1950 unanimous consent to have printed in the Recorp a statement prepared by me and also a memorandum relating to the subject. ° There being no objection, Mr. Witey’s statement and the memorandum were ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: STATEMENT By SENATOR WILEY MOROCCAN AMENDMENT MUST BE ENACTED IN GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS BILL Mr President, there is pending before the Senate nn amendment written into this bill by the Senate Appropriations Committee in connection with ECA appropriations for the next fiscal year. Under this amendment, which I originally proposed to the distin- guished chairman of the committee [Mr McKEriak}, and which he fortunately ac- cepted, provision will be made at long last for protection of American business interests in Morocco I have taken the floor on several occasions since early 1949 in order to protest the de- plorable discrimination against American business Interests in Morocco, In all this time we have had one long series of exchanges of correspondence and talks with State Department officials. Time after time we have brought to the attention of the Department abuses of the Moroccan Treaty by which French officials have deliberately favored French business interests in direct contradiction with treaties. Time after timo we have been given assurances by the State Department that the abuses would come to an end, that legislation would not be essen- tial, and time after time assurances and pious promises have been shown not to be worth the paper they were printed on, For the fourth time a protective amend- ment is now before the Senate, and it is my earnest hope that this amendment as writ- ten in the Appropriations Committee will be retaincd on the floor, taken to the confer- ence committee, and thereafter retained in the final conference report To do otherwise would be to encourage other countries deliberately to break their treatics with the United States and delib- erately to discriminate against American businessmen I shall not take the further time to review 8 history of this situation, but I ask unani- mous consent to have piaced in the Con- GRESSIONAL Recorp at this point a further memorandum on the problem, reviewing it historically, MEMORANDUM The Morocco Treaty violations were brought to the attention ot the Foreign Relations Committee by correspondence back in 1947 and 1948. We were told that the Department of State was investigating and would take appropriate steps. Two representatives of Americans in Mo- roceo called on me early in 1949. They had documentation and other evidence to show that the French had assessed illegal taxes and customs against them, had seized their goods, denied them the right to com- pete in many businesses, refused them 4& share in ECA business, and in general tried to force them out. The French had finally placed embargoes on almost all American goods, while giving preferred treatment to Argentina, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hun- gary, and others. I knew this kind of thing was prevalent in outrightly owned French colonies but Morocco is not a colony, it is an “autonomous country under the rule of a Sultan” (Willard Thorp’s affidavit in U. 8. District Court, Oct. 4, 1949). I know that our treaties with Morocco guaranteed our citizens and trade equal treatment with those of other coun- tries and that they fixed duties and taxes. I put the representatives of the American CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE group in Morocco in touch with Secretary Acheson in the Foreign Relations Commit- tee Room and he directed Mr. Ernest Gross to investigate and fix the matter up. At that time at a conference on March 24, 1949, the State Department agreed that il- legal taxes and customs overcharges would be refunded and other redress given, that is, that all treaty violations which were not considered by the Department as connected with the dollar shortage would be ended, before acceptance of the embargo decree would be considered. The President of the American Trade As- sociation of Morocco reported this decision to me and to other members of the Foreign Relations Committee in writing. The ar- rangement has never been denied by the Department It was reported to Morocco by a cable cleared with a Department official. Because of these promises, and because the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Re- lations Committee told the Senate “We are sending atop man * * * to investigate all these cases, And if there is any discrim- ination or any violation of fyndamental rights of Americans, they will be corrected, and corrected promptly” (Congressional Record, vol 95, part 3, p 3870). I am sure that the distinguished chairman was rely- ing on State Department promises when he made that statement—because of all this legislation proposed to end the Moroccan abuses was defeated on thts floor on April 5, 1949. As soon as it was defeated the promises were ignored and on June 10, 1949, the State Department gave temporary assent to the Moroccan embargoes with none of its conditions fulfilled. In August of 1949 this was all repeated Mr. Ernest Gross, then Assistant Secretary of State, wrote on July 29 (ConarrssionaL REC- orp, vol 95, part 3, p 10764)° “The Depart- ment has repeatedly recognized that Amert- can businessmen have specific legitimate grievances in French Morocco that should be remedied” He Hsted “failure to allocate to Americans a reasonable amount of dollar exchange. The employment of delaying tac- tics in granting import licenses for goods Americans needed for the maintenance of enterprises they were operating * “* * the assessment of customs duties on the basis of arbitrary valuations of imports, the assessment of consumption taxes * * * and other matters such as the failure to In- stall telephones, furnish adequate gasoline rations,” etc. Mr. Gross