taking a position contrary to the position I have taken in the past on the issue of reducing expen- ditures. Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. McCLELLAN. I yield. Mr. MUNDT. As one who was asso- ciated with the distinguished Senator from Arkansas in the efforts made in connection with the last appropriation bill, and who is associated with him now, and with the Senator from New Hamp- shire {Mr. Bripces], and a number of our other colleagues, in this effort, I wonder if the Senator from Arkansas does not feel, as does the junior Senator from South Dakota, that a horizontal cut of civilian and nonessential expenditures is the only equitable and effective way to establish sizable economies Congress has available to it, that the effort to slash vertically here and there a little individ- ual appropriation is never going to achieve the over-all objective which is necessary in the interest of sound public financing? Mr. McCLELLAN. If I correctly un- derstand the able Senator, I agree with him. I am in favor of the adoption of the amendment I referred to earlier today. I am not sure that the Senator from South Dakota was on the floor at that time; I refer to the amendment signed or endorsed by some 32 Members of the Senate, an amendment which would brine about a reduction of more than $600,000,000. However, I am opposed to the pending amendment, which singles out one phase of the domestic construction program and undertakes to emasculate it. I pro- pose to state on the floor of the Senate the reasons why the amendment is not wise and why, if adopted, it is destined to do definite injury to any war effort we shal] have to make. Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield further, I should like to associate myself completely with the point of view he has just stated. I also am one of those who signed the pending amendment providing for a 10-percent slash. It is true, is it not, that the amend- ment was prepared at a period of time considerably prior to the time when war broke out in Korea? Mr. McCLELLAN, I so stated earlier in my remarks, Mr. President. Mr. MUNDT. I wonder whether the Senator from Arkansas will also agrce with me that if, as is entirely possible, greater savings may now be necessary as &@ consequence of that war, the appropri-
1950 ate thing to do would be to increase the percentage of the horizontal slash to 15 or 18 or 20 percent, making it effective equally upon all the nonessential ex- penditures, rather than concentrating it injudiciously upon one or two projects. Mr. McCLELLAN. We have already included in the bill the amount the com- mittee recommended for reclamation. I do not recall that any assault was made upon that expenditure, by request- ing that it be cut 50 or 60 percent. I undertake to say that, as between the two, here we are considering a num- ber of projects already far advanced in construction, projects which have great power facilities and power-production capacities. To abandon them or dras- tically curtail them would be a serious impairment of our effort to strengthen our position and our striking power and our productive capacity in the war which we may have to enter into upon a very much broader scale than obtains today. Mr, President, a few days ago I was consulted by a representative of the Associated Press with reference to my position, particularly with respect to river-and-harbor and flood-control proj- ects. I answered the questions which were asked me, and the reporter did a fair job of reporting the views I ex- pressed. An article based on that inter- view was published in newspapers in my home State—I do not know whether it was published in other newspapers. I wish to read a few paragraphs from the newspaper article, which announced the position I took before I had any Knowl- edge of or anticipated any such drastic amendment as the one now proposed to the pending measure. I read now from the Associated Press newspaper article: WASHINGTON, July 23.—Senator McC.Ler- LAN, Democrat of Arkansas, president of the Rivers and Harbors Congress, said today the national emergency transcends in im- portance any domestic public-works p1o- gram not indispensable or incident to the war effort. He said he was in full accord with Presi- dent Truman's directive of last Friday under which Federal agencies must as far as prac- tical defer, curtail, or slow down projects which do not contribute directly to defense or civilian requirements essential in the changed international situation. At the same time MCCLELLAN sald the Sen- ate should go ahead and appropriate for the water projects set out in the 634,688,000,000 appropriation bill for the 1951 fiscal year which started July 1. He said he wanted the money available should conditions permit going ahead e But if conditions did not permit, he added, then he would bs in wholehearted accord with a suspension of the program during the emergency. He said some projects had reached a stage where it would be better economy to complete rather than abandon them. Mr. President, I submit that this arbi- trary proposal to cut these appropria- tions by 50 percent, as proposed in the pending amendment, or by 60 percent, as is intended to be proposed by the able junior Senator from Illinois (Mr. Dove- 1aS], is not in the best interests and serv- ice of the Nation. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE | The President of the United States has already issued a directive to every agency of the Government, including the Corps of Engineers, to make an immediate study, to revise plans, and to submit a report as to which of the projects are vital and essential, and the construction of which is necessary to be continued in order definitely to support what may become—although I hope it will not—an all-out war effort. Mr. President, I can report to the Sen- ate that conferences between the Chief of the Corps of Army Engineers and the Bureau of the Budget are now under way, looking directly to finding the answers, and to making in these funds, after they are appropriated, every reduction which possibly can be made consistent with the needs of the country and its best in- terests while this emergency is upon us. I am advised that thus far in the course of that conference, it has devel- oped that in the case of many of these projects, particularly those which have tremendous hydroelectric power capac- ity, it will be the administration's desire, the desire of the National Defense Es- tablishment, and the desire of all other agencies of the Government having to do the job of mobilizing and utilizing the resources of the Nation in a war effort, to have a number of these projects con- structed. I wish to say that in the consultations now In progress, in the case of a number of projects for which appropriations may be made, it will be decided that construc- tion should be deferred, just as was done in the other war, when practically the entire program was suspended. However, Mr President, there are now in the course of construction—and some of them are nearing completion—many vital projects appropriated for in this bill which will give us more striking power, more productive capacity. From the point of view of economy, which is what we are talking about now, not only would it be uneconomical to abandon those projects at this time, because in such case we would have to pay the contractors with whom the Government already has contracted, and it would simply be false economy to stop those projects. It would weaken our defensive power, our strength of resistance, which we may re- quire here at home some day. Mr. President, the wise thing for this body to do is to pass this title of the ap- propriation bill, recommended by the committee as the result of its studies, There are certain projects, perhaps three or four in my State, which have power facilities. One is nearly completed. Another is about one-half completed. But it would not serve the interest of victory, in case of an all-out war, to abandon those projects. That power will be needed, and it will be needed badly. To support the war effort, not merely the men who are sent to the front are required, though of course, we must have them on the battlefield, but back of those men must be a strong economy, a productive capacity. In modern warfare that productive capac- 11185 ity must be increased and made avail- able as quickly as possible. I do not know and no one can say that we shall have 2, 3, or 5 years in which to get ready to build up our strength for victory in the next conflict, as has been the case in the past. Mr. McKELLAR. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Arkansas yield to the Sena- tor from Tennessee? Mr. McCLELLAN. Iam happy to yield to the able chairman of the Appropria- tions Committee. Mr. McKELLAR. In accord with what the Senator js saying, I call his attention to the fact that there are 39 power proj- ects contained in the bill, involving ap- propriations to the extent of $301,000,000. Mr. McCLELLAN. I may remind the able Senator that if we cut these projects 50 percent—and, Mr. President, bear in mind that the Senate in this amendment. {s not trying to say how this money shall be spent—— Mr. McKELLAR. Not at all. Mr. McCLELLAN Itis not giving any directions. In fact, if the amendment is adopted, we shall be making unwork- able, if not repudiating, every direction given by the commiitee in its report. Mr McKELLAR. That is absolutely correct. Mr McCLELLAN There is a proper way to approach this matter. I yield further to the able chairman. Mr. McKELLAR. I say to the Sena- tor that, as I anderstood, the last pro- posal was for a reduction of 60 percent, which would represent a reduction from $301,000,000 to about $120,000,000. If that is done, it will mean that, to that extent, our power to defend the coun- try will be weakened. We all know that electricity is used—all that we can get of it. We know that, because we provide for it. Every day people come before our committee advocating the develop- ment of power projects. Of course, we make provision to build up electrical power for the country in every possible way, because it has done so much for the country. It can do still more for it in time of war. I am delighted to hear the strong statements made by my good friend, the Senator from Arkansas, whom I regard as one of the best men we have in the Senate. Mr. McCLELLAN. I thank the able Senator for his compliment and for his valuable contribution to this discussion. Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Arkansas yield to the Sen- ator from Michigan? Mr. McCLELLAN. Iam glad to yield Mr. FERGUSON. The Senator, of course, is very familiar, is he not, with the letter which was written by the President to the various agencies, re- questing them to cut down on all ex- penses that were not essential to the Military effort? Mr. McCLELLAN. Yes; and I have just stated to this body that the Presi- dent’s directions to which the Senator
11186 refers are now in process of being carried out by this agency and the Bureau of the Budget. I understand that in consul- tations to date it has developed and become perfectly apparent that many of these projects cannot be abandoned without economic loss, in the first place, and, in the second place, that many of them are needed as a vital contribution to essential preparation for the period ahead, when we may require total mo- bilization in order to meet the exigen- cies of the world crisis. Mr, FERGUSON. The Senator is also familiar, is he not, with the fact that in World War II, under a similar set of circumstances, or very nearly 80-—— Mr. McCLELLAN. Ido not agree that it was a similar set of circumstances, We did not have nearly so many proj- ects under way, or so many projects that were so vital to the war effort. Mr. FERGUSON. The percentage stated by the Executive was 78, with but 22 percent of the amount remaining. The Senator is also familiar, is he not, with the fact that these are lump-sum appropriations? For example, the projects cover flood control on the Mis- sissippi River, so that the Corps of Engineers will be able to go over the pro- gram again, approve those which are vital to the national defense, and pro- ceed with them 100 percent? Mr. McCLELLAN. They will not be able to proceed with them, if this ap- propriation is cut 50 percent; I can as- sure the Senator of that. Mr. FERGUSON. The Senator from Michigan feels otherwise. Mr. Mc . The proposal for a cut is being carried entirely too far. What I am trying to establish, and to cause Senators to think of and realize, is that it is far better to pass this bill and let the Bureau of the Budget, as the representative of the President of the United States, in consultation with the Chief of the Corps of Engineers and the Defense Department, go over these proj- ects and withhold the spending of money from projects which are not essential, but to make it available to them when they are essential, I challenge the Sen- ate with this amendment. There is nota Senator on this floor who can now rise and make the selection, and make it ac- curately, as to which projects should be discontinued. About 99 percent of the projects, re- ferring particularly to dams for the de- velopment of hydroelectric power, are already under construction. We are not starting new projects. Weare not start- ing a new program. There may be one or two exceptions, here and there; but about 90 percent of this appropriation 1s for work already under way, on which the Government would have to take a loss under its contractual obligations in connection with the construction of these projects. Last year, when I urged adoption of a similar amendment, it was said by some that it was wrong to ask the President to do what would be required under the amendment, that he might cut out some of my projects, when we asked him to CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE make a cut of 5 or 10 percent. I said on the floor of the Senate at that time that I would trust the President of the United States in time of peace to make a reduction in expenditures; that I would- trust the President not to make cuts merely arbitrarily or for reprisal against anyone who had insisted upon the adop- tion of the amendment. I say today, Mr. President, that if I can trust the President in time of peace to try to ef- fect economy, I can trust the President of the United States and the Bureau of the Budget and the Defense Department in time of war to construct only such projects as are vital and essential to the war program. Mr. President, I may say further that we are going to yield far more power than that to the President within the next few days. We are going to pass a bill, either the one already recommended by the administration and which is now before the Banking and Currency Com- mittee, or one even much stronger than that, delegating to the President of the United States unprecedented powers. Mr. McKELLAR, Mr. FERGUSON, and Mr. THYE addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Arkansas yield, and if so, to whom? Mr. McCLELLAN. I yield first to the able chairman of the committee, who rose first, I believe. I am very happy to yield to him. Mr. McKELLAR. Mr. President, much has been said about economy. If this amendment were agreed to, what would be its effect with respect to the item of $301,000,000? What would it mean? It would mean that instead of saving money it would cost the Govern- ment two-thirds of that amount, or about two-thirds, I shall not attempt to be exact, but it would be in the neighbor- hood of between $190,000,000 and $200,- 000,000. I suppose the Senator from Lllinois, the Senator from Michigan, and other Sena- tors will say that is not very consequen- tial. Iam one of the old-fashioned per- sons who believe that a couple of hun- dred million dollars, especially when we are at war, is a rather important amount of money. I do not want to be extrava- gant in spending money. The contracts are already made, and two-thirds of them would have to be paid for twice. Mr. McCLELLAN, I thank the able Senator. I shall be glad to yield, now, to the Sen- ator from Minnesota. ° Mr. THYE. Mr. President, I should like to raise a couple of questions in con- nection with some items in the appro- priation bill. These items relate to flood-control in the State of Minnesota. I am in favor of economy, and that is one reason why I am greatly concerned at this time because I find myself in the very unhappy position of opposing econ- omy in connection with these items in the appropriation bill. But as I look at the report on