1950 Journal of July 15, 1950, which appears in the Appenaix.] RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES AND UNITED NATIONS TO KOREA [Mr. SMITH of New Jersey asked and ob- tained leave to have printed in the Recorp an article entitled “Recent History of Our Korean Commitment," written by Arthur Krock, and published in the New York Times of July 11, 1950, which appears in the Ap- pendix. ] TRUMAN'S KOREAN  DECIS{ON—EDI- TORIAL FROM THE JERSEY JOURNAL {Mr, SMITH of New Jersey asked and ob- tained leave to have printed tn the Recorp an editorial entitled “Truman Takes Decisive Btand Against Stalin’s Hitler Tactics in Korea," published in the Jersey Journal of June 28, 1950, which appears in the Ap- pendix.] NOMINATION OF OLIVER 8. POWELL TO BE A MEMBER, BOARD OF GOVERNORS, FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM—ARTICLE FROM THE MINNEAPOLIS STAR {Mr. THYE asked and obtained leave to have printed in the RecorpD an article con- cerning the nomination of Oliver 8. Powell to be a member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, published in the Minneapolis Star, which appears in the Appendix. } DELAY ON JUDGE HASTIE—EDITORIAL COMMENT (Mr. LODGE asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorp an editorial en- titled “Neglected Nomination,” from the Washington Post of July 8, 1950, and an edi- torial entitled “Delay on Judge Hastie,” from the New York Herald Tribune of July 15, 1950, which appear in the Appendix. ] THE UNITED STATES TRAGEDY IN FOR- MOSA—ARTICLE FROM TIME MAGAZINE [Mr BRIDGES asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorp an article en- titled “The United States Tragedy in For- mosa,” written by John Osborne, and pub- lished in the July 17 issue of Time magazine, which appears in the Appendix. ] ACHESON MUST BE WATCHED—EDI- TORIAL FROM THE NEW HAMPSHIRE MORNING UNION [Mr. BRIDGES asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorp an editorial entitled “Acheson Must Be Watched,” pub- lished in the New Hampshire Morning Union of July 15, 1950, which appears in the Ap- pendix.] CASE AGAINST THE MUNDT BILL—EDI- TORIAL COMMENT {Mr. KILGORE asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorp a column un- der the heading “The Mirror of Public Opinion,” containing editorial comment on the Mundt bill, which appears in the Ape pendix. ] SITUATIONS OF STRENGTH—NEWSPAPER EDITORIAL {Mr. McCARTHY asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorp an editorial entitled “Situations of Strength,” published in the San Francisco Examiner of Thursday, July 6, 1950, which appears in the Appendix.] DEATH OF SENATOR KNOWLAND'S MOTHER Mr. CHAVEZ. Mr. President, what I am going to do is under instructions given me this morning by the Committee on Appropriations. Through the processes of American opportunity, I happen to be the chair- man of the Subcommittee on Appropria- tions for the Department of Labor and CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Federal Security. Through those same processes, the Senator from California (Mr. KNow ann] is the ranking minor~ ity member. Word reached the commit- tee during the day of the demise of our colleague's mother at her home in Cali- fornia. We who know the able junior Senator from California feel confident that, being the son of a worthy mother, he can and will, in his sorrow, say, “Thy will be done.” THE KOREAN SITUATION Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Recorp a letter, dated July 10, 1950, addressed ta,me, by Paul Mitchell, a@ member of the American Legion, Vet- erans of Foreign Wars, and Fleet Re- serve Association, together with an edi- torial by Walter Winchell of July 9, 1950, on the same subject. There being no objection, the matters were ordered to be printed in the REcorp, as follows: SacraMento, Cauir, July 10, 1950. The Honorable Joz McCarTHuy, Senate Office Butiding, Washington, D. C. My Dear Senator McCarrHy: As a vet- eran of two wars, member of the American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, and Fleet Reserve Association I respectfully request that you enter the enclosed editorial in the ConcressIonaL Recorp for the information of those sophisticated idiots who cannot see beyond their noses. From what I have heard inside closed meetings of all veterans organizations, I believe 90 percent of all the veterans in the United States are behind you in your superhuman efforts to expose the enemies within our Hnes. If Mr. Acheson and the entire staff of the Eastern Affairs Section of the State Depart- ment had any self-respect they would have resigned in a body within 24 hours after the invasion of Korea. But as long as they are selfish individuals thoy should be ousted by the Senate imme- diately for the good of our national unity. I believe many million veterans are won- dering how many more wars we will have to fight in order to make this world safe for democracy as long as we have such poten- tional quislings in the State Department. You may enter this letter also in the Con- GRISSIONAL Recorp {f you wish. As a father of three boys I would like to see all of them give the best years of their lives to the service of their country without waiting for Congress to draft them to do their duty. But I most certainly will demand that Congress, regardless of party lines, destroy now and for all time potential traitors in every Government department. Respectfully yours, PavuL MITCHELL, Mr. WINCHELL. Mr. and Mrs. United States, under our American system the strongest form of loyalty is fair criticiam based on brutal truth. No administration ever needed it more desperately and none has accepted it less graciously. But it continues to be the birthright of every American citizen to pay homage to his country without swear- ing allegiance to the Kansas City politicians. The very day that the first casualty list was published last week, Washington stated that the Korean situation was not serious. The very next day, however, reversing itself, the administration prepared to call up all men 19 to 26. The Air Force announced this week that it would hire private commercial airliners to rush support to our men in Korea, During the war we built 250,000 planes and we have spent billions for them every year since. If we could run an airlift for Berlin, why can't we run one for our own men in 10361 bloody Korea? Far more important, how- ever, than where the money has gone, is this question: Why aren’t the planes we need ready? The truth ts, that the 70-group Air Force twice authorized by Congress was pigeonholed by Mr. White House himeelf. The President's own commission reported to him that 70 groups was the minimum neces- sary to defend our own cities from enemy attack. Gen. Toohey Spaatz resigned be- cause he would not take the responsibility without them. But it was the late Secre- tary of Defense, James Forrestal, who stopped the 70-group Alr Force by warning that it would mean rationing and price ceilings, Now, you are about to get rationing and price ceilings without a 70-group Air Force. The very same Navy which was all but offi- cially declared obsolete Jaxt fall is right now saving the State Department’s Far East Munich from turning into a sickening American Dunkirk. And the trony of it, the State Department's 91 pansies are exempt from active duty and do not have to face the enemy panzers, but their dirty diplo- matic linen is being washed, in American blood. GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS, 1951 The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (H. R. 7786) making appro- priations for the support of the Govern- ment for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1951, and for other purposes. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, a parlia- mentary inquiry. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator will state it. Mr. LUCAS. TI inquire of the Chair as to the point we have reached in the pending appropriation bill, H. R. 7786. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senate had completed the chapter on Treasury and Post Office appropriations when it recessed on Friday. The next chapter in regular order would be that on Labor, Federal Security, and so forth. Mr. LUCAS. It is my understanding that the Senaior from New Mexico |Mr. Cuavez], who is in charge of that por- tion of the appropriation bill, desires to have it passed over for the present. Mr. CHAVEZ. Mr. President, the junior Senator from California [Mr. KNOWLAND] is unavoidably absent from the Senate. His mother passed away a day or so ago, and she is to be buried tomorrow. As the ranking member of the subcommittee which considered the Labor, Federal Security appropriations, he has requested that that portion of the bill be passed over until later. I under~ stand that the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Russei.), who is in charge of the next feature of the bill, that relating to Agriculture, is ready to go forward. Mr. WHERRY. I thank the distin- guished Senator from New Mexico, the chairman of the subcommittee, for mak- ing the request. It is deeply appreciated. I am quite satisfied that while the re- mainder of the bill will be taken up a little out of order, beginning with the agricultural appropriations, complying with the Senator's request will not hold up the bill at all. In behalf of the junior Senator from California, who is the ranking member of the subcommittee, as the Senator from New Mexico has stated, we deeply appreciate his holding up the Labor-Federal Security chapter of the appropriation bill until the Senator from California is able to return. Mr. FLANDERS. Mr. President, an amendment to the pending appropria- tion bill has been offered which calls for
10362 a 10-percent cut in peacetime expendi!- tures of the budget. I wish to add my name as a cosponsor of that amendment, with the reservation that I shall submit or support an amendment eliminating the ECA from that 10-percent cut. The VICE PRESIDENT. Without ob- Jection, it is so ordered. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, the dis- tinguished junior Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Tosry] has asked that his name be added as a cosponsor to the amendment submitted by the senior Sen- ator from New Hampshire [Mr. Bripars] for himself and 34 other Senators, that being an amendment to the appropria- tions bill, calling for a 10-percent rescis- sion. The VICE PRESIDENT. Without ob- gection, the addition will be made. MOBILIZATION OF AMERICAN MANPOWER AND INDUSTRY TO MEET WORLD CRISIS Mr. LODGE. Mr. President, it is now crystal clear that the Soviets have de- veloped a foolproof procedure whereby, unless we intervene effectively, they can- not lose and we cannot win. The pro- cedure is simply that, with no cost in manpower to themselves, they impel a mercenary native army to aggression and thus confront the United States with two alternatives, one of which is ruinous and the other of which, though necessary, is bad. The ruinous alternative of ignoring the agression—of turning our back on an internationa) rape—we properly re- jected. The other alternative was to send our armed forces to stop the ag- gression and liberate the invaded coun- try. This we are rightly now trying to do. At best, however, this is a bad, though unavoidable, alternative because it commits thousands of our young men for at least many months until loca] vic- tory is secured, after which forces must remain to prevent repetition of aggres- sion. At worst, it could mean thousands of casualties without victory. In any case the cost to the Soviets has been nil. If the procedure which has been used by the Soviets in Korea is repeated in Indochina or Iran or other places on the rim of the Soviet Empire, we would have even larger numbers of young men bogged down in equally unprofitable ad- ventures. The Soviets would then be in a perfect position to make their main effort at the No. 1 objective, which is probably the Ruhr, or at their No. 2 ob- jective, which is probably Japan. And we would be unable even to send signifi- cant reinforcements because of being bogged down in these peripheral theaters. With the Ruhr and Japan in their grasp the Soviets would have an indus- trial potential under their control which might well convince them that they could go to war with the United States with a good chance of success. It is generally accepted that the Soviets will have enough atomic bombs to strike a rugged blow at the United States in 1952-53. The Korean aggression, there- fore, followed by a similar procedure in other places, and leading up to the sei- gure of the Ruhr and Japan later on, would conclude with the atomic climax of 1952-53. It all fits neatly ito the time schedule and coincides with what CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE we are told about the Soviet plane-gun- tank-building program. The United States would then be just about isolated enough and weakened enough to be ripe for the plucking. The Soviets would thus, if we let them, have won world war II without even fight- ing one major engagement with the United States with their own troops— and without our having had a chance to use our superiority in atom bombs and other weapons. No wonder that former Prime Minister Churchill says: “I do not see how the passage of 2 or 3 years dur- ing which the Soviets will be building up a large stock of atomic bombs is going to make our problems simpler or our dan- gers less.” Indeed not, Mr. President; neither do I. Nor have I heard a con- vincing explanation from any source that this would be the case. We therefore face this question, Must we sit idly by and stupidly watch such a grim tragedy unfold before our fright- ened eyes? Or can we prevent the tragedy; and, if so, how? We do not need to sit idly by. We can prevent the tragedy; and here is how: We must recognize that we are this moment in a major war, and that Korea is one part of a world war picture. This is true, although no one has declared war and perhaps no one will. We must thus quickly create 4 situation of mili- tary strength. This ineans nothing less than the immediate mobilization of American manpower and industry. But we must not do this job alone. We must galvanize our allies and make sure that they work with us in building mili- tary strength. Every time we add to the military strength of one of our al- lies, whether through equipment or through American troops, we should have assurances that they add the ut- most of which they are capable. This is the objective of the Atlantic Pact, but the pace of preparedness under the At- Jantic Pact is woefully leisurely and it must be and can be enormously speeded. It has well been said within the last 10 days by certain statesmen that today Europe is in mortal peril. We probably do not need to have 12,000,000 men un- der arms in order to have men in even larger numbers in the armed forces of ourselves and our allies. Thus could we regain the initiative and demand that the international brigandage, imposture, and subversion by the Soviet imperialists stop at once. We need make no demands on the Rus- sian people, but we would put the ruth- less men in the Kremlin in their place and would tell them in unmistakable language that they will not be allowed to play their merciless chess game to the final, tragic checkmate. Then the world could go on to lasting peace. I know that this course would require an immense expenditure of treasure and human toil and immediate inconven- ience, particularly to all our men of mili- tary age. But it should be possible, with God's help, to do it without great blood- shed, because the Soviet leaders have often shown their respect for strength. One thing is clear: the present proce- dure of “heads you win; tails I lose” must stop, and stop at once. If we are getting pushed around to such an extent in Korea, what will it be, with our pres- JULY 17 ent procedures, when we come up against the Communists’ first team? Certainly we would be faithless to those who have already sacrificed themselves in Korea and we would be negligent of our own interests if we regarded Korea as an iso- lated, purely local, action. It is better to be ready—hugely expensive though it is—and not to need it, rather than to need it and not be ready. In sober truth our very national existence is at stake. We have not a minute to lose. We must not stumble around at the threshold of disaster. GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS, 1951 The Senate resumed the considera- tion of the bill (H. R. 7786) making ap- propriations for the support of the Gov- ernment for the fiscal year ending June 80, 1951, and for other purposes. Mr, KEM. Mr. President, I wish to associate myself with what the distin- guished Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Lopcel has just said about the necessity of our galvanizing our allies into action. What I am going to say is with that idea in mind. I am proposing a substantial reduc- tion in the amount provided for ECA in the pending bill. I believe that amount, from our standpoint, is entirely unreal- istic. If the Senate will bear with me, I shall explain why I believe that is so. Mr. President, I am offering an amendment to the foreign aid section of the pending measure, and I ask that the amendment be read at this time, for the information of the Senate. The VICE PRESIDENT. Without ob- Jection, the amendment will be read. The Lecisiarivs CrerK. On page 447, line 18, in lieu of “$2,391,930,000” it is proposed to insert “$1,950,000,000.” Beginning with the word “Provided”, in line 2, page 448, it is proposed to strike out all to and including the words “limi- tations herein specified:”, in line 7, page 48, On page 448, lines 8 and 9, it is pro- posed to strike out the word “consoli- dated.” The VICE PRESIDENT. The amend- ment will be printed and lie on the table. Mr. KEM. Mr. President, as Senators will observe, this amendment, if adopted, will reduce the amount to be appropri- ated to the Economic Cooperation Ad- ministration for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1951, to $1,950,000,000. The amendment in addition will also elimi- nate from the appropriation bill the sum of $376,761,473 carried over from last year’s appropriation. The total saving that would be effected by this amendment to the bill is $718,691,473. A saving of approximately $1,000,000,000 in the original budget estimate would be accomplished. This amendment would in no way affect the appropriations for assistance to the Republic of Korea, the military- aid program, or several other programs included in the foreign-aid section of the pending measure. My amendment applies solely to the economic recovery program for western Europe. The unexpended balance for the fiscal year 1960, amounting to more than $276,000,000, was not needed in that 12-month period. There now appears
1950 to be no justification for reappropriat- ing it. Administrator Hoffman is to be congratulated on not spending all the money that was made available to him. The amount should be saved to the United States. It should not be made available for the following year just because it was nct Spent in the year for which it was appropriated. Mr. President, I wish to say that I have confidence, as do all other Members of this body, in the Senate Appropria- tions Committee. I know that each member of the committee has given care~ ful and painstaking consideration to every section of this important bill. I know that my distinguished friend, the Senator from Tennessee {Mr. McKet- LaR] the chairman of the committee, will not think it amiss for me to sug- gest that the amount allocated to for- eign aid should be reexamined in the light of the facts that have developed since the bill was reported. What is this change of status? The difference between the way the job ahead of us looks now, and the way it looked a few days ago, is well summarized in the following editorial review which ap- peared in the New York Times of yes~ terday, July 16: THe Unitren States Faces It On June 27—the day President Truman ordered American sea and air forces to go to the aid of South Korea—this was the estimate of the job: North Korea: Six to nine divistons—prob- ably 95,000 men. Seventy to 100 tanks. Morale probably low. United States: Sea and air forces probably sufficient. On July 16, after 19 days of bitter fighting in Korea, this is the estimate of the job: North Korea: Ten to 15 divisions—150,000 to 250,000 men. Two hundred and twenty tanks, almost unlimited supplies behind Ines, in Siberia and in Manchuria. Morale and leadership excellent. United States: Eight full divisions, perhaps 250,000 men in all, needed. Manpower, tanks, heavy artil- lery, planes in Pacific woefully inadequate. ‘Vast supplies needed from home bases 7,000 miles away. The difference between these two estimates is a measure of the problem that now con- fronts the United States. At the outset of the fighting the United States had envis- aged a fast, mechanized campaign in which planes would play a major role. Then began the battle of the build-up on both sides— the battle to bring up the supplies, the weapons, and the men. It was the big battle—although fought far behind the Mines—and the United States lost. Now the United States is faced with the grim pos- sibility that it may be pushed into the sea and forced to mount a counterattack from Japan. And what about possible Communist aggression elsewhere in the world? The 9 days that has gone by since this bill was reported on July 8 have brought us noth- ing but disillusionment. It is time now for some new thinking, some clear thinking in the light of the unpleasant truths that we have had to swallow. Last week the Senate gave clear indi- cation in a relatively minor incident that it fully recognizes the gravity of the in- ternational situation. The Senate re- jected the appropriation to build a much needed addition to the Senate Office Building. And yet, in the ECA appro- priations of this omnibus appropriation CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE bill, huge sums are provided for the con- struction of a wide variety of public works and other projects in foreign lands, These programs look to the future de- velopment of their respective countries. They have little or no bearing upon the present emergency. The proposed ECA appropriations are said to be for the purpose of overcoming so-called “dollar gap.” Many of us are concerned today about the danger of a gap between our obligations and our ability to respond io them. In the field of national security we cannot entertain the slightest possi- bility of a deficit in performance. NATIONAL DEFENSE IS OUR FIRST CONSIDERATION It is becoming increasingly clear that the Korean war is likely to be long and costly, even if the Russians decide not to intervene directly. It is also apparent that the United States will have to bear the brunt of the fighting. We must back up our boys on the fight- ing front to the limit. Upon this we are all agreed, This is the first considera- tion in the minds of all of us. I should like to say, Mr. President, that since I have been a member of this body I have supported without exception ap- propriations for our military establish- ment. I shall continue to do so as long asIam here. It has been my belief that we should build a national defense so strong that no natjon in the world would be under the slightest temptation to at- tack us. I supported the supplemental national defense appropriation bill of 1948 providing funds for a 70-group Air Force. I was pleased when the present Congress approved the bill authorizing a 20-group Air Force. Senators will recall that the program for the 70-group Air Force came before the Senate in 1948 following the passage of the Marshall Plan bill. The Congress had approved the Marshal Plan, and had then set about determining what we could afford to do for our military estab- lishments. I asserted in course of the discussion in the Senate that we were putting the cart before the horse. I said that we should first adequately arm our- selves and then, after that, consider what amounts our economic resources would permit us to send out of the country as gifts to other countries, however praise- worthy. I think now as I thought then. At a press conference only last June 22, 5 days before giving giving his historic order that our air and naval forces should go to the aid of Korea, President Truman said, at a press conference, that our coun- try cannot pay for a 70-group Air Force. In view of the serious foreign situation, we need that 70-group Air Force. Our soldiers in Korea need it now. We can pay for it. We should provide for our own needs first, and then make gifts out of our remaining resources. How shall be explain to the mothers and wives of our soldiers fighting in the rice paddies of Korea that we cannot pay for needed guns, tanks, and planes of the right type for air cover? The South Koreans have had the ben- efit of economic cooperation—plenty of it. Between 1946 and 1948, inclusive, we invested $360,000,000 in relief and technical assistance in South Korea, ap- proximately $18 for each man, woman, and child in South Korea. 