emphasized that the Depart- ment's objective is to assure an appropriate measure of protection to these Americans in Morocco. The able Senator from Pennsyl- vania stated: “At this very time American representatives are engaged with representa- tives of France in ironing out legitimate complaints which have been made against the French treatment of American business- men” (CONGRESSIONAL Recorp, vol. 95, part 3, p. 10820). Legislation was again de- feated in the Senate on August 5, 1949. Again, when the chance of action by Con- gress was past, the Department abandoned its “appropriate measure of protection” and ruled, at a public hearing to investigate the matter on September 27 that both treaty violations ind the fact that Americans have beon subject to discrimination in the ad- ministration of import controls were beyond the scope of the meeting. On December 31, assent for an indefinite period was given to the embargoes and to almost all other vio- lations on the basis of a compromise agree- ment of September 4, the terms of which were broken as soon as it was signed. When the ECA authorization was pending this spring, Members of the Benate for the third time considered an amendment to end the campaign against our citizens and our trade in Morocco, Again, the State De- partment claimed that the situation was being effectively handled. A majority of the Foreign Relations Committee decided that 11381 “in view of the arrangements * * © made with the French Government,” legis- lative remedy “was not necessary’ (Foreign Relations Committee report, p. 22). Despite this decision, an amendment finally passed the Senate on May 5, 1960. As ® member of the Senate-House conference, I was skepti- cal of the promises made in a reassuring let- ter dated May 6, 1950, from Administrator Hoffman and a State Department memo- Yandum confirming it, to the effect that con- sultative machinery had been set up and was operating successfully to handle American complaints. The conference accepted these assurances, decided that the Connally amendment could be invoked in case the consultative machinery failed, and the Mo- rocco amendment was again defeated A letter from the president of the Ameri- can Chamber of Commerce in Morocco, in May, listed 11 specific legitimate grievances, including most of those cited by Mr Gross a year ago and many others and stated that the situation was worse than ever. He said that “conferences between consular and resi- dency officials involve the same personnel and lead to the same frustrating results even though they ate now called deliberations of & mixed commissio " The State Depart- ment’s own opinion of its consultative ma- chinery, which had served to defeat legisla- tion, dwindled once the legislation was de- feated The Department's report of June 5, 1950, to the Appropriations Committee stated: “Our consul at Rabat has done an excel- lent and conscientious job in bringing about such solutions as are possible from the con- sultative meetings. The administrative tactics of the French officials, however, con- tinue to delay the results and to multiply the minor discriminations * * * the consultative machinery has not been suc- cessful in solving larger problems touching French policy.” The only excuse which has been offered by the State Department for its failure in Morocco for a yenr .nd a half is that the French program is necessitated by Morocco's dollar shortage. Official statistics show that the import and export embargoes have ac- tually raised Morocco’s dollar imports by £0 percent, lowered her dollar exports by 30 percent, and brought her trade deficit to an all-time high. They have shifted import profits from independent Americans to French cartels and other favored French in- terests. They have given preference in trade not only to France but to every nation having a bilateral agreement with France, and that includes Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary, etc. While Morocco’s total dollar imports are at an all-time high, the United States share of Morocco'’s trade has decreased. Dollar purchases from non-United States sources have almost doubled (Moroccan Government Statistical Bulletin, April 15, 1950 ) Of all the treaty violations complained of, only import embargoes are in any way con- nected with Morocco's dollar position Purthermore, the Department of State told the conference that the Hickenlooper amend- ment, stating that treaties remain in full force until changed with Senate ratification, was not necessary. It has always claimed it was not setting our treaties aside That same Department’s memorandum to the Appro- priations Committee (p. 258 of the hearings) states “Some of the complaints that they (Americans) have made appear to be based on the original treaty position rather than on failure of the French to live up to the terms of their agreement with the United States." The clear meaning is that the De- partment's agreement of December 31, 1949, has set aside the treaties assuring equal rights, on which Americans relicd when start- ing business in Morocco. Not one tangtble result has come from all this State Department shilly-shallying. Not 1 cent has been reimbursed. Moroccan laws
