10054 occasion for them to do so or much op- portunity. But under this program the cream of the youth of our country will, as they hear of the program, apply themselves to the learning of other lan- guages. I think they have already done so, This is the first year of the full op- eration of the program, It was con- ducted on a very restricted scale a year ago. Some 800 scholarships were granted as of last fall. This year there are more than 6,000 applications, I be- lieve. A tremendous interest is being shown. There are 1,190 educational in- stitutions in this country which have committees composed of members of the faculty who undertake to screen the applicants. Someone raised the question in com- mittee the other day how the applicants are screened. The question was asked whether the danger did not exist of sending abroad or receiving them from abroad persons who might be Commu- nists. I think the best way to screen them in the initial stages is by persons on the campus where the applicants have gone to school, who have known the ap- plicants for 2 or 3 years. Most of them, however, are graduates, which in the normal course of events would mean they had gone to college 4 years. If there is any way to provide any guaranty with respect to the character of the indi- viduals, it is by the method I have just described. We have instituted a policy which decentralizes—and it will progres- sively decentralize more than it does now—responsibility for the selection of the persons who come under the pro- gram. I know of no better way to guar- antee that we will get the best possible candidates under this program than the screening method on the campus. What will happen in 3, 5, or 10 years, as these individuals return to America, after the experience they have had abrocd, and begin to assume their places in our society, and I hope in the Government? What will happen in private life as they become journalists or teachers or busi- ness men? I think the potentialities of the program are practically unlimited. I doubt that I myself can even visualize what is possible if the program is prop- erly carried forward on a scale suf- ficiently large to make an impact upon our great country. As I said, the program heretofore has been on a small scale. The result, how- ever, of that small scale program I think justifies great confidence in the effective- ness of the program as a whole. Mr. President, the report I spoke of was published jJast October, when only 10 countries were participating. Today 19 countries have signed. As of last October there were a few more than 1,800 par- ticipants in all categories. That is be- ginning to be a substantial number. About 830 or 840 of those consist of Americans going abroad, approximately 600 of Europeans coming here, and the difference of approximately 390, is made up of foreign people going to American institutions abroad. Those are round figures. Mr. President, I desire to emphasize that heretofore only 10 countries were involved. There are 19 now. So that CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE if we have to spread over 19 a lesser ap- propriation than we had for 10, it can be seen what will happen to the program. If we continue along the same line for the next few years I think the result will be a gradual strangulation and elimina- tion of the program, . I cannot see the sense of it. The best estimate we can make is that after it is full grown, with 19 countries participat- ing, about a million and a half dollars is all that would be needed to supplement the travel grants, which can be paid for in foreign credits. In my judgment, a terrible mistake is being made in cutting this program down, and if once it is cut down and the peo- ple lose interest in it, it will be dead, and I know of no way to revive it until per- haps after the next war, or some other catastrophe. The tendency to neglect vital programs, which should be carried on as permanent programs, when there seems to be a lull in our difficulties, has been one of the great curses of our for- eign policy. We become excited after trouble and try to do something, Mr. President, and immediately when there is a lull] we cut it down. I have wondered in the last day or two whether the committee would have re- duced this appropriation if the Korean outbreak had occurred before it reported the bill, because this program certainly has a bearing on the developments of the past few days. I cannot think of a more valuable con- tact, for example, than if we had several hundred men in Indochina, let us say, or Burma, or Indonesia, who had been to school here, who had contacts, who spoke the language, who understood what our purposes are. If such a group were there functioning today, what a great source of strength it would be to us. The same can be said of other countries, It simply does not make sense to me to cut down this program when so small an amount is involved. We can go through the bill, and here and there and everywhere find vast amounts of money appropriated for things that have no re- lation to our essential security, to the difficulties that confront us from abroad. I hope the Senate will reinstate this small amount, at least for this program, and not cut it below the estimate of the Budget Bureau. THE SITUATION IN KOREA—ARTICLE BY HAROLD ICKES Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I was rather shocked this morning to read a dispatch which appeared in the Wash- ington News telling of an attack pub- lished in the current issue of New Re- public by Harold Ickes against the Allied supreme commander in the Far East, Gen. Douglas MacArthur. I could hardly believe my eyes, and I sent for a copy of the New Republic to read the article in full. Mr. President, the Communist press and their left-wing allies have been at- tacking the supreme commander in the Far East for a long time, but I hardly ex- pected, and I think that the American people hardly expected, that a former member of the Cabinet of the President of the United States would drive a knife into the back of the supreme com- JULY 13 mander, who is responsible for the de- fense of the American position in Korea and in the Far East. ! Mr. President, this attack is less exe cusable because it is unjustified and is untruthful. Were it not for the fact that if unchallenged, the misstate- ments by Mr. Ickes might be picked up and used as facts elsewhere, I would not rise on the floor of the Senate today to challenge the article, but I think that when an article is as untruthful, and as filled with misstatements as this is, the Members of the Senate and the people of the United States are entitled to have the story scotched right now. In the first place, the charge of Mr. Ickes is that General MacArthur was caught flat-footed and unready. ‘The facts of the matter are, Mr. President, that the Korea mission to train the troops in that country was not under the command of General MacArthur, It was a mission established, as in Greece, under the American Ambassador, who was responsible to the Department of State, and not to General MacArthur, Mr. President, so that I will not be mis- understood, I do not mean in that state- ment to becritical of Ambassador Muccio, I have the highest regard for him. I think that he is one of our top diplomats in that area of the world. Ambassador Muccio I met when I was in Korea, and I stopped at the American Embassy. I have never seen a more conscientious public official. I know that he was greatly concerned because of the lack of material being sent to Korea. I happened to have gone to the thirty- eighth parallel. I talked with the mem- bers of the mission in Korea. I know that they were greatly concerned about the situation. But the decisions that were made not to have American combat forces in Korea were decisions that were made in Washington, and not by General MacArthur in the Far East. Mr. President, the fact of the matter is that for a long period of time General MacArthur, in his dispatches to the De- partment of the Army, kept them fully conversant with the fact that the spread of communism in Asia was detrimental to the peace of the world and the security of the United States, and when the archives are finally opened I think they will be found to be replete with messages from General MacArthur giving an ac~ curate summary of the dangers in that area of the world. Mr. President, in addition, in this ar- ticle which Mr. Ickes wrote, he criticizes General MacArthur for the fact that some of our equipment needed by the Korean forces had not been sent out there. I again underscore the fact that that was not General MacArthur's re- sponsibility. The decisions that were made were made here in Washington, and before the committees of the Con- gress of the United States thcre has been ample testimony that of the $10,000,000 allotted in the arms implementation bill of 1949 for Korea, less than $200 had been spent for shipments made prior to June 24. The only shipment which had taken place up to the time when war broke out in the Pacific area was a ship- ment of some signal equipment out of
1950 our surplus and excess stocks. Mr. Ickes in his statement said: Our civilian Ambassador to Seoul, John J. Muccio, had returned to Washington e month or 80 earlier to warn that South Korea was in danger of attack. With little support, he mede enough of an impression to induce the shipment of some heavy artillery for use against the terrorizing Soviet tanks of the North Korean Army. It had been alleged that a leak apprised the Communists of this shipment, with the result that they launched their attack before the artillery could reach Korea, Mr. President, there was no such ship- ment of artillery prior to the start of the fighting. I have accurately stated the fact that the only shipment under the arms implementation program which had taken place prior to the outbreak of hostilitics on the 24th of June, our time, or the 25th of June, Korean time, was some signal equipment. Mr. President, I believe the Members of the Senate who read this article will find that it is loaded with misstatements. It is an obvious attempt to smear the United Nations Supreme Commander in the Far East. It gives aid and comfort to the enemy. Even though Mr. Ickes has apparently turned his back on Gen- eral MacArthur, in the heavy responsi- bilities he has out there, I am sure that neither the Congress nor the American people will turn their backs om our com- mander in the Far East. GENERAL APPROPRIATION, 1051 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. LEHMAN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the pending amendment, which is identical with the one I of- fered earlier today. I do not think it 1s necessary to tell the Senate how vital this program 1s, in the light of current events abroad. The savage and desperate struggle now rag- ing in Korea in only one front—admit- tedly a critical one—in the great con- flict in which we are engaged in the world today. What are we fighting for in Korea? Yes, we are fighting in support of our own national security and our own na- tional interests. But if this were all we were fighting for, we might well con- sider whether Korea was the best front on which to fight. The fact is that we are fighting for our way of life and for the way of freedom throughout the world. We are fighting for the right of all nations and of all peoples to order their destinies without being subject to violent aggression or violent interference in their internal affairs. We are fighting for the principles of freedom, democracy, and equality of opportunity for all men. In order to maintain this fight, in order to press forward with it, we must reach the peoples of the world through every medium and by every means avail- able to us, We must reach them and convince them of our motives and pur- poses. We must assure them of our in- terest in their welfare. We must as- sure them of our desire for their se- curity. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE I need not tell Members of this body how vital the information and educa- tional activities financed with these funds are, I believe that the amount recommended by the Budget Bureau is far from adequate for the tasks con- fronting it. I expect that the Presi- Gent may request us, in the days ahead, vastly to increase these funds. In view of the testimony presented in recent days by such competent wit- nesses as General Marshall, General Ei- senhower, Secretary Acheson, and oth- ers before the Thomas subcommittee of the Foreign Relations Committee, it is obviously foolhardy to cut back on the very inadequate sum recommended by the Budget Bureau. The distinguished Senator from Ar- kansas has already outlined eloquently and convincingly the damage which could be done to our efforts to convey an understanding of our motives to other countries, were the student-ex- change program to be curtailed. I think that is a very great danger. I agree with the distinguished Senator from Arkan- sas that nothing we could do would bring greater returns and greater dividends for our own security and for the pro- tection of our way of life than the con- tinuation—nay, the expansion—of the exchange-student program. But I have been informed by com- petent officials that many other essen- tial projects in the information program will suffer greatly if the proposed cuts are sustained. For example, the State Department has been planning to short- wave new programs to various minority groups in the Soviet Union. Today the State Department broadcasts only in Russian and in Ukrainian. Many other groups in the Soviet Union are believed to be hungry for freedom and for in- formation about the non-Communist world. The Voice of America, if broad- cast in other languages, would be very effective in providing this information. Unless we restore these cuts, the State Department will not be able to proceed with these plans. » Another effect of this curtailment of funds would be on the motion-picture program. In many areas of the world, motion pictures have been our most ef- fective ambassadors. In connection with the supplying of films to foreign na- tional groups, it is necessary to provide translations and captions in the foreign language in question. If we do not vote adequate funds, this program will be severely handicapped. There are many other activities, too, which would suffer from these reduc- tions. For example, the State Depart- ment now maintains approximately 150 libraries in various parts of the world. These libraries are windows opening up a view of America to scholars, business- men, government officials, and working people. This brary program, too, must be maintained and expanded as an addi- tional weapon in the battle for men’s minds. Mr. President, the least we can do today is to restore the full amount re- quested by the Bureau of the Budget. We should and must serve notice to the world that the United States is not re-° trenching in these programs but is ex- 10055 panding and proposes to carry the cam- paign of truth to the furthest reaches of the world. A wise man said “The truth shall make you free.” We must help make men free through activities such as this. I hope the Senate will support this amendment and any other amendments to increase the funds for this vital undertaking. Mr. McCARRAN. I suggest the ab- sence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. O’Conor in the chair). The Secretary will call the roll, The roll was called, and the follow- ing Senators answered to their names: Aiken Hickenlooper Maybank Anderson Ht Millikin Brewster Hoey Morse Bricker Holland Mundt Bridges Humphrey Murray Butler Ives Myers Byrd Jenner Neely Cupehart Johnson, Colo. O'Conor Chapman Johnson, Tex. O'Mahoney Chavez Johnston, 8.0. Robertson Connally Kem Russell Cordon Kerr Raltonstall Donnell Kilgore Schoeppel Douglas Knowland Smith, Maine Dworshek Langer Smith, N. J, Eastland Leahy Sparkman Ecton Lehman Stennis Eliender Lodge Taft Ferguson Lucas ‘Thomas, Okla. Frear McCarran Thomas, Utah Puloright McCarthy Thye George McClellan Tydings Gillette McFarland Watkins Graham McKellar Wherry Green McMahon Wiley Gurney Magnuson Williams Hayden Malone Young Hendrickson Martin The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gra- HAM in the chair). A quorum is present. Mr. MCKELLAR. Mr. President, I wish to say a few words in opposition to the amendment offered by the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Fu.srzcuT], and to give very briefly my reasons therefor, I think the committee has been exceedingly gen- erous with respect to this particular pro- posal. I enjoyed the speech of the Sen- ator from Arkansas very much. He makes a very engaging speech when he has a subject such as this, which involves the education of youth, to which to ad- dress himself. In my opinion, however, he has somewhat overlooked the practi- cal aspects involved. We have here a somewhat different situation from that which obtained when the Senator from Arkansas first undertook to advance this proposal. Much has been said by the Senator from Arkansas, as well as by the Sena- tor from New York, concerning the ef- fect of the defeat of this proposal. Mr. President, if the amendment offered by the Senator from Arkansas should be rejected, it would not mean the defeat of the program. Reference has been made to action of the committee in recommending an ap- propriation of $32,700,000, when the Budget Bureau’s estimate called for $76,- 645,000, which represents a difference of nearly $4,000,000 between what the Budget Bureau estimated and what the Senate committee actually provided. Let us see how that would work or- dinarily and how it will work in this case. Suppose I became interested In an ex- cellent, kindly, friendly proposal such as this one; and, being a poor man, I did
10056 not have the money to carry it out. Suppose I went to one of my friends— there are several here in the Senate whom I could name, but I shall not do so—whom I know to be very well off, indeed, in this world’s goods; and sup- pose I said to him, “Here is a proposition I have. I have figured out what it will cost. It will dc an immense amount of good, but I do not have the money it re- quires, I know you are a rich man, whereas I am a poor man; and I want you to help me out.” Suppose my friend replied, “What is the amount of money you want?” Then suppose I said, “As I figure it out, it will take $36,000,000 to carry out my plan. It will be very helpful to the young people and students in many for- eign countries. It is true that we were not elected for the special purpose of enacting legislation to help the young people of foreign countries; to the con- trary, we were elected for the purpose, among others, of helping with the edu- cation of our own people. Nevertheless, I think this project is a very worthy one and should be put into effect.” Suppose my friend then would say to me, “I have looked into it; I have had ex- perts examine it; I have had persons in whom I have great confidence consider it carefully. I cannot give you $36,000,- 000, but here is $32,700,000.” Mr. President, would it be good judg- ment for me to refuse that amount? Would not I be a little off the track of what is practical if I were to refuse a proposal of that kind? Could the Senator from Arkansas con- scientiously say that because he could not get $36,645,000, he should refuse a somewhat smaller amount? Are we to understand that the appropriation of $32,700,000, approximately $4,000,000 less than the full amount requested, will re- sult in spoiling the entire project? Mr. President, this is a new project; one of this kind has not previously been established. It is true that the ECA is beginning a similar project, and it is true that the State Department is be- ginning a similar project; and it is true that the State Department is mentioned in connecion with this particular case. However, this project is a new one, Can the Senator from Arkansas con- scientiously say that because the Senate committee and the Senate itself and the Congress will not give him the amount of money he requests—namely, $36,645,- 000—but is willing to give him nearly $33,000,000, that will destroy his project? What figures does the Senator have to show that the reduction by less than $4,000,000 of the amount of the appro- priation for this project will ruin the project or will spoil it, as he argued to us so persuasively a few minutes ago? I simply cannot see it that way. I think the subcommittee of the Ap- propriations Committee and _ subse- quently the full Appropriations Commit- tee itself have been exceedingly generous to the Senator from Arkansas and to his proposal. It is a worthy proposal. If we had plenty of money, the situation would be different; but I doubt very much whether the proposal will be ruined by the ap- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE propriation of a somewhat smaller amount of money than the full amount requested. The item is in the bill; and I expect to vote for it, so far as the amount of nearly $33,000,000 is con- cerned. The committee has determined to reduce the amount to that extent. So I earnestly hope the Senator from Arkansas will forego his amendment to the committee amendment, and will not ask the Senate to adopt his amendment to the committee amendment, in view of the relatively small difference between the two amounts, Would not it be better for the Senator from Arkansas to agree to the smaller amount, especially in view of the present financial condition of the Government— with an unbalanced budget and with our boys being killed on foreign fields, and with the necessity for the Congress to appropriate large sums of money to pro- tect our boys, so far as we can, and also to protect our country? So it seems to me that the practical, everyday, good-sense view of the mat- ter would be for the Senator from Ar- kansas to say thut he is perfectly willing to accept an amount which in my judg- ment the House and the Senate com- mittee have been most generous in agreeing to. I do not believe that the amount rec- ommended by the committee for this program has even been equaled before. I do not recall a time when our Govern- ment has ever been more generous in making provision for an undertaking of this sort. Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. McKELLAR. I yield for a ques- tion. Mr. FULBRIGHT. First, I may say to the Senator that I did not intend to leave the impression that if the full amount of approximately $36,000,000 is not appropriated, I shall not want to have any amount appropriated. I did not seek to leave that impression. Mr. McKELLAR. Perhaps the Sena- tor misunderstood me. Nevertheless, he referred to the fact that the proposed decrease would spoil the project. So much was said about the sad effect on the project if the amount of the appro- priation were reduced to $32,700,000, that I received the impression that the Senator from Arkansas had it figured out in his own mind and knew where every dollar of the money would be used, and that he was convinced that if the entire amount of $36,645,000 was not appropriated, he would not want any money at all appropriated, but would turn down any smaller amount, I hope the Senator will not turn down this most magnificent gift—the most magnificent gift the Government has ever made for such a purpose. Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, first let me explain my own attitude. After all, this is not a private project of my own, and I do not expect to get one of these scholarships. Mr. McKELLAR, Of course, I am not suggesting that. Mr. FULBRIGHT. This program will be administered by the State Depart- ment. The objective of this program ts the same as the objective of the ECA, JULY 13 I should like to make a deal with the Senator from Tennessee: I will vote to cut the ECA appropriation $10,000,000 if the Senator from Tennessee will agree to add $5,000,000 to the appropriation for this program. Certainly I think the country will benefit a great deal more from a program which will enable us to have in our country citizens of 19 for- eign countries, who will be influential both in a military and in a diplomatic and in a business sense, than if we were to spend money on a factory in one of those countries. It is truly my judg- ment that the return from this program is the best return we can receive from an investment of public funds. That is all there is to it. If the program does not have a real bearing upon the promotion of our for- cign policy, the official policy of this Government, then I say it should be en- tirely eliminated. If we are wrong in the significance we attach to the pro- fram, then it should be abandoned. But it is an accepted policy, as expressed in two laws passed by Congress, one being Public Law 584, passed in 1946, and the other the Smith-Mundt Act. So the program is not a new one. All the re- duction in the appropriation does is simply to make the amount so small that the program cannot be effective. Mr. McKELLAR. Does the Senator from Arkansas make the argument to this body that reducing the amount available for the program from $36,645,- 000 to $32,700,000 will destroy the pro- gram? Is that what the Senator says? Mr. FULBRIGHT. The reduction in the appropriation will weaken it sub- stantially. Mr. McKELLAR. It will weaken it substantially, the Senator says. Mr. FULBRIGHT. It certainly will. Mr. McKELLAR. How in the world can a Senator say that a reduction of about $4,000,000-—— Mr. FULBRIGHT. That is a 10-per- cent reduction in the program. Mr. McKELLAR. Does the Senator think that a 10-percent reduction in the appropriation will destroy the pro- gram? Mr. FULBRIGHT. I say it will sub- stantially weaken it. I think the same can be said about many other programs. Mr. CHAVEZ. Mr, President, will the Senator yield? The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. HOo.uanp in the chair). Does the Sena- tor from Tennessee yield to the Senator from New Mexico? Mr. McKELLAR. I yield. Mr, CHAVEZ. I hope the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations will not compromise in line with the sug- gestion just made. Mr. McKELLAR. I am not going to compromise, Mr. President. When the Senator uses the word “compromise,” he reminds me of an incident that occurred in my own life. I will tell the story. At one time I was engaged in a great law suit. It was a forgery case. There was involved a considerable sum of money, thirty or forty thousand dollars, which in those days, when I was a youngster, meant a great deal, By the way, we
1950 had no income tax in those days, Mr. President. My law partner was an elderly lawyer. He turned the case over to me for the purpose, as he said, of advertising me. I said, “Good heavens, Carroll, how can you expect to advertise me by giving me a big lawsuit such as this which you say at the outset cannot be won? You said I must not fool myself about succeeding in winning it. You just told me it was impossible to win it.” He sald, “I have written a two-page letter to the bank telling them the case cannot be won. I heard you try a case the other day, though you did not know it. What you need is advertising. This case will ad- vertise you.” I could not understand how losing a case of any kind would favorably adver- tise a young lawyer. So I demurred very strongly. However, my partner had the upper hand and I had to follow his ad- vice, and I did so. There were 11 lawyers on the other side. The endorsers of the paper were all rich men, and they had employed good lawyers. I tried the case and to the astonishment of everyone I won it. The case went to the supreme court of the State of Tennessee and I finally won it there. But while it was there the lawyers on the other side, one of whom was Gen. Luke Wright, who was after- ward Secretary of War under Theodore Roosevelt, another one of whom was Thomas B. Turley, who held the same position that I hold now as United States Senator—both were great lawyers— came to Colonel Carroll and offered to settle the case at 50 cents on the dollar, for half the face of the notes. Colonel Carroll recommended that settlement to the bank. The bank agreed to it. Colonel Carroll, it seems, had delivered a talk at the bank directors’ meeting, and had spoken about me. At that meet- ing one of the directors insisted on call- ing for me. I went there. The director said that Colonel Carroll had recom- mended that the bank accept the offer of settlement, and wanted to know what I would recommend if the case were mine. I may say it was not my case. It came to the office before I became a partner of Colonel Carroll. I tried to evade answering the question, but could not. So, very foolishly, I said, “Colonel Carroll and gentlemen, I would not ac- cept that compromise.” I placed myself in that position. I refused the compro- mise. It was not a compromise such as the one offered by us to the Senator from Arkansas. We offered him practically everything. The compromise in ques- tion was a 50-50 compromise. One of the directors said, “Mr. President, I move we reconsider and let the case take its course,” So I was placed in the situa- tion of continuing to fight the case, be- cause the motion was adopted by the bank directors. The case went to the supreme court, and I won it there. I will say I never spent any more un- happy days in my life than those I spent. after having made that very foolish dect- sion. I did not know what would finally happen, What did happen was that through good luck the supreme court decided in my favor, and my clients got every dollar of the money sued for, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE The Senator from Arkansas may ob- tain every dollar he seeks, but I doubt it. If I were in his place I would certainly accept the approximately $4,000,000 cut out in the $36,000,000 asked for. Looking at the matter in a plain, com- mon-sense, everyday way, I express the hope that the Senate will stand by the committee. The subcommittee, of which the Senator from Nevada [Mr. McCar- RAN] is chairman, which considered this matter gave it its best attention. They had received the very best proof and evi- dence that could be obtained on the sub- ject. They recommended an immense amount of money to begin with. Mr. President, we must not fool our- selves about the way we spend money. We are spending money too rapidly. There is no telling what may happen to us. We are already on the verge of a war, and we ought not to go haywire, so to speak, and throw money away. Mr. CHAVEZ. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. MCKELLAR. I yield. Mr, CHAVEZ. In view of the argu- ments made yesterday, I desire to pro- pound a question to the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. This body has been in existence longer than the public laws to which the Senator from Arkansas referred. Does not the Senator from Tennessee consider the amount of $32,000,000 allowed by the sub- committce and approved by the full com- mittee for this program to be a respecta- ble amount? Mr. McKELLAR. Not only is the amount the committee recommended a respectable amount for the purpose in question, but it is one of the most gener- ous things any government in the world has ever done. Members of this body are all highly educated and highly informed men. Does any Senator, man or woman, know of any comparable gift made by any government for the purpose of edu- cation—a gift made by one government to the citizens of other governments or to other governments? Does anyone know of any such generosity by one gov- ernment to another government or by one people to another people? If so, I yield to any Senator who will rise to say that he knows of a more generous gift than this one. Mr. President, I think this is the most generous gift which ever was proposed. It has been only during the past few years that we have felt that the Federal Government has the power to contribute to the cost of education in the States. However, under the proposal now before us we shall be providing for education all over the world. Mr. CHAVEZ. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. McKELLAR. I yield. Mr, CHAVEZ. Is it not a fact that we are not contributing to the individual States in the way that we shall be con- tributing to the foreign countries under this program? t Mr. McKELLAR. Undoubtedly that is rue, Mr, CHAVEZ. Is it not also true that although the Senate has passed a bill for Federal aid to education, the Congress as a whole has not passed it? 10057 Mr. McKELLAR. Yes the House has not passed it, Mr. CHAVEZ. Is it true that that measure is not the law of the land? Mr. McKELLAR. Yes. Mr. CHAVEZ. On the other hand, under the program now before us, we shall be contributing very liberally to the proposal sponsored very nobly, in my opinion, by the Senator from Arkansas; shall we not? Mr. McKELLAR. Yes. Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. McKELLAR. I yield. Mr. FULBRIGHT. I wish to make it clear that the major part of this money is not for education at all. The amount of money to be used for that purpose is only a minor part of the entire amount. In the original budget estimate, only $682,000 was to be used for that purpose. If the amount provided is distributed according to the schedule I read a mo- ment ago, which I obtained from the State Department, the amount of money to be used for education will be cut in half, reduced, let us say, to $350,000. Certainly it is incorrect to leave the impression that the entire amount for this program will be used for education- al purposes. Mr. McKELLAR. If only $350,000 will be used for that purpose, what will be- come of the remainder of the $32,000,000 or $36,000,000? Mr. FULBRIGHT. I mean to say that the Senator from Tennessee left the im- pression that the entire amount is to be used for education. Mr. McKELLAR. Then what Is the remainder of the fund to be used for? Mr. FULBRIGHT. The particular part to be used for the exchange of stu- dents is a very small] portion of the full amount, However, of course, I am interested in the entire program, including the library service, publications, radio, and other things. Mr, McKELLAR. I wish to say that my neighbor from Arkansas—for he lives near me and he bears a very fine repu- tation in his State—is a very active and vigorous and, I think, successful logi- cian, but I do not agree with his logic in this case; I think he goes too far. If we are to begin this plan, and if we are to continue with it, I think we should do so in a reasonable and an ordinary way. I think we should not undertake to spend such tremendous sums of money for such purposes while the state of the world is as it is at the present time. Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, the principal purpose of the entire sum is to try to make the state of the world a little better. Mr. McKELLAR. I know the Senator from Arkansas has that purpose, because nothing else could very well impel him to take the position he does regarding this matter. I know he conscientiously believes it. However, I think he is mis- taken. It is not possible to buy the friendship of men or of nations. Some- times we have tried to do so; but, as a matter of fact, it is impossible to pur- chase the friendship of either men or of nations, Those who try it find that it is
10058 ® very difficult thing to do. We have tried it several times, and have found the difficulty; and I hope we never under- take it again. Mr. President, I favor education as much as does anyone else. When I was boy I had to work in the fields in the hot sun. Sometimes the temperature rose to 95 or 100; and it is rather difficult to chop cotton or plant corn or cultivate corn when the temperature is that high. However, finally I worked out my own education. Ihave the greatest sympathy for the boy or girl who is not educated, but who wants to have an education. We should help them in every way we can, However, this proposal comes at the wrong time, just now. I appeal to my colleagues in this body to vote with the committee on this mat- ter, Mr. President. The committee has done a very sensible and fair and just thing. The Senator from Nevada [Mr, McCarranj, the chairman of the sub- committee, has allowed the Senator from Arkansas almost all he wants. The cup of the Senator from Arkansas may not be running over, but it is almost running over. Yet he comes before us now and opposes the allowance the committee has so generously voted to make in this matter. I hope that upon second thought the Senator from Arkansas will withdraw his amendment to the committee amend- ment, for it should be withdrawn. This is no time to spend money in the way the Senator from Arkansas proposes. Mr, President, strange as it may ap- pear, there are in this country some boys and girls who need an education, and need it very badly. However, although we are making some provision for edu- cation, we are not doing so in the way that would be done for the young people of foreign countries under this proposal, under which considerable sums of money would be spent for that purpose in for- eign countries. Strange as it may seem, Mr. President, of course— to look at the distinguished Senator from Arkansas— one would never think so, because he gives every appearance of success, hap- piness, good education, and everything else—but, strange as it may seem, there are in Arkansas some persons who would like to be educated in the way that the proposal now before us provides for the education of persons in foreign coun- tries. Certainly there are in the United States, and certainly there are in Ar- kansas, in particular, young people who would like to have these grand trips and would like to have this generosity show- ered upon them. However, this is not the time to do so. This program should be deferred, Mr. President. Mr, LEHMAN. Mr. President, will the Benator yield? Mr. McKELLAR. I yield. Mr, LEHMAN. I simply wish to point out-——. Mr. McKELLAR. Mr. President, I yield for a question. Mr. LEHMAN, I was going to make an observation. Mr. CHAVEZ. Mr. President, I should like to ask the chairman of the Appro- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE priations Committee a question. Does not the chairman of the Appropriations Committee think that in order to show the people of the United States just what this money is to be spent for, the entire wording of this particular section of the bill—appearing on pages 53 to 55— should be inserted at this point in the Recorp? Let me read it, if the indul- gence of the Senator from Tennessee is granted me for the moment, so that we may keep the record clear as to how much money the American people, the taxpayers—the ones who would punish the Senate— are willing to spend for this particular purpose: For expenses necessary to enable the De- partment of State to carry out international information and educational activities— That, of course, has nothing to do with the educational program about which the Senator from Arkansas talks. But— as authorized by the United States Infor- mation and Educational Exchange Act of 1048, We then come to the following: Salaries, expenses, and allowances of per- sonnel and dependents as authorized by the Foreign Service Act of 1946 * * %; ex- penses of attendance at meetings concerned with activities provided for under this ap- propriation (not to exceed $11,000); printing and binding; entertainment within the United States, This is not for the entertainment of American boys or American girls, but it is for the entertainment of those who are to become the beneficiaries of the $32,700,000. Mr. McKELLAR. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? The PRESIRING OFFICER. Does the Senator from New Mexico yield to the Senator from Tennessee? Mr. CHAVEZ. I yield. Mr. McKELLAR. My understanding js—and I ask the Senator from Arkansas whether it is correct—that the students are to be brought to the United States from various foreign countries at the expense of the United States, they are to be kept here at our expense, and they are to be educated at the expense of the United States Government—all of which, as I have said time and again this after- noon to the Senator from Arkansas, is very generous. It is extremely generous. It is extraordinarily generous. The Sen- ator cannot mention another country that has ever done anything like it. It is wonderfully generous. But it is all being done at the expense of the United States. The budget of the United States Government is not balanced, as we all know. I hope to heaven it will be bal- anced, and balanced soon. I believe that a country ought to pay its debts, just as I believe that a man ought to pay his debts. A man who does not do s0 is hardly worthy to live. Mr. CHAVEZ. Mr. President, I should like to proceed, in order to make the Recor» straight as to where the $32,700,- 000 which the committee approved, and which is now being recommended to the Senate for its approval, is to go. I men- tioned entertainment within the United States. Mr, FULBRIGHT. How much? JULY 13 a Mr. McKELLAR, Is it so much per lay? Mr. CHAVEZ. It is “not to exceed $5,000.” Nevertheless, that $5,000 is part of the $32,700,000 recommended by the Senate committee. Reading further from the bill: Hire of passenger motor vehicles. Are those for American boys or Amer- {ean girls? I ask the Senator from Ar- kansas. It continues: Services as authorized by section 15 of the act of August 2, 1946 * * *; advance of funds notwithstanding section 3648 of the Revised Statutes as amended; actual ex- penses of preparing and transporting to their former homes the remains of persons— That is, transporting their remains when they die here— not United States Government employees, who may die away from their homes while participating in activities authorized under this appropriation; establishment and opera- tion of agricultural and other experiment and demonstration stations in other Amer- ican countries, on Jand acquired by gift or lease, and construction of necessary build- ings thereon; radio activities and acquisition and production of motion pictures and visual materials and purchase or rental of tech- nical equipment and facilities therefor, nar- ration and script-writing, by contract or otherwise; and purchase of objects for pres- entation to foreign governments-— A presentation to our Government? A presentation to our schools and to our institutions? No— to foreign governments, schools, or organ- izations; $32,700,000— The sum approved by the Committee on Appropriations, I think the committee has been ex- tremely liberal. If the argument yes- terday was correct, that this body can- not provide for itself necessary and ade- quate office space and rooms in order to take care of the needs of Senators, so that an employee may be able to wash her hands in privacy, then I think the same argument should be used in this particular instance, because as stated by the distinguished Senator from Tennes- see, the committee has been liberal, and its action should be sustained. We have been extremely liberal, Mr. President, Mr. McKELLAR. Mr. President, I thank the Senator very much, I now want to yield to my friend from New York. SrveraAL SENATORS. Question! tion! The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amend- ment proposed by the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Fu.sricHtT] to the com- mittee amendment. Mr. McCARRAN, Mr. President, the solicitude of the able Senator from Ar- kansas (Mr. FuLsricut] is appreciated, He appeared before the committee and made an extensive statement, in his able way. The trouble now is that the Sena- tor, to my mind, is addressing himself to the wrong tribunal, The committee has recommended an appropriation of $32,700,000, which the State Department can allocate as it sees fit. It can cut its program if it sees fit, though it is not required to do so. What the Senator Ques-