10363 OUR PRESENT FINANCIAL SITUATION Today the Korean war finds us in a state of unpreparedness, We are un- prepared from a military standpoint. We are unprepared from a8 financial standpoint. Our national debt is more than $257,000,000,000. During the fis- cal year which ended June 30, 1950, the Federal Government went into the red more than $3,000,000,000. It is esti- mated that the deficit for the current fiscal year will amount to $5,000,000,000, excluding any additional expenditures in connection with the war in Korea. What will be the impact of the Korean erisis on our economy? How large is our military effort to be? Are the addi- tional military appropriations that will be required to pay for the Korean war and to strengthen our Armed Forces $1,000,000,000, or  $6,000,000,000, or more? No one knows the answers to these important question. But we do know this: It is imperative that we eliminate all unnecessary ¢x- penditures, both foreign and domestic, not directly connected with our military effort. We cannot ignore the fact that there is a very definite limit to our fi- nancial resources. We know very well that we cannot bankrupt our Govern- ment and at the same time maintain our free institutions. Since American troops started fighting in Korea, the only communications regarding the war which the Senate has received from the President, so far as I know, are copies of his press releases, I am glad that if reports are true the President plans to address the Congress in person this week. Every member will listen to the words of the President with profound attention. ‘WE MUST USE OUR RESOURCES TO BEST ADVANTAGE Equally important are the limitations on our material resources, such as iron and steel. We must provide the dollars required by an all-out war effort. We can do that. We can pledge the credit of the United States. But I seriously question whether we can continue to make extravagant gifts of raw materials to western Europe and still have enough to provide for our own requirements. if and when we run out of essential raw materials can we depend on our Euro- pean friends to reverse the flow of gifts across the Atlantic? ‘The Korean war—whether or not Rus- sia intervenes—is bound to make a se- rious drain on our resources, particu. larly industrial products, manufactures, and raw materials vitally needed for the war effort. ECA has proposed to give away dur- ing the next year to Marshall-plan coun- tries more than $200,000,000 worth of industrial materials produced in the United States, including iron, steel, aluminum, copper, zinc, and industrial chemicals. ECA also would give away $448,700,000 worth of industrial machin- ery and equipment, $7,500,000 worth of rubber and rubber products, and more than $77,000,000 worth of petroleum and petroleum products, All available reports indicate that our soldiers in Korea need desperately more tanks, more planes, and more heavy ar- tillery. They need weapons to be made
10364 from iron, steel, aluminum, copper, and gine, Mr. President, Iam bold enough to say that it is not in the interest of the United States, it is not in the interest of our boys on the fighting front, for us at this point to give away vast quantities of crit- ical war materials which may be needed by us to prosecute war, and which may goon be in short supply. I mean the war in which we are now engaged and any other war which may be forced upon us. Increased military production, as well as the mobilization of military man- power, will draw men from civilian pro- duction. Civilian producers will then start bidding against each other for goods and labor. Whether or not controls be- come necessary depends upon many im- ponderables, One of these is what we do with our available supply of goods. Cer- tainly the shipment of vast quantities of our goods as gifts to foreign countries will bring shortages, controls, and ra- tioning that much nearer to our people. I am sure Members of the Senate will understand this when they vote on the pending measure. We must not make the mistake of spreading our resources so thin around the world that they will not do anyone any good. We must h what we have and put it to the best possible use. Steel is a good example of what I mean. Our steel works were operating at full capacity even before the Korean war broke out. No material is more vital to the war effort than is steel for guns, planes, tanks, and ammunition. On April 17, 1950, Secretary of the Tnterior Chapman told a House commit- tee that tron-ore resources in the United States were being depleted at a rate that raised the possibility of restricted steel production within the foreseeable future. He predicted that Great Lakes ore pro- duction would fall 50 percent below pres- ent levels in 15 years. - , Dr. James Boyd, Director of the Bu- reau of Mines, told the committee that the steel industry would be 3,400,000 tons short of our iron-ore requirements by 1959, even if all present foreign sources still were available. Of course, Mr. President, it is unnec- essary to say that in April 1950 Secre- tary Chapman and Director Boyd were not speaking with the Korean war in mind. They were talking about what would happen to this country, independ- ent of any. war effort. It is im>ossible to say at this time just how much additional steel will be re- quired for the Korean war. No doubt the demand will be great. The gifts of steel ECA contemplates making to west- ern Burope might well cripple our econ- amy and endanger our war effort. It is becoming increasingly clear that our overgenerous gifts to western Eu- rope during the past 2 years could have been put to much better advantage if they had been utilized in building up our cwn national defenses—~turning out, let us say, heavy tanks now so.sorely needed by our boys in Korea. fret ccaponaiblity is to pence fate W. - ever is needed to enable our fighting men ta drive the North Korean Reds back of the thirty-eighth parallel. What is it to be? Tanks for young Americans bat- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE tling for their lives, or steel for the Mar- shall-plan countries, which have shipped, and are continuing to ship, large quan- tities of steel to the Russians? I shall have more to say about that in a little while, BOONOMIC CONDITIONS IN COUNTRIES Thave found it hard to justify the pro- posed expenditure of $104,100,000 for gifts of tobacco to western Europe next year. According to ECA officials, Greece and Turkey, both of which participate in the Marshall pian, now have surplus stocks of tobacco. ECA officials report that the level of productivity of the Matshall-plan coun- tries generally is more than 20 percent above the prewar level of 1938. On May 25, 1950, during the hearings before the Senate Committee on Appro- priations, the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Peraveon] questioned Richard M. Bissell, Jr.. ECA Assistant Administrator, concerning this matter. Here is the col- loquy which occurred: Benator Frravson. Have they— Referring to the Marshall-plan coun- tries— any surplus out of this 20-percent increase? That is the increase in production. Mr. Bisset. There are certainly a few spot surpluees, sir, of manufactured goods and @ few even of agricultural goods. XY would guess that a number of luxury products in Europe are in surplus and that they cannot market thelr whole amount. Mr, President, even ignoring for a mo- ment the situation in Korea, is ft wise, is it sound, for us to continue to draw off our resources to increase further the rate of production in western Europe, when those countries are beginning to be plagued with surpluses? Does it make sense for us to continue to give away fer- tilizer to the Netherlands, for example, when ECA has advised us that the Neth- erlands is concerned about disposing of its current output of fresh vegetables, On July 13, the Senator from Ohio [Mr. Tarr] put In the ConaressronaL REcoRD a@ statement from the British Economic Record showing the improvement in the British gold and dollar position during the last year. I hope Senators will study this document. The dollar position has steadily improved since devaluation of the pound in September 1949, and has made American goods expensive in ster- ling areas, In the 9 months since Sep- tember there has been a surplus of §189,- 000,000, compared with a deficit of $1,- 501,000,000 in the 9 months before. The British have balanced their budget, while our national debt continues to mount. Britain to date has received $2,500,000,- 000 in aid under the Marshall plan. In the name of common sense our British gifts should be discontinued. This would save about $500,000,000 in this bill. The British figures show why less fs being heard these days from the advocates of foreign spending about the dollar gap. Asa matter of fact, even before the Ko- rean crisis, substantial progress was made by several important countries in im- proving thelr dollar position. Imports into the United States—that is what we are buying from these coun- tries—will set a new high record this MARSHALL PLAN JULY 17 year. The total is likely to exceed $7,- 600,000,000 if the trend for the first § months continues. The gain over the corresponding period in 1949 has been about 10 percent. The Korean crisis is increasing the im- port volume from the standpoint of both quantity and higher prices. Foreign countries benefit from this higher price trend on raw materials and other goods ‘we buy from them. In view of these considerations a new ECA appropriation of $1,950,000,000 should be, entirely sufficient to continue the Marshall plan another year. JHE MARSHALL PLAN NO INSURANCE AGAINST WAR Senators will recall that the Marshal! plan was first presented to the Congress as insurance against war. Either adopt the Marshall plan, we were told, in effect, or prepare for war. On December 19, 1947, President Tru- man in a special message to the Con- gress, said: I recommend this program of United States support for European recovery to the Con- gress in full confidence of tts wisdom and necessity as a major step in our Nation's quest for a just and lasting peace. The then Secretary of State Marshall, testifying before the Senate Foreign Re- lations Committee on January 8, 1948, declared: This program will cost our country billions of dollars. It will impose a burden on the American taxpayer. It will require sacrifices today in order that we may enjoy security and peace tomorrow, On January 14, 1948, the then Secre- tary of the Army Royall said: Without such effort the Army budget and the Army itself should be increased, On the same day, the then Secretary of Defense Forrestal, testifying on the Marshall plan, declared: Our purpose and object is totally and ex- clusively to prevent another war. Mr. President, the object was totally and exclusively to prevent another war. And on March 12, 1948, the Senator from Texas (Mr. Conmnat.y], speaking on the initial Marshall plan authoriza- tion bill, said: “We are voting upon the peace of the world.” The Marshall plan was approved and carried out, substantially as recom- mended hy the administration. I ask in all seriousness: Are the prospects for Peace any brighter than they were 2 years ago, when the program went into effect? We now find ourselves engaged in a full-fledged war in Korea, although officially characterized, I believe, as a Police action. Who among us will say that the chances for peace in western Europe are more favorable today than they were in 1948, when we started to pour out these vast stums of money he- longing to the American taxpayers? NO MORAL COMMITMENT TO CONTINUE THE MARSHALL PLAN Mr. President, we often hear it sald that we have @ moral obligation to con- tinue these appropriations. The fact is that the Congress is under no obligation, Moral or otherwise, to appropriate any sum to continue the Marshall Plan. Indeed, we are under no obliga- tion to continue the program at all. This ‘was clearly understood at its Inceptien.
1950 On March 2, 1948, during the Senate debate on the initial Marshall plan au- thorization bill, the then chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the distinguished Senator from Michigan EMr. Vanpenserc] had this to say: Under the terms of the bill, every Con- gress—even broader, every session of every Congress—is a free agent to pass ita own judgment on the question of whether or not foreign cooperation is justifying the basis upen which the enterprise was launched. Let me repeat those words. The dis- tinguished Senator from Michigan said that every Congress is a free agent to pass on the question of whether foreign cooperation is justifying the basis upon which the enterprise was launched. Then the Senator from Michigan de- clared: Next January the Congress will be as free as the air to do what it pleases in respect to what has happened during the interven- ing months, and in respect to what may happen in the days that lie beyond that point, Several days after the statement of the Senator from Michigan, I questioned the Senator from Texas (Mr. Conwnatiy], who was then the ranking minority mem- ber of the Committee on Foreign Rela- tions, concerning this matter. I thought it would be well that we understood from the official spokesman for each party what their understanding was of this important point. Here is the colloquy which occurred on March 13, 1948: Mr, Kem, I should like to ask the Senator from Texas whether, in his opinion, there ig any moral commitment extending beyond @ l-year period. Mr. ConnaLuy. Not so far as I am con- cerned. * * * We are here as Members of Congress, with a perfect right to dis- continue the appropriation whenever we wish to do #0. Yes, Mr. President; we have a perfect right to discontinue the appropriation whenever we wish to do so. These are gifts. They are the most princely gifts in all history. No refine- ment of reason can turn them into an obligation, moral or otherwise. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President-—— The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Mc- CLELLAN in the chair). Does the Sena- tor from Missouri yield to the Senator from Nebrasks,? Mr, KEM. I am glad to yield. Mr. WHERRY. The junior Senator from Nebraska has been listening with great interest to the very forceful address being made by the junior Senator from Missouri. I remember very distinctly the colioquy that was engaged in by the junior Senator from Missouri and the two members of the Foreign Relations Committee to whom the Senator has re- ferred. Iagree completely that one Con- gress cannot bind a succeeding Congress; we all understand that. But so far as a moral commitment is concerned, if there are those who contend that there is in- volved a moral commitment to continue appropriations for ECA, is it not a fact that this Congress will have to use its judgment and carefully consider not merely the appropriations, because the appropriations mean materials. I ask the Senator to emphasize the point he so forcefully made. Does it not “ XCVI———658 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE behoove the Congress to exercise its best judgment relative to continuing ECA, in the light of the experiences through which we are now passing, with the idea in mind that it is no longer a question of dollar gaps? The question confronting the Congress at this time is a decision as to whether or not the money should be granted, not as dollars, but for the ma- terials it represents, since furnishing the materials might deprive the United States and the national defense of the very things we must have, regardless of how we may feel about aiding countries throughout the world. Is not that the vital question that is running through the Senator’s mind as he addresses the Senate this afternoon, and as we con- sider further appropriations for ECA? Mr. KEM. The distinguished minor- ity leader has placed the matter clearly before the Senate in language which no one can misunderstand. Those who pro- posed the ECA plan, with commendable wisdom and foresight, provided that it should not be a commitment for any particular period of time. Instead, they left the Congress as free as the air, as the Senator from Michigan said, to decide, in view of developments and exigencies which might occur from time to time, what could and ought to be done with the money of the taxpayers of the United Btates. Mr. President, the record is clear on that point for all to read. I believe that many of our people are a little impa- tient about the suggestion now advanced that there is a moral obligation which must be carried out. We should decide whenever this matter comes before the Senate as of then, whether it is to the best interest of the United States for gift shipments to be made out of the country of essential war materials, We will be called on to answer to the people of the United States, if we are not rea- sonably prudent about these shipments. We ought to be called on to answer if we act without prudence, without foresight, without careful thought as to the effect of what we are doing. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further? Mr. KEM. I yield to the Senator from Nebraska.’ Mr. WHERRY. There is another question I should like to raise, which is indirectly brought to the attentior of the Senate by the Senator’s remarks, but which was forcefully brought to our at- tention by an amendment which the junior Senator from Missouri offered during the debate on the authorization of ECA, namely, that the shipments of strategic materials referred to find their way into the hands of the aggressor through satellite countries. In view of what we read in the press—and in these days that is, apparently, the source we have to rely upon for information—what does the Senator feel about restricting or limiting the amount of money which goes to an ECA beneficiary country, that ig, the benefictary country itself, if it continues to ship strategic materials, such as oll, so that they find their way into the hands of the Communista, and finally into the hands of the Red Koreans, and are wed in the battle against American boys who are trying to 10365 stop the expansion of communism in South Korea? Mr, KEM. Mr. President, it is un- thinkable that the Congress should per- mit the resources of the United States to be used for the purpose of making war against it, for the purpose of shooting down and killing the young men of America who are engaged in the fight for freedom. Mr. WHERRY. Does not the Senator feel that the amendment he offered dur- ing the consideration of the authoriza- tion bill for ECA is more important now than ever, that no country which is a recepient of ECA aid should recetve as- sistance any longer if that country con- tinues the practice to which I have re- ferred? Mr. KEM. I agree entirely. When that matter was before the Senate on the previous occasion, the figures I presented were for the year 1948. I think the ques- tion may well be raised today: That was in 1948; what is going on now?” I have investigated that matter and I am now prepared to shed some light on the situ- ation. SHIPMENT OF WAR MATERIALS BY MARSHALS, PLAN COUNTRIES BEHIND THE IRON CURTAIN Officials of the Department of Com- merce have advised me that the British have shipped, and so far as is known, are still shipping quantities of petroleum and petroleum products, including mo- tor gasoline, to Red China. Recently, upon the request of our State Department, American oil com- panies agreed to shut off supplies of petroleum products to the China Reds, and they have done so. Under the Marshall plan, more than $245,000,000 worth of petroleum and petroleum products have been sent to Great Britain, which is shipping these products now to Red China. Of these gifts, $95,000,000 worth was made up of shipments from the United States. Next year ECA wants to give away $90,000,000 worth of petroleum and pe- troleum products to Great Britain, part of which would no doubt come from the United States. So we are faced with this question: Which shall it be? Fuel to Great Britain, which in turn is sending it to Communist China for possible use in the tanks now crushing our troops in Korea? Or fuel for our own tanks, trucks, and planes on the fighting front? Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. KEM. I yield to the Senator from Nebraska. Mr. WHERRY. If I recall the collo- quy in which the junior Senator from Nebraska and the junior Senator from Missouri were engaged during the debate upon the authorization of ECA, when the question of the shipments of petro- leum arose, it was about the time, as I recall, when there was a deficit of oil in this country, and if I remember the figures correctly, nearly 600,000 barreis of petroleum products were being shipped into the United States daily at that time. The amount varies, I under- stand, and at times the slack is taken up, but in the light of the statement just made by the junior Senator from Mis-~- souri, and the conditions we now face