flood control, I find an item of $35,000 for a survey or study in connection with the development of a plan of flood control at Aitkin, Minn. JULY 27 All of us, Mr. President, read of the terrific flood which damaged and devas- tated much property in Minnesota with- in the past few months. There is another project on the Clear- water River for which more than $2,000,- 000 has been appropriated and expended, and it will require $1,250,000 to complete the project. That amount is in the ap- propriation bill in connection with the project. If we fail to appropriate the necessary funds, the project must come to a standstill. Funds have been in- vested to no avail unless we complete the project. Mr. President, I have seen that area. I have seen bridges absolutely washed out, power Gams under many feet of water, including an entire power unit and building at Crookston, which had supplied power to the city and the sur- rounding communities. I saw the entire countryside under water. The only reason I am speaking at this moment is that if one of the items, amounting to $1,300,000, is cut 50 per- cent, in accordance with one amend- ment, and 60 percent in accordance with another amendment, I am wondering what the full effect on the project will actually be when such a drastic reduc- tion is made. Mr. McCLELLAN. I may say to the able Senator that it will simply mean waste in Government if we pursue such & policy. Mr. THYE. Mr. President, there is another question which arises in my mind with reference to the Red River of the North. There is a flood-control project in North Dakota which also af- fects Minnesota. There is an item of $1,300,000 in connection with it which would be affected by the proposed re- duction. Mr. President, I am for economy, but I am bothered at this moment because any Senator who votes against the amendments will be looked upon by every taxpayer in the Nation as one who is reckless and wasteful with Federal tax revenues. Yet, at the same time, I rep- resent in part a State in which only a few months ago in some areas the water was anywhere from 6 to 12 feet deep. Fur- niture was floating around in dining rooms. The water was away up the walls, and homes were practically ruined by being submerged in water 6 or 7 feet deep for several weeks. Farms were standing under many feet of water, and they cannot produce anywhere near a normal crop this year. The farmers suffered damage to their real estate as well as losing a year’s crops. They are in no position to look into the future with much hope or courage unless they can see steps taken to prevent future floods. If the item in the appropriation bill of $1,300,000 for the project on the Red River, to which I have referred, is cut 50 percent, I should like to know defi- nitely as to whether we shall have any construction which will give us any as- surance of controlling future floods. Mr. McCLELLAN. I may answer the Senator by saying that he will have to address his question to ‘those Senators
1950 who are responsible for such amend- ments. I would not be able to answer the question for them, because I am op- posing the amendments, and I pointed out in my humble way what the Senator from Minnesota has been explaining, I say there will have to be sacrifices made. There is one small item in the bill about which I am particularly con- cerned, because the Federal Government has constructed on the opposite side of the river from a httle county seat town a large levee which protects a great farming area on the eastern bank of the river, but in constructing it the result has been that the water level on the oth- er side has been raised to such an extent that in January 1949 the flood level was so high that public schools had to be closed for 6 weeks. It would require only $228,000 to construct the protection levee, but even that may have to go by the board in this emergency. Iam pointing out that my community may be hit and the community of the Senator from Minnesota may be hit by any reduction which may be made Ido not want such drastic, ill-advised, and ill-considered reductions made which will result in curtailing or slowing down the construction of projects the completion of which 1s badly needed to help build up our military power, Mr THYE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further? Mr. McCLELLAN, I yield. Mr. THYE. Mr, President, I should like to ask the very able and distin- guished Senator from Arkansas if he will join me in asking the Senator from Illi- nois [Mr. Doucias!, who has sponsored the 60-percent reduction in appropria- tions, if he can give us some explanation of how and in what manner he would propose that the engineer department deal with the flood situation in the Red River Valley if floods should recur at some future date, if we cut the appro- priation which the committee has rec- ommended. I am sorry that the very able junior Senator from Illinois saw fit to walk off the floor while I was framing a question for his consideration. Mr. McCLELLAN. The Senator from Illinois has not presented his amend- ment. The pending amendment is to reduce the appropriation 50 percent. I assume the able Senator from Illinois will offer his amendment, and when he does, I expect to ask him a number of questions along that line. I am sure we shall have that opportunity. Possibly he can give the answers in which the Sen- ator from Minnesota and I are very muclt interested, Mr. THYE. I thank the able Senator from Arkansas. I know his strong con- victions about economy Mr. McKELLAR. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. McCLELLAN, I yield. Myr. McKELLAR. I remember very distinctly the horrible floods which oc- curred in the Senator’s State earlier this year. I remember the loss and destruc- tion of property and the interference with business which occurred as a re- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE sult of those floods. I should like to know if the businesses in that sec- tion of the Senator’s State were particu. larly hurt, whether it added to the in- come taxes and other taxes this year, and whether it seriously detracted from the amount of income which would go to the United States Government. Mr. THYE. Mr. President, I can an- swer the question of the very able senior Senator from Tennessce. The Senator was most considerate, not only of my own request, but of the request of the dele- gations which came from the Northwest and pleaded for appropriations. He was most considerate in allowing us all the time we desired in which to be heard. Mr President, I will say to the very able chairman that tremendous expense is entailed on a community which has sustained a flood, such as the stricken Aitkin community and the Crookston- East Grand Forks area in northwestern Minnesota, where water stood on the land for weeks and weeks, where build- ings were submerged in water several feet deep along the sidings and walls, where the power dam was under a lake of water so that it was impossible to see the ripple of the water as it flowed over the dam, with the entire generating unit of the power plant, as at Crookston, standing in a lake of water. It is very easy to see that a community is called upon to bear a heavy expense in replac- ing or reconditioning power units alone Then when for miles and miles and over the entire countryside all the farm buildings are in a bad condition because of the fact that they have been standing in water for many weeks, the pastures and the meadows are ruined, and the fields are too wet to put in a normal crop—and when the farmers lose their crop they have lost the land for a year— and the people are called upon to pay an extra assessment to repair the roads of their townships, and to pay their school districts for schoolhouse repairs, it is certain that the community will not, for many, many years, recover from the devastating loss caused by this one flood. I know farmers who have absolutely folded up. They have sold their live- stock. They have said, ‘““What is the use? This is the third flood we have suffered now in the past 5 years, and we can’t take it any longer; we are moving out.” They are out of that community, a community in which they have re- sided for many years, When I see an item for which I pleaded in the past 3 months, and on which dele- gations have come from my State to plead for, cut by 50 percent, I am the most unhappy man on the Senate floor, first, because, apparently, I am oppos- ing an economy move and, second, be- cause the amendment, if adopted, would take away from these people the ap- propriations which have been recom- mended not only to overcome future floods, but to try in some manner to correct the damage they suffered in the past few weeks or months. So I say to the very able chairman, for whom I have the greatest personal feeling, because of the consideration he 11187 showed my delegations from Minnesota who came here pleading for this appro- priation, that the communities that suf- fered these flood losses will be years and years overcoming the losses they suffered in the past 5 months due to the ter- rife floods, the damage from which we are attempting to correct by means of this appropriation. Mr. McCLELLAN. Mr. President, in concluding my remarks I wish to men- tion two things. It appears to have be- come the periodic pastime with some elements in the Nation to attack the riv- ers and harbors flood-control program. There are those, Mr, President, who in times of peace, even if we had a surplus in the United States Treasury, would oppose these projects. I see the able Senavor from Illinois [Mr. Dovczas} pointing to himself. I am surprised to know that he takes that view. How- ever, since he wants to be so identified, I accept this self-identification. There is much too much false propaganda which is continuously spread, and smears are being made continuously that these are political pet projects. The term “pork barrel” is used, and an effort is made to do everything possible to dis- credit this program. I wish to say only a few words in defense. If our budgct were in balance and we were enjoying normal conditions, or anything like normal conditions, I would favor appropriations of twice the amount proposed here, if we had the facilities to make the expenditures economically during the next fiscal year. Throughout the history of this country the Federal Government has expended a total of $2,245,000,000 for rivers and harbors, Today on many of our harbors and In many of our ports we have valuable and indispensable transportation facilities which the Federal Government has built with these expenditures. From authori- tative sources, and from the best sources, so far as I know, it is estimated that from 1928 through 1948, a period of 20 years, the savings resulting in transpor- tation costs dnd other benefits incident to these expenditures amounted to $5,- 478,000,000, or $2.20 in benefits recov- ered in those 20 years for each $1 ex- pended throughout the history of the Nation. That is a large dividend, Mr. President, Mr. President, that Kind of program builds an economy. That is the kind of program that keeps us from having to provide leaf-raking jobs for relief, That is the kind of program that promotes the development of power. That is the kind of program that makes the wheels of in- dustry turn. That is the kind of program that provides transportation to carry the commerce of the country. Throughout our history our Govern- ment has spent a total of $2,710,000,000 on flood-contro] projects From 1928 through 1948 the benefits returned to the people from those investments amounted to $5,600,000,C00, or $2.07 for every dol- Jar the Federal Government had ex- pended in all its history for this class of
11188 projects. Those who are prejudiced, un- informed, or careless cal] that “pork bar- rel” spending—how silly that is. Mr. President, communities suffer ter- rific economic losses when floods occur, just as the able Senator from Minnesota has cited. Similarly hundreds of locali- ties can be pointed to which have had the same experience and where people have had to abandon their homes and invest- ments because of lack of adequate pro- tection. In other places and in other areas, where projects have been con- structed we find growing communities and we find a healthy economy. It is on that healthy economy that we build and make progress. It is that economy which brings in the revenue which is so vitally needed to support our Government to- day, with its high cost of operation and with the undue and extraordinary bur- den placed upon it in the support of for- eign nations in an attempt to help them rehabilitate their economy and to face the threat to the security of the free peo- ples of the earth. Mr. President, that does not take into account, and there has not been an esti- mate that is accurate, the number of hu- man lives which the8e projects have saved. Yet it is smeared, “pork barrel.” I say there is not a domestic program of public-works construction in the Na- tion today that has the actual value and holds out the prospect for the building and expanding of our economy as does the flood control and river and harbor and reclamation program, and I will add to them soil conservation and forest con- servation. Those are programs which deal with resources which are very im- portant and which afford an opportunity for people to earn a livelihood. Mr. President, there is criticism of our prozram when we start to do something here in America. There is always a de- sire to smear every constructive effort pointing toward progress in this country. Practically all these projects not only provide jobs, but they make opportunity for jobs in the future. Of course, I re- fer to the major projects. I do not mean, of course, that every project in the bill is absolutely meritorious. Human judg- ment may err. The judgment of the en- gineers may err. The judgment of the committee may be in error. The judg- ment of Congress may be in error. But I say that no man within the sound of my voice can successfully challenge the con- structive and progressive merits of these programs, When it comes to spending money in foreign countries, however, to construct similar projects, we must not cut them; we must pour the money out. So the the critics of our home program say. I am not opposed to helping the countries abroad. Ivotedtohelpthem. But, Mr, President, in view of our fiscal condition at home, I voted to reduce those ex- penditures, and I shall do so again. 