1950 from Arkansas can do is to address the State Department and see to it that the cut is not quite so deep as is indicated by his figure. T have a copy of the figures I think the Senator was using today, by which it is proposed to cut the item of exchange-of- persons program $300,000. I do not see that that is necessary. The Department can do as it likes about that. Mr. President, the committee recom- mends an appropriation of $32,700,000, which is $1,300,000 below the House fig- ure, and $3,945,000 below the Budget Bureau’s estimate. For 1950, the appropriation was $477,- 300,000. But $11,475,000 of that amount was for a nonrecurring item, namely, the construction of radio range and facil- ities. The committee is aware that there are those who favor tremendous increase in this item, We have heard all kinds of figures that could be used in connection with this program. The committee’s recommendation fs felt to be sufficient, in view of the Government's present fiscal condition, and we feel that the amount recommended will allow a well balanced program in the field. If this were the only money to be ap- plied to this particular objective {t might be different. At least, those who are 50 solicitous about it might have some con- cern. But let me say that ECA has a technical assistance program of $15,000,- 000, which involves the very same items. The High Commissioner of Germany has @ program of $18,500,000, which involves almost the same identical item as this. The Government of Occupied Areas has a program of $4,350,000, involving items such as this; and Point 4, with $10,000,- 000, in this very bill, has a program quite similar to this. Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Nevada yield to the Senator from Arkansas? Mr. McCARRAN. I will yield in a mo- ment. Mr. President, sometimes we can take cognizance of rumors. There is a rumor which is now prevalent that the President is to send to the Senate a message re- questing a supplemental §100,000,000 to be applied to this particular program. The Appropriations Committee was guided by what was thought to be, and which is now thought to be, the view of the Congress. In other words, it is neces- sary to make a cut somewhere. With reference to this program, perhaps if we had $20,000,000,000 to spare, more might be appropriated for it. But we do not have it. There is a deficit now, and it is increasing. We are operating “in the red,” and we are going to go further “‘in the red.” From day to day we are going to have a call for more and more appro- priations for necessities, in order that we may save lives abroad, in order that we may bring this war to an end—call it a war or a police activity, or whatever one may wish to call it; I care not what. Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. McCARRAN. I promised to yield to the Senator from Arkansas, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, the Senator mentioned the point 4 program, involving $10,000,000. Is it not true that we authorized the transfer of over $2,- 000,000 into that fund? Mr. McCARRAN. That is correct; but does not that all the more augment my position? Mr. FULBRIGHT. I would gather from the attitude of the Senator and from the attitude of the other members of the committee that any proposals for any increased sums would certainly meet with a cold reception in the committee. If it is unwilling to recommend in this instance an appropriation of approxi- mately $36,000,000, how in the world can any proposal of $100,000,000 be expected to be accepted? Here is a regular pro- gram which has been authorized by two legislative acts. It is in being; {t is func- tioning. Mr. McCARRAN. That is correct. Mr. FULBRIGHT. So, in my opinion, it is not logical to cut it on the basis of rumors as to some other programs which may or may not come up. Mr. McCARRAN. But we are not cut- ting it. The Senator takes a position, which led to a fallacious statement a while ago, that this will ruin the entire program. It will not do anything of the ind. Mr. FULBRIGHT. It would certainly weaken it. Mr. McCARRAN. The Senator’s atti- tude is like that of the character in the fable who was holding out for more. We would give the Senator more if it were possible, and if we could see the results. Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, will the Senator yield on that point before he goes to another point? Mr. McCARRAN. I yield. Mr. FULBRIGHT. I am perfectly will- ing to join with the committee to cut the ECA appropriation. They are both de- signed for the same purpose, namely, to further our foreign policy. It is my con- sidered judgment that a dollar spent in connection with this program will bring greater returns than will a dollar spent for ECA. ‘There we have @ program call- ing for $3,000,000,000, but the commit- tee could not swallow $36,000,000. If the Senator wants to save money by cutting the ECA appropriation, he has my vote. Mr. McCARRAN. Mr. President, let me say, in response to what the able Senator from Arkansas has just said, that as chairman of the watchdog com- mittee I went before the Appropriations Committee and recommended a cut in ECA so that the amount would be only $2,200,000,000, plus the carry-over, which is $276,000,000. I think the ECA appro- priation should be cut; I have said so re- peatedly. I think it should be reduced so that in 1952 it will be cut out com- pletely. Somewhere along the line, Mr. President, the Congress must curtail ex- penditures. Here is a place where, if the program has all the merits claimed for it—and I am not going to argue about that—the Senator from Arkansas can take his fine argument to the State De- partment and say, “Do not cut this pro- gram; cut somewhere else.” I think it would be a forceful argument, because if 10059 he presents his argument to the State Department as he presented it to the Subcommittee on Appropriations, he will be very convincing. That is why he is getting what he is getting. I apologize to the Senator, I did not mean it as a personal matter at all. The program is now receiving a large amount from the Appropriations Committee. If the State Department wants to cut the particular item $300,000, it is not the fault of the Appropriations Committee. They can allocate the appropriation as they see fit and as they think the pro- gram deserves. Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further? Mr. McCARRAN. I yield. Mr. FULBRIGHT. I should like to make it clear that I asked the committee to earmark & minimum amount for the meogram, but the committee refused to lO 80. Mr. McCARRAN. That is correct. Mr. FULBRIGHT. The _ Senator knows better than I do how these things operate. They have certain overhead expenses, and there is nothing I can do about it, and the Senator from Nevada cannot do anything about it. Mr. McCARRAN. Cuts are always made where there is the greatest pull on the heart strings. That is the reason why the program in which the Senator from Arkansas is so much interested has been cut. It was known that the Sena- tor, with his natural eloquence, would go to the floor and try to have the amount restored. Mr. President, I shall not hold the Senate any longer. The committee held full and careful hearings on the question, Mr, SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, will the Senator yicld? Mr. McCARRAN. I yield. Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, I should like to say to the Senator from Nevada, first, that I congratulate him. I felt he did a very thorough and care- ful job with his administrative assist- ants and with the administrative assist~ ants of the committee in working out the various provisions of this chapter of the appropriations bill. As the member of the minority party who was in part re- sponsible for this bill, I finally agreed with the Senator from Nevada on every single item of the chapter with the ex- ception of this particular item. ‘The budget estimate was $36,645,000. The House cut it to $34,000,000. A motion was made in the subcommittee to cut it to $30,000,000, but {t was finally compro- mised at $32,700,000. I hope, in view of the rumor, which I think is more than a rumor, which the Senator from Nevada has mentioned, re~ garding an additional $100,000,000, we may properly leave the committee sug- gestion where it is and deal with the $100,000,000 when the request is pre- sented, There was a very great difference of opinion in the subcommittee and in the full committee as to the amount, and I felt, in the end, that $32,700,000 was ap- proximately fair. I would respectfully say that it is my belfef that it adds to the security of our
10060 country to give information to other na- tions as to what we believe is helpful for them to know and to understand with relation to our mode of life and with re- lation to what the ideal of democracy in its full sense means. I would point out— I do not think it has yet been pointed out—that under the estimates $11,700,- 000, in round figures, would go to radio; $3,800,000 to motion pictures; $6,200,000 to the press; $4,100,000 to libraries; $3,- 500,000 to exchange of persons, which is the interest of the Senator from Arkan- gas; $2,900,000 to technical cooperation; $9,100,000 to the USEI Mission; and $3,200,000 for administrative purposes. As the Senator from Nevada has stated, those estimates would be cut down $2,300,000 in their total amount. This was a compromise, after long dis- cussion. While I should like to see the amount greater, I think it is as fair a compromise as could be reached under all the circumstances. The statements which have been made concerning addi- tional amounts for this purpose have been considered, and I believe we should let this item go unchallenged. Mr. McCARRAN. Mr. President, I appeal to the Senate that after such full consideration has been given, the amend- ment offered by the able Senator from Arkansas should not be adopted. Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. McCARRAN. I yleld. Mr, FULBRIGHT. What would the Senator suggest as to a limitation, along the line of my suggestion to the commit- tee as to a supplementation? Mr. McCARRAN. I would not have the authority to commit the committee. That matter was presented. Mr. FULBRIGHT. What would be the Senator’s personal feelings? Would he personally support such a limitation? Mr. McCARRAN. Not in this bill. Mr. FULBRIGHT. He would not? Mr. McCARRAN. Not in this bill. Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, I wish to make an observation, but I do not want to take up the time of the distinguished Senator from Nevada. Mr. McCARRAN. It is _ perfectly agreeable to me to have the Senator make his observation at this time. Mr. LEHMAN. I wish to thank the Senator for his courtesy. I merely wish to make one point. There seems to be a mistaken impression entertained by some Members of the Senate. The impression seems to be that the greater part of the funds provided in this item of the bill would be used for educational purposes, the project described and advocated by the distinguished Senator from Arkan- sas (Mr. Fu.tsricut]. That project is a valuable one, and I favor it. However, I wish to point out that the amount for educational purposes out of the pro- posed appropriation of $36,645,000 to supplement the other funds for edu- cation would be less than 10 percent. It is closer to 5 percent of the entire amount. As the able Senator from Massachu- setts has pointed out, the greater part of the funds to be provided would be used for other purposes. The $36,000,- 000 would be used mainly to prove to the world—to our friends and to those whom CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE we hope to make our friends—that the purposes of this country are unselfish and that we have no devious designs. I think one of the most unfortunate fea- tures of this whole situation is the fact that our purposes and our political philosophy have been misrepresented, largely in Asia, but in other parts of the world as well, by the Soviets and their satellites. We know our purposes are noble. We know that our record for the past 150 years is a noble one. Unfor- tunately, all the people of the world do not know that. They must be told it time and time again. The facts must be brought home to them. That is the only way in which we can make friends. Mr. President, last night I voted against the erection of a new Senate Office Building which would have cost $20,000,000 or $25,000,000 before comple- tion. I did so very reluctantly. I did it at great cost to my convenience and the efficiency of my office; but, as I pointed out, I felt that this was not the time to use money for nonessentials. I said I wanted to use available funds— and more funds will be needed than we realize today—to be used, first, for our security and that of our friends and allies, second, for the health and wel- fare of the people of the Nation, and third, for the efficient operation of gov- ernment. I said I intended to cast my votes in the Senate for those purposes, I believe the item under consideration is a defense and security item. If there ever was @ security measure, this is one. I believe if we can hold our friends and make new ones based on confidence and respect for us as @ people and for our purposes, we shall not only insure our military security but shall save a great deal of money as well. I think it isa pity that the amount of moncy asked for, $36,645,000, which in itself is far less than I think should be made avail- able for this purpose, has been reduced to $32,700,000, which represents a cut of more than 10 percent. Therefore, I have urged in several colloquys—and urge now-—that we increase this appro- priation to the sum recommended by the Budget Bureau. Mr. McCARRAN. Mr. President, the argument made by the able Senator from New York is the same argument to which we have listened before. If we had hundreds of billions of dollars lying in our Treasury today, the argu- ment might have great force. However, we do not have it. Somewhere along the line, Mr. President, some agencies must curtail—not be destroyed, not be put out of existence, but curtailed. That is necessary so that all agencies of the Government may have a reason- able sum of money with which to operate. Mr, President, as we go through this bill for several days we shall find that many agencies have had to accept rea- sonable curtailment. If they were to make their pleas to the Senate, they would make them as forcibly as the able Senator from New York and the able Senator from Arkansas have made their pleas. This proposal would not destroy the program in which the Senators are interested. It would not impair it to the extent that it could be called an JULY 18 impairment. It would curtail the pro- gram, so that those who foster, promote, and guide it may be guarded in their expenditures by the admonition which the Congress would bring to them by way of the imposition of this cut in the appropriation. Mr. President, I hope that the amend- ment of the Senator from Arkansas will not prevail. I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll, and the following Senators an- swered to their names: Aiken Hill Saltonstall Bricker Hoey Schoeppel Butler Holland Smith, Maine Connally Knowland Smith, N. J. Donnell Lehman Sparkman Douglas Lucas Taft Dworshak McCarran Thomas, Okla. Hendrickson McKellar Wherry Hickenlooper Robertson Williams The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quo- rum is not present. The clerk will call the names of the absent Senators. The legislative clerk called the names of the absent Senators, and Mr. Brew- STER, Mr. CHAVEZ, Mr. FULBRIGHT, Mr. GeorcE, Mr. Green, Mr. HaYpEN, Mr. Kem, Mr. Macnuson, Mr. MayBank, Mr. Murray, and Mr. O’Manoney answered to their names when called. The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quo- rum is not present. Mr. LUCAS. I move that the Sergeant at Arms be directed to request the at- tendance of absent Senators. The motion was agreed to. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sergeant at Arms will execute the order of the Senate. After a little delay Mr. Humpurey, Mr. Martin, Mr. CHAPMAN, Mr. McManon, Mr. Jounson of Colorado, Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina, Mr. McCLELLaN, Mr. JoHNSON of Texas, Mr. Ives, Mr. Corpon, Mr. McFartanp, Mr. EastTuanp, Mr. ANDERSON, Mr. KiLcore, Mr, Gurney, Mr. Fercuson, Mr. Byrp, Mr. Frear, Mr. Brivers, Mr. GILLETTE, Mr. Lopce, Mr. Munopt, Mr. Typines, Mr. Myers, Mr. Lancer, Mr. Younec, Mr. WATKINS, Mr. MILLIKIN, Mr. O’Conor, Mr. WitEry, Mr. JENNER, Mr. STENNIS, Mr. THomas of Utah, Mr. McCartHy, Mr. THY, Mr. NerLy, Mr. Morsz, Mr. Ecton, Mr. Ma- LONE, and Mr. GraHam entered the Chamber and answered to their names. The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quo- rum is present. The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Ar- kansas [Mr. FuLsricur] to the commit- tee amendment on page 54, in line 13. Mr. FULBRIGHT, I ask for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, a par- liamentary inquiry. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it. Mr. DONNELL. Will the Chair please state the pending question? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amend- ment proposed by the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. FuupRicHT] to the com-
1950 mittee amendment on page 54, in line 13, namely, to insert, in lieu of the figure “$32,700,000”, the figure “$36,645,000.” On this question the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk called the roll. Mr. MYERS. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Benron] is absent on public business, and if pres- ent would vote “yea,” The Senator from California [Mr. Downey] is absent because of illness. The Senator from Louisiana {[Mr. Ex.enper}, the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Kerr], and the Senator from Geor- gie, (Mr. RussELL] are detained on offi- cial business. The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Hont! and the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. KEFAuveR] are absent on official committee business. The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Lone], the Senator from Idaho [Mr, Taytor], and the Senator from Ken- tucky [Mr. Wrtrers] are absent by leave of the Senate. The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr, Leany] and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Pepper] are necessarily absent. Mr.SALTONSTALL. I announce that the Senator from Washington [Mr. Cain], the Senator from Kansas [Mr. Darsy], the Senator from New Hamp- shire [Mr. Topry!, and the Senator from Michigan [Mr. VanpEnBEeRG] are absent by leave of the Senate. The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Fian- DERS! is necessarily absent. The Senator from Indiana [Mr. Capr- HART] is detained on official business. The result was announced—yeas 25, nays 53, as follows: YEAS—25 Douglas Johnson, Tex. Murray Fulbright Lehman Myers Graham Lodge Neely Hayden McClellan O'Conor Hill McFarland Smith, N. J. Holland McMahon Sparkman Humphrey Magnuson tley Ives Morse Johnson, Colo. Mundt NAYS—63 Aiken Gillette Maybank Anderson Green Millikin Brewster Gurney O'Mahoney Bricker Hendrickson Robertson Bridges Hickenlooper Saltonstall Butler Hoey Schoeppel Byrd Jenner Smith, Maine Chapman Johnston, 8.0. Stennis Chavez Kem Taft Connally Kilgore Thomas, Okla, Cordon Knowland ‘Thomas, Utah Donnell Langer Thye Dworshak Lucas Tydings Eastland McCarran Watkins Ecton McCarthy ‘Wherry Ferguson McKellar Williams Frear Malone Young - George Martin NOT VOTING—18 Benton Fianders Pepper Cain Hunt Russell Capehart Kefauver Taylor Darby Kerr To Downey Leahy Vandenberg Eliender Long Withers So Mr. Fu.zricHt’s amendment to the committee amendment was rejected. The VICH PRESIDENT. The ques- tion now is on agreeing to the commit- bee amendment on page 84, beginning in e 13. The amendment was agreed to. XOVI——634 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE The VICE PRESIDENT. The next amendment of the committee will be stated, The next amendment was, on page 54, in line 20, after the word ‘exceed’, to strike out “$3,000,000” and insert “$2,- 875,000.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Philippine rehabilitation,” on page 65, line 21, after the numerals “1949”, to strike out “$13,000,000” and insert “$10,000,000.” Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, a par- HNamentary inquiry. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator will state it. Mr. DOUGLAS. ‘When the committee amendment decreases the appropriation made by the House, would a motion to cut the appropriation still further re- quire unanimous consent? The VICE PRESIDENT. No. The Chair thinks that an amendment to a committee amendment is in order. Mr. DOUGLAS. But at a later pe- riod, after we have gone over the bill chapter by chapter? The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senate is now considering the bill amendment by amendment. Whenever a committee amendment is before the Senate, that is the time to offer an amendment to it, not to wait, because, as the Senate goes through the bill, the committee amend- ments are being agreed to. Regardless of what chapter they are in, amend- ments to committee amendments must be offered at the time the committee amendments are being considered. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I un- derstand that that is true, when the committee amendment increases the amount authorized by the House. The VICE PRESIDENT. It does not matter whether it increases it or de- creases it. Mr. DOUGLAS. I thank the Chair. The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is on agreeing to the committee amend- ment on page 55, line 21. The amendment was agreed to. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, yesterday we discussed briefly before the Senate the possibility of reaching some kind of unanimous-consent agreement limiting the time of debate on various amend- ments and on the bill. It seems to me that, after having taken all day yester- day upon one amendment, and having taken practically 3% hours this after- noon on another amendment, if we are to expedite the voting on amendments and the passage of the bill, we ought to be able to reach a unanimous-consent agreement. I suggested some time ago that possibly an agreement allowing 10 minutes to each Senator who might de- sire to speak upon any amendment would be acceptable. It would certainly be satisfactory to the Senator from Tlinois and, I think, to most of the Senators on this side of the aisle. I again inquire of the Senator from Nebraska as to whether it may be possible to obtain an agreement of that kind, Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, in an- swer to the inquiry made by the distin- guished majority leader, I may say that there has been much work done in an 10061 attempt to get an agreement with respect to the time for debating the amend- ments. I should like to state to the ma- jority leader, however, that I know of two amendments to be filed which have not yet been filed. After they are pre- sented, I am satisfled we can work out some sort of an arrangement. Those who intend to present those amend- ments desire more time. I had even thought of suggesting an exception as to a few amendments and perhaps agreeing on a limitation as to the re- mainder of them. I also thought of proposing a time limit on debate of the chapters, While I desire to cooperate with the majority leader, I must say that until the amendments to which I have re- ferred have been offered—which I hope will be done not later than this after- noon or tomorrow morning—I would not be in a position to go along with a unani- mous-consent request. However, I think it can be worked out as soon as those amendments have been offered. Mr. LUCAS. May I inquire of the Senator from Nebraska the approximate length of time which will be necessary in order to debate the particular amend. ments referred to which have not yet been offered? Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, if the Senator will bear with me, there are two or three speeches on matters other than amendments, as to which it may be de- sirable to endeavor to limit the time, if Senators want to make speeches, Mr. CHAVEZ. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. WHERRY. I should like to be permitted to finish my answer, Mr. CHAVEZ. Certainly. Mr. WHERRY. For example, I know of at least two speeches on subjects other than the appropriation bill which would have to be canceled completely or lim- ited to 10 minutes. As I said, if the Senator will bear with us, we are trying to iron out this matter. I am not ina position to do it today, but if the major- ity leader will renew his request, which I think is a very legitimate one, I shall try to answer the inquiry definitely some- time tomorrow, Mr. LUCAS. I shall subside for the moment, and shall interrogate the Sen- ator later. Mr. WHERRY. I thank the Senator from Milinois. Mr. CHAVEZ. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. LUCAS. I yield. Mr. CHAVEZ. I-am in full sympathy with the suggestion made by the Senator from Ilinois, but I do not believe that any Senator who is trying to proceed with the appropriation bill is to be blamed when time is taken out for other matters. If the Senator from Iilinois and the Senator from Nebraska will con- sult the Recorp of yesterday, they will see that it was not the Senator from Louisiana, the Senator from New Mexico, or anyone else handling the appropria- tion bill who took the time. ‘The debate was on something else. I shall be in complete sympathy with the Senator from Tllinois if he will ask unanimous