10366 from a military point of view, does he not feel that every ounce of gasoline which could be used in our national de- tense, and in the front line, wherever it may be, should be conserved, and that we should look with care on appropria- tions which take away from us and our national defense the very products the distinguished Senator has been discus- sing? Mr. KEM. J definitely feel so; and I do not confine it to petroleum and petro- leum products. I extend it to all ma- terials of war, and I am now going to present some figures about other war materials which are being funneled through Marshall plan countries to the other countries behind the iron curtain. Earlier during this session, when the foreign aid authorization bill was being considered, I presented to the Senate evidence that certain Marshall plan .countries, namely Great Britain, France, and Belgium-Luxemburg, were making large shipments of war material to Rus- sia and her satellites. This information was official information—made available to me by the Office of International Trade, Department of Commerce. Last year, for example, Great Britain sent more than $12,000,000 worth of iron, steel, and manufactures to Russia and her satellites, and more than $240,000 worth of ball and roller bearings. I know the Senator from Vermont {[Mr, Franpers], as a great machine-tool manufacturer himself, will appreciate the importance of those shipments. I ask unanimous consent to have in- serted in the Recorp at this point tables containing a partial list of exports from Belgium-Luxemburg, the United King- dom, and France, to Russia and the sat- ellite countries during 1949. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hi. in the chair), Without objection, it is £0 ordered. The tables are as follows: Partial list of exports from Belgium-Luxem~ burg during 1949 to Russia and satellite nations + Amount Amount {tem in in thou- | Metrio 5 sands of] tons? dollars * franes Arms (to Czechosto- vakia)...... 6. eek 6, 040 302 j....----- Iron, cast iron, and stecl_.|19, 782, 840 | 080,142] 141, 740 11, 028, 820 | 651, 441 23, 523 1, 583, 160 79, 188 4, 836, 8, 003, 780 | 250, 180 10, 413 47, 083 485 49, 368 623 Bolles, machinery, mechanical apparatus, and appliances, and : ATLS . ne ene eens 804 6, 273 x. trleal machinery %, an apparatus atticles clectro- we eal mse, an error ee eetity 0 Rat y and tramway 2%, roll ing stock and avast wennmesems 872 optleal, measuring, ion, and other truments and ap- Obernival products...... 8, 578 Explosives, matches, and other infisromal Bble materials, 2,014 Rubber and manutze. | PTO. 2 eee ne wenn! 1,353 errr rnenppeennanens eeeetannmestt tenement nee ' Complete Hst avaliable in m: allice including a bento texte per On. curren ty tr patet i on @ ange rate o $1 metrio ton in equal to 2,204.6 pounds, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Partial tist of exports from United Kingdom during 1949 to Russia and satelitte nations Amount Amount | in thou- . in dol- | sands of | O98 lars! | pounds sterling Ball gnd roller bearings ance pene ennes 248, 600 92, 000 wren Heel, and manu- faclures (total). . 12, 140, 800 + 88, 000 Btoal barsand rods, not alloy.......-- 1, 786, 000 3 20, 000 Dare and rods of al- loy steel. .........- 804,000 91,000 Hoop He strip....-] 422, 800 33,000 Rallway and tram- way construction material. _...-.... 708, 400 5 10, 000 Barbed wire...-.... 420, 000 43,000 Cable and rope (ex- cept insulated tal- ephone and_ tel- egraph cable) ..... 425, 600 41,000 Nonferrous motals and maoufacturos (total) ..{ 4,062,800 | 1, 451 |......-.. Aluminum and al- loys. -.... 0-2-0. 618, 800 4 21, 000 pres and othor al- ol of copper, . ther than nickel alloys ae sene vn nenen 1, 142, 400 408 | 468,000 Copper......---.... 694, 400 248 | 71,000 Electrical goods and apparatus wpe nnee wenn 6, 806, 800 2,431 |. ean (total, ex- actos all and rollor bearings and parts)... 148, 172, 400 16, 133 } #867, 000 Electric generators... 11, 086, 800 4, 281 | 4 181, 000 Electrical machin- ery, other than motors and gen- erators.. 2, 884, 400 1,023 | 446,000 Maohino toois (metal-working) other than port- able power toolg..| 5, 138, 000 1, 836 | ¢ 120,000 Vehicles (including lo- eomotives, ships, and aircraft) (total ee vese 18, 361, 600 4,772 | nnonneen Rubber tires far motor vehicles, othor than motor- oyclesand tricars..} 229, 600 82 9, 000 Chassis for motor vehiclos, with en- @ines.- 2.22.22... 1, 660, 400 593 1,000 1 Computation based on present exchange rate of $2.80 to the pound sterling. 3 Hundred weight Cito pounds), 3 Long tons, 4 Hundsedwelght. Partial list of exports from France during 1949 to Russia and satellite nations Amount Amount iu thou- | Metric Item in dole sands of | tons francs an Chemicals: Inorgani¢........-.- 1, 546,750 | 633, 365 23, 425 Orpganic............] 983,288 | 339, 008 610 Rubber and rubber Products ....-..-..--- 1, 678,616 | 578, 833 1, 436 Beek mnlll products, hot rolled, sheots and plates....-....-.....- 4, 198, 881 41, 690 ate mill Prepac id rolled, tubular prota and wire. -| 8, 087, 703 19, 288 Aluminum, crude, an gsemimanufactures....| 369, 245 815 Aluminum alloys....... 408, 688 833 and lead alloys....] 816,34¢ 1,115 Metal manufactures. ...} 2,046,376 3, 985 Machinery and appa- ratus...........-.---- 10, 272, 238 6,771 Machitsry, electrical, Spparstus adawnnen 2,016,239 | 694, 010 625 rranspor tion equip- ane en ean eeeeeenne 8, 281,011 |2,855, 522 7, 0138 optical, surgical, sat- enti fe. and photo: grap hio instruments apperatus........ 1,118,145 | 383,843 ng ' Computation based on current exchange rte of 350 francs tthe dollar, - Mr. KEM. Mr. President, many of the same materials which are being sold to Russia and her satellites by Marshall plan countries are being given to these JULY 17 same countries by the United States un- der the Marshall plan. For example more than $26,000,000 worth of iron and steel mill materials and products have been sent by the United States to France under the Mar- shall plan. And last year, France shipped more than 7,000,000 worth of steel-mill products, including hot rolled sheets and plates, to Russia and her sat- ellite nations. It may be said that that was last year; that that is water over the dam. What about this year? A few days ago, I contacted officials of the Department of Commerce as to what progress had been made toward correct- ing the situation. The report I received was not encouraging. While I was ad- vised that some progress had been made, Commerce Department officials made it clear that Marshall plan nations in Europe are still making substantial ship- ments of war materials to Russia and her satellites-—materials which we are refusing to ship to those countries. On Friday, July 14, two members of my staff inspected the latest statistics in the Department of Commerce on ex- ports from Marshall plan nations to countries behind the iron curtain. They took some notes. Here are only a few of the things they found. During the first 4 months of this year, the United Kingdom exported more than $6,800,000 worth of electrical machinery to the Soviet Union. This represents nearly a 50 percent increase over British exports of electrical machinery to Rus- sia during the first 4 months of 1949. During the 4 months which ended April 30, 1950, the United Kingdom also sent to Russia more than $1,087,000 worth of machine tools. This is almost 10 times as many machine tools as were exported by the United Kingdom to Russia during the first 4 months of 1849. In other words, in the first 4 months of this year, the United Kingdom acceler- ated her sales of machine tools to Rus- sia 10 times over. Mr. FLANDERS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. KEM. I yield to the Senator from Vermont, who, I am aware, knows more about machine tools than probably any other Member of this body. Mr. FLANDERS. I should like to sug- gest that there is a difference perhaps between the principle of the thing and the amount involved. It is not satis- factory to us to see Great Britain in- creasing her machine-tool export to Russia. I might suggest, however, that the amount of that export would do little more than equip a two- or three-hun- dred-man plant. So that the amount is inconsiderable. I do agree with the Sen- ator as to the principle. Mr. KEM. Could the Senator advise us how long it would take a two- or three- hundred man plant to turn out a 60-ton tank for shipment to Korea? Mr. FLANDERS. I do not have the figures as to the number of man-hours that go into the making of a tank. ButI surmise that it would not make much difference to the Korean campaign. Mr. KEM. Does the Senator mean that a few tanks would not make much difference in the Korean campaign?
1950 Mr, FLANDERS. What I am saying is that the export of machine tools is in amount very small indeed. But I agree with the Senator as to the principle. Mr. KEM. I defer to the knowledge of my distinguished friend from Vermont as to what constitutes a substantial amount of machine tools. As a mere layman, not being among the intelli- gentsia in that business, I should think that a shipment of a million dollars’ worth of machine tools in 4 months was quite a considerable amount. Regard- less of that, what does the Senator from Vermont say about Great Britain in- creasing her shipments 10 times over in the 4 months which followed January 1, 1950? Mr. FLANDERS. I have already agreed with the Senator from Missouri that the principle is more than doubi- ous—it is bad. But the amount involved was inconsiderable. Mr. KEM. To me it is shocking, liter- ally shocking, that such traffic should be going on when at the same time we are sending as gifts to Great Britain, great quantities of steel, some of which no doubt could be manufactured into the same kind of machine tools that are being sent to Russia. Mr. FLANDERS. I should like to ask the Senator whether he has the figures of our shipments of steel to Great Brit- ain, Mr. KEM. The gifts? Mr. FLANDERS, Yes. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, while a search is being made for the figures of the amount of steel sent by us to Great Britain, I should like to make an inquiry of the distinguished Senator from Mis- souri—and I should be glad to have him relay the question to the Senator from Vermont, because I also am a layman when it comes to knowledge of this par- ticular subject. I have received infor- mation from the Appropriations Com- mittee respecting some of the evidence presented to it. Cannot machine tools be used to provide other machine tools? Cannot the original machine tools be used as the seed, so to speak, for the de- velopment of machine tools which could be produced in abundance? I do not know how this procedure can be carried through unless the Senator from Mis- sourt asks unanimous consent that he eld for that purpose. may FLANDERS, Mr. President, I should like to interrogate the Senator from Missouri. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Benator from Missouri yield to the Sen- ateor from Vermont for that purpose? Mr. KEM. Before the Senator from Vermont puts his question, I should like to give him the figure of the shipments from the United States, as shown by the ECA report for the period from April 8, 1948, to April 30, 1950. The shipments in that period, that is the gifts of steel by the people of the United States to the Government of Britain, were $27,528,000 ‘worth. I shall now be glad to have the Senator from Vermont propound any question he has in mind. Mr, FLANDERS. I should like to in- Quire of the Senator from Missouri whether he will permit me, through his CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE intermediation, to furnish some infor- mation to the Senator from Nebraska. Mr. KEM. I shall be glad to. The only thing any of us is interested in is the truth. I shall be glad to waive any rights I have under the Senate rules, in the interest of our joint search for truth. Mr. FLANDERS. I should like to enunciate, sir, a profound truth, which is that the only inanimate thing which reproduces itself is a machine too. That is in response to a request from the Sen- ator from Nebraska. Mr. KEM. Can the Senator from Ver- mont estimate the rate of fecundity on the part of this million dollars’ worth of machine tools sent from England to Russia in the first 4 months of the pres- ent year? Mr. FLANDERS, Of course, no one knows what those machine tools are to be used for. They can be used to make other machine tools. They can be used to make tanks. They can be used for repair shops on railroads. They can be used on hundreds and thousands of projects. Mr. KEM. Could they not be used as models for other machine tools? Mr. FLANDERS. That has been done long since. The Russians have their models and have made their copies. Mr. KEM. We can feel sure then that our British friends are keeping them up to date. Mr. FLANDERS. If they are search- ing for models, they had better not go to Great Britain; they should come here to the United States. Mr. KEM. ‘The Marshall plan has taken care of that, for under the Marshall plan we are not only making regular shipments of machine tools to Great Britain, but we are also sending Great Britain technical assistance; are we not? Mr. FLANDERS. Not so far as I know, in the lines with which I am best ac- quainted. We are inviting them to come here and watch our methods of production and our methods of organization and manage- ment. We are doing that, and I think it is a good thing. I simply wish to return to the point that I agree completely with the Senator from Missouri that the principle of such shipments is wrong. I was only rejoic- ing—insofar as one can rejoice over something that is wrong—that the oper- ation has not yet attained vast propor- tions, Mr. KEM. Mr. President, I should simply like to say to my distinguished friend, the Senator from Vermont, that I hope we shall be in equal agreement when the vote is taken on this amend- ment. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. KEM. I yield. Mr. WHERRY. The information I sought has been provided by means of the statements made by the Senator from Missouri, in response to the questions which have been asked by the Senator from Vermont—which fs a rather round- about means of obtaining information, I admit. What they have said is con- clusive proof, it seems to me—~and it is in accordance with the evidence adduced 10867 before the committee——that the shipment of machine tools provides the means not only whereby duplicates can be made, but, what is worse, whereby other machine tools can be made——-tools which, in turn, might be capable of producing yast amounts of material which could be used not only on one front but on vari- ous fronts throughout the world, if need be I do not say that the machine tools the distinguished Senator has mentioned would be used for that purpose, but that is a possibility. I am satisfied that if the country to which the tools went wanted to use them for that purpose, there would be nothing to stop that country from using them in that way. Mr. KEM. Mr. President, we all seem to be in agreement about this matter so far as Great Britain is concerned. Suppose we consider some of the other countries: Belgium has continued to make ship- ments of war material to Russia. the period January through April sizable shipments of iron, steel, and tin plate have gone from Belgium to the U. 8.8. R. Italy is sending iron, steel, and ma- chinery to the U. 5. 8. R. Sweden’s trade with Russia during January 1950 was nine times greater than it was in January 1949. All too fresh in our minds js the fact that during World War II our ships and planes were blasted with scrap iron fur- nished by us to the Japs. Tens of thou- sands of young Americans were killed or maimed for life. Mr. President, history repeats itself; Now we are again supply- ing—this time indirectly—materials of war to an unfriendly nation. That na- tion, it is well known, supplied the tanks and the guns now blasting our young men along the Kum River in Korea. It is entirely possible, even probable, that many of the shipments of iron and steel from Marshall plan countries to Russia went into building the very same guns and tanks now killing our own boys. When the most recent Marshall plan authorization bill was before the Senate, I made this statement: It is essential to our national security that this country continue to ban shipments of war material to the Soviet Union. It is trag- {cally absurd for us to pour into western Eu- Tope vast quantities of war materials under the Marshall pian and the arms aid program, only to have our friends export the same ma- terials to Russia and other countries behind the iron curtain. Mr. President, it is shocking that, in view of the situation in Korea, Marshall plan countries are still permitting sub- stantial shipments of war material to the Reds, Surely our allies will not con- tinue to furnish materials to the Reds to kill young Americans who are fighting for a free world. THRE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE SENATE Mr. President, if the fighting is con- fined to Korea, the United States may be able to ride out the present crisis with- out serious economic strain and the adoption of controls that a major war would entall. But there is no assurance that the fighting will be confined to Korea, Every dispatch from Korea car- ties a lesson. The dispatches tell a tale
10368 of the need for adequate preparedness against acts of Communist aggression not only there but in other parts of the world. Earlier today we heard the dis- tinguished junior Senator from Massa- chusetts [Mr. Lopcx] demand entire, complete mobilization of industry in the United States. IfI correctly understand his meaning, that would call for complete controls over our entire economy. Mr. President, in the last few days we have learned that our aircraft have be- come obsolete more rapidly than they have been replaced. It is now disclosed that we lack aircraft of a proper type for supporting ground troops. We now make the unhappy and surprising discovery that we lag behind in scientific research and development in certain military fields; for example, in the manufacture of bullet-repelling steel. We know to a certainty that our tanks are inferior. We may need, and need badly, many things before too long: More manpower, more money, more and better weapons, more basic materials. As the Washington News said on last Thursday: Communism fs winning its way by the sword. Why can’t our policy makers get that through their heads? Mr, FLANDERS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. KEM. I am giad to yield to the Senator from Vermont. Mr. FLANDERS. The quotation from the Washington News, just read by the Senator from Missouri, touches a point which I cannot let pass unchallenged. It is true that the armed forces of Rus- sia have been a very potent tool in con- quering the vast areas which Russia has conquered. Yet in her latest conquests and in those which she has almost made, she has not proceeded by means of the sword at all. To the contrary, her method in those cases has been to use propaganda. Anyone who at any time says there is nothing but force involved in the Rus- Sian advance simply does not know what is going on, does not know what Russia is doing, and pays no attention to her methods and her policies. We should today encounter very much less danger, and have very much less fear of her armed power, had we been as wise, had ‘we been as diligent, had we been as in- telligent in the thought war as Russia has been. Let us not be blind to the means by which she has attained her power. Mr, KEM. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Vermont for his very in- teresting comment, He has made some thought-provoking speeches on the Sen- ate floor with reference to the necessity of carrying on propaganda behind the jron curtain, As the Senator knows, I have studied those speeches carefully, I have been very much interested in them, and I have asked the Senator questions about his ideas in that connection. I think, however, that the Senator from Vermont has misinterpreted the quotation I just made from the Wash- ington News, I think the editor of that newspaper had in mind that, since June 27, 1950, communism was winning its way with the sword. I think the Sena- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE tor from Vermont will agree the state- ment as so interpreted is eminently correct, Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. KEM. I am glad to yield to the distinguished Senator from North Da- kota, . Mr. LANGER. Is it not true that im- mediately following World War II Rus- sia acquired 2,000 of the leading scien- tists of Germany; that, at the very time our country said we did not want them here, and when we were barring them from the United States, the Russians took them to Russia; and that, as a mat- ter of fact, those scientists kept right on developing the weapons which Germany had been creating at the time the war ended? Mr. KEM. I think that is undoubtedly so. It is as true as is the statement, if we may believe newspaper reports, that the bullet-repellent steel now used in the forepart of 60-ton Russian tanks is a discovery made by the same German scientists to whom the Senator from North Dakota alludes. Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further? Mr. KEM. Iam glad to yield. Mr. LANGER. The net result fs, fs it not, that because of the action of our Government in refusing to admit those 2,000 scientists and engineers, or any of them, from Germany, hundreds of our boys are dying today? As the distin- guished Senator from Missouri has said, the Russians have developed a steel- resistant tank which is superior to our tanks, Mr. KEM. I think that conclusion is inescapeable, I may say to the Senator. It made my blood run cold, within the past few days, to read reports from the Korean front, and to learn how our bullets fell off the Russian tanks like paper pellets, because they lacked suf- ficient size, speed, and power to pene- trate the steel. Here we were, giving substance to 16 countries of western Europe, yet we were unable to give our boys, who were risking their lives in Korea, an even chance. Mr. President, I do not suppose that since the Continental Army marched in the American Revolution has it occurred that the equipment of American troops was not at least equal to that which they were called upon to meet. I think that is a disgrace to this country. I think that that circumstance alone re- quires that this whole program be re- viewed in the light of what we have learned within the past few days. We have learned, Mr. President, that it is impossible to stop 60-ton tanks with cases of Coca-Cola or with cartons of cigarettes. This is no time for us to be boondoggling in western Europe. It is no time for our Government to be building a gambling casino in Le Harve or running a night club in Rome. Senators may say that we should leave this to the sound judgment of the ECA. That would be an easy out; but is it sufficient? Would that discharge our constitutional obligation? Mr. Presi- dent, we are on notice that ECA can err, and err very badly, JULY 17 On June 18, 1950, William C. Foster, Deputy Administrator of the Economic Cooperation Administration, appeared before the Senate Committee on Appro- priations. Mr. Foster declared: Iam happy to tell the Appropriations Com- mittee that, in my judgment, the trend of events in South Korea is more favorable than it has been at any time since the liberation of that country in 1945. Then Mr. Foster said: A rigorous training program has bullt up a well-disciplined army of 100,000 soldiers; one that is prepared to meet any challenge by North Korean forces. Any Senator who is interested may read Mr, Foster’s testimony in the record of the hearings of the Appropriations Committee, at pages 305 and 308. That, then, was the considered opinion of the Deputy Administrator of the ECA, on June 13, just 11 days before the in- vasion of South Korea by Red forces. He said that South Korea had a well- disciplined army of 100,000 soldiers, pre- pared to meet any challenge by North Korean forces. Subsequent events—the complete rout of South Korean forces—place Mr, Fos- ter’s testimony in bold relief. We must ask ourselves: Did the ECA have the slightest conception of the true picture of South Korea? Other disconcerting question will come to the mind of Senators: Is the ECA bet- ter informed as to the situation in West- ern Europe than it was regarding the situation in Korea? Is the information given to the Congress by ECA regarding western Europe more accurate than it was regarding Korea? ECA spends nearly $300,000 a year for publicity in this country alone. Press agents and speech writers tell a pretty story of its accomplishments, and what the future will bring, if only the Ameri- can. taxpayers continue to foot the bills. But they find it increasingly necessary to keep up a constant barrage of hand- outs and addresses. Travelers are ar- riving home every day to raise grave doubts as to the results of the tinkling jingle of American gold. The time has come—sooner than some of us anticipated—when the Senate must concern itself with facts—plain, hard, disagreeable facts. We are confronted face to face with the stark, relentless realities of a changing world. I hope that the Senate will examine the ECA appropriation with courage and fore- sight in light of the world-shaking events that have come about since the bill was reported to the Senate. Mr. FLANDERS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. KEM. I yield to the Senator from Vermont. Mr. FLANDERS. I should like to ask a@ question of the junior Senator from Missouri. I wonder whether he had any feeling of dichotomy in the first two sen- tences of his very interesting talk in which he called for reducing ECA contri- butions and stimulating our allies abroad. Mr. KEM. I had in mind that both things could be done at the same time, and that there was no inconsistency in the program. I had in mind that the