1 wonder if those who propose the pend- ing amendment, whose effect would be to reduce the public-works program in this country, the rivers and harbors program, by 50 percent, are ready to reduce for- eign expenditures intended to rehabilie CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE tate the economy of the countries whose productive capacity we have already had to rehabilitate until it has reached a point over and above their capacity be- fore the war. Yet we have to continue to give them help. I desire to lend some help to them, but my information is that there will come before us a request for $4,000,- 000,000-plus, within the next few days, in order to help arm countries in foreign lands. That may be in our national In- terest, and I may support it, but I am not willing to send $4,000,000,000 over there to help arm other countries, who, if a world-wide crash comes, we hope will be our allies and will fight with the same bravery and with the same de- termination and with the same sacrifices our boys are exhibiting today in Korea, and at the same time absolutely stop and cripple, and irreparably injure our pro- gram here at home. Mr. President, I am willing that this bill be passed, that these appropriations be made, and I approve of the directive given by the President in his letter a few days ago. I am in wholehearted ac- cord with that. I am perfectly willing that the President, the Bureau of the Budget, his representatives, and the Na- tional Defense Establishment, consider these projects, weigh them, and deter- mine those which will not make a sub- stantial contribution in the emergency, and delay their construction, and with- hold the spending of the money, but I would rather let them make the deci- sion. They have to make many vital de- cisions which the Congress cannot make. That is the orderly way to proceed. I can well appreciate that if that is done, possibly my State will lose some projects; but I am not interested in my State alone. I believe this program, if it pro- tects a community, as the able Senator from Minnesota stated a while ago, if the action by the whole country protects one community, there comes back to the Government, from the productive capac- ity of that community, by reason of the protection they receive, revenue, when otherwise many of them would have to charge off losses and not have to pay taxes by reason thereof. Any floocd- control project, any rivers and harbors project, constructed anywhere in this Nation, which contributes to the wel- fore, to the health, and to the economy of a local community, contributes also to the strength of our national economy, Mr. THYE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. McCLELLAN. I yield to the Sen- ator from Minnesota. Mr. THYE. We are not only losing the income from those communities, but the National Red Cross has been there attempting to rehabilitate them, spend- ing thousands of dollars in rehabilita- tion. The President of the United States from his own emergency funds has al- ready assigned thousands of dollars to assist in the rehabilitation and to meet emergencies in the communities, to say nothing about the revenues which will be lost, not only directly, in the form JULY 27 of local taxes, but in the form of na- tional income taxes. Mr. McCLELLAN, I agree with the Senator. Those who refer to the effort to remedy that condition as a “pork bar- rel” project. are in my opinion going to get their criticism so salty that the people will not swallow it. Mr, WILEY. Mr, President, will the Senator yield? Mr. McCLELLAN. I yield to the Sen- ator from Wisconsin. Mr. WILEY. I have listened with in- terest to the remarkable address of the distinguished Senator, and I have been asking myself several questions. The Senator has just commented to the ef- fect that there was something to be appended to the effect that the Presi- dent would have certain discretion. Can the Senator tell me just what that is? Mr. McCLELLAN. I did not say it would be appended to the bill. I said the President had already issued a di- rective to all the agencies of the Gov- ernment, and I have checked on it. The Chief of the Corps of Engineers, and the Bureau of the Budget are now carrying on consultations to ferret out the proj~- ects which can be dispensed with and those which it is essential to carry on in a war effort, or to be carried on as a mat~ ter of sound economy. The Senator un- derstands that practically every one of these projects is under construction, not every one, but practically all of them, and the Government has an obligation. Mr. WILEY. In case we get into an all-out war, or in case we have to appro- priate ten or fifeen billion dollars to carry on the war in Korea, what per- centage of the material that would be used in these projects, represented in dollars, could be deferred? Mr. McCLELLAN. I cannot answer that, because when projects are con- structed, it is necessary to have the ma- terials required on the particular proj- ects. Mr. WILEY. Perhaps I have not made my question clear, and no doubt it was my fault. Ishould like to preface my question by a statement. In my own State, to which I expect to return again tomorrow, the middle- class people, who have their savings in what we call dollars, in insurance, in Government bonds, who have already given up 50 cents on every investment dollar because a dollar will now buy only 50 cents’ worth, are terribly con- cerned lest we do something which will jeopardize the value of the dollar fur- ther. Widows, trust estates, educa- “tional institutions, all are tied up in that manner. If we get into the sit- uation where the purchasing value of the dollar is 40 cents or 30 cents or 20 cents or 10 cents, we shall have robbed those who are the middle class of that which has and will sustain them. I presume the argument of the Sena- tor from Tllinois [Mr. Dovoras] is based upon that theory that we must do that which is most nearly right. We are facing a world emergency. Whether or not the trouble in Korea is the begin- ning of a series of troubles involving our
195C spending from ten to twenty billion dol- Jars a month is another thing, But the thought which has occurred most insistently to me after the distin- guished Senator from Arkansas made the statement respecting Government agencies evaluating projects that can be postponed, is that if it could be said that 10 or 20 or 30 percent of them can be postponed, then we should not appro- priate that money, because it means we have to levy it on the people. I wonder whether any information has yet been received from these agencies to indicate what proportion of the projects pro- vided for might with justification be delayed. Mr. McCLELLAN. There is no way of telling that at this moment. That, I believe, is the purpose of the consulta- tion and the survey now being made. The purpose is to determine just what projects can be delayed. I shall have to defer to the judgment of those in charge of the Government. We are in awar. Weare asked for $10,500,000,000. I cannot vote against that request. I do not like to spend that money. But I want our boys to be supported with the best we can give them, and I know every other Senator does. We have to defer to the judgment of others in respect to many of these things. As to projects, I am sure some in my State will not be constructed. But with respect to those projects I believe it 1s wise to pass the bill as it is and letting those in charge of the Government make the choice instead of arbitrarily cutting 50 or 60 percent. If we cannot trust the Military Establishment and the Bureau of the Budget to make a wise choice ac- cording to their best judgment, and make an honest decision, then God pity the boys who are fighting. Then whom can they trust? Mr. KEFAUVER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. McCLELLAN. I yield. Mr. KEFAUVER. I wonder what amendment the Senator has in mind offering to authorize or direct the Presi- dent to reduce the nonessential expendi- tures? I think we are all in favor of doing that. I simply wondered whether the Senator had an amendment pre- pared, or just what the nature of the authorization would be. - Mr. McCLELLAN. As the Senator may know, I subscribe to the other amendment to be offered by the able Senator from New Hampshire to under- take a reduction of 10 percent in a num- ber of the agencies, that is, those not related to military requirements. The other amendment does not apply to those agencies. I think that in this crisis we may even have to call upon desirable services to make sacrifices in order to conserve and in order to make funds available for the war effort. Mr, KEFAUVER. If a research were made by the departments, on the order of the President, and it should be found that a reduction of more than 10 percent could be made in those departments, does the Senator have in mind an amendment providing for withholding CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE funds on projects which can properly be delayed? Mr. McCLELLAN. I do not have in mind any such amendment. The President can stop the departments from spending any money he wants them not to spend. If the 10 percent we want to cut from some agencies not associated with the war effort should prove inadequate. I do not know whether greater cuts could be made or not. It may be that in consideration of the emergency a greater cut could be made. But there is no compulsion either upon the President or any agency to spend appropriated funds. Mr. KEFAUVER. Does not the Sena- tor think the withholding is more likely to be made if there were some direction by the President to that effect? Mr. McCLELLAN. I agree with the Senator; and I would be more than will- ing to go to 20 or 25 percent if we can have any basis on which to justify it. But much as I want economy, I would not actually want to make cuts that would be harmful, that would not be prudent or practical in view of the serv- ices we expect our agencies to render. Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. McCLELLAN, I yield. Mr. MAGNUSON. The Senator an- swered the first question I wished to ask him. Of course, in all these cases the Executive can withhold or freeze, as we call it, any of these amounts. Is it not true that the President of the United States has said within the past few days that with respect to what he terms nonessential expenditures he would freeze them and withhold spend- ing on them, so we do not need to take action in that connection? Mr. McCLELLAN. That is absolutely correct. That applies to the chapter of the bill we are considering. As I have reported to the Senate, consultations pursuant to that directive are now in progress. Definitely, I think we are go- ing to find that in the case of a vast ma- jority of these projects, as to amount at least—not in number but as to amount of appropriations—the military is going to determine, the representative of the President is going to determine, every agency of the Government that will have the direct responsibility for the war ef- fort is going to determine that those projects are vital, and that we ought to continue their construction—they are al- ready under construction—and that we ought to complete them as quickly as possible. No one knows whether the final blow, the final assault upon the liberty of man- kind, is going to fall this year. It may not. I hope it never will. But even if it does not in the next few months, or even in the current fiscal year, at present there is no one who can give us assur- ance that it will not in the next year, and in view of world conditions we must now begin sacrificing so as to implement whatever is vitally needed to contribute to the essentials of defense and offense when that critical time shall come. 11189 Mr. STENNIS, Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. McCLELLAN. I yield. Mr. STENNIS, The amendment would make a 50-percent reduction. I wish to invite the attention of the Senator and the Senate to the fact that in connec- tion with many of these projects a cer- tain amount of the appropriation goes for maintenance of levees and flood- control projects. For instance, for the lower Mississippi Valley the bill carries a total figure for the area from Cairo, Ill., to the mouth of the Mississippi River, of $66,000,000. Is it not true that $15,- 000,000 of that is set aside for mainte- nance? Does the Senator have those figures before him? Mr. McCLELLAN, I do not have fig- ures before me, but the Senator has the report before him and can state the fig- ures with accuracy. I accept them as he states them. Mr.STENNIS. That would leave then $51,000,000 for what might be called new work, and if we apply the amendment to that and subtract $33,000,000 it would leave only $18,000,000 for that vast area from Cairo, Ill, to the mouth of the Mis- sissippi River. Mr.McCLELLAN. Much of that work is already under contract. Mr. STENNIS. That is the point I am coming to. The Senator is familiar with nearly all the work which is under- way in that vast area. Is it the Sena- tor’s opinion that $18,000,000 would be sufficient even to protect the investments which have already been made there, the projects which have already been Started and upon which millions of dol- lars have already been spent? Can the Senator give us his opinion about that? Mr. McCLELLAN. I think that amount would be wholly inadequate. Again I say, of course, that in forming my judgment I would defer to those who are most compctent and experienced in such matters, and upon whose judgment we must rely, Mr. STENNIS. That is correct; but at the same time does not the Senator from Arkansas feel, based on his experience, that we should leave this matter to the men who are in a position to form an experienced judgment regarding it, par- ticularly with respect to the invest- ments already made? Mr. McCLELLAN. I agree with the Senator. Mr. McKELLAR. Mr. President, will the Senator from Arkansas yield, to per- mit me to ask a question of the Senator from Mississippi? Mr.McCLELLAN. Yes; if I may have unanimous consent for that purpose. The VICE PRESIDENT. Without ob- jection, it is so ordered. Mr. McKELLAR. Mr. President, I call the Senator’s attention to the fact that in addition to the cuts which would be made by these amendments, the com- mittee itself already has made reduc- tions of 8.6 percent—nearly 9 percent— below the amounts of the budget esti- mates. Accordingly, those reductions— amounting to 8.6 percent of all the ap- propriations—will decrease by a very
11190 large sum the appropriations; and that reduction should be added to the figures the Senator from Mississippi has just given the Senator from Arkansas. Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield, to permit me to make a further observation? Mr, McCLELLAN, I yield. . Mr. STENNIS. On that point let me say that in addition to the 8.6-percent reduction below the amount of the budget estimate which already has been made by the committee, if we adopt the amendment calling for a 50-percent reduction and if we apply that amend- ment to the appropriation for this area, so far as construction is concerned the reduction would amount to 64 percent, which would have to be added to the 8.6-percent reduction which already has been made. Mr. McCLuLLAN That would be a reduction of 64 percent below the budget estimates or the budget requests. Mr. STENNIS. In total, it would amount to a 72-percent reduction below the amount of the budget estimates for this area, and it would be a reduction of 64 percent under the‘appropriations contained in the bill as reported by the Senate committee, for this area. Mr. McCLELLAN. Mr. President, I may say that the amendment—which I intend to support, and of which I am one of the cosponsors—would result in a reduction of approximately $600,000,000. Mr. WHERRY. I believe the re- duction would amount to approximately $800,000,000. Mr.McCLELLAN Ofcourse, different estimates have been given, including the $800,000,000 estimate just stated by the Senator from Nebraska. I accept that correction. Mr. President, the amendment. will apply to this appropriation. It 1s the intention—and I intend to join in that effort—to reduce as much as can pos- sibly be done the appropriations for all nonessential projects. Those appropria- tions will be reduced another 10 percent, by that amendment. I intend to sup- port it, because I intend to have us be just as economical in these matters as is possible and at the same time to be practical and at the same time to fulfill our obligations and our responsibilities in connection with getting ready for a mighty effort, and a final effort which may have to be made, to preserve the freedom of the world. Mr. McKELLAR, Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. McCLELLAN. I yield. Mr. McKELLAR, I simply wish to say that the statement just made verifies a statement I made earlier in the day, to the effect that 1t is absolutely impos- sible to formulate a bill of this kind on the floor of the Senate; it simply can- not be done. A bill of this sort must be formulated on the basis of the facts and the actual testimony. Mr. McCLELLAN. I may say to the Senator that I think we have brought in an excellent bill, in view of the con- ditions which obtained at the time when CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE the bill was reported. However, I feel that some reduction should be made. Therefore, I shall support amendments calling for reductions; but I shall also be happy to have the President and his agencies, in consultation, weed out and conserve any other parts of this appro- priation so far as that can be done. Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to permit me to make a further observation? Mr. McCLELLAN. I yield. Mr STENNIS. I wish to point out that actually the effect of the amendment calling for a 50-percent reduction would be to make a 72-percent reduction in the amount of the budget estimates with re- spect to the area from Caro, Il, to the mouth of the Mississippi River; and I think that amendment would have a similar effect on other projects through- out the United States, although I cannot be sure of that, because I am not so fa- miliar with the other projects as I am with this one. Mr. KEM. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr McCLELLAN. I yield. Mr, KEM. Mr. President, I should like to say that the Senator from Arkansas is one of the most effcctive advocates of economy 1n this body. Ever since I have been a Member of the Senate he has talked that way and he has voted that way. Mr. McCLELLAN, Senator. Mr. KEM I wish to ask the Senator from Arkansas a question in regard to the argument he has just made. As I understand, his position is that, if the bill 1s amended as is proposed by the Sen- ator from New Hampshire and other Senators, the result will be to prevent the completion of the projects mentioned in the bill, with the result that they will not be effective in the war effort. Mr. McCLELLAN. That is true with respect to a majority of the funds in the bill. I would not say it is true with re- spect to a majority of the projects in number. Mr. KEM. Let me invite the Senator’s attention to page 232 of the committee report, where the rivers and harbors pro- gram for the fiscal year 1951 is set forth. Glancing down the list, I notice that the first item is one for the Alabama- Coosa Rivers, in Alabama and Georgia— in particular, for the Howell Mill Shoals Dam. The total estimated Federal cost, or the total amount estimated to be nec- essary to carry out the project, 1s $28,722,400. The total amount appro- priated to date is $469,600, and the amount recommended by the Senate committee is $185,000. I ask the Senator if it is not obvious that if the amount appropriated in this bill for that project is made available, the project cannot be completed, and there- fore it cannot have any possible effect on the war effort. Mr. McCLELLAN. The project to which the Senator has referred is defi- nitely a project for planning, not for construction, I thank the JULY 27 Mr. KEM. Yes. So the appropriation cannot possibly have any effect, in any- one’s mind, on the war effort, can it? Mr. McCLELLAN, Not so far as items for planning are concerned. However, because of its great power potentialities, the project may become necessary in the war effort. On that point, I defer to those who are in a position to know whether the project would be needed in an all-out war effort. Mr. KEM. Yes. The Senator from Arkansas does not anticipate that it will be possible .o complete the project dur- ing the present war, does he? Mr. McCLELLAN. Of course, Mr, President, construction of the project is not to be started, under this bill; there- fore I think the question is rather a moot one. However, my point is that in the cases in which it is proposed that we spend money for planning, if we get into a war, no one knows—I am sure I do not, and Iam sure the Senator from Missouri does not know—what projects can be com- pleted before the war willend. We can- not know that, because we do not know when such a war would end. However, my thought is that in the case of projects for the planning of which money 1s now included in the bill, in the course of the conference now taking place a decision may he reached as to postponing the expenditure of that money. Mr. KEM. Does not the Senator think it 1s very unlikely that the expenditure of $185,000 for planning for the Howell Mills Shoals Dam on the Alabama-Coosa Rivers, in Alabama and Georgia, will promote the war effort? Mr. McCLELLAN. I cannot tell, be- cause no one knows how long the war effort will continue. Mr. KEM. Yes, Now let me refer to the next large item appearing in the rivers and harbors program for the fiscal year 1951; I refer now to the Demopolis lock and dam, Warrior River system. The total amount appropriated to date is $1,342,- 500 The amount recommended by the Senate committee at this time for con- struction ts $3,800,000 My question to the Senator is, Is it not obvious that, even if the amount provided in the bill be appropriated, the project cannot be completed so as to be available in the present war effort? Mr. McCLELLAN. I do not know what the Senator means by the “present war effort.” If he means before the final decision in Korea, I would say ‘‘No.” If he means by the “present war effort” the final decision in the war which we are apprehensive ma,’ develop, then I do not know that even this amount of money would be sufficient, or whether 4t should be doubled and stepped up and the project completed as quickly as possible, in order to make power avail- able in that area to the iron industry and for the production of steel and other vital essentials and indispensables con- nected with the war effort. I cannot say—-the Senator cannot say. That is why I am pleading with Senators to
1950 leave these projects in the bill, and to leave it to the Defense Department and to the Bureau of the Budget and to others upon whom we must rely, to make these vital decisions. Mr, KEM. May I invite the Senator's attention to another item? Dropping down about six lines, we find the Ten- nessee-Tombigbee waterway in Alabama and Mississippi. Mr. McCLELLAN. That is another case like the one the Senator referred to earlier. It is planning money. I may say to the able Senator that if this proj- ect could be completed, it would make a valuable contribution to the war effort. But this is planning money, and I ex- pect all planning money, except in rare instances, to be withheld and not spent. Mr, KEM. The Senator will admit, will he not, that the inclusion of $190,- 000 for planning on that project would not promote our cause in Korea? Mr. McCLELLAN. I may say to the Senator we have spent a great deal of money on projects which are not pro- moting the effort in Korea. Mr. KEM. Then the argument made by the very able Senator with reference to the bill is not applicable, is it, to all the items? Mr. McCLELLAN. I have said so. I said in the very beginning of my re- marks that the appropriations ought to be reduced, but I simply contended that a 50-percent reduction would, in my opinion, be tragic to the war effort. I do not think we are competent to undertake on this floor now to make a selection of what projects can be dis- pensed with and to determine which of them are not available or needed in the war effort. I think we had better leave it to those who have the responsi- bility and who are experienced. Let them ‘make the determination, and I shall abide by it. My State will be af- fected to some extent, I am sure. I should like to continue these projects. I should like to get certain others con- structed that are not even provided for in this bill but which are vitally needed. But I know that we have to sacrifice all the way down the line, and I expect sac- rifices to be made. But I do not want us to make sacrifices here and take arbi- trary action which will hamper or hinder us in developing the maximum power that we should have if it becomes neces- sary to go into an all-out war effort. Mr. KEM. If the Senator will yield further, I should like to ask him whether, in view of the fact that there are so many projects that the amount appro- priated in this bill will not bring any- where near completion, in his judgment, does the Senator think it a sound argu- ment to advance that the bill should be passed exactly as it is brought to the fenate, in order to promote the war effort? Mr. McCLELLAN. Yes. I say “Yes” to the Senator, subject to the proper reservations I have made all the way through my argument. I do not think it necessary to repeat them. I believe the reservations 1 have made in regard to passing the bill as it is at present, would CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE cause us to follow a far sounder and wiser course than to arbitrarily cut it in half or to cut it 60 percent and term it “pork barreling,” and say we are getting rid of pork barreling. We may have a barrel some day without any pork in it—and an empty barrel, at that—if we do not develop the resources of the country. I do not want the guns we are going to have to send over there to he too few; I do not want our boys to go over there without the equipment nec- essary to make them the best equipped army and fighting power the Nation can provide. Mr. THYE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Arkansas yield to the Senator from Minnesota? Mr. McCLELLAN, I yield. Mr. THYE. If the Senator will yield, I should like to make a brief comment. Mr. McCLELLAN. I should like to conclude as soon as possible. May I yield the floor to the Senator? . Mr. THYE. If I might be recognized when the very able Senator from Ar- kansas has finished, I should like to com- ment briefly on the items in the bill in which I am particularly concerned. Mr. McCLELLAN. Mr. President, I have concluded my remarks. I am just as anxious for economy as anyone else can be. I shall vote for economy in this bill. I shall not vote for the amend- ments which would call for a 50- or 60- percent cut in nonwar expenditures; but I want to see some reduction brought about, in the light of the changed con- ditions. Reductions should be made, and they will be made. They will be made, however, in the ‘wisdom of the Defense Department, which is most com- petent to judge, and in the wisdom of the President and his representatives in the Bureau of the Budget. I hope the Senate will reject and repudiate this cf- fort to emasculate this meritorious and vital construction program, It will be a sad mistake to adopt this injudicious and false-economy proposal. Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- sent to have printed in the Recorp im- mediately following my remarks made earlier in the day on the amendment proposed by the Senator from New Hampshire {Mr. Brinces] for himself, the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr, Sattonsta.u], and other Senators, to the fiood control and rivers and harbors sec- tion of the bill, a letter from the Director of the Budget with reference to the Des Are, Ark., project which is in this ap- propriation. There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the REcorp, as follows: EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, Bureau or THE BupGET, Washington, D.C., July 12, 1950. Hon. JoHN L. MCCLELLAN, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. DeAg SENATOR MCCLELLAN: I have your let- ter of July 7, 1950, concerning the question of appropriation of $228,000 for construction of a levee on the White River in the vicinity of Deg Arc, Ark. This project was author- 11191 ized in the recent flood control act and, as was pointed out in the letter clearing the project authorization, we recognized that construction work on the east bank levee system had entailed an increase in ficod heights in Des Arc. That letter also recog- nized that there was an obligation on the part of the United States to correct so far as possible the adverse conditions at Des Arc. I have explained to you the general budg- ettary position which has been taken with respect to new projects, both unger the Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation. Whether or not this item comes within the category of new projects is a somewhat moot question now since it has been included in the appropriation bill by the Senate com- mittee. We have no desire to raise an objec- yen to the inclusion of this project in the i1l. Sincerely yours, F, J. Lawton, Director, Mr. McCLELLAN. I also ask unani- mous consent to have printed in the body of the Recorp immediately following my remarks a statement prepared by my colleague, the junior Senator from Ar- kansas (Mr, FuuBricHt], who is neces- sarily absent from the Senate today, with reference to another project in the bill, the Dardanelle Dam There being no objection, the state- ment was ordered to be printed in the ReEcorp, as follows: STaTEMENT BY SENATOR FULBRIGHT ON THE APPROPRIATION FOR DARDANELLE DAM The proposed Dardanelle Dam ts a dual- purpose project for navigation and for hy- droelectric power. It is a part of the Arkan- sas Valley comprehensive program which was authorized by the Seventy-ninth Congress in December 1946. The Arkansas Valley pro- gram was again considered in the rivers and harbors bill during the present Congress and the total authorization for the comprehen- s've program was substantially increased. The Arkansas River Valley is one of the last remaining great river basins which have not benefited from a Federal river improve- ment program, While there are few navi- gable streams west of the Mississippi, prog- ress 1s being made both to the north and to the south of the Arkansas River. On the Missouri River there is now a navigation project under way which would make the river navigable to Sioux City, Iowa. To the south of the Arkansas Valley, a navigation project is under way on the Trinity River. While the people of the area are acutely conscious of the admonition of the President that no new projects should be started, we believe that the Arkansas River Valley should be placed on the same footing as the other basins west of the Mississippi. We have been accustomed to handicaps since the Civil War but we now feel that the other areas have already been given a sufficient head start. I should like to emphasize the fact that there is not at the present time nor has there ever been either a navigation or hydroelectric dam on the three-hundred-and-fifty-odd miles of the Arkansas River from its mouth to the Oklahoma line. This 1s the most neglected large river in the United States. As I mentioned previously, the proposed Dardanelle Dam 1s for navigation and power Production. I should like particularly to stress the hydroelectric power potential since the dam will eventually be equipped to gen- erate 60,000 ktlowatts. The Corps of Engineers now has tn opera- tion a multiple purpose project-—-the Norfork Dam on the north fork of the White River near the Missouri State line. JI recently ran
11192 across a statement on the revenue from hy- droelectric power alone at this project since the dam was first put into operation in June 1944. The firet power unit installed at Nor- fork had a capacity of 85,000 kilowatts. This single unit by June 1949, generated power which returned to the Treasury of the United Btates €3,072,774. On February 12 of this year a second 35,000-kilowatt unit was put into operation, and although I do not have the revenue figures for the 1950 fiscal year, 1¢ is obvious that the returns will be much greater. Within the short space of 6 years, the Norfork Dam has already returned to the Treasury more than one-seventh of the total amount which was appropriated for its construction (about $28,000,000), This Na- tion has made few more prudent investments than Norfork Dam and I am confident that with the development of the South and Southwest, the Dardanelle Dam will be equally successful. MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE A message from the House of Repre- sentatives, by Mr. Maurer, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House had passed without amendment the following bills of the Senate: 8.298, An act for the relief of John Row- land; 8.503. An act for the relief of Solly Manasse; 8 920. An act for the relief of Ellen Rod- riguez Moreno; §.1059. An act for the relief of John W. Wagner; S.1169. An act for the relief of Christina Shalfeieff; 8.1419. An act for the relief of Wilhemus Johannes Marie Van Der Kooy; 8.1491. An act for the relief of Rudolf Meinhard and Irene Hallinger; 8.1529. An act for the relief of Amy L. Hefington; 8.1551. An act for the relief of Jose Au- gusto Pereira; 8.1578. An act for the relicf of Anastacia Roshan; 5. 1654. An act for the relief of Kyra Kite Riddle; 8.1942, An act for the relief of Isabel Alba Casas, Concepcion Garcta Perez, Maria del Carmen Fernandez Matesaenz, Maria San- tos Zuniga, Felipa Casado del Blanco, Mer- cedes Rodriguez Villanueva, Selina Milan Gonzalez, Teresa Duque Saenz, Martina Equiza Garces, and Teresa Baztan Elizalde; S 1963. An act for the relief of Augusto Segre: 8.2016. An act for the relief of Mr. and Mrs. Charles R, Proctor; 8.2053. An act for the relief of Vivienne Joy Wilson and minor daughter Mary Ann Vaughn; 8. 2188. An act for the relief of Nicholas J. Chicouras; S. 2242. An act for the relief of John E Dwyer; S. 2264. An act for the relief of Jullana Sosa de Solis; §. 2297. An act for the relief of the estate of Lee Jones Cardy; 8.2442. An act for the relief of Yone T. Park; 8. 2565. An act for the relief of Edward E. Duff; 8. 2608. An act for the relief of Dr. Kun Ken Hu; 8.2723, An act for the relief of Maria del Carmen Moreno-Hloraa, Maria Luisa Asin Lurl, Rafaela Garcia Casini, Glovann! Im- porta, and Teresa Campagnoni; S. 2866. An act for the relief of Egbert G. Gesell; 8. 2934. An act for the relief of Julius CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 8. 2990. An act for the relief of Amy Loul- su Shier; 8.2991. An act for the relief of the Chi- cago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad Co.; §. 