10062 consent to limit debate on the appro- priation bill, and will at the same time propose a limitation of debate on other matters. It is not fair to blame the Committee on Appropriations for the Gebates which took place yesterday. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I am not attaching any blame to the Committee on Apprepriations. I have all the affec- tion and respect in the world for the dis- tinguished chairman, who sits at my side day after day, and for all the other members of the Appropriations Commit- tee. I was only attempting to follow through with a more or less tentative arrangement which had been discussed with different Members of the Senate. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Secre- tary will state the next committee amendment. The next amendment was, under the subhead “The Institute of Inter-Ameri- can Affairs,” on page 56, line 15, after the word “vehicles”, to strike out “$5,500,000” and insert “$5,000,000.” The amendment was agreed to. SIGNIFICANCE OF KOREAN HOSTILI- TIES--NOT A LOCAL MATTER, BUT AN INCIDENT IN U. 8. S. R. STRATEGY Mr. FERGUSON. No one who has followed the course of events since the closing years of World War II could have any doubts about the meaning of hos- tilities in Korea. Except fo. Koreans themselves, north and south of the thirty-eighth parallel, the situation in Korea is not a local matter. It is defi- nitely an incident in Russian world strategy directed from Moscow. Proof of this central fact is indisputable. Any appraisal which fails to recognize this fact would be unrealistic. Taken by themselves, the Korean peo- ple’s only desire is the national unity and independence of their country. If left wholly to themselves, without interven- tion from outside influences, develop- ments in Korea might be considered a Jocal matter. Factional strife might even have been avoided if Korea had not been split into two areas, with each area conditioned into opposing factions. But the Korean situation has not de- veloped in a vacuum. It came about in the framework of Soviet strategy in its war against the United States and other free countries. As in the division of Germany and Austria, the Soviet Union managed the division of Korea to pro- vide the Soviets with a base and instru- ment for its operations. This is what raises the Korean outbreak from a local matter to an international affair, U. S. 5S. R. WORLD STRATEGY Russian relations with the rest of the world flow in two main channels: (1) old-style Russian imperialism, and (2) the Communist crusade. Each is com- plementary to the other; wherever Rus- sia extends her national boundaries, pos- sessions, and interests, communism is served; and wherever communism makes headway Russian national inter- ests are served. Under the policy of imperialism, Rus- sia has taken over territories formerly independent as in Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia. She has also taken territory belonging to other nations such as parts CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE of Poland, Finland, Bulgaria, and Man- churia in China. Where it was wise not to take over territories, Russia has sovietized them in the form of satellites which accept Russian domination and do her bidding. These are her spheres of influence and the colonies she ex- ploits, all well-known forms of im- perialist policies. She is welding them into a Pan-Slav union, an old Russian imperialist dream. Other imperialist policies are Russia’s attempts to reach out toward natural resources, such as Iran oil and Chinese minerals, attempis to control warm-water ports, Port Arthur, attempts to control strategic wa- ters, the Turkish Dardenelles, the Gulf of Finland, the China Sea, attempts to control offshore islands, such as Ku- riles and Sakhalin, and finally, attempts to exert her influence in the affairs of other regions, western Europe, Africa, non-Communist Asia and the South Pa- cific, These are the old imperialist pol- icies in a modern world setting. Under the Communist crusade, Russia is the mother of Communists every- where who are committed to the destruc- tion of all nations, peoples, institutions, and agencies which resist domination by communism. By division and disrup- tion, propaganda, lies, treaty violations, infiltration, obstruction of normal prec- esses, fifth columns, Communist fronts, puppet governments, and by fomenting discord and strife, Russia seeks to un- dermine the strength and independence of the free world. The success of these Communist activities throughout the world varies from low to high degree, but everywhere the movement is pushed in preparation for the day when a revolu- tionary situation provides the oppor- tunity for Communists to take over. Resistance to Russian imperialism and to the Communist crusade has been given the name “cold war” because the Communist tactics do not fit in with the old idea of hot-lead war. But this is a misnomer springing from the failure to understand the nature of modern war- fare. In the past, war was the attempt to conquer by force of arms, but if the emphasis is placed where it should be— on the word “conquer” —then war is any means by which one or a group of na- tions seeks to conquer others. The con- text of the modern world is such that instruments exist to conquer nations without the firing of a shot. They are the instruments Russia now employs in Communist activities. The conclu- sion is irresistible that the Communist crusade openly directed by the U.S. S.R. js war, in its fullest meaning, against the free world. Failure to recognize this on the part of free nations has already re- sulted in widespread Russian successes in areas where they might never have been gained if the true nature of the Communist movement had been under- stood. Russian world strategy regards the Eurasian land mass as the base of opera- tions. The U.8,S. R. itself is at the cen- ter. The first step in Russian strategy was to surround herself with a belt of controlled territory and peoples for the purpose of insulating Russia against direct attacks from without. It provides her with expendable manpower, re- JULY 18 sources, and defense in depth. Except for the Arctic, where weather is an im- portant ally and safety factor, this insu- lating ring is now complete. Russia is weli into the second stage of her world strategy which consists of movements east, west, and south as op- portunity arises. The tactics of the Communist crusade help to prepare these opportunities. They create “soft” spots and trouble areas in which it is safe to move. Russia’s position as the safely insulated hub of a wheel permits her to move freely and at will in almost any direction. She can and does employ the tactics of diversion, Today, it is the Berlin airlift. Tomorrow it is the threat to the oil felds of Iran. At another time, the thrust is in the direction of the Turkish Dardenelles. Tito’s Yugoslavia is threatened; Finland and the Scandi- navian countries are threatened. Some- times Russia moves directly as in the Baltic couatries and in the Berlin block- ade. At other times, she equips, en- courages, and supports native satellites to move as in China. Everywhere the Communist crusade continues to weaken and disrupt free and independent na- tions, Where the soft spot crumbles, either Russia moves in directly or natives of the area extend the Russian system with her aid. Each success increases Russia's strength and prestige, weakens the re- sistance of intended victims, or paralyzes them by fear. If the soft spot becomes firm, Russia tempers her thrust just enough to re- main on the safe side while she compels the resisting area to expend its energies, as in the Berlin airlift, Greece, and Persia, At the same time she creates a diversion at some other soft spot or troubled area. By using expendable satellite man- power and resources, Russia exploits situations which entail great cost to her principal opponents, the United States and the free western nations, with little direct cost to the U.S.S.R. She compels them to put severe strains on their economies. She forces them to divert manpower and resources to military pre- paredness and to risk costly military adventures. She fills their people with anxiety and fear. In this state of nerves, the free nations are ripe for internal discord craftily created by Soviet agents, and ready to fall out with each other. Russia thus conducts a steady war of at- trition against the free world. The free nations are aware of Russia's destructive tactics, but they react exactly as Rus- sia has planned to have them react. They protest and then appease her with concessions. They rush men and ma- terials to every trouble spot and thus put further strains on their national strenglbh. They try to “contain” her in areas so vast as to cause them to spend their power dangerously thin. They ex- pend their resources on the inexhaustible job of creating better living conditions all over the world in the hope they can create a climate of opinion more favor- able to free nations than to communism. They set up extensive networks for radio propaganda to reach people who either have no radios or are only permitted to Usten to Communist broadcasting, or to
1950 whom words are extraneous tn the daily struggle to exist. All the while, by the cunning nature of her warfare, Russia is safe in her home- land, strengthening her economy and building her military potential for the day she decides to throw them into ac- tion for the coup de grace to the free world. Time and the blindness of the free nations are Russia's most valuable allies. PLACE OF THE KOREAN INCIDENT IN JU, 8. 8. RB. WORLD STRATEGY The Korean incident is the latest move fn Russia’s world strategy. The arbi- trary split of Korea enabled her to move in with Russia occupation troops and control North Korea. Russia sovietized the area, set up a puppet government, drilled and equipped a Korean Army pre- - pared for aggression. She dropped an iron curtain at the thirty-eighth parallel and resisted all attempts of her wartime allies and the United Nations to unify Korea under a single national govern- ment by free and peaceful procedures. She fanned factional strife between North and South Korea and encouraged the north to spy upon, infiltrate, and terrorize South Korea. Anyone who went to South Korea and visited the cap- ital, Seoul, found this out immediately. They were anticipating an attack at any minute. Last December, when the junior Sen- ator from Michigan was there, people were being killed by the Communists in the south of Korea. There were border incidents. There was news that an at- tack might come at any time. After 2 years of this warfare, called “cold war” here in America, Korea was a prime trouble spot on the rim of the Russian orbit ready for Russia's strategy. Russia then waited for the free na- tions, principally the United States, to play into her hands. This is an essential part of Russian world strategy. This the United States proceeded to do. Under United States supervision, South Korean forces were held down to a police con- stabulary, so far as arms for aggression or to defend against a war of aggression were concerned. They were not equipped to resist invasion or to wage counter- attack in warfare. Considerable sums of money were voted by Congress for Korean aid, but not expended. Ameri- can occupation forces were withdrawn last July without making it crystal clear that the United States would come to South Korean aid if the area was at- tacked. Only a few days ago I asked the chair- man of the Committee on Foreign Re- lations, the day after the attack, what the commitment of America was to South Korea. That question received no answer, because apparently the United States did not want to have a definite policy. On occasion after occa- sion, with reference to China, #ormosa, and Korea, the American State Depart- ment indicated American unwillingness to aid or protect the area. On the con- trary, the United States gave reason for Russta to believe that the outermost line of American interest in the Pacific was a line off the Asiatic shore running from Japan to Okinawa to the Philippines, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE When this was clear to Russia, the preparation was complete for a thrust from North Korea when it suited Russia to move. On June 25, the thrust began. The time was well chosen. Some 2 or 3 weeks remained before the heavy mon- soon rains would set in. A quick thrust on an unprepared and abandoned South Korea would permit the North Koreans to occupy the capital of Seoul, the chief inland centers and ports, and possibly overrun the entire country before the rains began and before effective aid could be given to South Korea. The Commu- nists would thereafter have time to con- solidate their gains, mop up the country and present the free world with an ac- complished situation about which noth- ing could be donc short of a declaration of war against Korea. At the most, Rus- sia undoubtedly reasoned, the United States and other free nations would pro- test loudly and hotly in the United Na- tions, but Russia had many ways to han- dle that without war. And so another advance in world communism would be accomplished and the task of dominat- ing the remainder of Asia would be made easier for her. AMERICAN REACTION TO THE COMMUNIST THRUST IN KOREA In a complete reversal of American policy toward the Asiatic mainland, the President ordered immediate aid to South Korea. The timetable between the beginning of the invasion, American aid, and United Nations action, is a mat- ter of hours and the order of the steps somewhat irregular. It was clear that the United States determined to move in any event, but simultaneously sought United Nations authorization and ap- proval. I say that that was the proper step. Thereafter American aid was ex- panded into actual American participa- tion with United Nations approval in what was called police action on a breach of the peace. Asserting concern for its own security in the Pacific, the United States went beyond the Korean situation to prevent Formosa from threatened invasion, to speed aid to the French in Indochina, and to strengthen the Philippines. The Formosan action amounted to American intervention in the war between Na- tionalist and Communist China. American action was interpreted as the drawing of a line to contain com- munism in Asia somewhat parallel to American efforts to prevent Communist expansion in western Europe, Greece, Turkey, and Iran. The action was well received in the United States and in free nations abroad, with a feeling that the air had been clarified and at long last a positive American far eastern pol- icy laid down. RUSSIAN REACTION TO THE AMERICAN MOVE There {s much to indicate that Russia was surprised by the speed and forceful- ness of American action. She was prob- ably taken off guard by the equally swift and decisive action of the United Nations Becurity Council. Russia's appraisal of American policy Jed her to believe that the United States would not fight for Korea. Russia's ex- perience in the United Nations led her . to believe that there would be some pro- 10063 test, much talk, and no action. Probably Russia believed that inaction would be certain anyway if she remained away from the emergency sessions. There are many explanations for Russia’s absten- tion from the emergency sessions, but whatever the true cause may be Russia was taken by surprise at the decisiveness of the Security Council's action. It was not until after the second meeting of the Council on June 27 when sanctions were authorized and American military action approved that Russia awakened to the importance of the Security Council’s ac- tion. Even then it was not until July 3 that North Korea made her protest to the United Nations, and July 4 before Gromyko issued the Russian statement. Both statements made the same case, and were almost identical in almost the same language, charging South Korea with the attack by instigation of Ameri- can imperialists. Although the United States, with the support of almost 50 members of the United Nations, practically threw down the gauntlet to Russia, the Soviet Union did not take on the direct challenge. This indicated that for the time being at least, Russia was not ready to risk a war in which she is directly engaged. I wish to underscore the words, “in which she fs directly engaged.” She preferred to wait and see, undoubtedly to appraise the situation for the next move. Russia will probably observe the course of the military action and wait until the bal- ance is tipped clearly before deciding upon her next move. COURSES THE KOREAN INCIDENT MAY TAKE The North Korean forces are com- mitted to invasion, and I think we must assume that they will press on until halted and forced to withdraw. The United States and the United Nations are committed to halt the invasion, and America will step up American military action until North Korean forces are driven north of the thirty-eighth par- allel. It will take time, but in the absence of any other contingency, it is almost certain that the United States miiltary forces will prevail, although at great damage to Korea and her people, both in the North and in the South. It is the possibility of other contin- gencies which creates the real risk and danger in the situation. We must look for these contingencies. What are they? The key to the future lies in Russia’s hands. What Russia does now or in the immediate future will determine the course of world history. By her man- agement of conditions, as well as by American mismanagement of conditions, Russia alone has freedom of action in the present Korean situation, What are the probabilities? First. Russia can regard the Korean situation as merely another incident on the fringe of her borders. She can pro- test to the United States and before the United Nations while taking no action and risk of her own. She can make much propaganda in the Far East about American imperialism and aggression. This would mean that Russia elects to treat Korea as an expendable satellite on the fringe of Communist Russia’s
10064 borders. Korean manpower and re- sources would be risked without cost, or at only small cost to Russia Such a decision would be in perfect harmony with Russia’s grand strategy to use satellites and fringe incidents in different parts of the world to compel the Umted States and other free coun- tries to exhaust their resources, strain their economics, and expend their man- power in the steady war of attrition. The effect of such action upon the United States and in the United Na- tions would be to confine the Korean incident to an international police ac- tion. In due time the North Korean invaders would be pushed back north of the thirty-eighth parallel and the prob- Jem of an independent Korea would either be left to time or to the involved conciliation machinery of the United Nations, where Russia may even salvage something for her aims in that vast area. World opinion would dictate that either the United States or the United Nations repair the physical damage done to the helpless Koreans and their coun- try. Thus the cost of police action and the cost of subsequent repair would be borne by the free nations of the world, principally the United States. Police action rather than war is the minimum possibility, probably what both the United States and the United Nations hope for, that can result in the Korean situation. But if nothing more than this eventuates, Russia will have aimed for one target, Communist control of Korea, and hit another—further wearing down of the United States at small cost and absolutely no risk to the U.S.5 R Second. As things now stand, Russia ean swing aid, not her own and without committing her own country to any war risk whatever, in the form of Manchurian Chinese and even Koreans now in Man- churian armies. Anywhere from 100,000 to half a million men could be moved quickly to the support of North Korea. A variant of this move is to recruit Communist brigades from the Commu- nist satellites of eastern Europe and throw them to the support of North Korea, much as was done in the Spanish civil war. Should this take place, the hope of the United States and of the United Nations to confine the North Korean outbreak to police action would fail, There are lim- jts to the idea of police action. Driving @ well-drilled, well-equipped North Ko- rean army of at least 100,000 men back north of the thirty-eighth parallel al- ready strains the idea of police action. Many people are wondering why we call this a police action and not war when our boys are dying in Korea. However, in the circumstances it is tenable. But if reenforcements of Manchurian Chi- nese or international Communist bri- gades are thrown to the support of North Korea, the idea of police action against them is strained to the ridiculous. The condition then passes from police action to war, Chinese Communist forces may very well move to the support of North Ko- rea on the ground that American For- mosan action is belligerent interven- tion in the Chinese civil war. If they CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE take this stand the United States would find itself in the double role of police agent for the United Nations and de facto party to war with China. In this case, the latter would swallow the for- mer, and the United States would stand in the deplorable position of being at war with China, a complete reversal of our century-old friendship with the Chinese people. It is possible that full-scale Commu- mist reinforcements from Manchuria, China proper, or from European sources would compel speedy withdrawal of American forces from Korea to avoid a far-eastern Dunkerque. Certainly, a quarter of a million Communists, trained and well-equipped, could drive the pres- ent small American force into the sea, American valor would be no match against overwhelming numbers and su- perior weight of equipment. What, then, does the United States and the United Nations do? The police action 1s then lost. The situation com- pels American withdrawal or the alter- native of annihilation, or of being driven into the sea, If the United States accepts war with Manchuria or with China and attempts to hold a foothold on the Asiatic main- land with its own and perhaps other al- lied forces, it is then committed to full- scale war. This could go on for many years as the exhausting military actions of Japan in China demonstrated, from 1937 to 1945. Here again, the United States would be playing the game of Rus- sian strategy exactly as Russia desires. It would be a major step in the war of attrition by which Russia hopes to wear down her principal opponent, the United States. Third. A third possibility is that after Russia sees that the United States 