1950 great sum of $1,950,000,000 should be ample to show our friends in western Europe our intention to uphold their hands and to stand by them, shoulder to shoulder and cheek by jowl. 1 had in mind that our friends in western Europe will have more confidence in our own in- telligence and our own ability to stay the course of events if they know we are con- ducting our own affairs with prudence and foresight. I think the same will be true of our allies who are not benefi- ciaries of the Marshal] plan. Mr. FLANDERS. However, the differ- ence does require a little explanation, does it not? Mr. KEM. Ido not think so. I think it would be self-evident to as keen a mind as that of the Senator from Vermont. Mr. FLANDERS. I merely wanted to make sure that the Senator felt he could correctly read the mental processes of our allies on the other side. I come to another question. I ask the Senator from Missouri whether he has a feeling that the ECA has played no part in maintaining the peace of Europe up to this time. Mr. KEM. I think it has perhaps done some good. I should like to think it has. But Iam sure that the contribution which ECA has made is as nothing compared with the atomic bomb. If the Russians have not overrun western Europe, I am sure it has not been due to Coca Cola, cigarettes, and the casinos and night clubs we supplied in western Europe, but it has been due to the fear of the armed might of the United States, and more specifically to the knowledge which we possess of the atomic bomb, knowledge and the courage to use it, if and when the appropriate time rises, Mr. FLANDERS. Does the Senator from Missouri, who has a keen eye for the picturesque in our operations abroad, feel that it is the atomic bomb which changed the prospects of the elections in Italy and France? Mr. KEM. Yes. I am sure it sent many a doubting citizen to the polls to uphold the side espoused by the United States. I feel absolutely certain of that. I should like to say that I think the atomic bomb was the most powerful of all arguments for the American side. Whether the Honorable James C. Dunn, in presenting the matter to the people of Italy, referred to the atomic bomb, I do not know; but I am sure that there was no citizen of Italy so dense that he did not know about the atomic bomb and the effect it had on the entire world picture. Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. KEM. I yield. Mr, LANGER. I should like to refer my friend to the speech of Winston Churchill which he delivered at the Mas- sachusetts Institute of Technology ap- proximately a year ago, in which he said that the only thing—not the Marshall plan—which has protected Europe has been the atomic bomb of the United States. He repeated the statement sev- eral times in the course of his speech. Mr. KEM. Thatis quite true. I thank the Senator from North Dakota for his contribution. I should like to say that many reports from Europe indicate that CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE the average citizen in western Europe regards the Marshall plan as evidence of a sort of weak-mindedness on the part of the people of the United States. He thinks we must have some ulterior mo- tive, and he never has been influenced too much by our overgenerous gifts. He has realized, I think, that they were be- yond our capacity, that as a matter of prudence we ought not to be sending them in such an amount. He has re- ceived our gifts with his fingers crossed. He wonders why we do not balance our own budget, instead of sending such sums to him. Mr. FLANDERS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further? Mr. KEM. I yield. Mr. FLANDERS. The Senator from Missouri has the floor and has the privi- lege of yielding or not to the Senator from Vermont. I saw nothing in the press at the time, and nothing in the reports of those who were on the ground, to indicate that the atom bomb was a determining factor of any sort whatso- ever in the elections in France and Italy. We do know, without question, as Mr, Churchill said, that it has been a deter- rent factor, so far as the armed invasion of western Europe is concerned; but Rus- sia’s invasion of western Europe was un- dertaken not as an armed ‘nvasion, pri- marily, but as an invasion by Communist ideas and ideals, and we very narrowly escaped the danger of Italy and France going under. Iam sure history will show that the Marshall plan was a prime fac- tor in averting that great danger. Furthermore, I should like to ask the Senator from Missouri whether he thinks it was the atom bomb which increased so greatly and so favorably the produc- tive output of western Europe. Mr. KEM. I do not think the atom bomb has anything to do with the indus- trial output. I believe recovery in west- ern Burope has been Jargely due to the ability of the people of western Europe to recover after a devastating war. That has been shown time and again in the course of history. There is no unique- ness about what the people of western Europe have done this time. France has been devastated time and time again by invading armies, and yet the people of the world have often marveled at the re- cuperative powers of the French people. The fact that we have spent some money there does not mean that her recovery is entirely due to that. It means that a natural economic process has been car- ried on. I have invited the attention of the Senator from Vermont to the fact that whatever I may think about the Marsha!l plan and whatever I may have said about it in the past, what I am suggesting to- day is a reduction of the Marshall plan appropriation to $1,950,000,000. I am presenting that as the outside figure of what I think the limit should be, and as far as we should go, in view of the exi- gencies at home and the demands upon ourselves to equip and maintain our sol- diers at the front. Mr, FLANDERS, I would still like to go back to the previous discussion in or- der to find out whether or not ft 1s really true that the Senator from Missouri feels 10369 the Marshall plan played no important part in the economic recovery of Eu- rope. Mr. KEM. If it will make the Senator from Vermont feel any better, I shall be very glad to say that it played a part. As a matter of fact, I suppose it did. Inever said it did not. It would be strange if the pouring into any land of such tre- mendous sums of money did not do some good to the economy. To say otherwise would be foolish. I have no ambition to cut that kind of figure on the floor of the Senate. What I have said and what I say now is that these gifts are no long-time solution to the problem. As soon as we stop mak- ing gifts, or as soon as we show any hesi- tancy in making gifts, the people over there will say to us, “Well, we are sorry, and just as sorry as we can be, but if you don’t send us this money, we will have to go Communist.” That ts inevitable, Mr. President. We shall have to meet this issue. The point I make is that with a debt of $257,000,000,000 the American people cannot continue year after year to bribe the people of the 16 countries in western Europe not to go Communist. Mr, FLANDERS. I should like to in- terrogate the Senator still further. My reason for pressing the question as to whether or not the Senator from Missouri felt that the money spent up to now had been well spent was to get some gage for my own use as to the value of his judgment that we could now do with any other certain amount than that pro- posed. If the Senator belittles the politi- cal and economic effect of the Marshall plan in Europe to date, I would have to say to the Senator that I fear I cannot trust his judgment. Mr. KEM. The Senator from Mis- sour! is very anxious to retain the con- fidence of the Senator from Vermont. The Senator asked me if I thought the Marshall plan aid had made any contri- bution to the recovery of western Eu- rope. Iadmitted it had. Then the Sen- ator undertook to say that the Senator from Missouri admitted that the Mar- shall plan money had been well spent. Of course that is an entirely different matter. In my opinion, much of the Marshall plan money has utterly been wasted. I believe much of it has gone down the drain forever and has accom- plished no appreciable good of any kind. It has made some contribution to the recovery in western Europe. However, if, in order to retain the confidence of the Senator from Vermont, which I am very anxious to d—— Mr. FLANDERS. Not the personal confidence or affection, but merely guid- ance on this particular legislation. Mr. KEM. If, in order to do that, it is necessary for me to admit that I think the ECA money has been well spent, the Senator from Vermont and I, in a figurative sense, will have to part company. I cannot go along with him on that. I shall be glad to give him a bill of particulars on that point. I shall show him the many respects in which X feel that money of the American tax- payers has been wasted in western Ku- rope. Mr. FLANDERS. Does the Senator from Missouri feel that in that respect
10370 it is much different from many appro- priations which we make on the floor of the Senate for undertakings inside the borders of our own country? Mr, KEM. I should hate to say that every appropriation we have made has been as ill advised as I regard ECA. I will tell the Senator what I think about ECA. The Senator has spoken about what will be the place of ECA in his- tory. I shall be glad to give the Senator the benefit of my opinion for what it is worth. In my opinion it will be regarded in history as we now regard the tulip craze, the South Sea bubble, the Missis- sippi bubble, the witchcraft mania in Salem, or the Florida land boom of a few years ago. I think ECA will go down in history as one of the mass delusions which seize upon the minds of men from time to time and which only time will erase, or correct. I have expressed this opinion in the Senate before. I see no reason to change it today. Mr. FLANDERS. I should like to say to the Senator from Missouri that he has completely cleared my mind as to his position, but has done very little to persuade me in joining him in his position, I should like to conclude this little colloquy, so far as I am concerned, by stating as my conviction that had it not been for BCA, and its economic and political results, the Russian Army would now be washing its socks with salt water soap in the Atlantic Ocean. Mr. KEM. The Senator has explained his position very neatly. When we started our colloquy I did not have the slightest idea that I would change the opinion of the Senator from Vermont. The Senator from Vermont is not a politician. If he were I know he would cling tenaciously to the first principle of a politician, namely, “Never admit that you are wrong.” I do not expect to convince the Senator from Vermont. Perhaps I may be more successful in prophecy than in persuasion with respect to some of my other brethern here. At any rate, Mr. President, I have made a record of my views for better or worse. It will be here in the pages of the CONGRESSIONAL Recorp for all time. Those who follow the Senator from Vermont and me may pass judgment. Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. KEM. I am glad to yield to the Senator from North Dakota. Mr. LANGER. Is it not true that we shall soon find out how much good the Marshall plan has done when we see how many ground troops the countries who have received benefits under the Mar- shall plan will send to Korea in re- sponse to the request of the Secretary General of the United Nations? Does not the distinguished Senator from Mis- soul believe that in that response we shall have a part of the proof? Mr. KEM. I do not wish to cast the slightest aspersion on the good inten- tions of our allies. I believe they will support us. I hope they will. We need their help. I believe we shall get it. We know that in two world wars some of them have been Joya] and faithful allies. However, I want to say that I think they would have more confidence in coming CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE to our ald if they bclieved we are keeping our own economy on a sound basis. Mr. MARTIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. KEM. I am glad to yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania. Mr. MARTIN. I have not heard all the Senator’s very able address, but I have heard enough of it to become very greatly interested in it. Is it not impor- tant for America in this critical hour to keep its financia] condition as sound as it possibly can? Mr. KEM. I feel certain that that is so. As I said earlier, there is no point to our trying to maintain free institu- tions abroad, in the lands beyond the seas, if we are to jeopardize our own free institutions. There is nothing in the record of the past to indicate that we can bankrupt our Government and at the same time maintain our free in- stitutions. Mr. MARTIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further? Mr. KEM. I am glad to yield further to the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania. Mr. MARTIN. Until we can ascer- tain how serious our present condition is, is it not necessary to economize all along the line, not only in our contri- butions to ECA, but in our public works and things of that character at home. Mr. KEM. I think it is necessary, in- deed. As I have indicated before, the major part of the gifts proposed to be made under the pending bill would go into public improvements in the coun- tries of western Europe, which have no reference at all to the emergency in which we now find ourselves. I voted for the military-assistance bill when it was before the Senate recently. I voted for it without comment. So far as arm- ing our allies is concerned, that is an entirely different matter. I am not talking about that. I hope no one will get the idea that I am talking about that. My remarks are directed solely and ex- clusively to economic assistance to western Europe. Mr. MARTIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further? Mr. KEM. I am glad to yield. Mr. MARTIN. Is it not a fact that here in the United States we are away behind in the construction of roads, the improvement of rivers and harbors, and matters of that kind, and that we will need those things badly if we become involved in a total war, in order to at- tain the maximum of agricultural, min- ing, and manufactured products, neces- sary for the conduct of a total war? Mr KEM. I believe that to be true beyond question. We are now draining the Zuider Zee in Holland at the ex- pense of American taxpayers. I think that is costing in the neighborhood of $37,000,000. We are building extensive multilane highways in many countries of western Europe. We are building great viaducts and aqueducts. We are building a great hydroelectric plant in Italy. A few days ago one of our col- leagues told me that he was in Rome last summer and saw a great railroad terminal under construction. He in- quired where the money came from and JULY 17 was told that $4,000,000 came from the Marshall plan. And so it goes. Mr. President, I yield the floor. INCLUSION OF SPAIN IN ASSISTANCE PROGRAM Mr. EASTLAND. Mr, President, I de- sire to call to the attention of the Senate and the country a news item from Ma- drid, dated July 16, by the International News Service, which appeared this morn- ing in the public press. I quote the article: Franco Revokses ALL ARMY LEAVES Usually reliable sources said tonight that Generalissimo Franco has ordered all mili- tary leaves canceled and set the stage for the calling up of four army classes. Franco and his cabinet devoted most of thelr meeting Friday to a discussion of the Korean wer and its effect on the international situation. Mr. President, that is a news item which is enough to make the so-called liberals sick. This country has re- fused to aid and assist Franco. This country has refused to aid and assist the peoples of western Europe who oppose communism, and who, by the use of mili- tary force, will oppose the sweep of com- munism over western Europe. Today western Europe is a void, a vacuum, because the United States has not allied herself with the two keystones, Germany and Spain, to prevent the spread of communism. Consistently, at the behest of the left wing, we have re- fused to arm and to assist them. Mr. President, we find that although we called on the United Nations for mil- itary assistance in the form of ground troops in Korea, up until last night none of those countries had agreed to assist. Yet we find Spain, a country which does not even belong to the United Nations, holding Cabinet meetings and calling up four classes of her army to meet the in- ternational crisis. Mr. President, if we had a trained army of Germans and a trained and equipped Spanish army, five of those di- visions would be equal to 250,000 Chinese Communists. If this country is to live, it must build up its defenses, and it must ally itself with and assist the peoples of the world who will really take up arms to oppose communism. In Europe Spain has been the bulwark against communism, and I say that our conduct toward her should be viewed with shame by the American people. It should shame our leaders, who are will- ing further to temporize with commun- ism. They weaken this country when they do not assist Spain, but in order to appease certain left-wing pressure groups, certain radical elements of this country, we go ahead with a senseless policy which will cause many American boys to lose their lives. Isay itisa shame, This country must be mobilized, and we must cooperate with and ally ourselves in Europe with Spain and Germany, the two great peoples there who must be the bulwark in the defense system of western Europe. I trust the significance of this news item will not be lost on our leaders. I know its significance will not be lost on this country,
1950 CALL OF THE ROLL Mr, LANGER, Mr. President, I sug- gest the absence of a quorum. Mr, RUSSELL. Mr. President—— The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator withhold his suggestion a moment? Mr. RUSSELL. I hope we may get on with the agricultural appropriations. Mr. LANGER. I promised the mi- nority leader, before he left the Chamber, that I would call a quorum before the Senator from Georgia started in with the agricultural portion of the appropriation bill. It seems that some Senators have expressed a desire to be present and hear the distinguished Senator’s discussion. Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, I hope the appropriations bill may now be dis- cussed; we have discussed almost every- thing in the whole gamut of human af- fairs except agricultural appropriations, Mr. LANGER. I am calling the quorum for that very purpose, at the request of the Senator from Nebraska (Mr, WHERRY)}. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk called the roll, and the following Senators answered to their names: Aiken Hayden Martin Anderson Hendrickson Maybank Brewster Hickenlooper Millikin Bricker Hi Moree Bridges Holland Murray Butler Humphrey Myers Byrd Hunt Neely Chapman Ives O'’Conor Chaves Jenner O'Mahoney Connally Johnson, Colo, Pepper Cordon Johnson, Tex. Robertson Darby Kem Russell Donnell Kerr Saltonstall Douglas Kilgore Schoeppel Dworshak Langer Smith, Maine Fastland Leahy Smith, N. J. Eoton Lehman Stennis Ellender Lodge Taft Ferguson Lucas Thomas, Okla. Flanders McCarran Thomas, Utah Frear McCarthy Thye Fulbright McClellan Tydings George McFarland Watkins Gillette McKellar Wherry Graham McMahon Williams Green Magnuson Young Gurney Malone The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Stsnnts in the chair). A quorum is present, , Mr. RUSSELL obtained the floor. DISCUSSION OF HYDROGEN BOMB ON MEET THE PRESS PROGRAN—CORRDC- TION Mr, McMAHON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for an insertion in the Record? Mr. RUSSELL. I yield. Mr. McMAHON. Mr. President, 9 news story today quoted me as saying yesterday on the Meet the Press program that a site to test the proposed hydrogen bomb is now being selected. This isinerror. I made no such state- ment, Incidentally, there are some other mis- statements in the story to which I have referred, Below is a transcript of the questions and answers from the broadcast, which, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE of course, demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that I said no such thing. Mr. McNei, In any event, is it not likely that they won't be able to even test an "H”* bomb for 18 months? Senator McMaHom, Mr. McNeil, I suppose One of the most top secret things that we are dealing with is the rate of progression of our atomic armaments. I truly believe that that rate of progress should be guarded as well as we are able to guard it. Mr. McNet, Well, now, this two-hundred- and-sixty-odd million that the President asked for, that's for some entirely new plants separate from any thing that AEC has got now. Senator McManon. Yes; that ts true. Mr. McNzm. And they haven't picked a aite for that yet, have they? Senator McManon, It's in the process of being selected, Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- sent to have printed in the Recorp at this point a transcript of the broadcast, in question-and-answer form, which will be a permanent record, to be the source of correction of the errors which were made in the news story, and which have caused me some embarrassment, There being no objection, the tran- script was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: ANNOUNCER. From Washington, D. C. NBC brings you America’s Preas Conference of the Air, “Meet the Press,” with todays guest, Senator Been McManon, Democrat of Con- necticut. Senator McMaHon Is the chairman of the Joint Atomic Energy Committee and & member of the Tydings committee which is investigating Senator McCaatuy’s charges of communism in the State Department. Ready for todays unrehearsed spontaneous presss conference are four of America’s top reporters. Please remember that their ques- tions do not necessarily reveal their point of view, It’s their way of getting a story for you. And now, meet Mr. Marshall McNeil of the Scripps-Howard newspapers, Mr. Law- rence Spivak, editor of the American Mer- cury magazine, Mrs. Mary Craig of the Port- land Maine Herald, Mr. Edward Miller of the Cowles publication and here is our guest, Senator Brien McMahon of Connecticut. Finally, Miss Martha Roundtree, moderator of Meet the Press. That is our news panel for today and our guest. The news confer- ence will begin in just one minute. Miss Rounpvrrere. Senator, if you will brace yourself I think Mr Spivak has the first question, Mr. Sprvak. Senator, a group of leading statesmen the other day called upon the United States to consider the use of the atomic bomb against North Korea in order to prevent a long and costly war. What do you think of that suggestion? Senator McManon. I do not think the sug- gestion is a good one. I believe that the North Korean war 1s of such a character as to rule out the use of the atomic bomb. Mr. Sptvax. Do you think we can win a war with the atom bomb? Do you think the bomb can be decisive? Senator MoMaHon. Yee, I do believe it can be decisive. It depends upon its wee, ‘upon the sources of the power of a striking nation, Mr. Sprvax. Senator, do you think we sre still sufficiently ahead of the Russians in the manufacture of the atom bomb to place the advantage on our side? Senator McMamowm, I feel that we do have & very real lead over the Russians in the atomic field. It's a lead, Mr. Spivak, that 1 wouldn't be satiafied with because no mat- 10371 ter how great it is I still wouldn't be satia- fed Mr. BrIvak. What do you mean by that? Senator McManom. I mean by that that I would only be content with the great pre- eminence in that feld. Miss Rounprars. Mr. McNeti, Mr. MoNem,. Senator, why isn't Korea « good target for the A-bomb? Senator McMaHon. Because, Mr. McNeil, as I see the Korean situation you have troops widely dispersed. The atom bomb is primar- ily a weapon to strike at the sources of power or at troops that would be so massed as to furnish a target. Mr, McNzt, What about dropping it on their capitol. Isn't that a target to at your—— Senator McManon, No, I do not belleve a0, the sources of the power of the North Ko- reans is in being genérated in North Korea itself. I doubt if there are any tank face tories in North Korea, Mr. McNeil. Mr. McNerm. I think you are right, One of your reasons for opposing the bomb is the fear that it might or the belief that it might start operations. Senator McMaHon. No; I just feel that militarily 1t is not the kind of weapon for use in this kind of an action. I believe—— Mr. McNew, It would kill a lot of people. Senator McMaxon. That is true, but there has to be—now I'll tell you Marshall, you know the Russians, the Soviets, have been putting out a lot of propaganda about the atomic bomb as you know. We had it grow- ing out of the Stockholm conference to ban the uge of the atomic weapon. I believe the State Department spoke very truly the other day when it pointed out that !t was a sion that was the thing that counted and not the kind of weapons that were used. Mr. McNet. You don't kill anybody gra- clously. Senator McManon. That is right, you're just as dead with a gentleman's rifie as with an atomic weapon. Fire bombs are bad too. Mr. McNer. Pursuing this 8 minute, one of your old desires—have you ever fulfilled one of your old desires to find out how many of these we got at this point? Senator McManon. Mr. McNeil, the Joint Committee on the Atomic Energy has not In- formed itself as to the stockpile of atomic-—- Mr. McNer. I’m not talking about the committee, I’m talking about Brren Mo- MAnoN. Senator McManon, As far as Brien Mc- Manon is concerned, I have been so intimate- ly assoctated with it that I would be less than bright if I hadn’t made what I think is a pretty good estimate of what our stockpiles are. Mr. McNer.. Have we an adequate arsenal now, in your opinion? Senator McMazzon. I wouldn't say that our arsenal in anything was adequate to the kind of thing which might happen sometime in the future. That is why I have been saying continuously that we must step up our atomic armament production. I sald that at the same time I have been pointing out as well as I could the necessity for calling a great disarmament conference for the pur- pose of seeing to it that we stop this arma- ment race in which we are engaged. Mise RounpTrere. Mrs, Craig. Mrs. Crata. Recently Senator HicKrnLoorsr gaid that Atomic Energy Commissioner Pike had dragged his feet on the development of the H-bomb, Now, js it true that you would have to divert materials, laboratory person- nel, away from the atom bomb in order to produce the H-bomb? Senator McManon. May, that is a very complicated question. It is true that with @ certain amount of personnel and a certain amount of material that if you were going