113382 limiting American business activities still are in force. Trade with every nation on earth ig preferred to ours. The Moroccan abuses are before the Senate for the fourth time. The State Department 1g no longer claiming that it will end them. Instead, it is now trying to quibble about whether the violations which it admitted and protested for almost 2 years are discrimina- tory, It can stall another 2 years while de- bating that. If it intended to act under the terms of the Connally amendment it has had nearly 3 months in which to do so. It has stated in tts memorandum of July 11 that “it is understood steps are being taken to cycate a more favorable atmosphere,” that action by Congress would be ‘drastic and in- apt” and would damage our relations with France. Just how much furthe: does it wish to go, in our pursuit of a favorable atmos- phere? I do not believe that our relations abroad were ever improved by a policy of weakness, which only makes us ridiculous. I think this farce has continued long enough and hope the amendment reported by the Appropriations Committee will bo adopted. Mr. HAYDEN. Mr. President, on page 447, line 18, I move to strike out ‘$2,391,- 930,000” and to insert in lieu thereof “$2.450,000,000." This is an amendment in the second degree, The Senator from Missouri, instead of increasing the amount of the appropriation, as I have suggested, desires to decrease it. There- fore I ask unanimous consent that this chapter X-B, for purposes of the amend- ment, may be considered as a part of the original text of the bill. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the Senator from Arfzona? The Chair hears none, and it 1s so ordered Mr. HAYDEN. Mr. President, my amendment is pending now. If the Sen- ator from Missouri wishes to ofter his amendment now, he may do so. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the unanimous-consent agreement en- tered into, the amendment of the Sen- ator from Arizona is itself open to amendment. Mr. KEM Mr. President, I shall ask that my amendment be considered on Monday. MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE—ENROLLED BILL AND JOINT RESOLUTION SIGNED A message from the House of Repre- sentatives by Mr. Snader, its assistant enrolling clerk, announced that the Speaker had affixed his signature to the following enrolled bill and joint resolu- tion, and they were signed by the Vice President: S 3859. An act to authorize the President to control the anchorage and movement of foreign-flag vessels in waters of the United States when the national security of the United States is endangered, and for other purposes, and H. J. Res. 512, Joint resolution making fur- ther temporary appropriations for the fiscal year 1951, and for other purposes. ENROLLED BILL PRESENTED The Secretary of the Senate reported that on today, July 28, 1950, he presented to the President of the United States the enrolled bill (S. 3859) to authorize the President to control the anchorage and movement of foreign-fiag vessels in waters of the United States when the national security of the United States is endangered, and for other purposes. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE EXECUTIVE SESSION Mr. McFARLAND. Mr. President, if no other Senator wishes to address the Senate, I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of executive busi- ness. The motion was agreed to; and the Senate proceeded to consider executive business. EXECUTIVE MESSAGE REFERRED The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hot- LAND in the chair) laid before the Sen- ate a message from the President of the United States submitting the nomination of Vice Adm. Iidward L. Cochrane, United States Navy (retired), to be a member of the Fedcral Maritime Board, which was referred to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. EXECUTIVE REPORTS OF COMMITTEES The following favorable reports of nominations were submitted: By Mr. MURRAY, from the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare Paul M Herzog, of New York, to be a mem- ber of the National Labor Relations Board; and Ewan Clague, of Pennsylvania, to be a Commissioner of Labor Statistics, By Mr TYDINGS, from the Committee on Armed Services Joseph Frederick Green, a graduated cadet of the United States Milltary Academy, for appointment as second Heutenant in the United States Air Force. The PRESIDING OFFICER If there be no further reports of committces, the nominations on the Executive Calendar will be stated, ADVISORY BOARD FOR THE POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT The legislative clerk read the nomina- tion of J H. Allen, of Florida, to be a member of the Advisory Board for the Post Office Department. The PRESIDING OFFICER With- out objection, the nomination is con- firmed. Mr. PEPPER’ I wish to make a few brief remarks with respect to the nomi- nation of Mr. Allen. I know that the Presiding Officer will bear me out when I say that Mr. Allen is one of the out- standing businessmen, not only of Flor- ida, but of the whole country. He is not only competent, but he is devoted to the public interest. I can assure the Senate that Mr. Allen’s service in the position to which he has been nomi- nated will be illustrious, distinguished, and in the public interest. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. HoL- LAND in the chair). The Chair thanks his colleague. Mr. McFARLAND. Mr. President, I ask that the remaining nominations to the Advisory Board for the Post Office Department be confirmed en bloc. Mr, LANGER. Mr. President, I ob- ject. Mr. McFARLAND. I understand that the distinguished Senator from North Dakota desires the nomination of Mr, Morris lL. Ernst, of New York, to go over. I move that, with that exception, the other nominations to the Advisory Board for the Post Office Department be considered en bloc, JULY 28 The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and the remaining nominations to the Ad- visory Board for the Post Office Depart. ment, with the exception of the nomi- nation of Morris L Ernst, of New York, are confirmed en bloc. POSTMASTERS The legislative clerk proceeded to read sundry nominations of postmasters. The PRESIDING OFFICER. With- out objection, the nominations of post- masters are confirmed en bloc. That completes the Executive Calendar, LEGISLATIVE SESSION Mr. McFARLAND. Mr. President, I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of legislative business. The motion was agreed to; and the Senate resumed the consideration of leg- islative business. Mr WHERRY. Mr President, I send to the desk an amendment to the appro- priation bill and ask that 1t be printed and lie on the table. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be received and printed, and will lie on the table. RECESS Mr McFARLAND. Mr. President, I now move that the Scnate stand in re- cess until 12 o’clock noon on Monday next, The motion was agreed to, and (at 5 o'clock and 5 minutes p m) the Senate took a recess until Monday, July 31, 1950, at 12 o'clock meridian. NOMINATION Executive nomination received by the Senate July 28 (legislative day of July 20), 1950. FrperaL MARITIME BOARD Vice Adm. Edward L. Cochrane, United States Navy (retired), to be a member of the Federal Maritime Board for the term expiring June 30, 1952. CONFIRMATIONS Executive nominations confirmed by the Senate July 28 (legislative day of July 20), 1950: Apvisory Boarp FOR THE Post OFFICE DEPARTMENT To be members of the Advisory Board for the Post Office Department J H Allen, of Florida. ° Daniel W. Bell, of the District of Columbia. Frank M Folsom, of New York, Alfred E Lyon, of New York. Robert L. Thornton, of Texas. Charles . Ward, of Minnesota. POSTMASTERS ALABAMA Morris F Watson, Montevallo. Jacob L. Slaughter, Pine Hill. CALIFORNIA Helen G. Walters, Brockway. Rita P. Patton, Idyllwild. Ben B. Rodgers, Milpitas. Bernard G. Proksch, Pollock Pines. Betty Jo Gilliam, Sloat. Sallye F. Bartlow, Valley Center. COLORADO Schuyler C. Parker, Durango.
1950 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE FLORIDA Luther W. Reel, Eloise. Edna Gowen Smith, Hillard. Wiley Bird, Live Oak Lynn H. Thames, Osprey. Harry Gordon Higel, Sarasota. GEORGIA Estelle M. Jacques, Baconton. HAWAI Toshihiro Nakagawa, Kunia. Adolph 8S. K. Leong, Lahaina, ™AHO Ellwood R. Werry, Shoshone. ILLINOIS Bruna R. Gherardini, Bulpitt. Louts J Frooninckx, Jr, Clifton. INDIANA Vernice L. Larkin, Cloverdale. Richard C. Walker, Granger. Charles Donald Manaugh, Hanover, Kenneth E, Romine, Mentone. Helen M Cox, Oaklandon. Thomas M Gray, Otwell. Arvil Welilkaker, Palmyra. Loulse W Broyles, Pittsboro. John E. Brewer, Summitville. James L. Wall, Winchester. IOWA ‘ James Lawrence Klauer, Akron, Woodrow J Shearer, Columbus Junction. Leroy W. Threde, Lake Park. Fernando Gianni, Melcher. KANSAS Carl N. Couch, Atlanta. Yoland L. Faris, Elmdale. Charles Dwain Duecy, Galesburg. John C Bowman, Garnett. Ruel Lazarus, Norwich. KENTUCKY Austin V Thompson, Moreland. William F Gibson, Whitesburg LOUISIANA Robert W. Gandy, Jr., Tallulah, MAINE Irma J Gott, Southwest Harbor. MARYLAND Melvin H Bowers, Lilypons. Michael Keehan, Patuxent River, MASSACHUSETTS James E Rogers, East Bridgewater. Daniel F. Cahill, Lawrence. Ralph Howard Bryant, South Lancaster. Edmund L Hannaford, Wellfleet. MICHIGAN Donald M Brown, Addison. William Bombyk, Applegate. William R. Shortridge, Big Bay. Robert J. Gitersonke, Bridgman. Gust C. Burandt, Coldwater. Elmer L. Wittenberg, Constantine. Merle E. Kinney, Davisburg. Jobn T, Fahey, Goodells. Charles R. LaClair, Hemlock. Leon C. Stewart, Hersey Glenn R. Sabourin, Hillman. Owen H. Austin, Laingsburg. Robert L Taylor, Lapeer. Theodore W. Johnson, Ludington. Lucile M. Mayer, Merrill. Vincent E. Boyle, Milford. Calvin F. McDivitt, Jr., Morrice. Mary Lee Hawkes, Orchard Lake. Albert P. Lenart, Smiths Creek. Hubert A. Marcotte, Wolverine. MINNESOTA Royce V. Peterson, Aitkin. John O. Opheim, Farwell. Coratien J, Mickelson, Hanley Falls. George B. Engelmann, Hewitt. Roy J. Meyer, Jasper. Hugh J McCaffery, Lake Hubert. David R. Wollan, Starbuck. Delbert W. Brekke, Tamarack, William P, Horan, Wells. John A. Stenson, Wright, MISSOURI Miller L. Coleman, Aurora. George L Adams, Blue Springs, Lester A. Green, Centerview. Robert W Bounds, Centerville. William D. Compton, Dodson, Joseph H. Goeke, Greentop. Myron H. Holloman, Ironton. Francis B Bockwinkel, Liguori. Verne C. Duvall, Lockwood. Louie M. Griffy, Marston. Ted L Muse, Ntangua Btlefel J Wilkerson, Novelty. Noland K, Deaver, Paris. Charles W. Hyder, Polo. Harley K Warren, Richland. Cecil L. Smith, Smithton. Dallas D. Hickerson, Wardell. Harry M. Tarrant, Webb City. MONTANA William Watt, Crow Agency. Howard E. Wagner, Hardin. NEBRASKA Ferdinand L. Peisiger, Blue Hill. William H. Smith, Franklin Harry B. Burton, North Platte. Carl Wells, St Edward Jack M Latham, Springfield. NEVADA James A. Fortune, Mina Hugh W. Mildren, Yerington. NEW HAMPSHIRE Linden E Sheehan, Pittsfield. Ina P. Andersen, Rumney. NEW JERSEY Calvin G Piper, Hillsdale. Florence A Bailey, Mizpah. Francis W. Huntley, Port Republic. NEW MEXICO Morris L. Dickerson, Fatracres. NEW YORK Harry F Reed, Camden Hugh L. Spencer, Canaseraga. Philip C. Hopson, Churchville, Eugene P. Smith, Deposit. Millard Eugene Austin, Rushford. William L. Farley, Watertown, NORTH DAKOTA Walter Gerszewski, Minto. OHIO Joseph F. Prosser, Cleveland. Francis J. Dannemiller, Doylestown. Mary B Federspi}l, Empire. Julian A. Wierzba, Gypsum Raymond W. Wortman, Leipsaic, Carl Edward Fratz, Litchfield. Robert V. Tracy, Loveland. Forrest Finley, Malta. Paul E. Puhl, Maumee. Arthur Lee Fair, Millersburg. Howard R. Miller, New Lebanon. Von D. Spahr, Jr., Ohio City. Walter K Billman, Spencer. Lewis L. Newland, Waynesfield, James E. Mattox, Westerville, OXLAHOMA Don W, Fowler, Boise City. Seymour Gibeon Smith, Duncan, Myrtle Maxine Friend, Hunter. OREGON Alexande> Moore Hamilton, Medford. PENNSYLVANIA Raymond Maulfair, Grantville. LaRoy Cleveland Best, Neffs. Frank A. Kovacs, Schneckoaville. SAMOA Edward Hunkin, Pago Pago. BOUTH CAROLINA Joseph E. Powell, Moncks Corner, 11838 SOUTH DAKOTA Knute Tennyson, Quinn. Norman £, Gruenzer, Stickney. TENNESSES Jack G. Frazier, Dayton. Thomas H. Graham, Jr., Taft. TEXAS Wayne G. Watson, Denver City. Barl M. Cryer, Hamshire. Harold R. Spain, Haskell. Maynard C Watkins, Jarrell. Reuben 8 Morrow, Kaufman, Ray D White, Kingsbury. Joseph