1s deeply involved in Korea either in po- lice action or with Communists in a wider Asiastic theater, the U. S.S. R. may open up diversions in other areas. Since Russia has such a wide degree of free- dom of action, such diversions may take place in one or more of several areas, Enough soft and trouble spots have been prepared for her that Russia can move in almost any direction—Iran, Yugo- slavia, Germany, for example. Un. doubtedly, Russia would pick an area in which the power potentials would be strongly in her favor so as to deter the United Nations and any combination of free nations from action. Here again, Russia would move only through satellites whose manpower and resources she deems expendable. Action so taken would be most effective without risk of war or cost to the U. 8. S. R. In this case the United States would again be confronted with the vital ques- tion of how to meet the new crisis, If the outbreak was permitted to go by de- fault because of Korean commitments or otherwise, Russian aims would be ac- complished. Either the diversion would be pushed farther, or a new one under- taken. If the United States attempted to meet it, American strength would be drawn down trying to handle two com- mitments in widely separated regions. Moreover, there would be no assurance that a third or fourth diversion would JULY 138 not be created by the U. S. 8. R. Has the United States a plan in case these crises come about? The sirain on nerves that would result from such develop- ments would be difficult to bear. Possessing such freedom of action, and with so many soft and trouble spots open to Communist exploitation throughout the world, there is almost no limit to harassing actions by the U.S.S.R. Rus- sian strategy is to employ them continu- ally in a war of attrition against the United States without risk of war to Rus- sia and without much expenditure to Russia in men and materials. How is this threat to be met? United Nations police action is highly desirable, but from this analysis it should be clear that it is not enough. At will, the U. S. 8. R. can turn even this to serve her strategy of wearing down the United States and the free nations, The United States could wage war in- definitely and at enormous cost in Asia without ever reaching the heart of the world problem even if the United States, supported by other free nations, were ultunately successful. I wish to emphasize the statement that the United States could wage war indefinitely and at enormous cost in Asia without ever reaching the heart of the world problem—and this is the impor- tant part of the sentence—without ever reaching the heart of the world problem, even if the United States, supported by other free nations, were ultimately suc- cessful. I shall later discuss where the heart of this trouble is. Meeting crises all around the fringe of the Russian orbit would be equally ex- hausting and inconclusive. Abundant experience has shown that no amount of conciliation can be reached with Russia without paying prices which strengthen communism and weaken the free world. Refusal of the U.S.S.R to complete negotiations for an Austrian peace treaty unless the free nations make important concessions to communism in the status of Trieste, is the latest case in point. Blackmail in world politics is in- separably a part of Russian strategy whose single goal is nothing short of Communist domination of the world. No appeals in the name of peace, jus- tice, Christianity, morality, humanity, or for the future of the world and its tor- tured peoples have any effect upon the U.S. S. R. She has shown that in her ruthless drive for domination she is willing to sacrifice them all. Far from deterring Russia, world demoralization and destruction actually serve her as they eat away the foundations of the free world. In these circumstances and in this juncture of world history, what then are the effective policies left open? BASIC ASSUMPTIONS ON WHICH ACTION MUST BE BASED At this late hour what are the basic assumptions on which action must be based? When these are known there will be better understanding of the ac- tion to be proposed. Prime among nee basic assumptions are the follow- First. World War II was fought to prevent integration of the Eurasian land
1950 mass by force and its domination by a single power. Second. Postwar diplomacy by trea- ties, alliances, appeasement and bun- gling has permitted progressive domina- tion of this vital area by the U.S. 5. R., professing a system which aims to de- Stroy the free world and to replace it with the Communist system and dicta- torship, Third. Russian strategy aims at noth- ing short of world domination by using satellite manpower and resources to en- gage the free nations in successive crises involying great cost to them while en- tailing no risk of war or cost to the U. 8. 8. R. Fourth. The Korean situation is the latest of these crises. Fifth. In the interest of peace and or- derly processes, the United Nations has officially declared North Korea the ag- gressor in violation of the United Na- tions Charter and her action a breach of international peace. The United Nations has authorized a police action to halt the aggression, calling upon all states’ members to give aid in support of law and order. Sixth. The Korean crisis cannot be re- solved by the United States or by the United Nations if Russia wills otherwise. A3 a corollary, Russia alone has power to confine the Korean situation to a po- lice action or a breach of the peace. Seventh. Russia has refused to cooper- ate in the effort to end Korean hostili- ties. On the contrary, she shows signs of action which may greatly widen hos- tilities. NEW AND DRASTIC POLICY NECESSARY The awful prospect of wide Asiatic op- erations and possibly European crises makes imperative a new and drastic policy by the United States and by the United Nations, The Security Council should take the immediate position that it is aware that the U. S. 8. R. is the prime moving force behind the repeated emergencies and crises which constantly threaten the peace of the world. Except for the instigation of the Soviet Union many of these crises would never occur, or would be confined to small proportions, The Security Council should take the tmmediate position that it will not ex- haust its energies on these trouble spots without holding the Soviet Union itself responsible when the evidence plainly establishes that fact, as it does now in Korea. To that end the United States should ask at once for an extraordinary meet- ing of the United Nations Security Coun- cil and when the Council meets the United States should place before it the following proposition: 1. The Security Council, having resolved that North Korea is an aggressor and is en- gaged in a breach of the peace in violation of the United Nations Charter; and 2. Having deputized states-members to halt the aggression by force Of arms to the end that peace may be restored in the world community—~ Resolves, That while it recognizes consid. erations which may prevent any member front participating in the authorized action to halt a breach of the peace {n Korea, it asserts the duty of all states-members of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE United Nations to refrain from giving aid, direct or indirect, to the North Korean ag- Bressor; and further Resolves, That upon proof that any nation 4s aiding the North Korean aggressor, directly or indirectly, by manpower, arms and imple- ments of war, the Security Council will con- sider the nation giving such aid, or such nae . tion responsible for such aid, guilty of ob- structions to international peace and order and engaged in acta of war against states- members of the United Nations. If the Security Council approves the resolution so placed before it, it should be American policy to take such action as will give maximum effect to the Coun- cil’s findings, as we did in connection with the resolution adopted in relation to the aggression by North Korea. At the same time that it presents this resolution for immediate action by the Security Council, the United States should clarify its own policy. Clarifica- tion has been already too long delayed. The United States should declare that American security and the peace of the world demands an immediate announce- ment that the United States refuses any longer to be pushed from pillar to post by Russian strategy in a war of nerves and attrition. We should further de- clare as we ask the United Nations to declare that we will no longer be deluded by crises, emergencies, and incidents managed by Russia on the outskirts of the Russian sphere domination and di- rected against the United States or the free world. ‘We should declare, as we ask the United Nations to declare, in plain terms that we are well aware of the real source of most of the repeated crises and emer- gencies and that we shall go to the root of the trouble which is the governing authority of the U. 8.8. R. That is the heart that moves, that is the brain that directs the action of the U. 8.5. R. We have no quarrel with the Russian people, but we shall not stand idly by while their men in the Kremlin threaten the security of the United States and destroy the peace of the world. We should announce in the strongest language that if the Security Council delays or does not approve the proposed resolutions, and that if it transpires that manpower, arms, and implements of war are being given to North Korea or to any other area for warlike purposes by the U. 8. 8. R., the United States in defense of its own interests and security under article 61 of the United Nations Charter will take such direct action as its best judgment dictates. Mr. President, I should like to place in the Recorp in connection with my re- marks a table showing the territory and the people over which Russia has gained control by the strategy I have just de- scribed. This table shows that Russia, since 1939, has increased her dominion from 15 percent of the world’s area to 80 percent. It shows also that her dom{- nation over the world’s population has increased from 195,000,000 people to 748,- 000,000, or 33 percent of the total world population. This table and an sccompanying memorandum which shows the resources that have fallen under Russian domina- tion have been prepared for me by the 10065 Library of Congress. I ask unanimous consent that the table and the memo- randum may be printed in the Recorp at this point as a part of my remarks. There being no objection, the matters referred to were ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: . Area and population controlled by Russia and her satellites Area in square | Population miles U.8. 8. R, in 1939...-........- 8, 085, 728) 170, 407, 186 Territorial acquisitions of World War Ie... 2... 278, 947} 24,385, 000 Total controlled in Sep- tonber 1945.2... cneenes 18, 369, 675| 214,822,186 Sa | See PREGENT Albania. ....-..--nwrcemnmnsneee 10, 629) 1,121, 000 Austria (Soviet zone including Soviet sector of Viennn)...._- 15,817) 2, 277, 000 RBulgarta.....2-.---.---- 2+. 42,70} 7, 021, 000 ulgarta China (excluding Tibet and Formosa) .. 0... -ccewnnnnnenee Crechoslovakia..-..-..---.--.-- Germany (Soviet zone includ- ing Soviet sector of Berlin)... 2, 048, 795} 454, 367, 000 49, 358] 12, 16, 000 41, 544] 18, 490, 000 Hungary..-..-.-------+---- 2s 85,902} 9, 33%, 000 North Korea... 48, 468} 8, 000, 000 Outer Mongolia 422, 744 900, 0 Poland ....... 121,131] 24, 775, O00 Rumania... 91, 584) 15, 873, 000 UL BLS, Ru cemecnwnnnceenmn ence 8, 473, 444) 192, 000. 000 Total...e-eneveececenee 172, 202, 2121748, 222, 000 | 415 percent of world areca, 3 Loess than 10 percent. of world population. 3 Almost 30 percent of total area of the world. 433 percent of total population of the world Resources or RvUssIAN SATELLITES Practically all of the countries which have fallen under the control of the U. 8. 8. R. since the end of World War II are important agricultural, grazing, and timber-producing areas, Other noteworthy resources of Soviet satellites are as follows: POLAND One of the leading producers and exporters of coal in Europe; former German Silesia 4s one of the chief manufacturing centers of Europe. RUMANIA Principal producer of petroleum in Europe outside the U. 5. 8. R.; also possesses other noteworthy mineral deposits. CZECHOSLOVAKIA Industrialization of this satellite is com- parable to that of the western European countries; possesses coal and uranium de- posits; her important manufacturing indus- try includes the well-known Skoda arma- ment factory, textile, glass, and shoe in- dustries. BASTEEN GERMANY The Germans are reputed for their tech- nical skills; this area also has uranium deposits. CHINA Possesses tremendous reservoir of man- power; coal and iron deposits in Manchuria; probably has substantial amounts of other unexploited mineral wealth. POINT 4 SNAFU; HOW RED TAPE SCRAM- BLED THE FORMOSA PROJECT--ARTI- CLE FROM NEWSWEEK MAGAZINE Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the body of the Recorp an article entitled “Point 4 Snafu: How Red Tape Scrambled the Formosa Project,” pud- Jished in the July 17, 1950, issue of News- week. The VICE PRESIDENT. Without ob- jection, it is so ordered.
10066 The article is as follows: Pont 4 Snarv: How Ren TaPr ScRaAMBLED & Formosa PROJECT (Since his inaugural day, when President Truman enunciated his “bold new program,” point 4 has been hailed by administration supporters as a joint Government-busincss enterprise to help the economically down- trodden of the earth. To sell the program to Congress and the American people, the Btate Department has stressed that private engineering and consulting firms will be brought in on a contract basis, relieving the Government of most of the expense. Samuel Shaffer of Newsweek's Washington bureau tells how, in the first major test, these promises were forgotten and how bureaucratic red tape snarled up a vital irrigation project in Formosa, and 60 irri- tated Congess that it cut the point 4 appro- priation to 28 percent of what the adminis- tration has been seeking.) The incredible story begins in September 1949. The Nationalist Government in For- mosa had asked the Johnston International Co., an engineering firm of Los Angeles, to make a survey of irrigation potentiaitiles on the strategic island. Without develop- ment of adequate irrigation, the company ‘was told, Formosa would soon be faced with economic collapse. The Johnston Co. borrowed William I. Gardner from the Sacramento branch of the Interlor Department Bureau of Reclamation. Taking a 2-month leave without pay, the geologist made a survey. On the basis of his findings, the Chinese Government entered into a $3,000,000 contract with the Johnston Co. for an underground water system to run the length of Formosa. To raise the cash, the Formosans sold 80,000 tons of their sugar crop to Greece, which paid for it in ECA dollars. Work was to start in July and be com- pleted by October 1. Any delay beyond this date would mean a 60 percent cut in sugar plantings by Formosan farmers and serious economic disturbances. “A gratifying ex- ample of private implementation of the President's plan,” the State Department said. The Johnston people purchased 81,000,000 worth of drilling equipment, motors, jeeps, and so on, which were immediately moved to west coast docks for shipment to For- mosa. It also requested passports for 100 engineers, Then the trouble began. The Office of International Trade in the Commerce De- partment flatly refused to grant export l- censes for the machinery, purportedly be- cause the State Department was afraid it would fall into Communist hands. Hilton C. Smith, the Johnston Co.’s Washington representative, pleaded wearily with the Commerce, State, and Agriculture Depart- ments to reverse the OIT decision. On June 12, Just 48 hours before the ship was sched- uled to sajl for Formosa, the export licenses came through, . BOG DOWN Meanwhile, the State Department has re- fused to issue passports to the 100 engineers. After a month of haggling, the Department agreed on passports for 32, and the company bowed to the decision. But with the re- duced force of engineers, the company felt that it was imperative to reengage the serv- ices of the geologist, Gardner. He knew more about the project than anyone else and had gained the confidence of the For- mosans, A request made to the Recla- mation Bureau's jacramento office was quickly granted, then vetoed by Reclamation Commissioner Michael Straus, who insisted on a State Department O. K. Hilton Smith began his weary rounds again. After he was shuffled from function- ary to functionary, the State Department told him it would ratse no objections if Gard- ner went as a private citizen. To do this, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE the Interior Department told Smith, the geologist would have to quit his Govern- ment job. This made little sense to Gardner. He retused to dump a good Government job for a 2-month stint. Smith was stymied. It was now June 165, 80 Smith carried his troubles to Senator Wiu.t1amM KNOWLAND, member of the Senate Appropriations Committee which was hear- ing testimony on point 4. The California Republican brought the matter up while Assistant Secretary of State Dean Rusk (in charge of Far East affairs) was on the stand. “We have not had a showing that this particular individual is essential to the pro- gram,” said Rusk. QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS “Senator Guy Corpon. What difference does it make? “Rusk. It makes this difference, Senator. We do not object to his going as a private citizen, but when he goes as a Government official, then we have a special problem due to the special circumstances in which offi- clals find themselves in case of emergencies. “KNOWLAND, We have an ECA mission in Formosa. * * * We had an American military mission in Grecce in the middle of a civil war. * * ® We have a mission in Korea. * * * They believe that (Gardner) * © * js essential to carry on the work. It is the first practical point 4 program that I have seen that is not costing our Govern- ment money. * * * “Corpon. The chief objection secms to be that 1t does not cost us any money. * * * You have answered most of my questions on point 4 along with that.” That same day, KNOWLAND wrote to In- terior Secretary Oscar Chapman. Getting no answer, he phoned Chapman a few days later. The Secretary had never received the letter, he said, but promised to look into the matter. KNOWLAND never heard from him again. On June 23, Hilton Smith was finally permitted to talk to Straus. The commissioner remained seated and didn't ex- tend his hand in greeting. Before Smith could tell his story, Straus gave him a flat rejection. He wouldn't release the vitally needed Gardner. When Mr. Truman ordered American war- ships to protect Formosa, Smith felt that a return to the State Department might be fruitful. “This water-development program can prevent the economic collapse of For- mosa,” he told a State official, “Should this happen, we are arbitrarily permitting the Communists to take the island.” The official came up with a brilliant idea. If the John- ston company requested the Chinese Em- bassy to request the State Department for Gardner’s services, then the Department could request the Interior Department to re- lease Gardner to State. Of course, Gardner would then require a loyalty check which might take weeks or months, BLASH On July 5, the Senate Appropriations Com- mittee voted by a Jarge margin to cut point 4 money from $35,000,000 to $10,000,000, and KyNow.anp took the floor to explain why his committee had made this 72-percent slash, After going into the Johnston company case, he said: “With the utmost charity, I may say that there is not a business organization, large or small, in the United States that could not have solved this problem by two 6-cent tele- phone calls in 10 minutes on a matter of this urgency.” As he spoke, the 32 engineers and the $1,- 000,000 worth of equipment sat in Formosa waiting for Gardner. The American occu- pation forces in Japan, which buy most of the Formosan sugar crop, waited for Gard- ner, The island's economy threatened, Chi- nese officials waited for Gardner. The one man essential] to the operation waited in Sacramento while Commissioner Straus per< JULY 13 sisted in refusing him leave without pay. And the State Department, bowing to inter- Gepartmental protocol, stil refused to put pressure on Straus. Said Hilton Smith: “We're about ready to throw in the sponge.” Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I should like to say in regard to the article I have placed in the Recorp that I have just now been informed by a representa- tive of the Department of Slate that in order to unscramble this situation they have asked that Mr. Gardner, who was mentioned in the article, be transferred from the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, to the Depart- ment of State, where the State Depart- ment will make his services available. I merely wish to say that I think it is unfortunate that the Bureau of Recla- mation showed so little interest in point 4 that their acts in this matter were almost a sabotage of the program. GENERAL APPROPRIATION, 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. MAYBANK. Mr. President, I wonder whether the distinguished Sen- ator from Nevada will advise me how long he thinks it will be before we shall finish with this section of the bill. I am particularly interested in knowing when the Treasury-Post Office section of the bill will be reached. Mr. McCARRAN. Mr. President, we have about completed action upon the portion of the bill dealing with the State Department. The next portion of the bill is that dealing with appropriations for the Department of Justice, and then comes the portion of the bill dealing with appropriations for the Department of Commerce and for the Judiciary. In view of the way we are proceeding, it seems to me that we probably shall require most of the remainder of the afternoon on the sections preceding the section dealing with the Treasury-Post Office appropriations. However, that is only a guess. Of course, all of us have seen much faster progress made in times past. Mr. MAYBANK. I thank the Senator, Mr. SALTONSTALL, Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Secre- tary will call the roll. The legislative clerk procceded to call the roll. Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may with- draw my suggestion of the absence of a quorum, and that the order for the call- ing of the roll may be rescinded. The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there ob- jection? Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk will proceed to state the next amendment of the committce, The next amendment was, on page 56, in line 16, after the word “expended”, to insert “and in addition, the Institute is authorized, prior to June 30, 1953, to enter into contracts for the purposes of such act, as amended, in an amount not to exceed $7,000,060.” The amendment was agreed. to.