3012. An act for the relief Mrs. Osa J. Potty; 5.3163. An act for the relief of Mrs. Hon- ora Redman; and 8.3253. An act for the relief of Lyon F. Hibberd and the estate of George T. Erb. The message also announced that the House had agreed to the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. R. 157) author-~ izing the Attorney General of the United States to recognize and to award to out- standing courageous young Americans a medal for heroism known as the Young American Medal for Bravery, and for other purposes. The message further announced that the House had passed a joint resolution (H. J. Res. 513) to authorize the burial in the National Cemetery at Nashville, Tenn., the bodies of members of the Tennessee Air National Guard killed in a@ plane crash near Myrtle Beach, S. C., July 23, 1950, in which it requested the concurrence of the Senate. GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS, 1951 The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (H. R. 7786) making appro- priations for the support of the Govern- ment for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1951, and for other purposes. Mr. ELLENDER obtained the floor. Mr. THYE. Mr. President, will the Senator from Louisiana yield long f£nough for me to make a very brief comment on certain items in this bill which might be affected drastically by the proposed 60-percent reduction? Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I do not intend to speak very long, myself. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair will be glad to recognize the Senator from Minnesota a little later. The pre- vious occupant of the chair indicated that the Senator from Louisiana desired to be recognized. Mr. THYE. Mr. President, my reason for wishing to be recognized now is that I should like my remarks to follow those of the very able Senator from Arkansas, in order that there may be continuity for anyone who might be reading the REcorpD. Mr. ELLENDER. How long will the Senator speak? Mr. THYE. I do not think it would take me over 3 or 4 minutes. (Mr. ELLENDER,. I shall be glad to yield. The VICE PRESIDENT. Without ob- jection, the Senator from Louisiana may yield to tha Senator from Minnesota for that purpose. Mr. THYE. I thank the Senator. Mr. McKELLAR. Mr. President, if the Senator from Minnesota will per- mit, I should like to say Iam very happy that he is going to make a statement, and that I am very glad it is going to be short, because I am very anxious to get a vote on this chapter this afternoon, if possible. Mr. THYE. Mr. President, I assure the able chairman of the Appropriations Committee that I am just as anxious as JULY 27 anyone that we get action on the appro- priation bill, and that I shal) assist him by making my remarks very brief. Mr. President, I am cosponsor of an amendment to the pending bill. It is on the desks of al’ Senators. It was offered on July 14; it is marked “A,” and it calls for a 10-percent cut in many of the ap- propriations for the executive depart- ments. , I am for economy, but when I look at the appropriations bill and consider the proposal for a general over-all reduc- tion of 50 percent for the ficod-control appropriations, I am wondering about the wisdom of such a drastic cut. It would affect many items contained in the bill, including appropriations for the completion of projects. Insofar as it relates to appropriations for the State of Minnesota, I may say that I have worked and assisted those engaged in developing these flood-con- trol projects for the past 10 years or more. There is one item of $1,350,000 for the Red Lake and Clearwater Rivers flood-control project, which is for the completion of this project. If the ap- propriation is cut by 50 percent, the work will have to be greatly curtailed and the time of completion naturally postponed to the extent that the construction work is curtailed, There is another appropriation of $1,300,000 for the Red River of the North, which would affect the area in the vicinity of East Grand Forks. We all recall the devastating floods which oc- curred in that area within the past few months. I cannot see the wisdom of making such a drastic reduction. As I stated, Ifavor economy. I joined in the move for a 10-percent reduction, but I cannot and shall not support the 50- percent reduction, because we are pro- ceeding blindly in regard to it. We are not proceeding with full understanding and knowledge of the ultimate effect that such a drastic cut would have upon the projects which are now in the process of construction and soon to be com- pleted, or which would be completed if the funds were made available through passage of this bill. So, Mr. President, I say it is with re- gret that I am unable to support the Senators who have proposed a 50-percent reduction in flood-control appropria- tions, BURIAL IN THE NATIONAL CEMETERY, NASHVILLE, TENN., OF THE BODIES OF MEMBERS OF THE TENNESSEE AIR NA- TIONAL GUARD KILLED NEAR MYRTLE BEACH, 8. C. . Mr, ELLENDER. Mr, KEFAUVER. the Senator yield? Mr. ELLENDER. For what purpose? Mr. KEFAUVER. In connection with a resolution relating to the burial of 30 boys who were killed in a National Guard plane in South Carolina. It will take not more than 1 minute, I think, if the Senator will yield. Myr. President—— My, President, will
1950 The VICE PRESIDENT. Without ob- jection, the Senator may yield for that purpose. Mr. ELLENDER. I yield. Mr. KEFAUVER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending business be temporarily set aside, and that the Senate proceed to consider House Joint Resolution 513. The VICE PRESIDENT. Without ob- jection, it is so ordered. The Chair lays before the Senate House Joint Resolution 513, coming over from the House of Representatives, which will be stated by title. The resolution (H. J. Res. 513) to au- thorize the burial in the National Cem- etery at Nashville, Tenn., the bodies of members of the Tennessee Air National Guard killed in a plane crash near Myrtle Beach, 8S. C., July 23, 1950, was read twice by its title. The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there ob- jection to the present consideration of the joint resolution? Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator from Tennessee yield? Mr. KEFAUVER. I yield. Mr. WHERRY. Why is the resolution necessary? Mr. KEFAUVER. Mr. President, let me cay, in the first place, that I have con- sulled with the senior Senator from Tennessee, who is vitally interested in the matter, and I have spoken to the acting majority leader and to the mi- nority leader, There is a technicality involved. Some of the young men who were killed were veterans and some were members of the National Guard. It is impossible to identify all the bodies and ascertain which were veterans and which were National Guard men. The Pres- ident and the Secretary of War are anx- ious that the request of the boys’ fam- ilies be complied with, that they all be buried together, and because of that technicality this resolution is necessary, Mr. WHERRY. Of course I am in favor of the resolution and want it to be agreed to, but I should like the Senator to explain why it is technically necessary. Mr. KEFAUVER,. I will say to the €enator that Representative Priest has advised the junior Senator from Tennes- see that it probably could be worked out by an Executive order, but there are some legal complications, and he thought the resoluticn would be the better method. The funeral is to be held tomorrow. Mr. WHERRY. I am in favor of the resolution. I think that is the proper way to handle it. Mr. MCKELLAR. Mr. President, I ap- preciate very much the Senator’s state- ment, The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there ob- jection to the consideration of the reso- lution? There being no objection, the resolu- tion (H. J. Res, 513) was considered, ordered to a third reading, read the third time, and passed. GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS, 1961 The Senats resumed the consideration of the bill (H. R. 7786) making appro- priations for the support of the Govern- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE ment for the fiscal year ending June 40, 1951, and for other purposes. Mr. ELLEND=R. Mr. President, I wish to associate myself with the views expressed by the distinguished senior Senator from Arkansas {Mr. McCLEL- LAN], We have become a great Nation be- cause of the vast resources which our country has possessed. It is well known that as a result of the past two wars in which we were engaged many of these resources have been dissipated. We must not forget that they have been dissipated by other means, too. In the early days of our existence, and for many years thereafter, it was very easy for a farmer to select land of almost his own choosing on which to raise his crops and make a living, but today, were it not for the various projects which were car- ried out by our Government—for exam- ple, in the development of some of our arid acres—our land resources would soon be exhausted. One must travel through the great West and Northwest to appreciate what I am trying to pic- ture. In the State of Washington, for example, where the population has grown in excess of 3,500,000 persons from a merc handful less than 50 years ago, if our Government had not assisted in de- veloping the water resources, that great State would probably have, in a manner of speaking, died on the vine. It could not have increased in population because of its lack of tillable land and the scarcity of power generated from falling water. But now we sce that it has become pros- perous and incidentally its citizens are great contributors to our Treasury. What has made California rise to be the second State in the Union in population? Its population exceeds that of Pennsyl- vania. The answer lies in the develop- ment of those great water projects which have taken place within the past 25 or 30 years. By and through the assistance of our Government, the great rivers of that locality were harnessed and were made to produce power, and were also made to provide water for irrigating thousands of arid acres. Today, Mr. President, our Nation is growing a third more food than it pro- duced prior to the recent war. A great deal of that production can be charged to mechanization and better farming, but let us not forget that most of it must be attributed to our endeavors to retain our topsoil. The great Mississippi River has for centuries brought down toward the Gulf of Mexico billions of tons of precious topsoil. The very life blood— why, the heart—of the Mississippi Valley is being brought down to the Gulf by the great Mississippi River. Statistics show that we are losing in the neighbor- hood of 500,000 acres of land each year, Those lands from which this topsoil is stripped become marginal and incapable of producing creps profitably. Unless we protect our topsoil, I assure you that a large portion of our country will become barren and desert-like. Mr. President, one would have to visit Persia, as I did last year, to see what would eventually become of our own 11193 great country were we not willing to make every effort to continue the preser- vation and conservation of our land and water resources, It was my privilege last November to visit what was once pros- perous and fertile Mesopotamia, That country, only a few centuries ago, main- tained a population of almost 20,000,000 persons. Today it can barely sustain the lives of four and a half million to five million persons. Why is that, Mr. Presi- dent? The Tigris and the Euphrates Rivers with their tributaries, have car- ried down to the sea most of the top-soil of that great country, so that practically all that is left are narrow strips of land fairly fertile along the rivers and where date palms, vegetables and fruits are grown in small quantities. Further, in some of the valleys of that country, be- cause of the accumulation of top soil, which now impedes the flow of water, much of the land has become alkaline, so that it cannot produce. It has become soggy and since it is not properly drained it will not produce. Doubtless, if the rivers and their tributaries of that great country had been properly harnessed, floods could have been averted and the water resources used for the benefit of its people. In addition, last year it was my privil- lege to visit the Garden of Eden. Sen- ators remember from their reading of the Bible how fruitful it is said to have been at one time. It was a beautiful fertile spot. Today it is as bare as my hand: there is nothing left except barren rocks and sand. The top soil of that locality was permitted to find its way unchecked to the sea. In recent years we have been spending much money to prevent a situation from developing here, similar to that which confronts many of the countries of the Middie East and the Far East. We are acting wisely in preserving our precious water and land resources, It is a sound investment which is certain to redound to the benefit of generations yet unborn. Mr. President, I could cite many in- stances to show how with a small expend- iture years ago, we have been enabled, literally, to make the deserts of the West bloom. Take, for instance, the Salt River Valley project in Arizona. That project was completed in 1914 at a cost of ap- proximately $20,000,000. Because we had the foresight and the good judgment to harness the rivers of that area for the development of electrical energy and for the irrigation of arid lands, today a sec- tion of the United States which was al- most barren a few years ago is now paying into the coffers of the United States Treasury about $60,000,000 per year in income taxes. In other words, the $20,000,000 investment made by the Government 36 years ago, and most of which has been repaid, is now producing a tax revenue of $60,000,000 annually. Or take the great Central Valley of California, Will anyone deny that our Government made a good investment in that area? Itis very productive. It has great cities. It produces tons of food and fiber that is in daily use for the benefit of
11194 our people. All of that came about by developing a wise use of its water re- sources. Floods have not only been im- peded but the waters have been made to work for the benefit of millions of people. It has meant wealth to our great Na- tion, which in turn has been resown, as it were, and used to further develop many of the facilities which have caused us to attain leadership among the nations of the world. Mr, President, it is because of the great productive capacity of our country today that we are in a position to help others. I might say that our productive capacity is useless without natural resources prop- erly harnessed and cared for. It is axiomatic that our resources constitute the very basis of our production. The money which is asked to be appropriated to develop these resources of ours is ab- solutely necessary to the welfare of our country, in peace or in war. Particularly I should like to address myself in reference to the item for flood control of the great Mississippi River. The pending amendment seeks to cut that item by 50 percent or to a little over $33,000,000. In 1928 a plan was worked out by the Corps of Engineers of the Army in order to hasten the flow of water to the Gulf. The river was straightened to a large extent, and many of its bends were eliminated. The river was short- ened considerably and that meant a great accumulation of water in the lower reaches. Asa result of this straighten- ing the volume of water was so great at one point that in order to prevent serious flood damage it was necessary to find another outlet for that great river. This second outlet happens to be located in my own State. I know whereof I speak, and of the necessity of continuing with this work, lest uncontrollable floods con- tinue to visit us each year. Mr, EASTLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Mr, ELLENDER. I shall be happy to yield in a moment. As I stated, this work was authorized in 1928, It was supposed to be completed in about 10 or 12 years. Mr. President, it is still not completed. The entire project was to cost $1,285,000,000, Up to the moment we have spent $786,000,000. We have completed the greater portion of the work in the upper reaches of the river and some of its tributaries. But in order to undo the harm caused by the increased volume of flow that has result- ed from the river-straightening process and protect our people in the lower reaches of the river it is absolutely neces- sary that the entire proposed plan be completed. Unless we complete it, those people will be washed out. Not a year passes now in which we do not have some overfiow in Mississippi, Louisiana, Ar- kansas, and Missouri. I repeat, one of the reasons for such a situation is that to a large extent the waters from the Mississippi River have been coming down the river at a greater speed, and the waters have risen so fast on many occasions that they have either overflowed the levees or have CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE broken them and inundated much of the fine, valuable land throughout that area. I now yield to the Senator from Mis- aissippi. Mr. EASTLAND. Does the Senator have the figures as to cost to the country of the great flood of 1927? Mr. ELLENDER. I do not have the exact figures at the moment, but I sur- mise that they must amount to many hundreds of millions of dollars. Mr. EASTLAND. Does not the Sena- tor know that it was in excess of $2,000,000,000? Mr. ELLENDER. The Senator has re- freshed my memory; I believe he is cor- rect. Mr. EASTLAND. That is for the destruction of property and destruction c* crops. Mr. ELLENDER. I recall that the losses were very great. Mr. CHAVEZ. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. ELLENDER. I yield. Mr. CHAVEZ. Along the line sug- gested by the Senator from Mississippi, is it not correct to say that the actual value of the crops destroyed was only a small item of the effect it had on future crops, and that certainly future destruc- tion cannot be enumerated in dollars and cents? Mr. ELLENDER. Yes; and to this must be added the loss of life, which can- not be valued in dollars and cents. As I indicated, under the plan that was agreed upon in 1928, the Army engineers proposed to create a new and larger out- Jet for the Mississippi River at or near Angola, La. The capacity of the Mis- sissippi River at that point is over twice as great as that of the great river in its lower reaches, hence the necessity for the planned outlet, known as the Morganza spillway. The completion of this outlet would prevent floods in those areas of our country, which I have previ- ously mentioned. As the situation stands today, the river with some of fts curves straightened, drains more quickly its upper sector, and reduces the danger of flooding at its headwaters; but in so doing, it must carry a larger volume of water more quickly through the lower reaches, greatly increasing the danger of flooding its delta area. To cut this appropriation of $65,000,000 in half and to continue such a process in the future would make it impossible to complete the project within a reason- able period of time. It would probably require 20 to 25 more years to complete {t at that rate of spending and in the meantime our losses from floods would continue to add up. I plead with Sena- tors not to cut the appropriation. The Bureau of the Budget estimated that $72,000,000 would be required this year for that project. The request of the en- gineers, as I recall, was for a much larger figure. The House, after long study, al- lowed $65,000,000 or a reduction of $7,- 000,000 from the Budget estimate. The Senate committee has accepted that fig- ure. With the amount asked to be ap- JULY 27 propriated and a like amount next year, the engineers could by bending their every effort see the completion of the so- called Morganza spillway within the next 2 years. That is, the project would then be far enough advanced to be of use, in case of a major flood. The guide levees on each side of the spillway in the lower reaches of this outlet are not built. In addition to that, the proposed lock at Bayou Boeuf would have to he con- structed as planned in order to prevent the overflow of the spillway onto some of the most fertile land in the United States. If the appropriation is cut to $33,000,000 it would be necessary to can- cel most of the contracts that have been let looking toward completion of the lower reaches of the new outlet. As I previously stated this project must be completed if the people in south and central Louisiana, and in large parts of Arkansas and Mississippi, are to be pro- tected from the annual floods, with the ensuing loss of life and destruction of farms and livestock. Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. ELLENDER. tion. Mr. EASTLAND. Does the Senator realize that one major flood would cost more, in loss of life and loss of property, than all the money that has been ap- propriated for the Mississippi River levee system and flood-control system, just one flood? Mr. ELLENDER. There is no ques- tion about that. The figures cited by my distinguished colleague a moment ago prove that. The distinguished Sen- ator from Mississippi has stated that the flood of 1927 cost in excess of $2,000,000,- 000. The recently estimated cost of this entire project, which was authorized in 1928—the year after the disastrous flood of 1927, was $1,265,000,000. So that, as the Senator has just pointed out, the losses sustained in 1927 alone were more than the cost of this project, which in- cidentally, was designed so that the States and all the land along the Mis- sissippi River and its tributaries, from Cairo, Ill, downstream, could be pro- tected by revetments and other struc- tures. . Mr. President, as the distinguished junior Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Srennis], stated a moment ago, of the $65,000,000 requested, $15,000,000 is to be used to maintain levees. When many of the bends in the Mississippi River were eliminated in order to shorten its length, it was necessary to build revetments on each side of the river to prevent the new river banks from caving in. To con- tinue the construction of those revet- ments, money is necessary. Otherwise all of the money that has been spent will have been wasted. I would say that almost 25 percent of the money which is asked to be appropriated is going to be used to protect some of the work that has already been done, that is, by build- ing these revetments in order to prevent the present banks from caving in. If that is not done, we are likely not only I yield for a ques-
1950 to lose a good deal of the investment that has already been made, but it would further endanger the lives and the prop- erty of many of the residents along the river. We have taken the first step in our Mississippi program by straighten- ing some of its curves but, as I have men- tioned, we have thereby exposed its lower banks—we must not, we cannot fail now to complete the lower river plans. I hope that the Senate will see fit to vote down the pending amendments. Let us continue to preserve and protect our great natural resources rather than permit them to be destroyed or wasted on a plea of economy. We are always faced with a possible recurrence of floods such as we ex- perienced in 1927; to cut back this pro- gram now on the grounds of economy would indeed be penny-wise and pound- foolish. Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, I in- tend to support a deep cut in the appro- priation outlined in the bill for flood control and rivers and harbors. I say that in spite of the fact that I have been for many years a believer in conserva- tion. Since I came to the Senate I have supported a great many bills to author- ize appropriations for reclamation, for water power, fof flood control, and for river and harbor work, and I expect to do so again in the future. But we are in a crisis, a great crisis, and I doubt whether most of our people even today realize the extent of it. I have frequently stated on the floor of the Senate and elsewhere that I in- tended to support and vote for all ap- propriations to strengthen the defense of our country, and to insure its security, so far as it is possible to do so, I also have said that I intend to continue to vote for appropriations which are im- portant for the health and welfare of the people of this Nation, and that I would also support all appropriations which are necessary for the operation of order- ly government and in the interests of all the people of the country. Mr. President, it does not seem to me that all the projects which are outlined in the report before us, covered by the proposed appropriations, are of direct necessity to the defense of our country. I have no doubt at all, and I wish to emphasize this, that while the projects of flood control and river and harbor work are normally of great importance— and we should continue to push them as far as possible in normal times—they are not of vital importance at this time in the war effort. I think that is shown by a reading of the report. There are a great many different projects outlined and appropriations set forth which really would not at this time further the war effort. For instance, I note the item for the Alabama-Coosa Rivers, and in Alabama and Georgia the Howell Mills Shoals Dam. There is an estimated Federal cost of $28,722,400, against which the total amount appropriated to date is $469,600. Certainly the $185,000 which it is proposed to. appropriate for that project cannot advance it very much. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE The same comment applies to the Tennessee-Tombigbee waterway, Ala- bama and Mississippi. Against a total estimated Federal cost of over $169,000,- 000, there has thus far been appropriated only $858,000. The amount proposed to be appropriated in the pending bill cer- tainly cannot possibly further that pro- ject very much. In the Buford Dam project, there is a total estimated Federal cost of $40,- 225,000, against which the total amount appropriated thus far has been only $1,400,000. Certainly the $900,000 which it is proposed to appropriate in the pend- ing bill cannot further that project. Mr. President, I have mentioned only three projects, but there are any num- ber against which the same criticism can be leveled. I believe that a cut, whether it be 50 percent, or 40 percent— I have not yet decided which one of these cuts I shall favor except to say that I shall favor a very substantial cut—will still leave enough money to carry on the essential work which must be pursued. Mr. KILGORE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. LEHMAN. I yield to the Senator from West Virginia. Mr. KILGORE. However, does not the Senator from New York feel that if cuts are made the Senate should make specific cuts and eliminate specific items, rather than make an over-all cut? If there were an $850,000 project and $425,000 were spent, we might get no- where at all, but there are many projects which do have a definite effect upon our national-defense picture, or upon na- tional industry, which is a part of the national defense, Mr. LEHMAN. I very much wish that it were possible to take up and consider, and reduce, if necessary, the appropriations for specific items. 'That is the orderly way of government, and I regret that we are forced to the device now presented, but I believe that follow- ing the course suggested would consume so much time and effort that we would not get very far in our undertaking. I believe there will be enough left, after a reasonable cut, to pursue all the im- portant items which are in prospect. I want to say again, and I do not think I have to remind the Senate of it, that the President has strongly urged that there be conservation of funds, of man- power, and of resources. I wish to read again at this time, Mr. President, one paragraph of the President’s letter of July 21, as follows: All civil public works, both direct Federal programs and grant-in-ald programs, should be screened with the objective, as far as practicable, of deferring, curtailing, or slow- ing down those projects which do not directly contribute to defense or to civilian requirements essential in the changed international situation set forth in my message, I want to emphasize that a cut in the appropriation will mean not only a sav- ing in dollars and cents, important as that is, but also a most important sav- ing in the resources of the country and the manpower of the country which are 11195 of at least equal importance, because I believe that if this war spreads, as it might, we are going to find ourselves with a shortage both of manpower and of many important resources with which to prosecute the war Mr. MAGNUSON, Mr. HENDRICK- SON, and other Senators addressed the Chair, The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from New York yield the floor? Mr. LEHMAN. No, Mr. President, I do not yield the floor, The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator yield to any Senator? Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me? Mr. LEHMAN. Of course, I will yield to the Senator from Washington. Mr. MAGNUSON. I appreciate what the Senator's objectives are. The Sen- ator mentioned that, of course, he was for projects that would be valuable to the continuation of any war effort. In this section of the bill there are includ. ed several power projects, the continua- tion of power projects, which have been set out by the engineers of the Bureau of Reclamation under a certain sched- ule, to come in in a certain year. I wonder if the Senator from New York also recalls that when the President of the United States himself in his emer- gency message to Congress advocated, as we all agree, that nonessential spend- ing should be cut to a minimum, he took particular pains to point out that this did not include, in his opinion, power projects, because power projects were just as essential to the defense of the United States, to the over-all defense, perhaps the long-term defense, as guns, tanks, or airplanes? Mr. LEHMAN. I may say to the Sen- ator from Washington that I do recall that. I want to say even more clearly than I may have said in the course of the debate on this bill that I certainly believe in the development of water power; that I feel such development is essential to the welfare of our country; I do not wish to contribute to any ac- tion that would interfere with the de- velopment of water power which can be made available within a measurable time—and I want to emphasize “a meas- urable time.” I go so far, as a matter of fact, as to say that I believe there would be nothing of greater benefit than to de- velop the water power on the Niagara River and on the &t. Lawrence River, water power which is so greatly needed, and will be even more needed in the near future. But I believe that under the terms of any reasonable amendment to reduce these appropriations, there will still be enough money to carry through such water-power development as can be carried through within a reasonable or measurable time. I want to point out to the distinguished Senator from Washington that in the last war 80 percent of the public works were discontinued, at least temporarily. I believe there will be enough funds left, after the reduction in these appropria- tions, to care for these important water- power developments which can—and I