10372 to produce hydrogen weapons you would have to divert some of your personnel and some of your materials to hydrogen produc- tion which would result in fewer atom bombs. It is true in my opinion however, that by putting on extre steam and extra effort and recruiting the personnel that we can maintain at least our present production of atomic weapons and on top of that pro- duce hydrogen weapons. Mrs, Ceara, Well, there was, was there not, the question of whether we had to fight soon or after a few years. If we had to fight soon, we would need atom bombs and after a few years perhaps the hydrogen bomb. Was there not a decision which had to be made there? Senator McManHon. May, there were many, many facts surrounding the decision to con- tinue at an accelerated pace the develop- ment of the hydrogen weapon, That was announced, you will remember, by the Presi- dent last January. I do not believe that we could go into all of those factors on this program much though I might like to. Mrs. Crata. Yes, well, let me ask you this, is it not true that now what fs essentially a war has come upon us that what we got to have soon is atomic bombs. Senator McMaHon. May, I believe that we have got to emphasize our atomic produc- tion and hydrogen production, something I don’t want to do, but I think we got to do it and the President recognized that neces- sity by request for $262,000,000 more for the program just last week, as you know. Miss Rounptree. Mr. Miller. Mr. MiLuer. Senator, our military leaders, General Vandenberg, General Collins, and Admiral Sherman, know how many atomic bombs we have produced? Mr. McMAnHon. Yes, they do, Miss RouUNpTREE. Mr. McNeil. Mr. MoNeiu. In any event, is it not likely that they won't be able to even test an H-bomb for 18 months? Senator McManon. Mr. McNeil, I suppose one of the most top secret things that we are dealing with is the rate of progression of our atomic armaments. I truly believe that that rate of progress should be guarded an well as we are able to guard it. Mr. McNet. Well, now, this two-hundred- and-sixty-odd milllon that the President asked for, that is for some entirely new plan is separate from anything that AEC has got now. Senator McManon. Yes, that is true. Mr. McNew. And they haven't picked a site for that yet, have they? Senator McMaxon. It is in the process of being selected. Mr. McNer. Your committee last week put out a report on the H-bomb—of course, you are thoroughly familiar with that. It had more doggone unanswered questions in it than any ConcressionaL Recorp I ever saw. Senator McMaHon. It was done for the purpose of stimulating thought upon those questions. Mr, McNem, Stimulate my thought on this one. Senator McManHon. We didn't pretend to know all the answers, we might not know the answer to this one either. Mr, McNett. Suppose we make the hydro- gen bomb, do we now have, or is there on the drawing board an airplane for the deliv- ering of that bomb? Senator McMazion, How do you know It is going to be delivered by airplane? Mr. McNem. Is there a ship that will take 1t? Is it deliverable? Senator McMaziow. Mr. McNeill, I believe two things. I believe, first, that the H- bomb is @ practical proposition, and I think it can be bulit, I don't say that on my own eclentific authority which you know is very, very little. I say it on the assurances of some of the scientists for whom I have a great respect. Now, I believe it will be CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE built and I believe it 1s practical, and I be- Neve it can be delivered. Miss Rounptaze. Mr. Miller. Mr, Mruzer. I hope it never will be. You hope it will be built, though. Senator McMaHon. Yes; and the only rea- son I hope it will be built, Mr. Spivak, is be- cause I am convinced that the Soviets are working at it and that if we don't build it they would anyway and I cannot for one moment agree that this country—it would be against our traditions to be less well armed than any of the nations tn the world espe- ctally one that has said so pointedly and so many times that it intends to dominate the earth. Mr. Mixuer. Senator, let me ask you this question, Is there any question in your mind who is behind all this mess? In other words, that the Russians are behind this Korean business. Is there any doubt in your mind? Senator MCMAHON. If I said that there was I think you could certainly question my intelligence. Mr, Mrixier. In other words, the answer is "Yos."" Senator McManon. The answer is “Yes.” Mr, Minver. Well, what do you think would happen if we told Russian rulers that we either wanted an end now to this whole busi- ness, this aggression, or that we would use the atomic bombs which we have against them. If we are going to have to come to a settlement why not do it now? Senator MCManon. Mr. Spivak, last Febru- ary you will remember that I made a very honest plea for a disarmament conference at which we would suggest to the world and to the Russians that we would both lay down our arms and that we would take, if they agreed, to a thoroughly good inspection and control system. Mind, you, we didn’t do it until they did and until that was in op- eration, we would take at least two-thirds of that which we saved and put it on what might be termed point 4, developments throughout the world to see if we couldn’t put some more food in hungry belites which are probably the greatest producers of com- munism. I believe that we should have done that. I hope the day will come. I feel as Winston Churchill expressed himself yester- day when he said that he hopes and thinks that it is time for a settlement with the Rus- sians. He pointed out that in 1948 that it was only memory of the atomic weapons that kept the Russians from, in his opinion, coming to the Atlantic Ocean. I just want to finish this one remark. If they will do this with the atom bombs. Churchill said if they will do this in the Greenwood, what will they doin the dry? Meaning that would they do if they had a great stockpile of atomic weapons. That is something we have got to face, That ts something that every eltizen of the United States should be think- ing about and praying about. What we want to do, of course, above all is keep the peace. Mrs, Crara. I will let you pursue that in just a moment, but let us just pause for a special announcement. e Ci) * e e Mr, Sprvax. Senator, you didn't quite an- swer my question before. The Russian re- sponse to this grand plan was exactly noth- ing. You never——~ Senator McMaHon. I never got a chance to respond to it because we never issued the call for the conference, Mr. Spivak. Well, you issued the invitation and they never indicated in any way that they were interested. Senator McMa#mon. Yes they did. During the week after I made that speech in Feb- ruary, Mr. Spivak, they released four dis- patches to the New York Times in which they allowed they might be interested but when the news, when the slow boat got from America over to Russia with the reaction of some of the hoodlum press tn this country, which suggested that I was out to bribe the Juty 17 Russians, why then of course, they adopted that line. As frequently happens in this country, you will find a certain section of the press that is on all fours with the Pravda declaration, as we find some Senators of the United States who are seven times out of ten in line with the Pravda declaration. Mr, Srrvax. But, Senator—— Senator McManon. But I have got a right to comment. Mr. Sprvax. Senator, you have had enough experience with the Russians to know that they say one thing and they do another. If they meant at all that they were interested in your plan, don’t think that they would have taken the action that they did in Korea. Now we either have a settlement now or we're going to use the bomb. Now, is that what you meant by the talk you gave a little while ago. Senator McMaHoN. No, Mr. Spivak, I think there are some things that we must do to avoid that dire contingency. I believe that one of the things that we must do would be to immediately adopt the President's sug- gestion for the $89,000,000 addition to the Voice of America. I think that we can start a program now to rally the free peoples of the world to our side by making known the truth and above all, we must make Her- culean efforts to get the truth behind the iron curtain. It is a very difficult thing to do but the stakes are so high that it war- rants our best efforts and our greatest in- genuity, because if we can't take the Rus- sian people away from the Kremlin, we can avoid coming to the terrible decision that you have outlined. Mr. Miuter. In this H-bomb report the com- mittee put out a couple of days ago, it is re- vealed that it takes an A bomb to trigger an H bomb. What was the point in releasing that information? Isn't it possible that it would be beneficial to the enemy? Senator McMAHON. No, not at all. That has been declassified information because it has been known to the scientists of the whole world, Mr. Miller. As a matter of fact, be- fore that report was released it was cleared with the AEC, it was cleared with the State Department, Now, that brings up a subject which I would Hike to make a comment on. Mr. Miller, there is no use in kidding our- selves or kidding the American people by pretending to hide something that everybody else knows. The answer to that is definitely “No,” Mr. Miuier. How did the Soviet Union get 80 much information on our atom bomb? Senator McMAnon. I suppose that they got it in a number of ways. They have very good scientists themselves, exceedingly good. For instance, they invented artificial rubber with alcohol. That is just one of their achievements. In pure science, in some branches they have been ahead of us. The second way that they probably got some great help was due to the German scientist that they took over after the war ended and the third way was undoubtedly espionage. They undoubtedly got a lot of information out of Fuchs who as you Know came into our proj- ect under the Manhattan district, not under the Atomic Energy Commission. Mr, Mitizer. Would you point that out? Senator McManon. I would like to point it out because a lot of people would like to point out something else, Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. President-—~ The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia has the floor. Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. President, will the Senator from Georgia indulge me for @ moment, to make a comment in con- nection with the statement just made by the Senator from Connecticut? Mr. RUSSELL, I am happy to yield to the Senator. Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. President, I am much interested in the statement the
1950 Senator from Connecticut has made. I have been similarly misquoted on the subject, although I am not in a class with the Senator from Connecticut as an authority in that field. A few days ago I ventured to suggest that the President should give General MacArthur authority, if he deemed it expedient, to use the atom bomb. As very much of an amateur in this mat- ter, I did not venture to express an opin- ton aa to whether or not it was wise to 80. I read with great interest what was reported as being an experssion of opin- fon by the Senator from Connecticut, who has given a great deal of study to the matter. I wanted my own posi- tion to be quite clear, namely, that I have not expressed an opinion as to whether the atom bomb should or should not be used, but merely that inasmuch as we have spent billions in developing the atom bomb,:and inasmuch as at the present time our boys are dying because of an inadequate defense, the President should have authority in his discretion to direct that the atom bomb be used. GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS, 1951 The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (H. R. 7786) making appropri- ations for the support of the Govern- ment for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1951, and for other purposes. Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, I hope the first amendment under the agricul- tural section of the bill may be stated at this time. We have been on that section of the bill all day, but the amendment has not yet been discussed. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated. The next amendment was, under the the heading “Chapter VI—Department of Agriculture—Title I—Research and Marketing Act of 1946,” on page 168, after line 3, to strike out: To enable the Secretary to carry into effect the provisions of section 9 of title I and title II of the act of August 14, 1946, as amended (7 U. 8. C. 427, 427h, 427, 1621- 1620), as follows: For payments to States, Territories, and Puerto Rico for agricultural experiment sta- tions pursuant to section 9 of the Bankhead- Jones Act approved June 29, 1935, as amended by the act of Auguat 14, 1046, $5,000,000; For the improvement and development, independently or through cooperation among Federal and State agencies, and others, of @ sound and efficient system for the distri- bution and marketing of agricultural prod- ‘ucts pursuant to the “Agricultural Market- ing Act of 1046” (title IT of the act of Aue gust 14, 1046, as amended), including the objects for which funde are available for titles I and II of such act of August 14, 1946, $6,000,000: Provided, That not less than 650,000 of this amount shell be available for contracts in accordance with the provi- sions of section 205 of said act: Provided further, That the Secretary may make avall- able to any bureau, office, or agency of the Department such amounts from this eppro- priation as may be necessary to carry out the functions for which it is made (but 5 é : ; the thereon with representatives of the Depart- ment, shall determine), and any stich amounts shall be in addition to amounts CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE transferred or otherwise made available to other appropriation items of the Depart~ ment: Provided further, That no part of this appropriation shall be available for work re« lating to fish or shellfish or any product thereof, except for the support of equitable transportation rates before Federal agencies concerned with such rates and for develop- ment of foreign markets. In all, $11,000,000: Provided, That no part of this appropriation shall be used for be- ginning construction of any building coste ing in excess of $15,000, except that a poul- try breeding house may be constructed at Purdue University at a cost to this appro- priation of not to exceed 829,000. And on page 169, after line 24, to in- sert: To enable the Secretary to improve and develop, independently or through coopera- tion among Federal and State agencies, and others, a sound and efficient system for the distribution and marketing of agricultural products under the provisions of title II of the Act of August 14, 1046, as amended (7 U. 8. C. 1621-1629), including the objects for which funds are available for titles It and YI of such Act of August 14, 1946, 66,000,000: Provided, That not less than $650,000 of this amount shall be avatlable for contracts in accordance with the pro- visions of section 205 of said Act: Provided further, That the Secretary may make avail- able to any bureau, office, or agency of the Department such amounts from this appro- priation as may be necessary to carry out the functions for which it is made (but amounts made available to the Office of the Secretary, Office of the Solicitor, and Office of Information, shall not exceed those which the Bureau of the Budget, after a hearing thereon with representatives of the Depart- ment, shall determine), and any such amounts shall be in addition to amounts transferred or otherwise made available to other appropriation items of the Depart- ment: Provided further, That no part of this appropriation shall be available for work relating to fish or shellfish or any product thereof, except for the support of equitable transportation rates before Federal agencies concerned with such rates and for develop- ment of foreign markets. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amend- ment, Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, last week the distinguished Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Anperson], formerly Secretary of Agriculture, expressed some concern about the change in the lan- guage of the appropriation affecting the funds for the Research and Marketing Act. I had requested the Department of Agriculture to furnish me with a statement as to its construction of the effect of this language. Let me read at this time an extract from that state- ment: The action taken by the Senate Commit- tee on Appropriations with regard to the transfer of the appropriation for section 9 of the Research and Marketing Act to the appropriation for other payments to State Experiment Stations in no way changes any provisions of the act or procedures for ite administration. The research adminis- trator has had the responsibility of admin- istering the Research and Marketing Act. He retains that responsibility by the com- mittee action since the Office of Experiment Stations is under his supervision. The sep- arate identity of this section ts maintained, the authorizations remain the aamoe, there is the same distribution of funds by pre- scribed formulas to the different States, and the research program remains the same down 10373 to the last project. The provisions for re- gional research in section 9 and marketing research tn section 11 remain unchanged. The law provides direct payment to the State Experiment Stations of the funda ap- propriated uncer section 9 and the stations have authority to initiate and conduct re- search authorized by section 1 of the act using such funds. The act itself, in sec- tion 9 (c) also states that this section ts to be administered by the Office of Expert- ment Stations and the transfer of section 9 to the Office of Experiment Stations will continue the administrative procedure which has been in effect from the beginning. The committee action is consistent with these provisions of the act and is in the interest of simplifying budgetary, administrative, and fiscal procedures without in any way chang- ing the evident intent of Congress as stated in the act. This action was recommended by the Land Grant College Association and by the Department of Agriculture. Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- sent that the entire statement may be printed at this point in the Recorp, as a part of my remarks. There being no objection, the state- ment was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: STATEMENT oF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICUL- Tours Wrrn Respecr to THE ACrion Taxtm BY THe House AND SENATE APPROPRIATIONS ComMMITTEES RELATING TO SecTions 9 AND 10 or THE ReexaRcH awp Magxerine Acr The Appropriation Committees of both the Senate and House, as well as the Bureau of the Budget and the Department, have had difficulty since the initiation of the program under the Research and Marketing Act in clearly distinguishing between activities car- ried on under regular funds and those car- ried on with funds from sections 9 and 10 of the Research and Marketing Act. Because of this, the Congress recommended in April 1949 that the Department study the matter and recommend consolidation where needed. (See Report No. 384, on H. R. 8907 making appropriations for fiscal year 1950, House of Representatives, 81st Cong., ist sess., p. 3.) Subsequently, as of July 30, 1949, when the former Administrator of the Research and Marketing Act left the Department, re- sponsibility for administration of the act was ‘assigned to the Agricultural Research Administration. ‘This Administration in- cludes six Bureaus of the Department and the Office of Experiment Stations. As a result of the recommendation from Congress, the Department and the State Ex- periment Stations thoroughly studied the questions involved and the Department pre- sented to the agricultural subcommittees of the House and Senate Committees on Appro- priations for their consideration in connec- tion with hearings on this bill, statements showing the relationship of work performed under sections 9 and 10 of the Research and Marketing Act, and that carried out under the other research appropriations of the De- partment. (See Hearings, House of Repre- sentatives, on the Department of Agricul- ture Appropriations for 1951, pt. 1, pp. 153 to 155.) (The action taken by the Senate Commit-~ tee on Appropriations ,with regard to the transfer of the appropriation for section 9 of the Research and Marketing Act to the appropriation for other payments to State Experiment Stations in no way changes any provisions of the act or procedures for its administration. The Research Administra~ tor has had the responsibility of administer- ing the Research and Marketing Act. He re- tains that responsibility by the committee action since the Office of Experiment Stations ia under his supervision. The separate iden- tity of this section is maintained, the au- thorizations rematn the same, there is the same distribution of funds by prescribed