M Tosch, Mesquite, St Elmo Murphy, Nixon, UTAH Amy H Esplin, Orderville. VIRGINIA Richard D. Collison, Dayton. Samuel N Thornhill, Gladstone, Lloyd N Doyle, Ridgeway. Carl L Campbell, Winchester. ‘WASHINGTON Arnold L. Leliefeld, Clayton. Kenneth W McNeilly, Colfax. George E. Wilken, Dryden. Harry S Burlingham, Redondo. Charles J MacDonald, Sultan. Elsie P. Tipton, Tillicum Albert E. Heric, Walla Walla, WEST VIRGINIA Robert Rogers Vanaman, Arthurdale, Ivory N Steele, Holden. WYOMING Harold E. Wheatley, Encampment, Otterbine Marcus Phillips, Upton, SENATE Monpay, Jucy 31, 1950 (Legislative day of Thursday, July 20, 1950) The Senate met at 12 o'clock meridian, on the expiration of the recess. Rev. F. Norman Van Brunt, assistant minister, Foundry Methodist Church, Washington, D. C., offered the following prayer: We would lift our eyes unto the hills eternal, knowing that our help comes from Thee, O God. We would laud and hallow Thee for Thou art good and hast done us good. We have had at Thy hand bountiful benefits all our days. Thy sunlight has made our path day- light. ‘The dark night has had its star; and when our need was great our night has had its sun Remembering Thy past benefits, grant us to rely upon Thy sure mercy as we take up the opportunities of this new day. Help us that in all ous ways we might acknowledge Thee, knowing that Thou wilt direct our paths. “Set our feet on lofty places; Gird our lives, that they may be Armorec. with all Christ-like graces In the fight to keep men free. Grant us wisdom, grant us courage, That we fail not man nor Thee.” Amen. THE JOURNAL On request of Mr. Lucas, and by unan- fmous consent, the reading of the Jour- nal of the proceedings of Friday, July 28, 1950, was dispensed with.
11334 MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT— APPROVAL OF BILLS Messages in writing from the Pres!- dent of the United States were com- municated to the Senate by Mr. Miller, one of his secretaries, and he announced that on July 28, 1950, the President had approved and signed the following acts: 8 1049 An act for the relief of Amy Alex- androvna Taylor and Myrna Taylor; S 1779 An act for the relief of Phil Meyers, also known as Gil Meyers; §.1792. An act for the rellef of Thomas Nicholas Epiphaniades and Wanda Julia Epiphaniades; § 2077 An act for the relief of Francisco Gonzalez Perez, and 8 2864. An act to authorize certain admin- istrative expenses for the Department of Justice, and for other purposes MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE—ENROLLED BILL SIGNED A message from the House of Repre- sentatives, by Mr. Snader, its assistant reading clerk, announced that the Speaker had affixed his signature to the enrolled bill (H _R. 157) authorizing the Department of Justice of the United States to recognize and to award to out- standing courageous young Americans a medal for heroism known as the Young American Medal for Bravery, and for other purposes, and it was signed by the Vice President. LEAVES OF ABSENCE On request of Mr. WHerRY, and by unanimous consent, Mr, TOBEY Was ex- cused from attendance on the sessions of the Senate today, Tuesday, and Wednes- day. On request of Mr. McFarvanp, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Tuomas of Oklahoma was excused from attendance or the session of the Senate tomorrow. GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS, 1951 The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (H. R. 7786) making appro- priations for the support of the Govern- ment for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1951, and for other purposes The VICE PRESIDENT. The question js on the amendment offered by the Sen- ator from Arizona (Mr. HaypEn], on page 447, line 18, to strike out ‘$2,391,- 930,000" and insert ‘$2,450,000,000.” Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, a par- liamentary inquiry. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator will state it. Mr. WHERRY. As I understand, un- der the unanimous-consent agreement the time between now and 2 o'clock is divided equally, to be controlled respec- tively by the senior Senator from Ten- nessee {Mr. McKeEttar] and the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Kem]. athe VICE PRESIDENT, That is cor- rect. Mr. WHERRY. It js understood that we will start to vote at 2 o’clock. The VICE PRESIDENT, That is cor- rect. The time between now and 2 o'clock is divided equally between and controlled by the two Senators. Mr. KEM. Mr. President, I call up my amendment, and I ask that it be stated. The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator refer to his amendment to the Hayden amendment? CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. KEM. No; it is an amendment to the committee amendment. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator cannot offer an amendment to the com- mittee amendment at this time. It must be to the so-called Hayden amendment. Otherwise it would be an amendment in the third degree. Mr. KEM. I suppose it does not make any difference in the final analysis. The VICE PRESIDENT. The first vote would come to the Senator’s amend- ment to the Hayden amendment. Therefore the Senator would get the same result. Mr KEM. Yes. I have no objection to its being so considered. The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator wish his amendment to be stated? Mr KEM. I should like to have my amendment stated. The LecIs.aTIve CLERK. On page 447, line 18, in leu of “$2,450,000,000” it 1s proposed to insert ‘$1,950,000,000"; on page 448, in line 2, beginning with the word “Provided,”, to strike out all to and including the words “limitations herein specified.”’, 1n line 7, page 448; on page 448, lines 8 and 9, to strike out the word “consolidated ” Mr. HAYDEN, Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr KEM Iam glad to yield. Mr HAYDEN. I notice that the Sen- ator’s amendment 1s in three parts. Does the Senator wish to have each part considered separately, or all of them en bloc? . Mr. KEM _ En bloc. The VICE PRESIDENT. Without ob- jection, it is so ordered. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yleld for a question? Mr. KEM. I yield for a question. Mr. WHERRY. As I understand, the Senator has offered an amendment to the Hayden amendment As I under- stand, the Hayden amendment raises the appropriation from $2,391,000,000 to $2,450,000,000. Mr. KEM. The purpose of my amend- ment is to decrease the appropriation by the amount provided in my amendment, Mr. WHERRY. Has the Senator from Missouri fixed the amount proposed by his amendment, so that if it is applied to the $2,450,000,000, there will result the saving contemplated by him? Mr. KEM. My amendment is drawn as an amendment to the committee amendment. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Sena- tor’s amendment is really an amend- ment to the committee amendment. Under the parliamentary situation it had to be offered to the Hayden amend- ment, Mr. WHERRY. I wonder whether the amendment offered by the Senator from Missouri is so drawn so as to bring the reduction down to the figure of $1,950,- 000,000? Mr. KEM. I should like to have it considered so, The VICE PRESIDENT, The first vote would come on the amendment offered by the Senator from Missouri. Mr. KEM. Mr. President, I yield my- self 30 minutes, JULY 81 As Senators will note, the amendment I offer would reduce the amount to be appropriated to the Economic Coopera- tion Administration for the fiscal ending June 30, 1951, to $1,950,000,000. Fur- thermore, the amendment would elimi- nate from the appropriation bill the sum of $276,761,473, which was carried over from last year’s appropriations. The total saving effected by this amendment would be $718,691,473, or a saving of ap- proximately $1,000,000,000 in the origi- nal budget estimate. I should like to invite attention par- ticularly to the fact that the amend- ment would in no way affect the appro- priations for assistance to the Republic of Korea, the military-aid program, or several other programs included in the foreign-aid section of the pending meas- ure. My amendment applies solely to the economic-aid program for western Europe. The unexpended balance for the fiscal year 1950, which amounts to more than $276,090,000, is the amount that was ap- propriated to the ECA but not used dur- ing the last 12 months I see no justi- fication, Mr President, for 11s being re- appropriated. As I have said before, Administrator Hoffman is to be congrat- ulated on making this saving. But the amount should be a saving to the United States. Merely because a Saving was made 1n 1 ycar is no reason why it should be made available in another year. Mr President, this is a time for real- ism. It is a time for us to think and act in the light of things as they are. It 1s a time to reject and repudiate all unrealizable and visionary plans and schemes It 1s my firm conviction that the amount provided 1n the bill for for- eign aid Js unrealistic in view of the po- sition in which we now find ourselves both from a financial and military point of view. Our national debt is more than $257,000,000,000. Even if $10,000,000,- 000 would cover the added cost of the Korean war during the present fiscal year, the deficit, in the absence of an in- crease in taxes, would amount to approx- imately $17,000,000,000. It is no wonder, Mr. President, that our foreign friends cannot understand why we are not paying our own debts, or at least balancing our budget, instead of paying their debts and building at the cost of the American taxpayers, ex- pensive improvements all over western Europe, with the exception of Spain. A few days ago the ECA released its report to the Advisory Board. In this report, on page 21, there is an interesting table entitled “Counterpart Fund With- drawals by Purpose, in Dollar Equiva- lents, as of May 31.” This table contains a breakdown of the purposes for which ECA has permit- ted the participating countries to spend the Marshall plan matching funds, the so-called counterpart funds. $1,042,- 000,000 worth of counterpart funds have been used to retire the debts of several Marshall-plan countries. The amount thus used, it will be noted, is in excess of @ billion dollars; $558,000,000 worth have gone for electric, gas, and power projects in Marshall-plan countries; $331,000,000 worth for agriculture and forestry;
1950 $224,000,000 worth for railroads; $196,- 000,600 worth for manufacturing estab- Ushments; $57,000,000 worth for roads, waterways, and harbors; $208,000,000 for housing; $75,000,000 worth for mer- chant and fishing fleets. From a military standpoint it is cer- tainly not in the interest of our boys on the fighting front for us at this time to be giving away critical materials, vast quan- tities of things that may be necessary to prosecute the war. The kinds of mate- rials I have in mind are $200,000,000 worth of industrial materials produced in the United States, including iron, steel, aluminum, copper, zinc, and in- dustrial chemicals, Those materials the ECA proposes to send to western Europe in the year for which provision is now being made. ECA also proposes to give away $448,700.000 worth of industrial machinery and equipment; $7,500,000 worth of rubber and rubber products; and more than $77,000,000 worth of petroleum and petroleum products So, Mr President, we are increasing our own debt day by day, and it is pro- posed that we continue the shipment to Marshall-plan countries of vast quanti- ties of critical war materials which we ourselves might well need before too long. Not only that, Mr. President, but we are facing the specter of mflation. Noth- ing will feed the fires of inflation more than, first, the issuing of obligations of the Government to cover a