11196 again want to emphasize that—directly assist in the war effort, Mr. MAGNUSON, I merely wanted to make an observation and ask the Sen- ator a question. Of course, all of us thoroughly agree on the need for econ- omy, but the reason I am voting against the amendment is that I can see how dangerous it would be to have an over-all cut. Further, the President himself can freeze funds, has done so in times past, will do so again, and so announced 3 or 4 days ago. But we have a schedule, for instance, as to water-power development, and these appropriations are just the amount adequate to continue that schedule. For instance, we need another pot line to produce more aluminum in the Pacific Northwest. We will need a vast amount of power for a new pot line to produce more aluminum. Therefore it is impor- tant that we finish the McNary Dam on time, and that we finish the Chief Joseph Dam on time. The atomic energy plant has placed another extra load on power. Unless the schedules are continued, we will not have sufficient power. An over- all cut, a blanket cut, may have the effect of throwing the projects off for a com- plete year. That would directly affect not only our atomic energy development but the aluminum plants and all the great plants that develop power for pro- duction of war materials, The reason I oppose the amendment is that the President can, and he will, for he has done so before, screen the projects for which the money is proposed to be appropriated. He and those in govern- ment who must make the decisions will say, “We will accept this project, we will accept the other project; this project is necessary and the other project is neces- sary.” Whereas an over-all cut—and I make the statement because I have had experience with such cuts—sometimes becomes dangerous and throws the schedule off, particularly with respect to power, which the President himself said was essential and should not be cut in any respect As a matter of fact, the President and the Bureau of the Budget last week asked the House Appropria- tions Committee to provide in a supple- mental bill money with which to begin two new power dams in the Pacific Northwest since the Korean situation developed, believing that it is necessary to bring in this power on schedule as a part of the war effort. I merely suggest that the method pro- posed for cuts could be very dangerous to the development of power projects. Mr. McKELLAR. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. LEHMAN. I am glad to yield to the distinguished Senator from Ten- nessee, but first I should like to answer the senior Senator from Washington, I realize that whatever money is left after the cut is made by the Congress will have to be allocated, undoubtedly by the corps of engineers and the Budget Director and the President. I realize that. But I think the value of action at this time is in having the Senate go on record that we wish all nonessential public works projects to be postponed. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE I think that is of great importance. I think it is of importance as a guide to those who are going to allocate these funds, and I think it will bring confi- dence to the American people from whom we have to ask so many sacri- fices and who I know will be willing to make sacrifices. I now yield to the Senator from Tennessee. Mr. McKELLAR. Mr. President, I suggest to the Senator from New York that he is mistaken in his facts. He says there will be sufficient money in the general fund to build what is necessary, even with a 50-percent cut. How can the Senator feel that sufficient funds will be left, when $416,460,000 are re- quired merely for maintenance and power projects in this bill. The Senator from New York talks about what the President favors and what the President opposes. I call the Senator’s attention to the fact that on July 12, the President sent to Congress @ message in which he said two more power plants would have to be built— one in the State of Washington, the State represented by the distinguished Senator who has just taken his seat, and another—which we also shall have to build if we follow the President’s recom- mendations—in Idaho. If the Senator knew the facts, I am quite sure he would not take the posi- tion he has taken. Of course, it is very difficult to learn on the floor of the Sen- ate what the facts are in connection with such matters. That information can be obtained only from the facts as presented in the evidence. In the com- mittee we put witnesses on the stand and we take their testimony; and after we have taken their testimony, we approve these items. So we know what we are doing. However, mere guessing will not en- able us to arrive at a proper bill. It takes money—strange as it may seem to the Senator from New York, who has had money galore all his life, and never has been in need of money—it takes a considerable amount of money, to build a dam. Furthermore, let me say that both the Senator from New York [Mr. Lenman] and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Dovaras] have had a great deal to say about new dams and about how much would be spent for them. Appro- priations of approximately $730,000,000 are carried in this portion of the bill. Of that enormous sum of money, can the Senator make a guess as to what part of that amount is proposed to be spent for the construction of new dams? A while ago the Senator from New York was talking about guesses, and the Senator from Illinois was talking about hope. From either the hope chest of the Senator from Illinois or from the guess of the Senator from New York, can the Senator from New York tell us what part of the $730,000,000 is proposed to be spent for the construction of new dams? Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, a hope chest is accumulated by women, not by men. JULY 27 Mr. McKELLAR. Is that a fact? Well, Iam glad the Senator from Illi- nois has that information. He knows more about women than I do, and that is why he has that information. I thank him for it. [Laughter.] I ad- mit that the information of the Senator from Illinois along those lines is vastly superior to mine. So I should like to ask the Senator from New York to make # guess as to how much of the enormous sum of nearly $800,000,000 is to be spent for the con- struction of new dams, Does the Sena- tor know? Mr. LEHMAN. No. Mr. McKELLAR. Only $11,000,000. Although in itself, that is a large sum, yet in comparison with what is to be spent for other purposes under this por- tion of the bill, $11,000,000 is quite a small amount. Of course, I can understand that it takes the Senator time to become ac- quainted with these matters. However, I simply wish to point out that the Sen- ator from New York does not have his facts correct. Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, let me comment on what the very distinguished chairman of the committee has said. Mr. McKELLAR. Mr. President, I should like to ask one other question while the Senator from New York is meditating. Mr, LEHMAN. Of course I am glad to yield. Mr. McKELLAR. Is the Senator from New York opposed to the proposed dam on the St. Lawrence River, in his State? Mr. LEHMAN. No. Mr. McKELLAR. Oh, the Senator is no Mr. LEHMAN. Certainly not. Mr. McKELLAR. Oh, I see, now. The Senator from New York has a plan for that river, has he not? Mr. LEHMAN. Yes; on the Niagara River, too. Mr. McKELLAR. Well, that will make the Senator a great statesman; there is no doubt about that. All of us have found that there have to be plans if there are to be great statesmen in this coun- try. So I wish to congratulate the Sen- ator from New York; he has a great plan. But I suggest to him that he had better look into his facts. He has had a won- derful record in life, and I congratulate him on his fine record. However, in this body, strange as it may appear, facts are most important. Mr. WHERRY,. Mr. President, a par- Mamentary inquiry. The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from New York yield for that purpose? Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, I have already had my inquiry answered; I wished to know who has the floor. Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, I shall be glad to yield, but I do not wish to lose the floor. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator does not have to yield now. Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, let me say to the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee that I realize
1950 the great knowledge he has accumulated over these years. Mr. McKELLAR. Oh, the Senator is mistaken about that; I wish I had. Myr. LEHMAN. At any rate, that is my feeling, and I will stick to it. Let me say, further, that {t is with great reluctance that I am taking this position with regard to the appropria- tion, Ordinarily I would follow the Sen- ator from Tennessee and his recommen- dations and those of his committee with- out the slightest hesitation; but today I think the situation requires drastic action. I wish to say, also, that I am deeply appreciative of the superb courtesy and consideration which have been shown to me by the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee and by the committee as a whole, I wish to say again—and I say it apologetically—that in this appropria- tion bill there are included funds for certain projects for which I have made requests which have been granted by the committee. However, I feel very con- fident that even though every one of them, in my opinion, is sound, yet the people of the State of New York will be perfectly willing to have the imple- mentation of those projects deferred until the world situation clears. Mr. President, in conclusion, let me say to the distinguished Senator from Tennessee that although I claim no knowledge equal to his, yet for a great many years I have been interested in water-power development. More than 20 years ago, when I was Governor, I urged the development of the water power of the St. Lawrence, and I studied very carefully the cost and the difficulties and the problems of that project. Since then I have been deeply inter- ested in the development of water power on the Niagara River. I have learned much, too, from the tutorship of the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. O’Manongy], the Senator from Oregon {Mr. Corpnon], and other mem- bers of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, since receiving the honor of being a member of that committee, on coming to the Senate in January. I wish to emphasize without question that I am the strongest kind of believer in the development of water power and in reclamation. I think it is safe to say that I have voted for virtually every one of the proposals made for water power, reclamation, and irrigation, even though there was no direct benefit to the people of my State. I did so because I believe that what is good for one part of the country is good for every part of the country, and that New York, even though it did not directly benefit, would gain through the benefit which came to Wyo- ming and to Oregon and to Arizona and to New Mexico and to Utah and to Colorado. Mr.CORDON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr, LEHMAN. I yield. Mr. CORDON. First, Mr. President, I should like to ask the junior Senator from New York whether he feels that in all activities of the Federal Govern- ment in the field of hydroelectric power, wherever they may be, a reduction equal CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE to the reduction which would necessarily follow from the adoption of this amend- ment should be made. Mr, LEHMAN. I would qualify it by saying that so far as the funds permit— and I believe they would permit, even after a very substantial cut—water power should receive preferential treat- ment in the case of those projects which can be demonstrated to be of assistance in our war effort, and thus of aid in our defense and security. Mr. CORDON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further? Mr. LEHMAN. Certainly. Mr. CORDON. Is the Senator from New York aware of the fact that our Government has furnished, gratis, to a number of European nations approxi- Mately $594,000,000 in United States money for the very same purpose, namely, hydroelectric-power generation and transmission, and that the bill now before the Senate contemplates the im- plementation of further hydroelectric- power development in Europe, with United States dollars, under approved projects for 1960-51 in the total amount of $320,000,000, of which $120,- 000,000 will be solely United States dollar assistance, and most of the balance will be in counterpart funds, which is the same thing, except in such case the United States dollar is changed into for- eign currency. Is the Senator aware that that is a part of the existing program covered by appropriations in this bill? Ifso, does the Senator feel that those appropri- ations should have a like 50-percent cut? Mr, LEHMAN. The junior Senator from New York may say to the Senator from Oregon that while he does not know the breakdown of the figures of our ECA assistance, he does know that this country during the past 3 years has voted very large sums of money for the eco- nomic rehabilitation and strengthening of the western democracies. I have no doubt that as part of that project there may be, and there undoubtedly are, some power projects. I certainly do not need to make any further explanation. I have already expressed my great sympathy with and approval of water-power development. I belfeve in it for this country and for every other country, from the bottom of my heart. Mr. CORDON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for one further question? The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from New York yield to the Sen- ator from Oregon? Mr. LEHMAN. I yield. Mr. CORDON. Permit me to preface the question by saying I fully appreciate that the Senator is directing his atten- tion to this matter solely because he feels that every possible dollar that can he raised in this country should be either immediately made available or held for the purpose of furthering the present security and the future security of the United States: and I am not at all critd- cal in my question. Mr. LEHMAN. May I interpose one remark? 11197 Mr. LEHMAN. The junior Senator from New York has not only emphasized the saving of dollars but the saving of natural resources and manufactured re- sources and manpower, which he thinks are going to be of increasing importance in the war effort. Mr.CORDON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? This is a practical one. The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from New York yield to the Sen- ator from Oregon? Mr. LEHMAN. I yield gladly. Mr. CORDON. The Senator from Oregon remembers that the distin- guished Senator from New York has a long record of public service in his State, including his service as the Chief Execu- tive of the State, and I may, I think properly, assume that the Senator from New York is reasonably familiar with the operation of large construction proj- ects, because he has had many in his own State. The question on which the Senator from Oregon would like the opinion of the Senator from New York is this: In a series of cases such as we have, which are individually listed and the sum total of the appropriations for which are set forth in the civil-func- tions section of this bill, it is represented that the amount for partial or install- ment payments on existing construction is anywhere from 10 percent to 90 per- cent. In cases where the funds have been appropriated, or are to be appropriated, as partial payments on that type of con- tract—that is, for construction which is under way—does the Senator feel that the values already created by the United States by virtue of such partial construc- tion, running, as I suggest, up to as high as 90 percent of the total amount, should nat be protected by at least having avail- able adequate funds for the orderly ces- sation of work, for the protection of the works as they exist, for the finishing of such unfinished portions of work as is necessary, in order that there may be protection from weather and the like on these vast projects, if in the end we must close them down because we are ina greater war than the so-called police action in Korea? Does the Senator agree with the Senator from Oregon that we must have the funds to do that sort of thing for our own protection and to protect our own investments? Mr. LEHMAN. Yes; the Senator from New York agrees with that. But I may point out that in going through the de- tailed reports of the projects covered by these appropriations, J find a great num- ber—which I am not able to read at this time without taking up far too much time of the Sehate—a great number of projects on which the appropriations that are set forth here cannot possibly further the work to any substantial ex- tent. I should like to see them all fin- ished. I should like to see this work done. I should like to see more money spent on it, Do not misunderstand me about that. Mr. CORDON. I do not misunder- stand the Senator. Mr, LEHMAN. I appreciate the work of this committee. All I say is that we