1950 The next amendment was, under the heading “Title II—Dzpartment of Jus- tice—Legal activities and general ad- ministration—Salartes and expenses, general administration,” on page 59, line 2, after the word “field”, to strike out “$2,175,000” and insert “$2,125,000.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Salaries and expenses, general legal activities,” on page 59, line 11, after “(31 U. S. C. 629)”, to strike out “$7,300,000” and insert $7,475,000.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Salaries and expenses, Anti- trust Division,” on page 59, line 17, after “(5 U. S.C. 55a)”, to strike out “$3,- 850,000” and insert “$3,750,000.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Salaries and expenses, United States attorneys and marshals,” on page 60, line 12, after the word “ammunition”, to strike out “$12,600,000” and insert “$12,847,000.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Fees and expenses of wit- nesses,” on page 60, line 22, after the word “conclusive”, to strike out “$1,- 000,000” and insert “$1,250,000.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Salarics and expenses, claims of persons of Japanese ancestry,” on page 61, line 6, after the word “Colum- bia”, to strike out “$4,000,000” and insert “$1,300,600”; and in line 7, after the word “‘exceed’”’, to strike out “$250,000” and insert “$300,000.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Federal prison system—Build- ings and facilities,” on page 66, line 12, after the word “account”, to strike out “$900,000” and insert “$800,000”; in line 17, after the word “which”, to strike out “$270,000” and insert “$170,000”; and in line 22, after the word “exceed”, to strike out “$970,000” and insert “$870,000.” The amendment was agréed to. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Office of Alien Property—Sal- aries and expenses,” on page 67, line 16, after the word “exceed”, to strike out “$4,240,000” and insert “$4,150,000.” The amendment was agreed to. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, a par- Namentary inauiry. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Sena- tor will state it. Mr. DOUGLAS. Let me ask whether the committee amendment on page 58, in lines 16 to 19, has been agreed to. The VICE PRESIDENT. It has been agreed to. Mr. DOUGLAS, Task unanimous con- sent that the vote by which that amend- ment was agreed to may be reconsidered, I am informed that of the 300 posi- tions in the Institute of Inter-American Affairs, 128 of them fall in the category with salaries ranging from $7,000 to $10,- 750—or that 48 percent of the personnel are receiving salaries of $7,000 a year or more, indicating that this program is ra- ther top-heavy with high-paid personnel. It is my intention to move that the appropriation, instead of being $5,000,- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 000, be reduced to $4,500,000, and that the contract authorization specified in Hne 19 be reduced from $7,000,000 to $5,000,- 000--in short, effecting a reduction of $500,000 in the appropriations and $2,- 000,000 in the contract authorizations. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Illnois requests unanimous con- sent for reconsideration of the vote by which the committee amendment on page 56, in lines 16 tc 19, has been agreed to. Is there objection? Mr. McCARRAN. Reserving the right to object, let me say that I think the Senator from Illinois is addressing his suggestion to the wrong part of the bill. I think the part to which he should ad- dress his suggestion is on page 105, the portion relating to the State Depart~ ment—reading as follows: DEPARTMENT OF STATE The Institute of Inter-American Affairs: Not to exceed 8767,500 of the funda available to the Corporation shall be available during the current fiscal year for its administrative expenses, including administrative services performed for the Corporation by other Gov- ernment agencies. I am of the opinion that the Senator should address his suggestion to that item, rather than to the item to which he has just referred. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, the appropriation on page 105 of the bill, in line 12, is only ir. the amount of $767,- 500, whereas the appropriation dealt with on page 56, at the point I hav2 indicated, is $5,000,000. The number of employees to whom I have called attention totals 300, with 128 of them receiving salaries between $7,000 and $10,750, So the salaries of those 128 employees would be well in excess of $1,000,000, and therefore their salaries cannot be ccvered by the item of $767.- 500 appearing on page 105—as we may determine by the simple process of mul- tiplication. Mr. McCARRAN. Of course, the item on page 105 is a part of the item on page 56. Mr. President, the Senator from Illi- nois does not give us any good reason why we should agree to the change he has suggested, because he does not say that he is definitely or reliably informed that there is such a category of salaries, Moreover, the evidence before the com-~ mittee does not justify that conclusion. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, let me read from the Senate committee hear- ings, on page 759: TOTAL EMPLOYMENT STRENGTH Chairman McKe.ziar. In the House hear- ings, on page 1285, Mr. STEFan asks: “How many people do you have employed over-all domestically and in the fleld in all categories?” , The rest of the conversation reads as fol- lows: “Mr, Myer. In 1950, we have 875 positions with 300 of them filled, Mr. Staran.” On the next page, the Senator from Nevada [Mr. McCarran} asked: I am reading from page 1286 now of the House hearings under the head “Statement of number and percentage of employees in 1951 estimate whose annual rates are 67,000 or more,” 10067 Under the salary range of 67,000 to 68,900 in Washington there are 18, in the fleld 89, with a total of 102. That 1s, 102 drew any= where from $7,000 to 68,999, In the catogory of $9,090 to $9,990 there are 4 in Washington, 12 in the fleld, with a total of 16, In the salary range of $10,000 and over there are 7 in Washington, 3 in the fleld, and 10 in total. The total Is 128. I may say to the Senator, by his own cross examination, he brought forth the fact that there were 128 employees with salaries in excess of $7,000 each. In view of the fact that this is three-sevenths of the total num- ber of employees in the Institute, it seems to me that this organization is topheavy with highly paid help, and that we might very well, in view of the situa- tion of the country and of the budget, impose a cut of at least $500,000. The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there ob- jection to the unanimous-consent re- quest of the Senator from Illinois? Mr. McCARRAN. Mr. President, still reserving the right to object, let me say to the Senator that it has been disclosed that these employees are of a particular type. They are experts who must be paid the salaries indicated in order to obtain their services. They are not ordinary workmen. They are experts selected for specific work. We shall have many of them in point 4, as well. Mr. DOUGLAS. The Senator knows the definition of an expert, I am sure— a man who is a long way from home. Mr. McCARRAN. Yes; I have heard that; and that is the reason—these em- ployees go a long way from home. The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there ob- jection to the request of the Senator from Ilinois? . Mr. McCARRAN. I object for the time being. I do not know that I shall object eventually. I suggest to the Sen- ator from Illinois that the matter go over, and perhaps I can confer with him and we may be able to arrive at an understanding. Mr. DOUGLAS. I thank the Senator very much. Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object-—— The VICE PRESIDENT. The matter has already gone over. The Secretary will state the next amendment. The next amendment was, under the heading “Title 1J—Department of Com- merce—Office of the Secretary,” on page 70, line 12, after “(not exceeding $1,000)”, to strike out “$1,300,000” and insert “$1,400,000.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Bureau of the Census,” on page 72, line 24, after the word “work,” to strike out “$29,500,000” and insert “$28,500,000.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Civil Aeronautics Administra- tion,” on page 74, line 5, after the word “aviation”, to strike out “$97,000,000” and insert “$99,775,000.” The VICE PRESIDENT. The question 1s on agreeing to the amendment. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I do not wish to be captious, but these amend- ments are going through with supersonic
10068 speed, and they generally call for in- creases. I should like to raise the ques- tion regarding the amendment on page 74, line 5, that the committee has rec- ommended an increase of $2,750,000 over the appropriation provided by the House. Once this amendment is adopted, it is going to be very hard indeed to have the action reversed. Mr. President, I should like to know what the reason is, and why there should be an increase of about $3,000,000 in the Civil Aeronautics Administration. I may say that the House report says there exists a definite requirement as to per- sonnel utilization and to provide ways and means of more fully utilizing the potential available operational capabili~- ties of the field personnel. Expendi- tures for the last year, Mr. President, were only $95,000,000. The House pro- vided an increase of $2,000,000. The Senate Committee recommends an addi- tional increese of $2,775,00, making a total increase of $4,775,000 Unless there is a good reason for it, I find my- self very allergic to this request for an increase. Mr. McCARRAN, Let me say to the Senator that there is good reason for these figures applying to the Civil Acro- nautics Administration. Much more equipment has been installed and many more ground guides and greater facili- ties for safety have been installed, re- quiring additional personnel. The com- mittee recommended an appropriation of $99,775,000 for salaries and expenses. This 1s an increase over the House ap- propriation of $2,775,000 and is a reduc- tion of $4,475,000 from the Budget Bureau’s estimate. So that the amount recommended by the committee js nearly $4,500,000 under the budgct estimate; and with the amount recommended by the committee, the CAA will be able, in the estimation of the committee, to con- tinue at about the 1950 level. The CAA came before the commi.tee and asked for much more than this, and the Budget Bureau, 1n fact, allowed them more than this. It is a cut of nearly $4,500,000 from the estimate of the Budget Bureau. The committee feels that this increase is justified, because of the growing emphasis on the aviation program and because of the needs of keeping the safety program at the high- est possible level. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I should like to point out that the House report, on page 44—and the House re- duced the appropriation $2,750,000 be- low the Senate figure—stated: No part of the reduction 4s to apply to any activitiy of the Administration dealing with promulgation or enforcement of safety regulations. The reduction was to be on the non- safety functions of the CAA. Mr. McCARRAN. The Senate Com- mittee on Appropriations says in its report: The committee recognizes the results de- rived from the promulgation and enforce- ment of safety regulations, However, this activity alone does not assure safety. Other activities of the CAA, including atr traffic control, aids to air navigation, and airport services, together with the cooperative effort of the entire aviation industry, are required to assure the public’s safety in air travel. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE The committee recommends a balanced avia- tion safety program among the several ac- tivities within this appropriation. That was the attitude of the Senate eommittee. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. Pres'dent, will the Senator yield? Mr. McCARRAN. If I may continue for a moment, I may say that this is a matter which was gone into at great length by the subcommittee The hear- ings are before the Senator. We thought when we cut the budget estimate as much as we did, we were going just about as far as safety would permit us to go. Mr. DOUGLAS I may say first that the House committee, which provided an apyropriation $2,750,000 less than that recommended by the Senate com- mittee, said that the House cut would not interfere with safety. The House report indicates also that the reason the budget was asking for a large figure for CAA was that CAA has been assuming— and I now quote the House report-—— The message-handling function for com- mercial airlines of @ purely private opera- tions nature at some of the overseas airway communications stations, Continuing to read from the House report. The invertigative report suggested that the CAA take action to divest itself of the over- seas communications function concerning private-message traffic, or else continue the serve on a fee basis. The committee is in complete accord with the following remark of the Administrator of the CAA, in his pen- eral statement: “It is our plan to completely eliminate the furnishing without charge of communi- cation services for company traffic to atr carriers operating between the United States and overseas points.” Resuming the statement of the com~ mittee: The committee ts, however, a. a loss to un= derstand why such a situation has been al- lowed to exist for so long. So, the implication is that if this serv- ice which is of a purely private nature, were put on a fee basis, or were dis- continued, the CAA would need less money, and I think the Senato: will find that the $2,750,000 extra is really going to provide communications service for private overseas airlines, which should be charged to the private lines them- selves, Mr. SALTONSTALL. will the Senator yield? Mr. McCARRAN. Certainly. Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, I should like to say two things. I thor- oughly approve of the appropriation which has been recommendec by the committee. In my opinion one of the most important things we can do is to assure, so far as possible, safety in air flights. As I see it, what we are trying to do—and I have followed this subject for several years—is, to build up safety precautions on the fields we now have before we extend too much into new fields. Let us take those two things to- gether. The subcommittee of which the dis- tinguished Senator from Nevada [Mr. McCarran] is chairman has reduced the amount for new airfields, but has in- creased slightly the amount for making Mr. President, JULY 13 greater safety precautions on the flelds we now have. If the appropriation were left at its original figure, we would not only be unable to take care of our safety facilities this year, but we would actually have to cut down some of the stations we are now operating. So far as the international situation is concerned, I would simply refer to one paragraph of the report: The eftect of saving 8420,000 by reducing the present operating level of overseas for- cign aeronautical communication stations and the reduction of the stations will se- riously interfere with the handling of over- seas traffic and may result in inability to comply with international obligations. There, in substance, is what was tes- tified before the committee on the sub- Ject which the Senator from Illinois Mr. Doveuas] has brought up. I look upon the whole situation as involving safety in flying, which we want to make as safe as we can. I do not believe we can re- duce the figure to the House amount without seriously interfering with the progress we are making in safety de- velopment. - Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President—— Mr. McCARRAN. I do not know who has the floor. , The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Nevada theoretically has the floor. Mr. McKELLAR. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. McCARRAN. I yield Mr. McKELLAR. The estimate of the Budget Bureau is $104,250,000. The com- mittee has reduced this item to $99,775,- 000, which is $4,475,000 below the esti- mate It seems to me the committee has done very well. The full committee approved what the subcommittee had done, and I hope that the committee amendment will be agreed to. The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is on agreeing to the committee amend- ment. The amendment was agreed to. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Secre- tary will state the next amendment. The next amendment was, on page 175, line 7, after the word “storm”, to strike out $32,000,000" and insert “$27,500,- 000”; in line 8, after the word “which”, to strike out “$26,500,000” and insert “$22,000,000.” The amendment was agrecd to. The next amendment was in line 13, after the word “exceeding”, to strike out “$13,461,500” and insert ‘‘$20,000,000.” Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, that is an increase of $6,500,000. Mr. McCARRAN. Mr. President, the item to which the Senator from Illinois makes reference is a contract authoriza- tion in the amount of $40,500,000, of which $26,500,000 is for liquidation of prior contract authority. The House al- lowed $32,000,000 with $26,500,000 al- lowed for liquidation of contract author- ity. The Senate committee recommends that the amount fot liquidation of con- tract authority be reduced further, or a cut of $4,500,000 under the House figure. Based upon the rate of expenditure in the fiscal year 1950, the amount recom- mended by the committee will be entirely sufficient for the year. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I think the very able Senator from Nevada is
1950 speaking of the committee amendment on line 8. I congratulate the committee on the good work done here, but in lines 13 and 14 there is authorized an addi- tional contract authority of $6,500,000. Mr, McCARRAN,. This is a contract authorization also, and in the opinion oz the committee, the increase was jus- tified and in keeping with the history of the matter. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, there is great need for economy, and here is an increase of $6,500,000 above the figure which the House commuitee believes to be proper, I shall vote against this committee amendment, but I wonder if the committee would not withdraw its request for an increased appropriation in the gencral interest of national econ- omy. Mr. McCARRAN. No, Mr, President; this was inserted after long consideration and careful study, and it is in keeping with the entire history of the transac- tion. The VICE PRESIDENT. The ques- tion is on agreeing to the committee amendment. The amendment was agreed to. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Secre- tary will state the next amendment. The next amendment was, on page 77, line 14, after the numerals “1953”, to strike out “$45,000,000” and insert “$37,000,000”; and in line 15, after the word “which”, to strike out “$42,000,- 000” and insert “$34,000,000.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, on page 79, line 9, after the word “expenses”, to insert “of which $35,000 may be trans- ferred to the appropriation ‘Salaries and expenses, Civil Aeronautics Administra- tion for such expenses, including the maintenance and operation of aircraft.” The amendment was agreed to. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, may I ask the meaning of the amendment on page 79? Does it mean an authoriza- tion of $6,000,000 or an additional authorization of $35,000? Mr, McCARRAN. It is a transfer. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Secre- tary will state the next amendment. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Civil Aeronautics Board,” on page 80, line 5, after the word “binding”, to strike out “$3,400,000” and insert “$4,000,000”, a colon, and the following proviso: “Provided, That the Depart- ments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force are authorized to transfer to the Civil Aeronautics Board without charge, sub- ject to the approval of the Bureau of the Budget, aircraft (for replacement only), aircraft engines, parts, and accessories surplus to the needs of such Depart- ments.” Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, this is an increase of $600,000 over the appro- priation provided by the House. Mr. McCARRAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield for a question, Mr, McCARRAN. Does the Senator refer to page 80? Mr. DOUGLAS, Yes; to the amend- ment which is now under consideration. The House appropriated $3,400,000. The committee recommendation is $4,000,000. It is an increase of $600,000 plus trans- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE fers. I might point out that the total appropriation was a million and a half dollars in 1945, and it has been steadily increasing ever since, A large part of the increases which have been granted have been allegedly for the purpose of decreasing a large backlog of work, but despite increased appropriations, delay in making decisions and failure to de- crease the alleged backlog have con- tinued. The House committee has long recognized the fact—and I read from the House report, page 46: That the trouble with this agency of Gov- ernment was not one of appropriations. We have had a supposed reorganiza- tion of the CAB along the lines suggested by the Hoover Commission, and I belicve that if the recommendations of the Hoover Commission brought about in- creased efficiency, as is alleged to be the case, the CAB does not need this increased appropriation. I therefore suggest that the Senate restore the House appropriation by rejecting the committee amendment and thereby save $600,000. The VICE PRESIDENT. The ques- tion is on agreeing to the amendment of the committee on page 80, line 5. The amendment was agreed to. Mr. SCHOEPPEL. Mr. President, I should like to ask the distinguished Sen- ator from Nevada with reference to the amendment just agreed to, wherein it is stated: Provided, That the Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force are authorized to transfer to the Civil Aeronautics Board with- out charge, subject to the approval of the Bureau of the Budret, aircraft (for replaces ment only), aircraft engines, parts, and ace cecssories surplus to the needs of such de- partments, I should like to have some explana- tion of that broad grant of authority. Mr. McCARRAN, Mr, President, in answer to the Senator’s question, this equipment, as suggested, is surplus, and instead of buying it the Army is author- ized to transfer it to the CAB in place of having the CAB purchase new equip- ment. Mr. SCHOEPPEL. In view of events of the last week, is it presupposed that the Army, Navy, and Air Force will not need these supplies? Mr. McCARRAN. I am not certain that I caught the Senator's question. However, the material must be declared to be surplus before it can be trans- ferred. When it is declared to be sur- plus, it may be transferred by the au- thorities to the CAB for public use. Otherwise the CAB would be required to purchase the material, and an appro- priation would have to be made for that purpose. Mr. BRIDGES. Mr. President, may I say a word? The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Nevada yield? Mr. McCARRAN. Yes. Mr. BRIDGES, I think the Senator from Kansas makes a very good point on this particular item. One of the les- sons which we have learned during the past few weeks is that we have disposed of too much surplus material. Because we have rushed the disposal of surplus materials, we now find ourselves weak- 10069 ened and in a position of not being able to furnish the supplies which are so much needed to back up our troops in Korea. I think the Senator’s point {s well taken, not only that the Army and Navy may need the supplies, but that the policy of declaring material surplus material has gone too far. Mr. McCARRAN. In further answer to the Senator from Kansas, and also ir. answer to the suggestion made by the Senator from New Hampshire, I should like to read from the report of the com- mittee, as follows: The amendment relating to the transfer of aircraft and aircraft parts from the Mili- tury Establishment is requested to provide authority for replacing obsolete and over- age Board aircraft at no cost to the Board, At the present time the Board owns 17 air= craft of various types. Of this fleet, six are in need of major overhaul and fabric recov. erlug, eight are in need of fabric recover- ing, and one is in a completely unflyable condition. All but six of the fiect are cone sidered to be obsolete and should be ree paired, Mr. SCHOEPPEL. Is the impression sought to be conveyed that the comimit- tee took the position that the material was practically obsolete? Mr. McCARRAN. he material men- tioned in the report is regarded as prac- tically obsolete, and must be repaired or replaced by these surplus commodities, Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, as I remember the testimony, I would say that the Senator from Nevada and I were convinced of the fact that the planes, which are to be used for replace- ment purposes only, are no longer of any service to the Air Force. They are anti- quated planes. Their armament has been removed. They were transferred to the CAB for transportation purposes only, as they were no longer fit for fight~ ing purposes. The VICE PRESIDENT. The next amendment of the committee will be stated. . The next amendment was, under the subhead “Bureau of Foreign and Do- mestic Commerce,” on page 82, line 18, after “(5 U. 5. C. 55a)”, to strike out “$5,000,000” and insert $5,300,000.” Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, this is an increase of $300,000, and is an in- crease of $245,000 over last year’s ap- propriation. The committee in its re- port justifies this increase by stating that ‘the amount recommended by the committee will allow modest increases in the Office of Business Economics, the Office of Domestic Commerce, and the Office of International Trade.” Mr, President, this is not the time to be mak- ing modest increases in civilian-agency spending. If we cannot make drastic reductions, we should at least make mod- est reductions, not modest increases, The VICE PRESIDENT. The ques- tion is on agreeing to the amendment of the committee. The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, on page 83, line 3, after the word “binding”, to strike out ‘$2,050,000" and insert ‘“$2,~- 155,000.” Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, this is an increase of $105,000 over the House appropriation. I hope it will be re- jected,