10374 formulas to the different Statea, and the re- search program remains the same down to the last project.) The provisions for re- gional research in section 9 and marketing research in section 11 rematn unchanged. The law provides direct payment to the State Experiment Stations of the funds appro- priated under section 9 and the stations have authority to initiate and conduct research authorized by section 1 of the act using such funds. The act itself, in section 9 (c) also states that this section is to be administered by the Office of Experiment Stations and the transfer of section 9 to the Office of Experi- ment Stations will continue the administra- tive procedure which has been in effect from the beginning. The committee action is consistent with these provisions of the act and is in the tuterest of simplifying budget- ary, administrative, and fiscal procedures without in any way changing the evident intent of Congress as stated in the act. This action was recommended by the Land Grant College Association and by the Department of Agriculture. Furthermore, the committee's action is consistent with the actions taken by the House in consolidating the appropriation for section 10 of the Research and Marketing Act with the regular appropriations for the various research bureaus and agencies of the Department. The Research and Marketing Act was in fact two acts that were tied together for leg- islative convenience. Title I of the act was an amendment to the Bankhead-Jones Act of 1935, while title II was the “Agricultural Marketing Act of 10946.” The action of the Senate Committee on Appropriations and the action of the House are consistent with the provisions of the Re- search and Marketing Act and with the in- tent of Congress. The separate identity of title IZ, the “Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946" has been preserved in a separate ap- propriation. Since title I 1s an amendment of the Bankhead-Jones Act of 1935, the ap- propriation for section 9 of this title is com- bined in the same appropriation with other Bankhead-Jones funds for State experiment stations, and the appropriation for section 10 4s combined with other Department appro- priations financing similar activities. The provisions for advisory committees in the Research and Marketing Act have been re- tained and the Senate report as well as the report of the House on this bill points out that Congress expects that the functions of these committees shall extend to all research funds in the Department, rather than be- ing limited to the Research and Marketing Act. Likewise, the provisions for contract research under section 10 (a) are retained and this bill provides a specific amount for contracts, Mr. ANDERSON, Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. RUSSELL. I am glad to yield to the Senator from New Mexico. Mr. ANDERSON. Does the Senator from Georgia feel that the statement he has just read completely guarantees that the Research and Marketing Act funds will be used as contemplated in the orig- inal Research and Marketing Act? Mr. RUSSELL. The Department of Agriculture says so explicitly; and in view of its statement, which is to be printed at this point in the Recorp, it is my judgment that the Department of Agriculture will follow this course. Certainly, if the Department does not do so, Congress will be in session in Jan- uary, and it will not be a very difficult matter for Congress to restore the sec- tion, so as to make it read in the way it reads at the present time, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. ANDERSON. I am quite sure the Senator from Georgia recognizes that at the time when the Research and Marketing Act was passed, there was a desire to have these funds administered by the land-grant colleges. However, the Congress decided otherwise, and placed the responsibility in the Depart- ment of Agriculture. The land-grant colleges have not been completely happy about that decision. I should like to ask the Senator from Georgia whether he is aware that the Research and Marketing Act Advisory Committee chairmen, meeting in Wash- ington, D. C., on June 20, 21, and 22, studied the Research Marketing Act in its operations, studied this very ques- tion, and in their recommendations—I refer specifically to recommendation No. 9, which is carried on page 2 of the re- port to the Secretary of Agriculture from the Research and Marketing Act Advisory Committee chairmen—said as follows: The Research and Marketing Act has done much to stimulate the research, service, and educational work in agriculture. I call the attention of the distin- guished Senator from Georgia to the next sentence, in particular: To the maximum extent possible, separate identity of the RMA funds and their appli- cation should be maintained. I wonder whether the Senator from Georgia is a little disturbed over the fact that these men, whose responsibil- ity it is to make sure that the Research and Marketing Act funds are used in ways that are useful to agriculture, take a@ position opposite to that taken in this connection in the research and market- ing appropriation. Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, frank- ness compels me to state that I have not seen the statement from which the dis- tinguished Senator from New Mexico has just read. It has not previously been called to my attention. It is altogether likely that a copy of the statement reached my office; but we receive so much printed matter that I have not seen it, I think it very likely, Mr. President, that the Advisory Committee chairman and advisory boards, on whose advice Congress depends largely in connection with the distribution of these funds, has made that statement. Mr, ANDERSON. I am sure the Sen. ator from Georgia understands my view of this matter, and in regard to his posi- tion. As I said twice the other day, the Department of Agriculture has no better friend on the floor of the Senate or in the Congress as a whole than the dis- tinguished junior Senator from Georgia; and I know that the Research and Mar- keting Act has no better friend in the Senate than he. Therefore, I am trying to make sure that everyone is put on notice that the Senate certainly expects the Research and Marketing Act to be administered as it hag been, and as it was originally con- ceived, Let me call attention to the fact that recently, in the set-up in the Depart-~ ment of Agriculture, the Administrator JULY 17 of the Agricultural Research Adminis- tration has been given full responsibility for administering the Research and Mar- keting Act. Although Dr. Cardon, who has been given this responsibility, is an unually outstanding person and a very competent man, nevertheless that action reverses the former tendency, namely, to have a separate administration of the Research and Marketing Act. Iam willing to take at face value what is said in the statement submitted to the distinguished Senator from Georgla by the Department of Agriculture. I am quite willing to assume that this will be administered exactly as the Department has explained the matter to the Senator from Georgia. I feel that the recommendations of the chairmen of the advisory committees might well be made a part of the Recorp at this point, if the Senator from Georgia will permit me to make that request at this time. Mr. RUSSELL. Certainly. Mr. ANDERSON. Then, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed at this point in the Recorp the recom- mendations and report of the Research and Marketing Act Advisory Committee chairmen, who met in Washington on June 20 to 22. The recommendations in- clude recommendation No. 9, to which I have referred, in which it is pointed out that the research funds should have sep- arate identity, and should not be merged with the other funds. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? There being no objection, the report was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Report of THE RMA ADVISORY COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN, JUNE 20-22, 1950, WASHINGTON, D.C. In the passage of the Research and Mar- keting Act of 1946, Congress recognized the need for keeping the program close to the people it serves when it authorized the Sec- retary of Agriculture to establish appropriate committees including representatives of pro= ducers, industry, government and science to assist in effectuating specific research and service programs. In accordance with this legislation, the Secretary has established 20 commodity and functional committees to assist in developing and analyzing research and service programs. In addition there have been four State agency committees established to assist in the development of this program. Members of these committees represent broad groups interested in the outcome of agricultural research and service work. They are familiar with the problems faced by these groups in particular parts of indus- try or of the country. They are expected to see that the Department becomes fully cognizant of these problems. Congress in legislative acts has defined the basic objectives and general nature of the Department’s program. Personnel of the Department are responsible, through admin- istrative channels, to Congress. However, within the broad framework established by Congress, there is wide latitude for admin- istrative Judgment in determining what spe- elfo types of work should be undertaken. Advice for well-informed citizen groups Provides a sound basis for administrative de- cisions. It should result in greater returns for money expended and a program consist- ard with the interests of the pubic as a whole.
1950 After review of these programs the group of RMA Committee chairmen at their meet- tng in Washington, June 20-29, 1950, ex- pressed general satisfaction regarding the functioning of the programs under the Re- search and Marketing Act. The advisory committees are serving a useful purpose in this general pian of research and such com- mittees should be continued. The follow- ing recommendations and questions are pre- sented, looking toward further progress and general improvement in the program: PART I-—-RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Advisory committees should assist the ment in maintaining a balance be- tween fundamental and applied research. Research should be directed toward practical operating problems as well as fundamental research, 2. There should be some research aimed at providing background data to serve as a basis for broad agricultural policy. 3. Research projects should be specifically outlined by the Department, showing ob- Jectives, and committees should be advised of related or similar projects being conducted in the same field by the Department, by State agencies, and, to the greatest extent possible, by industry. There should be com- plete cooperation between State and Federal agencies and, where possible, between gov- ernmental and industrial agencies. 4. Work under contract should be used and expanded as far as practicable to hetter effectuate the purposes of the act. 5. Projects should be completed and closed when the work is done, or when !t is deter- mined after consultation with the inter- ested subject matter committee that the re- sults are not practical, that further work is unnecessary, or would be of little value as fundamental research. 6. There should be an expansion of exten- sion, education, and service work, looking toward wide distribution and commercial application of the results of research and the adoption of findings. Generally much of the research work will become valuable only when it has been applied to the prob- lems of production and distribution. 1. Training programs should be encour- aged, particularly by State institutions in the field of marketing and distribution, as well as in other technica] felds to develop qualified personnel which will be needed in the growth of research wor! under this act. 8. All segments of the trade, from the pro- ducer to the consumer, should be encouraged to engage as much as possible in needed re- search with their own funds. This applies particularly to private corporations, trade and producer associations, various State and local commissions and other organizations which should be encouraged to conduct prac- tioal research as a supplemental and in addi- tion to the research work being done in the Department. 9, The Research and Marketing Act has done much to stimulate the research, service, and educational work in agriculture. To the maximum extent possible separate iden- tity of the RMA funds and their application should be maintained. Research is @ con- tinuing process and it is urged that adequate funds be made available by the Congress to continue and expand the program in accord- ance with the original provisions of the act. 10, Flexibility in use of funds is essential to provide for emergency situations and to insure maximum efficiency in the applica- tion of the funds. 11, Margin studies should include costs in relation to situations or conditions rather than margins alone. bilities and scope 12. With responal' of work, additional tunds for expanded staf service the work of the committess and main- tain the supervisory and correlative work necessary for maximum efficiency. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, I should like to ask, also—and I now request such unanimous consent—that the list of members of the Agricultural Research Policy Committee be printed at this point in the Rycorn, There being no objection, the Hst was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: AGRICULTURAL ResEaRCH PoLICy COMMITTEE Dr. John D. Black, professor of agrioul- tural economics, Harvard University, 205 Littauer Center, Cambridge, Mass. A. A. Brock, director, department of agri- culture, State of California, State Office Building No. 1, Sacramento, Calif. Robert R. Coker, vice president, Coker’s Pedigreed Seed Co., Hartsville, 8. C. Dr. John H. Davis, executive secretary, National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, 744 Jackson Place NW., Washington, D.C. Albert 8. Goss, master, the National Grange, 744 Jackson Place NW., Washing- ton, D. C, Dr. C. G. King, scientific director, the Nutrition Foundation, Inc,, Chrysler Bulld- ing, New York, N. Y. Albert EK. Mitchell, Albert, N. Mex. James G, Patton, president, National Farmers Union, 1555 Sherman Street, Den- ver, Colo. Harry J. Reed, dean and director, School of Agriculture, Purdue University, Lafayette, Ind. Mrs. Raymond Sayre, president, the Asso- ciated Women of the American Farm Bureau Federation, Ackworth, Iowa. Dean Stanley, president, Stanley Fruit Co., 626 Security Building, Phoenix, Ariz. Executive secretary: Henry G. Herrell, Agricultura] Research Administration, United State Department of Agriculture. Mr ANDERSON. Iam going to say, as I said to the Senator from Georgia, I think a point of order would lie against this change. I do not intend to raise a point of order. I prefer to depend upon the assurances given by the Department of Agriculture in its statement to the Senator from Georgia and his assurances to the Senate that it Js the intention to preserve the integrity of these funds and not let them become mixed with the or- dinary funds granted to the experiment stations. Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, I shall not discuss the point of order, because that question 1s moot in view of the statement of the distinguished Senator from New Mexico. I shall express my appreciation of his kindly reference to the Senator from Georgia. I reiterate what I have said before on this floor that the distinguished Senator from New Mexico is one of the outstanding— if not the outstanding—Secretaries of Agriculture since that position was cre- ated. Iam sure that we share the com- mon hope and desire that the activities of the Research and Marketing Admin- istration will proceed as contemplated by the Congress when the act was passed, and that there will be no change by administrative action in the Depart- ment of Agriculture of any part of the functioning of the research work by vir- tue of this change in language, which we understand is solely to simplify the book- keeping and budgetary procedures with- in the Department of Agriculture. The Senate committee, in its efforts to sustain the Advisory Committee, made quite a lengthy statement in the commit- 10375 tee report urging that the Advisory Com- mittee be given greater authority and more information, to enable those from outside the Department who view this matter perhaps from a Httle different light, because they have not been living so close to it for so many years, to take @ larger part in the activities of the Re- search and Marketing Administration. Mr. WHERRY rose. Mr, RUSSELL. Mr. President, I have one other brief statement, after which I shall be delighted to yleld to the Senator from Nebraska. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for but one question, at this point? The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Georgia yield to the Sena- tor from Nebraska? Mr. RUSSELL, I yield. Mr, WHERRY. Is the Senator about to leave this subject and go to something else, or will he continue to discuss this amendment? Mr. RUSSELL. We are still on the first amendment. Mr. WHERRY. I shall wait until the Senator is through, if he wants to offer a further observation regarding the amendment. Mr. RUSSELL, I wish to make a brief observation; yes. Recently I stated I was disappointed in the results which had been achieved to date in these activities. That lan- guage was perhaps too strong. I should have said that I was unhappy because there had not been more outstanding achievements. The Department sent me two booklets dealing at length with ex- amples of the progress which has been achieved under the Research and Mar- keting Act of 1946, I may say the pam- phlets show that great progress has been made, and that Senators who are tnter- ested in the subject would find them in- teresting reading, if they could find time to look into them, because there have been certain accomplishments which have been notable. Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield at that point? The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Georgia yield to the Sena- tor from New Mexico? Mr. RUSSELL. I am glad to yield. Mr. ANDERSON. Iam very glad that the Senator from Georgia put that state- ment into the Recorp. He will remem- ber that the act was passed at a time when it was impossible to get the money which was needed. That was impos- sible until very recently. I think the men inside the Department of Agricul- ture, those connected with the land- grant colleges, and persons in private in- dustry have done a very fine job of get- ting these projects started. I would commend the activities of the Depart- ment of Agriculture, certainly those in recent months, for the fine Job which has been done. I am particularly happy that independent groups have come for- ward and made their proposals, thereby it possible for the Department to coordinate its work with what private industry is doing. I may refer particu- larly to the great activity of the National
10376 Cotton Council for Research in under- taking research in cotton mills. Cotton research was to some extent tied in with the work of the land-grant colleges, and finally with the work of the Department of Agriculture itself. T am glad the Senator from Georgia has had an opportunity to look at what they have accomplished, because I think it ig a rather impressive study—not be- cause of what they have thus far achieved, but becouse of the sound way in which they are planning their work and looking into the future. I have nothing but praise for the work the De- partment is doing at this time. Mr. RUSSELL. ‘The Senator has stated it much better than I could. I may further point out that under the act an appropriation of $61,000,000 would have been authorized for the fiscal year 1951. In the great desire for econ- omy, we have only requested appropria- tions of $19,000,000, which is less than one-third of the authorizations of the act. Mr. WHERRY and Mr. LANGER ad- dressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Georgia yield, and if so, to whom? Mr, RUSSELL. I yield first to the Senator from Nebraska. Mr, WHERRY. Referring to the ob- servation made by the distinguished Sen- ator from New Mexico, the former Sec- retary of Agriculture, I did not quite catch the significance of his observation when he stated, if I heard him correctly, that he would not raise a point of order against this provision, on the assurance that the act would be administered, as I take it, as explained by the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Agri- culture and Forestry. I should merely like to ask a question, through the Sena- tor from Georgia, if I may reach the Senator from New Mexico in that way. Is there any apprehension upon his part that it might not be administered prop- erly? Why the observation? I am as much interested as is the Senator from Georgia or the Senator from New Mexico in seeing to it that the research labora- tories are able to conduct proper re- search. I am wondering whether there is anything in the Senator's mind which even indicates that under this new lan- guage of the bill that work might not be done. Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, without my losing the floor, I may yield to the Sen- ator from New Mexico for the purpose of his replying to the question of the Benator from Nebraska, The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered. Mr. RUSSELL. I yield. Mr. ANDERSON. I merely want to assure the distinguished majority leader that I saw, as I glanced at the language, as I was examining the bill, that there might be come significance in the fact that appropriations which had heen made heretofore to the Department of Agriculture and by the Department then granted to the land-grant colleges were being changed by the fact that the money was now going directly to CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE the land-grant colleges, I wondered whether that meant the termination of the over-all supervision by the Depart- ment of Agriculture with respect to this project. Mr. WHERRY. I may say to the dis- tinguished Senator, I think that is a very pertinent question. It is one of the ques- tions I asked when this legislation came up. Mr. ANDERSON. I may say to the distinguished minority leader that when the original survey was made of research projects now going on, the Department of Agriculture acquired examples, run- ning into the thousands of pages, of agri- cultural research then being done in the United States; first of all, by the De- partment itself; secondly, by the land- grant colleges; third, by the Office of Experiment Stations; and then by pri- vate industry. It was found, for ex- ample, that in one State the very same problem was being studied that was be- ing studied in another State through the granting of Federal funds. That is not wholly bad. Frequently it is desirable to pursue independently the same type of research in two States. But, very frequently, it is desirable to have some- body at the top knowing exactly what is going on. Therefore, when I saw this language which I thought might take it away from the Department, I raised the question with the distinguished Senator from Georgia. He then took it up with the Department, because the Senator from Nebraska, the Senator from Georgia, and I had the same desire to make sure that the Research and Marketing Act would succeed. The reply which came to him from the Department of Agri- culture—he supplied me with a copy of it—satisfied him and it satisfies me, as long as the Senator from Georgia is watching this particuiar point. Mr. WHERRY. In order that the ReEcorD may be clear relative to this mat- ter, I may say it is my understanding that this language is added for no other reason than as a bookkeeping proposi- tion which mechanically helps accom- plish what has been suggested, It in no way impairs, but might to the mth degree bring about what the distin- guished Senator from New Mexico has just mentioned. Is that correct? Mr. ANDERSON. That is correct. Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, the Senator from North Dakota raised some question about research activities rela- tive to wheat straw. I had happened to mention research in the use of wood waste materials. The Department, in order to show that the work has been done, has sent me quite a list of pam- phlets relative to wood waste, and also relative to the waste of wheat straw. I am sure the Senator from North Dakota will be glad to see them. Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Georgia yield to the Sen- ator from North Dakota? Mr, RUSSELL. I yield. Mr, LANGER. Does the Senator have any objection to placing in the Recorp for reference the titles of the two pam- phlets to which he referred, in order that JULY 17 any farmer who desires to obtain them may have reference to them? Mr. RUSSELL. I shall be glad to do that. One of them is Appendix 1, “Ex- amples of Progress Under the Research and Marketing Act of 1946,” issued May 25, 1950. The second is Appendix 2, “A List of Publications Reporting Results of Work Under the Research and Market- ing Act of 1946,” dated the same date. Mr, LANGER. Mr, President, may I make a further inquiry? Mr. RUSSELL. Certainly. Mr. LANGER. Does the distinguished Senator know whether they are available to other Senators? Mr, RUSSELL. Yes. If the Senator will have one of his assistants call up the Department, the Department will have the documents on the Senator's desk in the morning. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amend- ment beginning on page 168, after line 3, striking out certain language and in- serting other language ending on page 169, line 25. The amendment was agreed to. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will state the next amendment. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Bureau of Agricultural Eco- nomics,” on page 171, line 16, after the word “trends”, to strike out “$2,600,000” and insert $2,720,000.” Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr, President, last year Congress appropriated for this pur- pose $2,621,000. The House Appropria- tions Committee recommended a cut of $21,000, which brought the figure to $2,600,000. The Senate committee has raised it to $2,720,000. That is an in- crease of $120,000 over the House figure, and is virtually an increase of $100,000 over the amount appropriated last year. In view of the war situation, it seems to me we should make reductions in funds of thiskind. I hope the amendment will be rejected. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amend- ment. The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, on page 172, line 7, after “(7 U. 8. C. 951-957)”, to strike out “and data on farm construc- tion as provided by title V of the Housing Act of 1949 (Public Law 171), $2,725,000” and insert “$2,904,000.” Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, last year Congress appropriated $2,817,000 for this purpose. The House bill cut the figure to $2,725,000. The Senate com- mittee has proposed $2,904,000. This is an increase of $86,000 over the appro- priation of last year, and an increase of $179,000 over the House figure. It also carries with it the elimination of funds to carry out the provisions of research on farm construction. So we are giving this group more money with which to do less work. I hope the committee amend- ment will be rejected. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question ts on agreeing to the amend- ment, Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, may I ask the distinguished Senator from Georgia whether the amendment in- volves a pay increase? Is it approxi-