11198 are in a situation now which in my opin- jon requires conservation of money, of resources, of manufactured commodities that may be in scarce supply, and last but not by any means least, manpower, I think that on these public-works pro- grams which are not essential to the de- fense of this country and the strength- ening of our security there can be some jaying aside, and considerable laying aside. Mr. CORDON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for one more question? The VICE FPRESIDENT. Does the the Senator from New York yield to the Senator from Oregon? Mr. LEHMAN, I am glad to yield. Mr. CORDON. Will the Senator then give thought perhaps to this type of pro- cedure on the part of the Government; that we enact a bill which represents, I believe, the considered Judgment of men who have studied this matter very care- fully; that we make the appropriation recommended by the committee; then afford the appropriate executive officials the opportunity, which they will have, to determine the work which should go forward and that which can properly be stopped at this time, and leave that au- thority in the hands of the President, remembering that heretofore under similar circumstances the President has exercised the same type of authority, and that in the exercise of 1t we have saved every project the completion of which was essential as a part of the over-all national security? Mr. LEHMAN. I may answer the Sen- ator in this way: We have been doing a great deal of talking on the floor of the Senate about economy and saving money, about eliminating nonessential expenditures. But as I look back on our debates of the last 2 or 3 weeks, the only thing we have accomplished in the way of saving money was the defeat of the amendment which would have required construction of the new Senate Office Building. I spoke against that, and I voted against it, even though, as the Senator knows, it caused me consider- able inconvenience. I think I have need of space about as much as any Member of the Senate. Aside from that, we have done nothing. Mr. McKELLAR rose. Mr. LEHMAN. It seems to me that the Senate and the people of the coun- try are entitled to feel that their Sena- tors are ready to go on record as pro- viding for economy in Government so far as practical. That is why I think the adoption of an amendment of this sort would be of particular value. Mr. McKELLAR. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr, LEHMAN. I yield. Mr. McKELLAR. Does the Senator realize how much has been saved under the estimate? Does he know how much the estimate has been reduced? Mr. LEHMAN, I know it jis a very considerable amount. I think it is more than a billion dollars. Mr. McKELLAR. That is correct. It 4s $1,473,000,000, which is a very con- siderable sum. As to a bill which is ar- ranged on the floor of the Senate, we do not know whether it would provide CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE for a cut of half a billion dollars, two billion dollars, or what the amount might be. We would be acting in the dark. We are now acting after having applied the best methods of legislation. ‘We have received the views and expe- riences of many persons and have placed them in the Recorp. Has the Senator Jost confidence in our good President? Mr. LEHMAN. I have not lost con- fidence in our good President, Mr. McKELLAR. I am glad to hear the Senator say that, because he secms so utterly opposed to carrying out the law which gives the President the right to reduce appropriations after looking into the facts. So far as I am concerned, I am willing to trust the President. I be- lieve he will examine these items and reduce those which he thinks should be reduced, and, if necessary recommend an increase as to some items. He has rec- ommended an increase for two dams amounting to $200,000,000. Since the let- ter of instruction was read a while ago, the President has recommended that $200,000,000 be invested in two dams for war purposes. They will not be used en- tirely for war purposes, but largely so. If the Senator does not believe in the President’s ability and sagacity, I can understand how he reaches the conclu- sion he has reached and is opposing the committee bill. Otherwise I cannot un- derstand his position. Mr. LEHMAN. May the junior Sena- tor from New York say to the senior Sen- ator from Tennessee that he does not think the chairman of the Appropria- tions Committee needs to have any doubt with regard to my aititude toward the President of the United States? I think I have shown that in many, many ways over a great many years. I have the full- est and most complete confidence in the President and in his judgment, his good faith, his integrity, and his ability; and may I also say that I have the greatest confidence in the character, the ability, and the induStry of the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Com- mittce. But that does not make any dif- ference—— Mr. McKELLAR. Oh, I think itt does. I thank the Senator for saying that he will stand by the President, because it looked as though he was going to do the contrary. When the Committee on Ap- propriations reports on the two dams to which I have referred, as no doubt it will do, is the Senator from New York going to vote against them? Mr. LEHMAN. I want to know the facts, There are scores and scores of items as to which nothing can be accom- plished by this appropriation. That is my point. I believe the Senate has a re- sponsibility which it cannot shirk—a re- sponsibility for saving funds, manpower, and resources. Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, in the brief remarks I shall make, I expect to demonstrate by the figures themselves that the effect of the pending amend- ment will be to reduce by 72 percent the construction funds for the Lower Missis- sippt Valley. First, Mr. President, I desire to answer briefly the charges which are, I think, recklessly thrown about on the Senate JULY 27 floor and elsewhere with regard to pork- barrel projects and pork-barrel legisla- tion. Those of us who have been through the experience know something about what a genuine flood means. I refer to the area in the Lower Mississippi Valley. That area covers parts of seven States, Missouri, Illinois, Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Louisiana. More than 3,090,000 people are actually protected by the Lower Mississippi River Valley projects. Those people actually live on the lands affected, which embrace an area of 28,000 square miles in the seven States. In 1927 a flood occurred there which caused such an inundation that a steamboat could start from Alex- andria, La., and go to Vicksburg, Miss., across what had been fields and high- ways. The then Secretary of Commerce, ex-President Hoover, visited the area. He was so impressed that when he re- turned to Washington he recommended legislation, and the Flood Control Act of 1928 was passed. During that flood 1,800,000 cubic feet of water a second passed the gages at Cairo, Ill. The es- timated property damage alone during that flood was $2,000,000,000. That is the measure of damage in terms of dol- lars, but it takes no account of the lives that were lost or the human suffering entailed. Last spring, long after the adoption of the Flood Control Act and after work on these projects had been done, 1,650,000 cubic feet of water a second flowed by that same gage, or approximately 150,- 000 cubic feet less than in 1927. How- ever, this year the loss within the pro- tected area was not one single dime. That is the pay-off. The estimated actual cost of those projects has been only $650,000,000. On a very conserva- tive basis the saving in flood damage this year was approximately $1,600,000,090. That amount is considerably more than the cost of the $66,778,000 proposed to be appropriated in the pending bill for the Lower Mississippi Valley. After sub- tracting $15,000,000, which is absolutely necessary for maintenance, only $51,000,- 000 would be left for construction, The over-all effect of the amendment would be to deduct $32,000,000, which would leave only $18,000,000 for construction. As the Senator from Arkansas has point- ed out, that amount is not nearly suf- ficient to carry on the work and to pre- serve the millions of dollars which have already been expended on the projects now under construction. It should be remembered also that it is not possible simply to stop work at a certain point on a project of this kind, as it is possible for example, to stop the construction of a highway. After con- struction reaches a certain point it must continue. The adoption of this amend- ment would not leave sufficient money available to take care of the lower Mis- sissippi project. The revetment work must be maintained, supplemented, and carried on. If the water is to be con- trolled, it will cost a large amount of money: We are considering here a river which drains parts of 31 States and parts of four Provinces in Canada. At flood stage the water reaches 1,850,000 cubic
1950 Yeet a second, which weighs billions of pounds. When such a flow of water comes down the river it washes away overnight, as easily as one can splash water with his hand, structures which have not had proper care and attention. Whatever reductions in such appro- priations may have to be made, they can- not rightfully or properly be made on the floor of the Senate. They must be sub- jected to the analysis, scrutiny, and de- cision of men who know the subject. They must be studied by men who are familiar with the problems involved, who realize the necessity of protecting the present investment and at the same time are willing to bring about whatever war economy that may be possible. Certainly I would be in the forefront with those who are willing to go just as far as it may be necessary to go with refer- ence to the war effort, and to let this area bear its part of the burden of the cost. However, I submit in all humility that 60 percent represents an arbitrary and excessive way of approaching the prob- Jem, and it would jeopardize one of the finest investments which the United States Government has ever made. That investment is paying off. The fig- ures prove that fact. Mr. Presideit, I submit that this 50- percent amendment should be forthwith and strongly voted down. Mr. CORDON. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I have never found too much virtue in impulse. In my considered opinion, we are in the present international muddle because we have had diplomacy by impulse. I sub- mit that this amendment is attempted legislation by impulse. No individual, not even the engineers who prepared the data upon which these estimates were based, could out of hand truth- fully say to the Senate that they could make an informed guess as to how much of a reduction could be made in these estimates, and made soundly in the in- terests of the American people. A number of us in this body believe in reducing expenditures, and have worked to that end. I have heretofore said on the floor of the Senate with refer- ence to this bill that, in my opinion, after having served on five of the subcommit- tees which considered several chapters of the bill, and having sat in the full committee while the other chapters were being presented, that this is the best considered and best studied and best prepared appropriation bill I have ever seen come before the United States Sen- ate. I feel that the sum total of jt might still be reduced. I worked and put in some time on the amendment bearing the names of a number of Senators which seeks a 10 percent reduction. I shall support that amendment at the appro- priate time. Mr. McKELLAR. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. CORDON. Ina moment, if I may proceed a little further. Then I shall he very happy to yleld to my distinguished chairman. However, Mr. President, I cannot understand the logic of anyone who would seek this type of reduction in the recommended appropriation. This money was not asked of the American CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE people by guess. It represents the sum total of engineering examinations and analyses. Back of it are specific, care- fully prepared engineering data on hun- dreds of projects. I now yield to my friend the senior Senator from Tennessee. Mr. McKELLAR. I am not seeking to interrupt the Senator because of his argument, but because of the very gener- ous and splendid statement which he made about members of the Committee on Appropriations. I appreciate them more than I can say, and I thank the Senator with all my heart, not only for myself, but for every member of the committee, both Democrats and Republi- cans. Mr. CORDON. I appreciate the Sen- ator’s statement, I made only what I thought was a fair statement of the work as I saw it done. Mr. President, these figures come from the committee after careful analysis by the engineers in charge of this construc- tion. I shall take but a moment of the Senate, but I do want to invite attention to what seems to be most pertinent in- formation that should be before Senators before they vote. Mr, President, I hold in my hand the sheets which were prepared for the use of the Committee on Appropriations by the Corps of Engineers, and on which are itemized all of the projects which were considered by the committee as they came from the Bureau of the Budget. Among other things, the committee had before it immediate knowledge as to whether a project was a new one, one on which there had been no actual con- struction, or one on which construction was already in progress, It had the esti- mated full cost of each project. It had the amount of money which had already been appropriated, so that we might de- termine the extent to which construction had gone. It had the amount of money requested by the Corps of Engineers, and the amount finally granted by the Bu- reau of the Budget. It had the House action. It had space for Senate commit- tee recommendations. It had the esti- mated amount necessary to complete each project. The committee had before it a full description of each project, how much it was to cost, why it was necessary, what it would do, and the like. That infor- mation has all been available to every member of the committee, and has, by some of us, at least, been carefully stud- fed. Many of these projects will be found to be absolutely essential to any great emergency which may face the Nation, including an all-out war. Mr. President, the Senate cannot pass upon this question, The Senate is not in possession of the sort of information the committee had before it. The mat- ter must be worked out most carefully. The construction that is encompassed in these sheets, and in this particular pro- posed appropriation, is construction by a division of the Department of De- fense. That it will be most carefully re- viewed, that not a dollar will be spent until it is determined it should be spent 11199 in the light of present conditions, no one can question, I am sure no Member of the commit- tee or of the Senate, and there should be no American citizen, who would object to the withholding of funds anywhere on any of these projects, if such withhold- ing were found to be in the national interest. The money will be withheld; in has been in the past; it should be in the future. But an arbitrary withhold- ing, such as fs here proposed, would not permit the Department of Defense or the President to do a good job. In one instance we seek to grant every dollar needed in one field. In another field, just as vital, in some instances, there is an effort to take money away, to reduce the possibility of the kind of judgment we expect to be exercised in the other instance. That is not logic, as I understand it. Mr. President, I close as I began, by saying I oppose legislation by impulse. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Frear in the chair). The question is on agreeing to the amendments offered by the Senator from New Hampshire, to be voted on en bloc. Mr. LEHMAN. I suggest the absence of @ quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The roll was called, and the following Senators answered to their names: Brewster Hendrickson Malone Bricker Hickenlooper Martin Bridges Hil Maybank Butler Hoey Mundt Byrd Holland Murray Capehart Humphrey Myers Chapman Hunt Neely Chavez Ives O'Conor Connally Jenner Pepper Cordon Johnson, Colo. Robertson Donnell Johnson, Tex. Ruasell Douglas Johnston, 8.C. Saltonstall Dworshak Kem Smith, Maine Eastland Kilgore Smith, N J. Ecton Langer Sparkman Ellender Lehman Stennis Ferguson Lodge Taft Flanders Lucas Thomas, Okla. Prear McCarran Thye George McCarthy Tydings Gillette McClellan ‘Watkins Graham McFarland Wherry Green McKellar Wiley Gurney McMahon Williams Hayden Magnuson Young MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE A message from the House of Repre- sentatives, by Mr. Snader, its assistant reading clerk, announced that the House had passed, without amendment, the following bills and jotnt resolution of the Senate: 8.442. An act to amend the Air Commerce Act of 1926 (44 Stat. 668), as amended, to provide for the application to civil air naviga- tion of laws and regulations related to animal and plant quarantine, and for other pur- poses; 5.648. An act to amend title 18, United Btatea Code, section 705, to protect the badge, medal, emblem, and other insignia of aux-~- iliaries to veterans’ organizations, and for other purposes; S. 1760. An act to amend section 101 (b) of the Department of Agriculture Organic Aot of 1044 (58 Stat. 734; 7 U. 8. C. 429); 8.2080. An act to authorize the regulation of whaling and to give effect to the Interna- tional Convention for the Regulation of