deficit; sec- ond, creating a shortage in the avail- able supply of goods. The large appro- priations for foreign aid in the pending bill will have a direct effect in both re- spects. Mr. President, I sometimes think the people back home in their thinking are a bit ahead of those of us who sit here in the Halls of Congress. Sometimes it is difficult to see the forest for the trees. A few days ago I received a letter from one of my fellow citizens in Kansas City, Mo, He describes himself as “a little man, a cab driver and my wife is a waitress, but we can read, and Hsten and wonder. We are beginning to see why we must pay such exorbitant taxes, and beginning to wonder what kind of men are leading us.” Then he says: Do you blame us? Where does Congress get the idea the rank and file of the people are tn favor of the Marshall plan? They are not now, and never have been. I talk to over 80 passengers every night, and not 1 in 20 is in favor of tt, and the ones who are, have relatives over there. There is something de- cidedly smelly about the whole ald-to- Europe program. Mr. President, I have had occasion be- fore to refer to shipments of war mate- rials by Marshall-pian countries to Rus- sia and her satellites. This is an iron- jcal situation. It was hardly to be ex- pected, in view of our overgenerous gifts of economic aid to the participating countries. However, the facts are plain, and, so far as I know, have never been denied, For instance, it bas been frequently said on the floor of the Senate that the Marshall-plan countries have 96 sepa- rate trade treaties with Russia and other countries behind the iron curtain. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Great Britain, for example, has bilateral trade agreements with Russia, Czecho- slovakia, Finland, Hungary, and Poland. Pursuant to these treaties a wide variety of materials, many of them potential articles and materials of war, are being constantly shipped by the Marshall-plan countries to Russia and the satellites. On July 17 I put into the Recorp a table of shipments of war materials from Great Britain, Belgzum-Luxemburg, and France, to Russia. The information in these tables was furnished me by the Department of Commerce. The orig- inal tables covered only the year 1949. The Department of Commerce later fur- nished me additional information cover- ing shipments made to Russia and the satellites from the Marshall-plan coun- tries during the first 4 months of 1950. I have now some further information which covers the month of May this year, bringing the information approximately up to date This information shows that a great deal of such material is being shipped, and the shipments of certain materials are at a constantly accelerated rate I have emphasized the shipments of war materials from Marshall-plan coun- tries to Russia because I believe it is a very important matter. It is important to know whether our boys who are hav- ing to face tanks in Korea, which are su- perior to any we have on that front, are facing equipment which has been fabri- cated from goods shipped to Russia by our allies. The Department of Commerce has furnished me with information showing that in one case war materials imported into Great Britain have been reexported to Russia and the satellites. During the 5 months which ended May 31, 1950, more than $2,633,900 worth of machine tools were exported by Britain to Russia, Finland, Poland, and Czechoslovakia. Four hundred fifty-four thousand five hundred and thirty-eight dollars worth of these tools were exported during the month of May alone. That is new in- formation, so far as I am concerned. During the 5 months which ended May 21, 1950, Britain reexported—note this, Mr. President—reexported more than $67,320 worth of machine tools. Ma- chine tools are being given to Great Brit- ain under the Marshall plan. Mr. FLANDERS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. KEM. Mr. President, the time is limited, and I suggest that the eminent Senator from Vermont secure time from the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Mc- Ketan]. I know the views of the Sen- ator from Vermont on this matter very well, and I think he belongs on the other side. Mr. FLANDERS. I intend simply to raise a question as to the information the Senator has just given. The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Missouri yield to the Sen- ator from Vermont? Mr, KEM. I decline to yield at this time. I shall be glad to yield to the Sen- ator later. Tn connection with our own considera- tion of the item in the appropriations bill for foreign aid, I believe the Senate will 11335 be interested in some figures which I have obtained from the State Depart- ment respecting the number of ships, combatant and otherwise, which the United States turned over to Russia dur- ing World War IH. I have been surprised at the lack of success which the admin- istration has had in securing the return of those ships. These figures show that we trans- ferred to the Russians 585 naval craft of various types, and that 459 of those naval craft are still in the hands of the Rus- sians, and reported to be in operable condition. We have been able to get back from Russia only 28 ships. Others were reported as lost, damaged, and stuck in the ice. Of the 96 American merchant ships which Russia had at the end of the war, 84 are still in the hands of the Rus- sians, and presumably in usable condi- tion We have had returned to us seven tankers and one old cargo vessel. Mer- chant ships which the Russians retained include 36 Liberty ships. The naval craft which were trans- ferred to the Russians include 3 ice breakers, 28 frigates, 77 minesweepers, 78 large submarine chasers, 62 small sub- marine chasers, 205 torpedo boats, 36 LCI’s, that is, landing craft—infantry; 17 LCT's, that is, landing craft—tanks; 2 LCV’s, that is, landing craft—vehicle; 2 