1950 mately the same figure as that provided last year? Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, this item includes the pay adjustment costs which were authorized through the pay- increase act which was passed last year. When we take into consideration the pay adjustments under the Federal Employ- ees Compensation Act which was enacted last year, with the sums appropriated, there is less money available for this purpose in the coming fiscal year than there was in the past fiscal year. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I do not wish to delay the proceedings, be- cause there will be many of these pro- posals, but, as a general principle, it seems to me we should have the agencies absorb the salary increases by a decrease in personnel, The appropriation called for is an increase of $86,000 over last year which should help to some extent but the rest should be absorbed. Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, I wish to point out that this item is substan- tially below the budget estimate, and it does not allow all the pay increases. The Department is absorbing and has ab- sorbed a part of them. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amend- ment on page 172, line 7. The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Agricultura] Research Admin- istration—Office of Administrator,” on page 172, line 19, after the word “of”, to strike out “Advisory Committee” and insert “advisory committees.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, at the top of page 174, to strike out: WORKING CAPITAL FUNDS, AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH CENTER For the establishment of a working capital fund, to be available without fiscal year !imi- tation, for expenses necessary for furnishing facilities and services by the Agricultural Research Center to Government agencies, $300,000. Said fund shall be reimbursed from applicable appropriations or other funds to cover the charges for such facilities and services, including handling and related charges, for equipment rentals (including depreciation, maintenance, and repairs), for supplies, equipment and materials, stores of which may be maintained at the Center, and for building construction, alterations, and repair, and applicable appropriations or other funds may also be charged their pro- portionate share of the necessary general ex- penses of the Center not covered by the annual appropriation. The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Research on agricuitural prob- lems of Alaska,” on page 175, line 10, after the word “Alaska”, to strike out “g260,000" and insert “$290,000.” The amendment was agreed to. ‘The next amendment, was under the subbead “Office of Experiment Stations,” on page 175, line 14, after the word “ad- vance”, to insert “where applicable.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, on page 175, line 24, after “(7 U. 8, C. 427-427¢)”, to strike out “$2,868,708” and insert “Sec- ns 3 &, $2,863,708, sections 9 li of act as.added by the act of 14, (10. &. C. 42Th, 427)), including administration by the Office of He ie CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Experiment Stations in the United States Department of Agriculture, $5,000,000, no Part of which latter amount shall be used for beginning construction of any build- ing costing in excess of $15,000, except that a poultry breeding house may be constructed at Purdue University at a cost to this appropriation of not to exceed $29,000;”. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, may I be privileged to ask the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee a ques- tion? Mr. RUSSELL. Certainly. Mr. DOUGLAS. This is an appropria- tion of $5,000,000 to carry out the pur- poses authorized under the Bankhead- Jones Act of 1945, 1s it not? Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, if the Senator from Georgia will permit me, this is transferred from a previous amendment and placed at this point. It is the amendment as to which I raised the question awhile ago. It was pre- viously carried under the research and marketing operations, and it will be rec- ognized from the earlier amendment that it is a transfer. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amend- ment. The amendment was agreed to. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will state the next amendment. The next amendment was, on page 176, line 17, after the word “Alaska”’, to strike out “$27,500” and insert “$37,500”, and in line 21, after the name “Puerto Rico”, to strike out “$7,406,208” and insert “$12,416,208.” Mr. BUTLER. Mr. President, I should like to ask the Senator from Georgia if where the bill mentions the amounts which shall be available to Hawali, Alaska, and Puerto Rico, it does not also include agricultural experimental work which should be done in the Virgin Islands. In other words, are the Virgin Islands continued as a part of Puerto Rico in the operation of the experi- mental station? Mr. ANDERSON. I hope the Senator from Nebraska will not hold me strictly to this, but I believe it does not include the Virgin Islands, because income-tax payments from the Virgin Islands are not transferred to the Treasury of the United States. Mr. RUSSELL. I think that is alto- gether correct. So far as I am advised, there is no experiment station in the Virgin Islands. There is one in Puerto Rico. I conclude that a great deal of the material gathered in Puerto Rico would be available to the Virgin Islands. Their research in agriculture would be along similar lines. They have practically the same agricultural economy. Mr, BUTLER. It is true that the Puerto Rico station is approximately 40 miles from the Virgin Islands, and the experimental work done in Puerto Rico does contribute to the economy of the Virgin Islands, but the Virgin Islands are not mentioned. I think the Virgin Islands receive the benefit of much of the experimental work in Puerto Rico, but I should like to have it understood that the Puerto Rieo sta- tion is also responsible for experimental 10377 work in the Virgin Islands as well as tn Puerto Rico. Mr. RUSSELL. The Senator from Ne- braska may be entirely correct, and, in view of his past experience as former chairman of the committee dealing with the islands, he undoubtedly is correct. But I know of no authorization for that purpose. It would be necessary to pass specific legislation for an experiment station in Puerto Rico. There is none in the Virgin Islands of which I have any knowledge. Mr. BUTLER. I am not asking that the appropriation be tncreased; I do not believe it is necessary; but I think it is necessary for Congress to understand that the station in Puerto Rico serves the Virgin Islands as well as Puerto Rico. Mr. RUSSELL. I think any informa- tion developed should be available to the Virgin Islands. Mr,CORDON. Ishould like to address @ question to the Senator from Ne- braska. I happened to have been with him on an inspection trip in the Virgin Isiands, during the course of which we both visited an experimental farm which was operated either by the Department of Agriculture or the Department of the Interior. My inquiry is whether the Sen- ator from Nebraska can identify the de- partment which was responsible for the experimental work. Mr. BUTLER. The experimental farm which has been conducted in the Virgin Islands is conducted under the general supervision of the Department of the In- terior jointly with the Virgin Islands gov- ernment. I do not believe that the De- partment of Agriculture {s officially con- nected with the experimental farm in the Virgin Islands. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amend- ment on page 176, line 21. The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Salaries and expenses,” on page 177, line 5, after the word “of”, to strike out “December” and insert “September,” and in line 6, after the name “Puerto Rico”, to strike out “$237,500” and insert “$252,500.” ‘ The amendments were agreed to, The next amendment was, under the subhead “Bureau of Human Nutrition and Home Economics,” on page 178, line 9, after the word “subjects”, to strike out “$1,500,000” and insert “$1,763,200.” Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, as the text of the bill indicates, this represents an increase of $263,000 above the amount appropriated by the House. It fs a slight increase of $14,000 above the amount ap- propriated last year. I should like to read from the Hottse report, at page 130, as follows: The funds for this Bureau have increased from €360,000 {n 1941 to approximately $1,- 800,000 in 1950, including Research and Mar- keting Act and special research fund allot- ments. The committee believes that con-~- tinued increases in a: tions for the ‘work of this Bureau cannot be justified at this time, and the survey of rural family living expenses cannot be provided for, and that development of farmhouse pians ts adequately covered by the regular work of this and other bureaus. The committee expects this Bureau to make a thorough reevaluation of all of its activities
10378 during the next year to make certain that attention ts devoted only to the most essen- tial research work in the field of human nu- trition and home economics. Mr. President, in view of the need for great budgetary stringency and the pros- pect of greatly increased war appropria- tions, I hope the committee amendment will be rejected. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amend- ment on page 178, line 9. The amendment was agreed to, The next amendment was, under the subhead “Bureau of Animal Industry— Salaries and expenses,” on page 178, line 23, after the word “Hatcheries”, to strike out “$2,250,000” and insert $2,319,- Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, this is an increase of $69,000 above the House bill. It seems to me that the House ap- propriation of $2,250,000,000 should be sufficient. The Senate committee re- port speaks of provision for repairs, re- conditioning, and replacement of facili- ties. In view of the current situation it seems to me that the facilities could be allowed to remain as they are for a while. I hope the amendment will be rejected. Mr. BUTLER. Mr. President, I wish to ask the chairman in charge of this section of the bill if the bill includes an appropriation for salaries of meat in- spectors located in terminal markets. Mr, RUSSELL: That is a separate item, which has not yet been reached. We did not alter the House figure with respect to the Meat Inspection Service. Mr. BUTLER. Did the committee in- crease the amount? Mr, RUSSELL. No; it did not, The House allowed the budgetary estimates except to the extent of some $50,000. I may say that the excitement about meat inspectors grew out of the so-called Taber-Thomas amendment, which pro- posed to cut 429 meat inspectors from the Service. That provision has been stricken from the bill. The Meat In- spection Service is adequately provided for. ‘Mr. BUTLER. That is the phase in which I was interested. Mr. RUSSELL. The Meat Inspection Service is adequately provided for in the bill. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The questicn is on agreeing to the amend- ment on page 178, line 23. The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, on page 179, line 1, after the word “products,” to strike out $1,300,000" and _ insert “$1,350,000,” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, on page 179, line 15, after the figures ‘$7,950,- 000”, to strike out the comma and “in- cluding not to exceed $30,000 for the acquisition of land and construction of four buildings for inspection of live- stock at Canadian border ports of entry.” Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr, President, I have an amendment on page 179, on line 15, which I should like the clerk to report, It deals with the Meat Inspec- tion Service. Mr. RUSSELL. Myr. President, as I understa} d, we must conclude considera- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE tion of committee amendments before taking up individual amendments, The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator’s amendment, which deals with the text of the bill, is not in order. Mr. MAGNUSON. The amendment would add only a small amount to the $7,950,000 figure, which was the amount provided by the House. Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, I be- lieve such an amendment would not be in order at this time. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator’s amendment, being an amend- ment to the text of the bill, is not in order at this time. Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it, Mr. MAGNUSON, Would my amend- ment be in order after the section now under consideration is disposed of? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator’s amendment would be in order after the disposition of the committee amendments. Mr, LANGER. Mr. President, in view of the fact that the distinguished Sen- ator from Washington must leave the city, I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to submit the amendment at this time. He must leave for his home State. Mr, RUSSELL. If the Senator desires to leave, I have no objection. Mr. MAGNUSON. I thought this would be a gogd time to bring up an amendment with reference to the Meat Inspection Service. Mr. RUSSELL. I would not accede to the Senator’s request on those grounds, Mr. MAGNUSON. I thank the Sena- tor from North Dakota. I can wait until Tr. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington withdraws his amendment. Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, at this time I should like to submit an amendment which I intend to propose. It is on page 472. I realize that is far from the page which we are now dis- cussing. The amendment relates to the Commodity Credit Corporation. I thought it could be presented at this time. I send the amendment to the desk and I ask that the Clerk read it. I also ask that an explanation of the amend- ment may be printed in the Recorp at this point in my remarks. I may say that in attempting to make it possible for the Commodity Credit Corporation to deal with some of its problems, inadver- tently no provision was made that the Corporation shall not be subject to the apportionment procedure. I should like to present the amendment at this time and to have the explanation printed in the CONGRESSIONAL Recorp, The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be received, printed, and lie on the table. Unanimous consent is requested that the amendment be read. Is there objection? The Chair hears none. The Clerk will state the amend- ment. The legislative clerk read the amend- ment as follows: On page 472, strike out all after the word “States” and the period in line 1 down to and including line 7 and in lieu thereof in- JuLY 17 sert the following: “No funds (other than funds for administrative expenses) avail- able for price support, surplus removal, and related operations, with respect to agricul- tural commodities shall be subject to appore tionment pursuant to this section.” The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the Senator from New Mexico that his explanatory statement be printed in the Recorp at this point? There being no objection, the state- ment was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: EXPLANATION The Secretary of Agriculture, through Commodity Credit Corporation and other means available to him, is required or aus thorized to make available price support on agricultural commodities and to engage in surplus removal operations with respect to agricultural commodities. The nature of these operations makes it impracticable to apportion the funds available therefor, since the extent or character of the operations must necessarily be related to supply and market conditions, and such conditions can- not be foreseen with any degree of certainty, but instead, are dependent upon weather, general economic conditions, and other fluc- tuating factors, Accordingly, it is believed that the price support operations and the surplus removal operations and other re- lated programs with respect to agricultural commodities should be excluded from the provisions for apportionment. The opera- tions which would thus be removed from the provisions requiring apportionment would include operations such as programs under- taken by the Secretary of Agriculture under section 32 (the act of August 24, 1935, Public Law 320, 74th Cong., as amended) and the price-support program, the supply program, the foreign purchase program, the commod- ity export program, and the storage facill« ties program, as described in the Commodity Credit Corporation's budget program for the fiscal year 1951, Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, in view of the parliamentary situation, I shall not ask for a vote on my amend- ment at this point. However, I should like to discuss it for about 5 minutes, inasmuch as both the Senator from Georgia and the Senator from Nebraska {Mr. Bur.er] are interested in it. In an- swer to inquiry from the Senator from Nebraska, the Senator from Georgia has made the statement that he thought the House amount was adequate with respect to salaries for Federal meat inspectors. It may be that the committee heard evi- dence to that effect. However, the amendment I am suggesting clearly points out that reductions which would result would cripple stock inspections at certain points. My amendment would add $2,500 to the bill. It would be added for the purpose of employing a part-time veterinarian in the Union Stockyards at Seattle. The Department of Agriculture tells me that the budgetary requirement and the amount in the committee bill would not allow for such part-time in- spection service. It would leave the Seattle Union Stockyards without any inspection at all. In view of the fact that we have reduced the import duty on Canadian beef from 6 to 3 cents a pound, there has developed some very serious competition to the packers in the Se- attle area. Immediately after the Fed- eral inspection was discontinued the Canadians started shipping their cattle