10070 The VICE PRESIDENT. The ques- tion is on agreeing to the amendment. The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Patent Office,” on page 84, line 4, sfter the word “photolithography”, to strike out “$11,300,000” and insert “$11,- 530,000.” Mr, DOUGLAS. This is an increase of $230,000 above the House appropria- tion of $11,300,000 passed by the House. Although the committee admits in its report, on page 37, that this agency, namely, the Patent Office, has “an ex- cessively high supervisory overhead,” it went ahead and increased the appropria- tion by $230,000 over the House figure. This was Gone although the House had already increased by $460,000 the amount appropriated last year. I should think the $460,000 increase allowed by the House would be sufficient, and it should not be necessary to further increase the amount by $230,000. Mr. McCARRAN. The committee rec- ommends $11,530,000, which is an in- crease of $230,000 over the House figure, and a reduction below the budget esti- mate of $230,000. During the past year, for the first time in several years, more patent applications have been disposed of than have been received. The com- mittee therefore restored half of the re- duction made by the House, so that this tempo could be maintained. The VICE PRESIDENT. The ques- tion is on agreeing to the amendment, (Putting the question.) The Chair is in doubt. As many as favor the amend- ment will rise and stand until counted, [A pause.] Those who oppose the amendment will rise and stand until counted. [A pause.] The amendment is rejected. Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was rejected. I make the motion because if there is any justi- fication anywhere for a larger amount, it is in the field of patents. I am a lawyer, though not a patent lawyer. However, the Patent Office is in an out- rageous condition. If today an inventor wants to get a patent, 2 or 3 years must elapse before his application can be heard. Due to the war effort the fact that the Patent Office has been moved two or three times, the office is in such condition that there is a backlog of cases which it is trying to make up. If my memory serves me aright, it will take 10 years before the Patent Office can be placed on a current working level. If the appropriation ts cut to the amount represented by the rejection of the com- mittee amendment, it will take a longer time before patent applications can be put on anywhere near a current basis. If a man is able to make something by reason of his inventive genius or ingenuity, he should know whether he will get a patent without having to wait 2 or 3 years. It may be that in that time he may be dead, or something else may have happened. Certainly, in the interest of business and the proper func- tioning of our economic life, the small amount recommended by the committee should be appropriated for the Patent Office. I was tempted to do what the Senator from Illinois suggested, but T CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE was convinced that this amount should be appropriated if the Patent Office is to operate anywhere near on a current basis. I hope my motion to reconsider will be agreed to and that the committee amendment will be restored to the bill. The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is on agreeing to the motion of the Sen- ator from Massachusetts to reconsider the vote by which the committee amend- ment was rejected. [Putting the ques- tion.) Several Senators asked for a division. The VICE PRESIDENT. A division is called for. The Senate proceeded to divide. Mr. McKELLAR. I suggest the ab- sence of a quorum. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Secre- tary will call the roll. The roll was called, and the fol- lowing Senators answered to their names: . Alken Hickenlooper Maybank Anderson. Hill Millikin Brewster Hoey Morse Bricker Holland Mundt Bridges Humphrey Murray Butler Ives Myers Byrd Jenner Neely Capehart Johnson, Colo, O’Conor Chapman Johnson, Tex. O'Mahoney Chavez Johnston, 8. C. Robertson Connally Kem Russell Cordon Kerr Saltonstall Donnell Kilgore Schoeppel Douglas Knowland Smith, Maine Dworshak Langer Smith, N. J. Eastland Leahy Sparkman Ecton. Lehman Stennis Ellender Lodge Taft Ferguson Lucas Thomas, Okla. Frear McCarran Thomas, Utah Fulbright McCarthy Thye George McClellan Tydings Gillette McFarland Watkins Graham McKellar Wherry Green McMahon Wliey Gurney Magnuson Williams Hayden Malone Young Hendrickson Martin The VICE PRESIDENT, A quorum is present. The question is on the motion of the Senator from Massachusetts |Mr. Sat- TONSTALL] to réconsider the vote by which the committee amendment, on page 84, line 4, was rejected. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, for the benefit of Senators who came into the Senate Chamber since the original action was taken, I may say that last year the Patent Office received approxi- mately $10,840,000. The House bill in- creased this by about $475,000 to $11,- $00,000, representing an increase of something more than 4 percent, The Senate committee proposed a further in- crease of $230,000. I am very glad that the Senate, on a division, rejected this increase, and I hope very much that the motion to reconsider may be defeated. Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, as a result of the rejection of the com- mittee amendment on the motion of the Senator from Illinois, the Patent Office appropriation is reduced from $11,530,- 000 to $11,300,000, a cut of $230,000. I call the attention of the Senate to the fact that the receipts of the Patent Office represent about 50 percent of its expenditures, so that the net cut is half of $230,000, or approximately $115,000. By making that reduction, what are we sacrificing? We are reducing the force employed in the Patent Office by JULY 13 75 men. The backlog of cases of patents pending in the Patent Office is now 220,- 000, and that number is being cut down at the rate of 21,000 a year. In other words, if there were retained the 75 em- ployees in the Patent Office who would be lost to the office if the Senate com- mittee amendment is rejected, it would still take 10 years to put the Patent Office on a current basis. At the pres- ent time it takes 2 years from the time an application for a patent is filed until the result is known. It seems to me there are other places where we could make a cut. I have studied this particular case very closely because I have received many letters re- questing that an increase in the appro- priation be made. I did not want to have an increase made. But after studying the matter, I believe we should increase the appropriation to retain the present force, not to increase it, in order to give the man who wants to secure a patent a decent break. Ido not consider that he has a decent break if he is made to wait 2 years for his patent. I do not consider it a good break when there is a backlog of 220,000 cases, which are being broken down at the rate of 21,000 a year. I hope the motion to reconsider will prevail. Mr, McKELLAR. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. SALTONSTALL. I yield. Mr. McKELLAR. I desire to call the attention of the Senator from Massa- chusetts and of all Members of the Sen- ate to the splendid work done by the Appropriations Committee. Chapter III, as reported by the Senate committee, is $44,773,730 under the House bill, and it is $119,516,165 under the estimate of the Budget Bureau. It seems to me the committee has done a wonderful job, and I hope the Senate will sustain the com- mittee by voting for the motion to re- consider and to restore the committee amendment. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, will the Senator from Massachusetts yield for a question? Mr. SALTONSTALL. I yield to the Senator from Illinois. Mr. DOUGLAS. The Senator from Massachusetts said that if we restored the House appropriation it would mean a reduction in personnel. I assume the Senator meant a reduction in personnel below that provided in the Senate re- port. Is it not true that the House bill grants $475,000 more than is presently appropriated, so that if we adopt the House figure we would have, not a de- crease in the number of employees in the Patent Office, but an increase? We sim- ply would not have as large an increase as would be the case if we adopted the recommendation of the Senate commit- tee. Is that not the case? Mr. SALTONSTALL, I desire to an- swer the Senator from Tilinois accu- rately, but it is a Httle hard to find the figure quickly. I think the figure on page 1372 of the hearings shows that, if the committee amendment should not be agreed to, the Patent Office would have to lay off 75 men whom they now have employed. I am not absolutely certain about that figure, but I believe it to be correct,
1950 The VICE PRESIDENT. The ques- tion is on the motion of the Senator from Massachusetts to reconsider the vote by which the committee amendment was rejected. Mr. McCARRAN. Mr. President, in order that Senators who were not pres- ent when action was taken on the amendment may be advised, I should like to say that the item in question is a part of the appropriation for the De- partment of Commerce. The Commit- tee on Appropriations of the Senate cut the appropriation for the Department of Commerce by 11 percent. This is a Department for which we thought the full amount of the appro- priation should be retained, so that the Department can properly perform its work, The committee recommends $11,530,- 000, an increase of $230,000 over the House figure, aad a reduction of $230,000 below the Budgct figure. During the past year, and for the first time in several years, more patent appli- cations have been disposed of than ever before. Therefore, the committee voted to restore half of the reduction made by the House of Representatives, so that the tempo of the work might be continued in the Patent Office. Let me say that the following testi- mony was received by the committee, from Mr. Marzall:; PRINTING AND BINDING Mr. Marzary. That is true to a certain extent, Senator SALTONSTALL, But we have this to consider. We have had an increase from the Government Printing Office from 10 to 14 percent. The Patent Office does about $2,000,000 worth of printing a year, and that item of the increase of the Gov- ernment Printing Office to the Patent Office would amount to about $220,000, It was on that basis and on the basis that we hope to keep the work as current as possible and have the patents issued as rapidly as possible, that we thought it worth while to provide the amount of money recommended by the committee, The VICE PRESIDENT. The ques- tion is on agreeing to the motion to re- consider the vote by which the com- mittee amendment on page 84, in Hne 4, was rejected. The motion was agreed to, The VICE PRESIDENT. The ques- tion now is on agreeing to the committce amendment on page 84, in line 4. The amendment was agreed to. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIA- TIONS—CONFERENCE REPORT Mr, HILL. Mr. President, I submit a conference report on House bill 8568, making appropriations for the govern- ment of the District of Columbia and other activities chargeable in whole or in part against the revenues of such Dis- trict, and I ask unanimous consent for its present consideration, The VICE PRESIDENT. The report will be read for the information of the Senate. The report was read. (For conference report, see pp. 10082- 10084 of House proceedings for today.) Mr. HILL. Mr. President, let me say that the conference report is signed by all the members of the committee of CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE conference—both the majority members and the minority members. The report has been agreed to by the House of Rep- resentatives, I ask for the immediate consideration of the report. The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there ob- jection to the immediate consideration of the conference report? Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr, President, reserving the right to object, let me in- quire whether the report is unanimous on the part of all the conferees. Per- haps the Senator has already stated that, but my attention was diverted for a moment. Mr, HILL. Yes; the report is unani- mous on the part of the Senate con- ferees—both the majority and the mi- nority members—and is unanimous on the part of the House conferees. The report has been agreed to by the House of Representatives. Mr. SALTONSTALL. I have no ob- jection. The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there ob- jection to the request of the Senator from Alabama for the immediate con- sideration of the conference report? There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the report. Mr. HILL. I move the adoption of the report. The motion was agreed to. The VICE PRESIDENT laid before the Senate a message from the House of Rep- resentatives announcing its action on certain amendments of the Senate to House bill 8568, which was read as fol- lows: In THE House oF REPRESENTATIVES, U. 8, July 13, 1950. Resolved, That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendments of the Senate Nos. 17, 65, and 66 to the bill (HW. R. 8568) making appropriations for the govern- ment of the District of Columbia and other activities chargeable in whole or in part against the revenues of such District for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1951, and for other purposes, and concur therein. That the House recede from its disagree- ment to the amendment of the Senate No. 28 to said bill and concur therein with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed by said amendment insert '$3,- 648,600.” Mr. HILL. Mr. President, I move that the Senate concur in the amendment of the House to the amendment of the Senate numbered 28. The motion was agreed to. GENERAL APPROPRIATION, 1951 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. The VICE PRESIDENT. The next committee amendment will be stated. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Bureau of Public Roads,” on page 86, line 22, after the words “per diem”, to strike out the colon and the following additional proviso: “Provided further, That not to exceed $3,000,000, to be derived from the administrative funds provided under the act of July 11, 1916, as amended or supplemented (23 U. 8. C. 21), shall be available until expended for continuing the construc- 10071 tion of a laboratory, on a site already acquired, for permanent quarters for the testing and research work of the Bureau of Public Roads.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, on page 87, line 24, after the word “expended”, to strike out ‘$405,000,000" and insert “$385,000,000.” Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I de~ sire to congratulate the committce on recommending a reduction in the appro- priation for Federal-aid postwar highe- ways from $405,000,000 to $385,000,000, or a saving of $20,000,000. However, I should like to suggest that in this period of national emergency and relatively high employment, further road construction is not particularly needed in order to stabilize the economy. It might well be deferred, so far as the national defense situation is concerned, and it seems to me that we should make a further reduction in this item. Therefore, to the committee amend- ment on page 87, in line 24, I offer the following amendment: Strike out the figure ‘$385,000,000" and insert “$285,~ 000,000"; and, in addition, in line 25, to strike out “$263,491,000, and insert $163 ,491,000.” The effect of this substitute amend- ment will be to make a saving of $100,000,000, Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. DOUGLAS, I yield. Mr. HOLLAND. I should like to ask the Senator whether he knows the rela- tionship of the changes he proposes to the commitments which have been made to the States by the Bureau of Public Roads, and the relationship to the con- tracts which already are let, and under which construction already is proceeding. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, the point is that by the system of advance commitments, the Bureau of Public Roads has virtually taken away from the Congress the power to appropriate money. The Bureau of Public Roads makes com- mitments for long periods in advance. Then, when on the floor of the Senate we attempt to make reductions in the ap- propriations, we are told that the com- mitments have been made and that we cannot change the amounts. Mr. President, we in the Congress have the power to appropriate, and it is about time that we used it. We should not ab- dicate the power of cppropriating money. Mr. HAYDEN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield. Mr. HAYDEN. Let me state that the Bureau of Public Roads exercises no such authority. The Congress itself has directed, many times, that the Bureau proceed in this way, and in no other way. These appropriations are made every 2 years, because the State legislatures meet every 2 years; and the appropria- tions thus are made in advance, so that the State legislatures will know what funds they must appropriate in order to match the Federal Government appro- priations. The State government ap- propriations are made on that basis, and there is a contractual obligation on the part of the United Siates to meet or
10072 match the funds provided by the States. So there is no other way by which to pro- ceed. We could not intelligently pro- ceed on any other basis with the vast amount of highway construction in the United States. The Senator does an injustice when he says that the bureaucrats do this. It is deliberately done every 2 years by the Congress of the United States, and the program is a sound one. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, is it not true that we can simply postpone the appropriation of these funds, so that $100,000,000 which, under the amend- ment I have offered to the committee amendment, would not be expended this year, could be carried over into future years? Mr. HAYDEN. No. Mr. DOUGLAS. The adoption of the amendment I have offered would not mean that the projects will be aban- doned, but would merely mean that the period of time during which construction would occur would be lengthened. Mr. HAYDEN. It would mean that we would repudiate what is stated in the law as a contractual obligation on the part of the United States. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, the senior Senator from Virginia {Mr. Byrp] many times has called the attention of the Senate to the fact that we are losing control over our ability to appropriate, and that we are losing it because of the system of advance commitments. Al- though in many cases I do not agree with the senior Senator from Virginia, never- theless it seems to me that in this re- spect he is correct, and that it is about time that we in the Congress asserted our control over the budget for the ensuing year. We should not tie ourselves up as to future periods, At the present time we are facing a period of great national tension. It may be that we should devote such funds, not to highways, but to munitions, How- eves’, every dollar we put into highways will reduce by that much the amount of money we are able to devote to military preparations, materials, and the neces- sary contracts in that connection. Mr. HAYDEN. Mr. President, let me say that the commitments for which this money is being appropriated were made 2 years ago. The Senator from Tlino{s will have an opportunity quite promptly to accom- plish his purpose, because there has been pending before the Senate Committee on Public Roads a bill which that com- mittee has reported today, and which will be upon the calendar. That bill has been passed by the House. The bill con- tains authorizations for the fiscal years 1952 and 1953, and contains provisions in regard to the contractual obligations to which the Senator has been addressing himself. If the Senator from Tlinois is able to have those provisions deleted, he can cure the situation to which he ob- jects However, the proposal he now makes should not be agreed to. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I do not like to deal only with the distant scene in 1952 and 1953. I like to deal with the scene in 1950 and 1951. Ido not think our hands should be tied by any CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE commitments which have been made by Government bureaus, agencies or previ- ous sessions of Congress. Mr. THYE. Mr. President, those of us who had the responsibility of main- taining the highway systems in the States during the war years, know how wholly inadequate our road systems were and how the heavy vehicles using the high- ways were pounding our hard-surface roads to pieces every day in the year. I wish to commend the able Senator from Illinois for proposing reductions in any appropriation. Economy is a necessity. But I do not beHeve there is economy in denying to the Federal high- way system an adequate appropriation, in order that the requests of the States to match the State funds for adequate road construction may be met. If we are confronted with another national emer- gency such as the war may bring to us, we will need to increase our hard-sur- faced highway system in the United States, in order to transport that which will have to be transported. “urther- more, we shall have to supplement by truck our existing railroad transportation facilities, or we shall not be able to meet the demand for the movement of mer- chandise and war equipment which will confront the Nation. For that reason, while I agree with the Senator from Illinois that we should economize, yet I believe that if we bring about an economy in this appropriation, it may not be economy, but a very ex- pensive action, in its ultimate effect. Mr. CHAVEZ and Mr. SALTONSTALL addressed the Chair. Mr. DOUGLAS, Mr. President, I in- Quire who has the floor? The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Illinois has the floor. Mr. CHAVEZ. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Illinois yield to the Sen- ator from New Mexico? Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield. Mr. CHAVEZ. I may say to the Sen- ator from Illinois that this item goes beyond the question of appropriation. This obligation was created, not by this Congress but by the Eightieth Congress, for reasons outlined by the Senator from Arizona, which compels the States of Tli- nois, New Mexico, Minnesota, and Wis- consin, as well as the other States of the Union and the possessions of the United States, to make their plans and programs 2 years in advance, That is because State legislatures meet but once every 2years. The Eightieth Congress passed the authorization which necessitates this appropriation, since the obligation has already been created. As stated by the Senator from Arizona, the Committee on Public Roads today reported @ bill to take care of the roads for 1952 and 1953. But so far as 1950 and 1951 are concerned, the obligations for those years have been created, and the Senate would now be inconsistent and would be unfair to every State in the Union and to every possession of the United States if it were at this moment to reduce the appropriation, Mr. SALTONSTALL, Mr. President, will the Senator yield? JuLY 13 The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Wlinois yield to the Senator from Massachusetts? Mr, DOUGLAS. If I may make one remark, Mr. President, before I yield again, let me say that this alleged obli- gation may be one of two kinds—legal or moral. So far as the legal obligation is concerned, I should like to have my esteemed colleagues consult the Charles River Bridge case, the citation for which ia 11 Peters 420—1837, and Stone v. Mis- sissippi (101 U. 8S. 814—1880), in which I think the courts have held very de- cisively that one legislature cannot bind a future legislature. Each legislature, therefore, has the right to judge con- cerning its own appropriations. There- fore, the Eighty-first Congress is not bound by the action of the Enghtleth Congress Mr. CHAVEZ. Mr. President, I think the Senator has correctly stated a sound rule of law. Nevertheless, the sovereign State of New Mexico, in order to meet its obligations under the law, and to par- ticipate in a contribution by the Federal Government for roads, must appropriate the money or make provision by which to match the contribution which was made by the Fightieth Congress, I think the rule of law outlined by the Senator from Illinois is correct, That is the way it should be. One legislature should not be able to bind another. That is the very reason why the thing is done as it is done here. Mr. DOUGLAS. Let me suggest this to my good friend from New Mexico: Suppose we were to adopt my amend- ment and were to save $100,000,000, actu- ally $120,000,000 in relation to the House figure. The Federal Government would appropriate $100,000,000 less. The States, under the 50-50 formula, would appropriate or spend $100,000,000 less. I do not think the condition of the States would be severely affected. What would happen would be that the State deficits would be less than they otherwise would be, or their surpluses would be greater. It seems to me there- fore—— Mr. HOLLAND and Mr. MAYBANK addressed the Chair. The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Illinois yield, and if so, to whom? Mr. DOUGLAS. If I may finish my sentence, I shall be glad to yield. It seems to me, therefore, that we should then, in a manner, be killing two birds with one stone: We would not only save $100,000,000 for the Federal Govern- ment, but we would also save $100,000,- 000 for the State governments. rat, Mr, President, should constitute a great contribution to the war effort. Mr. HOLLAND, Mr. SALTONSTALL, Mr. THYE, Mr. MAYBANK and other Senators addressed the Chair. The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Illinois yield; and if so, to whom? Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I am reminded of my experience as a small boy, chopping into a hornet’s nest, with the hornets beginning to come buzzing at me from all directions. Again I seem to have chopped into a hornet’s nest, and