1950 into the United States as dressed beef instead of as beef on the hoof. Ship-~ ments on the hoof, of course, would give the slaughtering and packing business to Seattle firms, but unless this small amount of 62,500 for a part-time vet- erinarian is provided the cattle will not be snipped into the Seattle Union Stock- yards, Another important point involved is that without Federal inspection live- stock can be shipped from Canada to the United States only on direct assignment for slaughtering. With Federal inspec- tion such livestock can be shipped for It may be that enough money is in- eluded in the appropriation, but all my information is that the Seattle Union Stockyards will be without the services of a part-time veterinarian, and it seems to me to be very false economy from the standpoint of public health not to have a sufficient amount to make possible a part-time veterinarian in that area. It is not too large a stockyard. It does not compare with the Omaha, Chicago, Kan- sas City, and South St. Paul stockyards, but it is an important union stockyard for our section of the country, Mr. President, I do not know why it is, but it seems to me that every year since I have been a Member of Congress we have been confronted with the appro- priation for Federal meat inspectors. If it is not the Weather Bureau it is the Federal Meat Inspection Service, and every year we have to make the attempt to restore very minute amounts to keep the inspection alive. I do not know what the situation is in the other stockyards, but Iam going to ask for $2,500 so that the inspection serv- ice can be kept alive in the Seattle Union Stockyard. I hope the Senator from Georgia, in view of this particular situa- tion, may accept the amendment, take it to conference, and see whether or not this amount is adequate. The decreased appropriation in the bill does not amount to much, but it does stop all Federal in- spection in that particular stockyard. Mr, RUSSELL. Mr. President, I could not accept the amendment without hav- ing some idea the Department as to the effect it would have on the other stock- yards. I daresay a number of other stockyards are situated about like the one in Seattle, and if we agreed to give a part-time inspector to Seattle, we would certainly be beund to give such inspectors to the other stockyards simi- larly situated. This bill carries $12,800,000 for meat inspection. ‘That is $159,000 below the Budget estimate. I¢ seems to me that with appropriation of $12,800,000, we ought to be able to save the $150,000 by which the House decreased the Budget estimate of $12,959,000. I shall be gied to get a statement as to whether the other are simi- larly situated, but I could not agree to accept the amendment at this time. Mr. MAGNUSON. I brought the mat- ter up because the situation is such that the amount provided, it is said, ts not sufficient to keep « part-time man in the atockyards in Seattle. The officials say that it is because of the budget ceiling. They did not present a formal request to CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE the committee to keep this place alfve. There may be other like cases. I hope that for the sake of saving $2,500 a stockyard serving a great area will not be denied the right of Federal inspection, because !t has even this fur- ther effect, that the Canadians, instead of sending their cattle to Seattle on the hoof to be slaughtered, are sending their dressed beef. With inspection, the tend- ency is to send the cattle from Canada into the Seattle Union Stockyards for consumption in that area. Mr. President, I shall not submit the amendment until the parliamentary sit. uation is favorable, but I thought this was a good time to bring up the sub- ject of Federal meat inspectors. Mr, RUSSELL. The Senator makes a very appealing case. The agricultural appropriation affords more opportuni- ties for appealing pleas than any other single feature in the entire bill. At one time I counted them and found there are 1,863 different activities under this chap- ter of the bill. Some of those 1,863 ac- tivities are carried in every State in the Union. There has never been any in- stance where those within the States have not desired to have their services improved. Of course we all hear about those things in the Nation's Capital, be- cause it is our responsibility to repre- sent our people. I should like very much to be able to accept the Senator’s amendment, but I cannot do it if it is going to result In discrimination against any other stock- yard that is similarly situated. Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, I am not familiar with what the effect would be on other stockyards. If the Department says that because of the budget limitation they cannot assign an inspector to Seattle, a great area of the country served by one union stockyard would be denied the right of inspection, Mr. RUSSELL. Does the Senator know whether there are other inspectors there? Mr. MAGNUSON. There are none there. Mr. RUSSELL. The Department ought to assign one to that area, be- cause they have, I believe, approximate- ly, 4,000 inspectors. Mr. BUTLER. Mr. President, I am deeply interested in the discussion taking place between the Senator from Wash- ington and the Senator from Georgia. I wish to repeat the statement that the United States Department of Agriculture Inspection Division operates almost solely for the protection of the health of American citizens, and I think it is an extremely important service to be con- tinued for the benefit of the people as a whole, I am surprised that there is any ques- tion thet $2,500 cannot be available out of a total of $12,800,000 for the services referred to, but I am willing to take the word of the chairman of the subcommit- tee of the Committee on Appropriations, who has the bili in charge, that the Taber amendment ts not being consid- itn connection with this particular Mr, RUSSELL. No: the Taber item is not in the bill. By committee action it 10379 was stricken out. There is nothing in the appropriation for this item that brought about the drastic reduction in meat inspectors, as to which we all re- ceived innumerable telegrams. The Taber-Thomas amendment would have resulted in dropping four-hundred-odd meat inspectors. As I have said, I think there is a total of nearly 4,000. I am told by the clerk of the committee that there are 3,220. They are provided for in this bill. That being the case, it seems to me that the Senator from Washington could get a part-time inspector, and I should be delighted to join with him in making a representation to the Department of Agriculture, so that there could be at least one part-time inspector assigned to the Seattle area. Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, in view of the statement of the Senator and in view of the facts that there are some 3,300 inspectors, it seems to me that what the Senator says is correct. I shall talk to the Department again and see if we cannot get one for the Seattle area, at least one, perhaps a full-time in- spector. Mr. RUSSELL. The Senator could get at least a part-time one, I believe. Mr. MAGNUSON. It seems to me we have the same problem as to meat in- spection coming up all the time. I know it has been coming up since I have been a Member of Congress. Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- sent to insert in the Recorp a statement showing the situation in the Seattle area, together with a letter from Henry J. Kruse, president of the Seattle Pack- ing Co. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? There being no objection, the state- ment and letter were ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: STATEMENT BY SENATOR MaGnuson I am offering an amendment proposing the addition of @2,600 to funds provided in the bill for the item “Animal disease control and eradication,” under the Bureau of Animal Industry. In line 15, page 179, I propose to strike out the figure ‘$7,950,000" and insert in lieu thereof $7,952,500.” ° This addition of $2,500 is urgently needed to provide Federal inspection at the Seattle Union Stockyards. I have talked to the De- partment of Agriculture informally about the need for Federal inspection at the Seattle yards, The Department agrees that Federal inspection is highly desirable, but because of the budget ceiling was unable to present a formal request to the committee. Through 1946 the Seattle yard had Federal inspection. The Eightieth Oongresa cut rather drastically funds allotted the Bureau of Animal Industry, and, in consequence, Federal inspection at the Seattle Union Stockyards was discontinued. Inasmuch as these yards do not now have inspection, there is a tendency for cattle, particularly feeder stock, to be diverted to other areas. In addition, serious competition bas de- veloped for Ssattie from the Ca- nadians. Immediately after Federal inspec- tion was discontinued, Canadians started shipping their cattle into the Pacific North- west tn the form of dressed beef rather than on the hoof, A current factor tn this influx of dressed eet was the tart reduction, effective Jan- uary 1, 1848, from 6 to 3 cents per pound. Both management and Iebor in the meat packing industry believe that restoration of
10380 Federal inepection will encourage the ship- ments to come in the form of livestock rather than dressed beef. Shipments on the hoof will give the slaughtering and packing business to United States firms and workers, 8nd would go some distance toward cushioning the competitive effects of this particular type of Canadian import. The important point is that without Fed- eral inspection, livestock can only be shipped from Canada to the United States on direct consignment to a slaughter. With Federal inspection, such livestock can be shipped for resale. It ts obvious that there is great merit in making it possible for the Bureau of Animal Industry to restore Federal inspection at the Seattle Union Stockyards. The amount in- volved is only $2,500-—just enough to pay the half-time salary of a qualified veterinarian. I hope the Senate will adopt this amend- ment, Srarrie Packtna Co., Seattle, Wash., June 30, 1950. Genator Warsen G. MAGNUSON, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. My Dear Senator: Although the Depart- ment of Agriculture recognizes the need for restoring Federal inspection at the Seattle Union Stockyards, it is unable to do so he- cause of a shortage of funds. The Depart- ment estimates, however, that only $2,500 ig needed to restore the Federal inspection at Beattie as only the part-time services of one veterinarian is required. It is, therefore, suggested that you obtain an appropriation of $2,800 for this purpose. This is impor- tant to the Northwest for the following reasons, Increased control of livestock diseases is a protection to the general public. With Fed- eral inspection the Seattle Union Stockyards would be assured that a veterinarian would be in charge and that adequate inspection with regard to communicable diseases would be in effect. Livestock producers will be better served under Federal inspection. At the present time the Northwest is served by only two Fed- eral-inspected yards. These are located at Spokane and Portland. Under State law, health requirements are enforced by the Brand Division which require that all female atock be tested and tagged when sold, except when sold to a packer for slaughter or for resale at a federally inspected yard. Since a federally inspected yard has a veterinarian on duty, the additional expense and delay required by testing female cattle is avoided. Inasmuch as the Seattle Union Stockyards are not now inspected, livestock producers tend to make their shipments either to Spokane or to Portland. Slaughter in the Northwest area would in- crease. Since reductions in the tariff on meat from Caneda to the United States from 8 to 8 cents per pound effective Jan- uary 1, 1948, and the termination of ship- ments from Oanada to the United Kingdom, meat importations to the United States have been greatly increased. Due to higher wage rates, expenses, etc. in the United States, most of this importation is now in the form of meat that is dressed. It would be desir- able to have it come in the form of livestock so that the slaughter and processing could be performed here. Federal inspection at the Seattle Union Stockyards would there- fore greatly facilitate the movement of live. stock from Canada. Without Federal inspec- tion livestock can only be shipped on direct consignment to a alaughterer. Whereas, un- der Federal control such livestock could be shipped for resale. This would increase the Gow of Canadian cattle and would help the packers in-that area to meet the competition of Canadian packers. This competition has CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE peen particularly severe in the Seattle area since the reduction in tariff duty. Very respectfully yours, Henry J. KRavse, President, Seattle Packing Co. Mr. THYE. Mr. President, I should like to ask the able Senator from Wash- ington whether any slaughtering is done in the union stockyard at Seattle. Mr. MAGNUSON. Yes. Mr. THYE. There is slaughtering there? Mr. MAGNUSON. There is much slaughtering, but because of the lack of meat inspection, the cattle on the hoof have not been coming in, and the dressed beef has been coming in. Mr. THYE. It seems to me very strange that the Department of Agricul- ture would permit slaughtering to take place and not have a meat inspector on hand. If that is the situation in Seattle, I would join with the Senator from Washington in asking that the Depart- ment of Agriculture assign a meat in- spector from the regular appropriation, or join the Senator in seeking to have allowed the amount he has requested. It seems to me to be incredible that the Department of Agriculture does not have one of its meat inspectors at a point of slaughter. Mr. MAGNUSON. We never have been able to get one. Mr. THYE. I cannot imagine that. Mr. MAGNUSON. I appreciate the Senator's interest. We never have been able to get one. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amend- ment on page 179, line 15. The amendment was agreed to. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The next committee amendment will be stated. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Bureau of Dairy Industry,” on page 182, line 14, after the word “butter”, to insert “not to exceed $100,000 for con- struction of 10 or more housing units for employees”; and in line 15, after the amendment just above stated, to strike out “$1,600,000” and insert “$1,735,000.” Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, the amendment provides an increase of $135,000 above the amount appropriated by the House. Apparently it is for two purposes: $35,000 for repairs, and $100,- 000 for housing facilities, that 1s, 10 houses for personnel. The personnel of this bureau, as I understand, are in Maryland near Greenbelt, and the House committee in turning down the recom- mendation to build 10 houses said that in their judgment it is quite possible that these employees might find housing at the Greenbelt housing project. In view of the need for economy, I hope the com- mittee amendment will be rejected. Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, I should like to have an explanation of the amendment. I do not see why we should build houses at the place designated at $10,000 apiece. Mr, RUSSELL. Mr. President, $35,000 is what the committee allowed of a total of $125.000 requested for repair and reconditioning of physical facilities at field stations. There have been no re- JULY 17 pairs made in any of the various field stations of the far-flung experimental organization of the Department of Ag- riculture since 1941, except emergency repairs. There has been very little paint- ing done. The Government of the United States has an enormous investment in all these operations. We have allowed about 15 to 20 percent of the budget es- timates for repairs in each instance. We did not allow the full amount. We al- lowed just sufficient to make the most emergent repairs and to prevent the de- terioration and loss of capital investment, Now as to the question asked by the distinguished Senator from North Da- kota. The $100,000 was asked for, for the purpose of constructing 10 houses at Beltsville to take care of the labor that is employed at the dairy there. The testimony showed that there were no houses available, and that the men work- ing at the dairy have to get to work very early in the morning, and ofttimes have to work very late at night. The Depart- ment could not obtain for the labor wage scale workers, who would have to get up in Washington perhaps at 2:30 or 3 o’clock in the morning and go all the way to Beltsville to reach their place of work. It is a nonrecurring item, and the houses will be self-liquidating, because rent is charged for them, The rent that is paid for these houses will eventually Hquidate this $100,000 item, I do not think it is going to affect the whole uni- versal scheme of salvation if we refuse to appropriate this $135,000, but I think it is a good business deal to appropriate it, because there is an enormous turn- over in employment at the dairy. The work is very important. The research work carried on there with respect to dairying and livestock is of vital con- cern to every person in the United States who owns a cow; and a great Many peo- ple own cows. Mr. THYE. Mr. President, consider- able testimony was heard by the com- mittee as to why the sum in question should be allowed. The able Senator from Georgia has stated the situation very ably. The men employed in the dairy division must be there early and late, A great amount of expense would be incurred by a man who had to drive from his home in Washington to the ex- periment station, and then home again, Many of the employees, in fact, do not possess automobiles. Therefore, they are under a handicap in going to and from their home in the city. I believe the amount of $100,000 is reasonable. The cost is only $10,000 a unit. Much thought and consideration and discus- sion was given to this item at the time it was considered. It was finally agreed to in committee. Mr. RUSSELL. I thank the Senator from Minnesota. I wish to reiterate that the amount in question will amortize it- self. The houses will pay for themselves from the rents collected. Mr. FREAR, Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. RUSSELL. I yield. Mr, FREAR. In order to olarify the situation in my own mind, I should like to ask the Senator from Georgia a ques-
1950 tion. He said the project will amortize itself. If and when the houses are built, will the rentals received from the prop- erties revert to the Treasury or to the Department of Agriguiture? Mr. RUSSELL. I am quite sure the money will go to the Treasury, unless there is an act to the contrary which deals specifically with this particular subject. A cow is occasionally sold at Beltsville, and the proceeds go to the Treasury. Mr.FREAR. Then the Department of Agriculture would not have the authority to expand the rentals? Mr. RUSSELL. Oh, no. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr, President, may I ask the distinguished Senator from Georgia if it is not true that Beltsville, Md., where the Bureau of Dairy Indus- try has its station, is just a mile or so from Greenbelt, where a town of 7,400 Persons has been built as a housing project? Mr. RUSSELL. I am not really ap- prised as to the distance between Green- belt and Beltsville. I do know that the Department of Agriculture does not own any homes in Greenbelt, and that it is some distance from Beltsville. Mr. President, the evidence on this subject is very convincing. I may say that I had overlooked the fact that we took testimony on this matter. It shows that prior to the submission of budget estimates the possibilities of obtaining such housing in the surrounding area, including the town of Greenbelt, had been fully explored, but without success. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amend- ment on page 182, lines 14 and 15. The amendment was agreed to, The PRESIDING OFFICER. The next committee amendment will be stated. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Bureau of Agricultural and In- dustrial Chemistry,” on page 182, line 25, after the word “thereof”, to strike out “$7,750,000” and insert “$8,500,000.” Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, this is an increase of $750,000 above the amount appropriated by the House. It is an in- crease of $105,000 above the amount Con- gress appropriated last year. In view of the need for economy, I suggest that it would be much better if we reject the committee amendment and save $750,000. MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE A message from the House of Repre- sentatives, by Mr. Maurer, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House had insisted upon its amendments to the bill (S, 2591) to amend the Public Health Service Act to support research and training in arthritis and rheuma- tism, multiple sclerosis, cerebral palsy, epilepsy and blindness, and other dis- eases, and for other purposes, disagreed to by the Senate; agreed to the confer- ence asked by the Senate on the dis- agreeing votes of the two Houses thereon, and that Mr, Prizst, Mr. BIsmMi.uer, Mr. Witson of Oklahoma, Mr. WOLVERTON, and Mr. Hucu D. Scort, JR., were ap- pointed managers on the part of the House at the conference. XCVI-—654 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE (At this point Mr. Mors addressed the Senate on the subject of recent increases in food prices. At his request, and, by unanimous consent, his remarks were ordered to be printed in today’s Recorp at the conclusion of the debate on the general appropriation bill.) GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS, 1951 The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (H. R. 7786) making appro- priations for the support of the Govern- ment for the fiscal year end:ng June 30, 1951, and for other purposes. The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is on agreeing to the amendment on page 182, line 25. The amendment was agrced to. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Secre- tary will state the next amendment. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Bureau of Plant Industry, Soils, and Agricultural Engineering,” on page 183, line 24, after the words “crops”, to strike out “$3,400,000” and insert “$3,- 475,000.” The amendment was agreed to. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, this is an increase of $125,000 for research in the field of fruits, vegetable, and spe- cialty crops. May I ask why the increase is to be put into effect? Mr. RUSSELL Mr President, this item includes $50,009 of the estimated $190,000 for repairs and reconditioning of physical facilities at fleld stations to strengthen the research program; $60,- 000 for research work on vegetable sources for the new drug, cortisone, and $15,000 additional to provide a total of $40,000 for gladiolus research. Those are the three items that go to make up the increase of $125,000. As I have stated heretofore, there has been no substantial repair work done on these fleld stations for 8 or 10 years. Certainly no one can challenge the importance of cortisone. It is a drug recently discovered which has proved to be a boon to humanity suffering from rheumatism and arthritis. It now comes frem the gall bladders of animals, I believe, and it takes 10,000 cows to supply enough to treat one case. There have been some amazing develop- ments, and it would be worth while to appropriate a much greater sum than the one in question in order to discover additional sources of supply so as to secure adequate quantities of cortisone. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, is the distinguished Senator from Georgia giv- ing a justification for the increase in the appropriation referred to at the bottom of page 183? If so, I am afraid that I must oppose it, not because I do not like {t, but because of the general need for economy. Mr. RUSSELL. That is the item which I was discussing and attempting to explain, The VICE PRESIDENT. The Secre- tary will state the next amendment. The next amendment was, on page 184, line 3, after the word “plants”, to strike out $2,950,000" and insert “$3,075,000.” Mr. FREAR. Mr. President, I should like to ask the Senator from Georgia a question, 10381 Mr. RUSSELL, I shall be glad to try to answer the question, Mr. FREAR. I notice that $40,000 is to be appropriated for research in con- nection with gladioli. Is the gladioll industry in this country sufficiently large for the Federal Government to appropri- ate $40,000 for research? Mr. RUSSELL, Mr. President, evi- dence before the committee in the past 2 or 3 years has disclosed some facts in connection with the gladioli industry which were rather amazing to one who is not familiar with it. It is a $110,000,- 000 industry. Tens of thousands of small producers who own and operate florist shops produce their own gladioli and sell them in those shops. A new disease has appeared, of which no knowledge had been had heretofore. It threatens to wipe out the only source of livelihood of these thousands of farmers and to seri-~ ously impair the opportunity for liveli- hood of thousands of small operators of flower shops. In my judgment, the appropriation is completely justified. When we have a spectacular attack upon the corn crop by the corn borer, we do not hesitate to appropriate fifteen or twenty million dollars with which to combat it. The amount appropriated here for the gladioli industry is not dis- proportionate with what we are doing in other lines of agriculture. Mr. FREAR. I thank the Senator. Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. RUSSELL I yield. Mr. HOLLAND. I should like to ob- serve that the reduction in income tax paid by one producer of gladioli in the State of Florida for last year was a good deal more than the total amount that is involved in this appropriation. That reduction in income-tax payment was caused solely by the attack on the gladioli crop by this new disease which we wish to combat through this experi- mentation. Mr. RUSSELL. Some progress has been made, and we hope we may be able to conquer the disease. The VICE PRESIDENT. The questions is on agreeing to the amendment on page 184, line 3. The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, on page 184, line 6, after the word “control”, to strike out “$450,000” and insert “$455,000.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, on page 184, line 18, after the word “management”, to strike out “$2,680,000” and insert “$2,767,500.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, on page 185, line 6, after the word “products”, to strike out $1,120,000" and insert “$1,140,000.” THe amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine—Salaries and ex- penses,” on page 186, line 22, after the word “application”, to strike out “$4,100,- 000” and insert “$4,165,000”; and on page 187, line 2, after the word “expended”, to strike out the colon and the following additional proviso; “Provided further,