1950 the hornets are buzzing sround me. First, I will yield to the Senator behind me, who is nearest to me, the distin- guished Senator from Florida. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Sena- tor will have to make that decision. The Chair cannot make it for him. Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. While I hesitate to acknowledge his classification of me as a hornet, I should like to suggest that my question to the distinguished Sen- ator, I think, will bring out the facts which will give the Senate a basis upon which to work in this matter. The ques- tion to which I understand the Senator gave his answer was this: What relation does an additional cut of $100,000,000 have to commitments already made? If the Senator will allow me to make a brief observation based on experience in this field, I may say that this has to do with two sorts of commitments, I am not on the committee, and there- fore I cannot speak with authority as to how much of this amount comes under one class and how much comes under the other. The distinguished Sen- ator from Arizona and other Senators who are present can give those figures. This, I repeat, has to do with two kinds of commitments. One is for actual re- payments to States in the fiscal year 1951 of amounts which they will have paid to contractors upon contracts now existing, already made and now under execution. I do not know how much will come under that classification, but my experience would impel me to say that much the larger portion of this amount would come under that classification, as to which the Senator will see there could be no possible question of saving the States anything. To the contrary, the proposal of the Senator, if agreed to, might easily prevent reimbursement to the Statcs under an agreement already made, based upon action taken, some of it by the Seventy-eighth Congress, in 1944, some of it by the Eightieth Con- giess in 1948, and some of it by the Eighty-~first Congress last year. Mr. President, what I should like to ask the Senator, if I may ask him now, is this: With reference to the amount of $100,000,000—-which I hope is not taken out of the Senator’s hat—what is the relation of the additional cut which he proposes to the commitments of the kind which I have just mentioned, and to further commitments of the second kind, which I think would be a much smaller amount, namely, commitments made to States, upon which they can make con- tracts in the approaching year, and upon which some small payments will be earned during the fiscal year 1951? Can the Senator give me an answer to those questions? Without them, I should fee] that we were completely without information upon which we could intelligently vote. I assume that the committee has gone to great lengths to find out just how much we can save as against the Budget estimate, and that it has already decided that as to the third postwar year, under the 1944 act, we can save nothing, and that, as to the first year under the 1948 act, we can save the $20,000,000 which is proposed to be cut CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE from the budgeted recommendation by the committee’s proposed amendment. If the Senator can give us specific facts upon which we can make a greater cut, the junior Senator from Florida will be glad to support him. But, without such specific facts, I should be forced to the conclusion that the making of this cut would be a repudiation of our agreements with the States and would be a decided imposition of penalties upon the States. They have to pay the contractors 100 cents on the dollar and then require re- imbursement of that portion to which, under the particular type of road con- cerned, they are entitled, under the Fed- erfll aid system. If the Senator can answer the question, I should like to have him do sv, because I should like very much to be in posi- tion to support him. I appreciate his zeal for economy. I do not care to be classified as a hornet, except in the case of economy, in which case I am perfectly willing to be so classified, but I should appreciate an answer to the specific question as to what relation the pro- posed $100,000.000 additional cut pro- posed by the Senator from Illinois bears to the specific commitment made by the Federal Government to the States. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I may say—— Mr. MAYBANK. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. DOUGLAS. I shall be delighted to yield to my good friend from South Carolina, who is not a hornet but is a good hard-working bee. Mr. MAYBANK. Mr. President, I ap- preciate the remarks of the Senator from Illinois. But as to the contract obliga- tions we have in connection with the States, I should like to remind my distin- guished friend, the able junior Senator from Illinois, of the enormous gas taxes collected by the Federal Government from the owners of automobiles who drive up and down the roads of the Nation and who pay the additional tax. Mr. THYE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. DOUGLAS. Will my good friend from Minnesota be willing to defer, so that I may try to answer the Senator from Florida? My proposal of a reduction, if it were agreed to, would leave nearly $300,000,- 000. It would seem to me that would be sufficient to make payments on past work. Virtually every appropriation is to settle for past construction; none of it is for construction in the current year for which we are appropriating. I am leaving three-fourths of the total to settle it up. Mr. HOLLAND. What proportion of the $100,000,000 additional cut suggested by the distinguished Senator doe: he propose to apply against the sum of $263,491,000, which is the remainder of the amount authorized to be appro- priated for the three postwar fiscal years by the act of 1944, and what proportion does he propose to apply against the amount authorized to be appropriated for the fiscal year 1950, under the Fed- eral Aid Highway Act of 1948? What proportion does he propose to apply against the amounts which are required 10073 to be repaid to the States for the repair or reconstruction of highways or bridges which have been damaged or destroyed by floods, hurricanes, or landslides? Mr. DOUGLAS. The proposal I made was that the entire reduction should be concentrated on the projected appro- priation of $263,000,000 carried out un- der section 2 of the Highway Act of 1944. Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further? Mr. DOUGLAS. Certainly. Mr. HOLLAND, Does the Senator know that it is a fact that the funds for the third year of the postwar period as provided for in the 1944 act are al. ready expended, and we are complet- ing the work which was proposed un- der the 1944 act, and the chances are that every dollar of the amount pro- vided is money which must be repaid to the States in the approaching fiscal year for work done under contracts which have already been let, either during the present year or as far back as 1949? Does not the Senator realize that it is a clean. up of the 1944 act, and that probably every dime of it is due under contracts let long ago? Mr. DOUGLAS. I may say tomy good friend from Florida that he suggested that the cut of $100,000,000 be made in the appropriations under the act of 1948 of $115,000,000. If this would enable me to win his support, I should be very glad to have the money transferred to that item. I am trying to make it pos- sible for the Senator to carry out his desire for economy. Mr. THYE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. DOUGLAS. Iam glad to yield to the Senator from Minnesota. He has been waiting for some time, which has put me in the ungracious position of be- ing impolite to him. Mr. THYE. Mr. President, I appre- ciated the Senator’s humorous reference to hornets. There cannot be any econ- omy in restricting Federal road funds, because if we do not proceed with high- way construction we are absolutely de- priving ourselves as a Nation of an ade- quate highway system. As the able Senator from South Carolina [Mr. May- BANK] stated, we are denying ourselves revenue in the form of gas taxes. Furthermore, Mr. President, during the war years those of us who were ad- ministering the affairs of state knew we were accumulating State funds and ear- marking them. They were funds which were by statute earmarked; they were highway construction funds. We were denied materials with which to bulld highways. The Federal Government could not match funds with the States because we were denied materials. In the postwar years the State and Fed- eral Governments proceeded with long- delayed highway construction, and we aye now just catching up in the postwar years with highway construction which normally should have proceeded through 1943, 1944, and 1945. Unless we are will- ing to give the Federal Bureau of Roads the funds necessary to match the State funds, we are not carrying out the high- way-construction program which has
10074 been long deferred. I think there would be no economy in making the re- duction which the very able and con- scientious Senator from Illinois has pro- posed. Mr, DOUGLAS. Let me say to my good friend from Minnesota that his statement illustrates the difficulty with which we find ourselves faced when we suggest a concrete reduction. We all recognize the need for economy; we rec- ognize the fact that we had a large defi- cit in the fiscal year which has just ended. We are faced with a deficit next year of from $4,000,000,000 to $5.000,- 000,000, not including possible war ex- penditures. The chances are the Korean situation will call for the expenditure of large sums of money, and we shall be in a difficult financial situation next year. ‘The Senator from Minnesota, who is one of the finest Members of this body, rec- ognizes that situation very well. When we recommend a cut in certain items, Senators are very reluctant to make a cut. What I think we have got to do is to appraise the needs of the particular serv- ice in the light of the general financial situation with which we are faced. We are faced with the situation of a deficit, with high employment. The larger the deficit, the more we shall have to bor- row. The more we borrow, the more credit the banks will have to create. The greater the credit, the greater the rise in prices, and the greater the economic disturbance. I want good roads, as does everyone else. I do not drive an automobile, but my friends have automobiles and take me out for rides, and it is very pleasant to travel on the roads. But the question is whether we can afford this great ex- penditure in a period of great con- cern——. Mr. KERR. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. DOUGLAS. In a moment. Whenever we make a proposal of a re- duction, we are told that we are legally committed to make the expenditure. We need resclute courege. The law is be- hind us. We are not legally committed. The decisions in the Charles River Bridge and Stone against Mississippi cases es- tablish the fact that we are legally free. We can 50 adjust the appropriation that we can meet amounts due on past work and merely slow down the rate of future constructions. For every dollar we with- hold on future construction, there will be & corresponding State dollar which will not be spent, so we shall be saving §2 for the country as a whole. For every dollar we save for the Federal Govern- ment we shall be multiplying our good works. I hope Senators will not interfere with this means by which we can release large quantities of energy, materials, and labor, and save at Icast $100,000,000. Furthermore, I am not proposing to elim- inate the highway program completely. We would still have nearly $300,000,000 for this purpose. I merely want to slow it down because of the present need for economy. I now yield to my good friend from Oklahoma. Mr. EGRR. Mr. President, is the Sen- ator from Hlinois aware of the fact that CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Federal law requires the States to use their road-user taxes on roads, or be penalized in the amount of money which they receive in the form of Federal aid for local roads? Mr. DOUGLAS. I have some recol- lection of that. I studied the history of the Shackleford Act up to 1930. That is my impression. Mr. KERR. Mr. President, is the Sen- ator further aware of the fact that the American people are paying into the National Treasury $1,350,000,000 this year in road-user taxes in the form of gasoline and oil taxes? Mr. DOUGLAS. I was not certain of the precise sum, but I know it amount®d to a large figure. Mr. KERR. Then does the Senator think it would be keeping faith with the American people to reduce the proposed appropriation which at $385,000,000 is about one-fourth of what the American people are paying into the Treasury, and which has been pledged tothem? Would it be keeping faith with the American people to reduce the amount to a point where it would be approximately one- fifth of what they are paying? Mr. DOUGLAS. I have never under- stood that the Federal gasoline tax was earmarked in any way, or that it could be used only for the purpose of build- ing roads. I thought Federal gasoline taxes, like other taxes, went into the General Treasury and commingled with other general receipts, and that out of those general receipts specific expendi- tures were made. That is the whole theory of Federal taxation. Mr. KERR. Is there not just as much justification for the Federal Government to apply the same standard to the road- user money which it collects as it compels the States to apply to the road-user tax money which they collect? Mr. DOUGLAS. If the Senator from Oklahoma wants to propose such a bill, I think it should be given careful con- sideration. However, I never understood that that was the situation at the present time. In fact, as I have read the deci- sions of the United States Supreme Court, such as in the Butler case, the Court has always held that taxes should go into the general fund of the Treasury and should not be earmarked for special pur- poses; that out of the general fund we should make appropriations. If the Sen- ator from Oklahoma wishes to change the law, or change the whole system of the country, I think he should propose that change in the form of a bill. Mr. KERR. ‘The Senator from Okla- homa is not proposing a bill. He was reminding the Senator from Illinois that the Federal Government requires that procedure of the States. Furthermore, the Federal] Government has passed an act which has earmarked $385,000,000 of its general revenue for that purpose. Mr. DOUGLAS. We have not done so yet. Mr. KERR. Insofar as the proposal is concerned, it would be earmarking that much, which would be about one-fifth of what the American people are paying in road-user taxes. It occurs to the Senator from Oklahoma that it would be a simple matter of justice for us to impose on ourselves the same standards JULY 13 which we force States to impose upon their people. Mr. DOUGLAS. Weare not earmark- ing anything. Mr. CAPEHART and other Senators addressed the Chair. Mr, DOUGLAS. I should like to fin- ish. I shall yield first to the Senator from Indiana when I have concluded with my statement, before other hornets appear upon the scene. We are collect- ing gasoline taxes of $1,350,000,000, ac- cording to the very able Senator from Oklahoma. That amount of money goes into the General Treasury. It can be spent for any purpose. It can be spent for highways, ships, airplanes, the courts, or for anything else. Out of the general resources of the Treasury it is proposed to spend a given amount for highways. I now yield to the Senator from Indiana, Mr. CAPEHART. I believe that the able Senator from Tlinois said a moment ago that he adopted the philosophy of our appropriating in accordance with our ability to pay. He has suggested that we take approximately one-fourth out of this appropriation of $385,000,- 000, or about $100,000,000, Will the Senator apply the same philosophy to the ECA appropriation and take one- fourth from them? Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, we need not deal with all these issues at one time. We are now dealing with high- ways. I will deal with the ECA appro- priation when we come to it. I have again and again quoted to my good friend from Indiana the lines from Cardinal Newman's hymn, Lead Kindly Light: ‘ T do not ask to see The distant scene—one step enough for me. I am not a member of the faith of Cardinal Newman, but I have always belleved that hymn to be an admirable guide for political behavior. Mr. KEM. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. DOUGLAS. Iam glad to yield to the Senator from Missouri. Mr. KEM. Is it not true that many students of taxation believe that taxes on gasoline should be reserved to the States, and that it is not proper for the Federal Government to invade that field? I should like to ask the Senator if it is not true that the Federal gasoline tax had its origin in 1932, when the party which then had the responsibility enacted the tax in order to balance the budget? Is it not also true that it was enacted for a period of 1 year, with the understanding that it would be taken off at the end of the year? Furthermore, is it not true that at the end of that year it was increased by 1 cent, to a cent and a half. Furthermore, by suc- cessive renewals, is it not true that it was continued on the books? Therefore, instead of being a temporary tax, it came to be a permanent tax. Mr. DOUGLAS. I may say in reply to my good friend from Missouri that I am not acquainted with the detailed history of that subject. I am ready to assume that it is as he said it is. Mr. KEM. It shows that the tax was not earmarked for highway purposes,
1950 but was enacted for the purpose of being an aid to the general fund and to balance the budget. Mr. DOUGLAS. I want to thank my good friend from Missouri for the help which he has given me. He has pointed out that the Federal gasoline tax was intended for general revenue purposes and not for the purpose of making spe- cific expenditures, such as for the pur- pose of constructing roads. I appreciate the Senator’s help. Mr. CHAVEZ. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. DOUGLAS. Iyield to the Senator from New Mexico. Mr. CHAVEZ. It seems to me that perhaps the Senator from Illinois be- lieves himself to be the only one who has anv political integrity in the Senate. Mr. DOUGLAS. Oh, no. That is not my thought at all, and I certainly hope I have not created such an impression. I want to say, with absolute sincerity, that I have the greatest respect for the in- tegrity of Members of the United States Senate. Mr. CHAVEZ. I should like to ask the distinguished Senator from Illinois who decided that what the Senator from Missouri said was the purpose of the gasoline tax? Mr. KEM. It will be found—— The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Illinois yield to the Senator from Missouri? Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield to the Senator from Missouri temporarily so that he may reply to the Senator from New Mexico. Mr. KEM. It was stated in the debates in Congress. I shall be very glad to in- vite the attention of the Senator from New Mexico to those debates. That was stated to be the purpose of the law. It was shown in the bill that it was intended that the tax should be applied for 1 year. It was stated that it was for the purpose of balancing the budget. I do not have the ConcressIonaL Recorp with me, but I shall be glad to invite the attention of the Senator from New Mexico to it. Mr. CHAVEZ. I am positive that the Senator from Missouri will invite the at- tention of the Senator from New Mexico to the CONGRESSIONAL RecorD, That was called to the attention of the Committee on Public Works. Personally I am be- coming a little tired of having Senators make the Committee on Public Works the whipping boy. Mr. DOUGLAS. It is avery ungracious position for any Senator to be placed in to rise on the floor of the Senate and question an appropriation which is pro- posed by a committee of the Senate, es- pecially when it is approved by a com- mittee headed by my good friend from New Mexico, for whom I have the very highest esteem. A Senator who does so seems very ungracious, and he seems to put himself in the position of knowing more than the committee knows. I as- sure the Senator I do not feel that at all. I recognize the fact that it would be very natural for Senators to feel a certain amount of resentment in that respect, and I hope that the Senator will feel that there is no such motivation in my heart, and I only hope that by my con- duct I can convince him of that fact. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. CHAVEZ. Iam fully convinced of the sincerity of purpose of the Senator from Tlinois. I attribute his state of mind to the fact that he does not under- stand the philosophy of public roads and what they mean to the people of the United States. Isay that in all kindness. I do not attribute any malice or anything of that sort to the attitude taken by the Senator from Iinois. Mr. DOUGLAS. Let me say to the Senator from New Mexico that of course roads are important, but they are only one part of the consideration. What I am suggesting is that we economize in this appropriation by about a quarter, save a hundred million, so that the deficit will be less, and that we will have a grcater margin of safety for any war emergency which may develop. The highway program would go on, but it would be slowed down and we would save $100,000,000. Mr. CHAVEZ. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield for a question. Mr. CHAVEZ. The _ appropriation might be decreased, and I believe in economy, but I recall the vote of the Senator from Illinois this afternoon. Mr. DOUGLAS. In voting for the Ful- bright amendment. Mr. CHAVEZ. To give money to Eu- rope. It happens that there are some Members of the United States Senate who think all the economy should not be borne by the people of the United States, and that the people of the United States, in order to be united, in order to bring about the economy which would make it possible for us to help other countries in the world, do need some roads. That is the only difference between the Senator from Illinois and me. Mr. DOUGLAS. Of course, we need roads. The question is whether we need $400,000,000 worth of roads. Mr. CHAVEZ. A little while ago the Senator from Tlinois was quoting what he thought the law was, and I am sure he was positive of his recollection, and there is no question as to his motives or his understanding. He thought he stated what the law was. We also have a law, passed by the Congress of the United States in the Hightieth Congress, under which obligations were made to the States, including, of course, the State of Tlinois, and I am sure this appropria- tion would affect the State of Illinois much more than the State of New Mex- ico, so far as volume is concerned. Mr. DOUGLAS. Certainly. Mr. CHAVEZ. Since Congress passed a law obligating the Government of the United States to the individual States of the Union, and also the possessions of the United States—Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico—would the Senator from Tllinois say that after that law was passed, and the Congress obligated it- self to the States, we should repudiate that law? Mr. DOUGLAS. Does the Senator from New Mexico ask me that question? Mr. CHAVEZ. I ask that question. Mr. DOUGLAS, I would say it has been well established by court decisions that one Congress cannot legally bind a@ succeeding Congress to appropriate; that whenever we say that one Congress 10075 is bound by the decision of a preceding Congress, we give up the control over ap- propriations, and that we virtually sur- render the power of a given Congress to affect economy. It seems to me that both on the principle of law and the exigencies of the present situation these economies should be effected. I would also like to repeat that, even after sav- ing $100,000,000 by adopting my amend- ment, we would still have nearly $300,- 000,000 left for highways. Mr. CHAVEZ. In all kindness, I will say it is impossible to convince the Senator from Illinois either as to the logic or the reason or the fair play of the legislation passed by the Eightieth Congress. Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield to the Sena- tor from New York. Mr. LEHMAN. I very much wish I could vote with the Senator from Illinois to save this money, and I certainly ex- pect to vote with him on other motions to reduce appropriations for nonessen- tial projects. My remarks are not addressed to the merits of the building of roads. I have always been a strong believer in roads. I know they have done a great dea] for my own State, and I know they have done a great deal for the other States of the Union. I would not be shocked if the amount appropriated for roads were, un- der the present circumstances, reduced, if it were possible to do so in good faith, but speaking as a former governor of a State, my feeling is that we could not possibly reduce this appropriation and still act in good faith toward the States. I am afraid the junior Senator from Illinois is not fully familiar with the pro- cedure that is followed in the various States, certainly in the State of New York, and I have no doubt in other States. We have what we call a map, which is prepared to care for the needs of the State in the building of highways for a period of 3 years. We let contracts for that period. A great part of the appropriation un- der consideration, which is the result of action taken, I understand, by the Eightieth Congress, is to reimburse the States for expenditures already made. The money has been paid out of the treasuries of the States, and the only way the States could be reimbursed is through payment by the Federal Government. The remainder of the appropriation, or at least the greater part of it, would be used to place the States in a position to contract under a plan which was adopted a long time ago. Iam afraid the Senator from Tlinois does not realize that when a State au- thorizes the building of a 50-mile stretch of road, it does not undertake the con- struction of the entire 50 miles at one time. The State will build, here and there, parts of the road, and if the Fed- eral Government should not now put the States in a position to meet their obligations, there would be a checker- board all across the State—and I be- lieve this would apply to every State— little patches of road begun and then discontinued, ending nowhere, beginning