LCS’s, that is, landing craft—support; 54 LCM’s, that is, landing craft—mecha- nized; 4 floating-repair shops, 15 river tugs, 6 pontoon bridges, 1 motor launch, 1 plane personnel boat. The ships we have been able to get back consist of only 1 ice breaker and 27 frigates. My information is that a request has been made by the State Department for the return of only 217 of the naval ships, and there has been no request whatever that any of the merchant ships be returned. I may say, Mr. President, in passing, that I think several questions should be answered by the State Department. Why have we not been able to get any more of our ships back? Who deter- mined that a request for our merchant ships should not be made? Who has been conducting the negotiations for the return of a part of the naval ships with so little success? The soft policy against Russia at Yalta, Potsdam, and since, has played a major part in plac- ing the United States in the unfortunate position in which it finds itself today. Mr. President, I now want to say a few words as to why I think that is very significant. That has to do with the ability of the Marshali-plan countries to defend themselves. On July 27 Mr. Winston Churchill was reported as speaking in the House of Commons, as follows: “It looks as if there is at present no effec- tive defense in western Europe beyond the Channet.” He said that unless government spokesmen could prove otherwise, he be- lieved “the preparations of the western union to defend itself certainly stand on a far lower level than these of the South Koreans.” In the St. Louis Post-Dispatch of July 23 there appears a very interesting ar- ticle, an Associated Press dispatch from
11336 Frankfurt, Germany, written by Wes Gallagher, I shall quote from it in part: If wer comes between the West and Rus- aia, the United States will have to fight and pay the lion's share of it. A glimpse at western Europe’s defenses toe day shows them not only feeble and inade- quate, but with little prespect of real strengthening in the future. President Truman's request Wednesday for $10,000,000,000 more for defense means each American taxpayer will be paying nearly 60 cents out of each dollar for defense. No western European ts paying more than 25 cents on each dollar and most of them far less for their defense. There are varied reasons why some nations are not paying more. Many suffered such heavy war damages they have had to devote their attention to rebuilding economically. France cannot get large defense budgets through its strife-torn assembly without tumbling the government Budgets of seven of the main nations of western Europe show less than $4,000,000,000 will be spent on arms this year. This come pares with $25,000,000,000 being spent by the United States, which represents 48 percent of the total United States Government ex- penditures Mr President, I ask at this time that there be inserted in the Recorp as a part of my remarks a table of the compara- tive defense budgets of these countries, all in dollars. There being no objection, fhe table was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Comparative defense budgets [All in dollars} Nation For defense | Percent ! Britain. -...-----22-------- $2, 186, 800, 000 200 France 2. 12. - .-  ------] 1, 200,000, 000 18 9 Netherlands. - 223, 000, 000 250 Belgium 168, 662, 520 110 Ttaly ? - 123, 000, 000 05 Denmark 48, 000, 000 16 5 Norway... 40, 000, 000 128 1 Po centage of total budget 2 Total Italian defense budget 1s $438,380,000, but major ortion pores to crvi) aviation, veterans admimstration, ousing, ete, Mr, KEM. Then to continue from Mr. Gallagher's dispatch: Even if all the western European nations would put aside their sovereignty, increase their budgets and push building up of their defenses, military men estimate it would take a minimum of 2 and probably 4 years to build adequate forces to balance current Russian power So, Mr. President, we find ourselves having loaned to Russia during World War II a tremendous armament of naval ships and a great fleet of merchant ships. We have had no success or practically none in getting those ships back, al- though many of them, as I have just said, are understood to be in sound operable condition. In other words, they are in condition to be used againsi the United States; and now we propose to continue to buuld hydroelectric plants, railroad terminals, railroads, aqueducts, bridges, and military highways in western Eu- rope, where in the course of time, if Mr. Churchill is correct, and if what Mr. Gal- lagher says is true—the ability of the countries of western Europe to defend themselves to protect these gifts of ours will be somewhat dubious. Mr. WATKINS. Mr. President, will the Senator yicld? CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. KEM. Mr. President, I have al- lowed myself 30 minutes, and I should prefer to continue with my speech. Then, if some time remains, I shall be glad to yield to the able Senator from Utah and to the able Senator from Ver- mont. Mr. WATKINS. I thank the Senator, Mr, FLANDERS, I thank the Sena- tor. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Missouri declines to yield at this time, Mr. KEM. Mr. President, I wish to say a few words more about the way our money is being spent. As I have said, I think this 1s a time for realism. Yet, Mr. President, the Washington Evening Star for July 15 revealed that ECA 1s in the night-club business in Rome; we are reported as helping to pay the rent for a swank Roman night club. According to the Evening Star’s report, the club 1s re- plete with creamy furniture, sumptuous decorations, and a doorman clothed in green and gold. Someone may say that the amount involved in that undertaking is small—only $15,000. However, Mr. President, $15,000 would pay for a 155- millimeter howitzer so badly needed in the front lines in Korea today. So, Mr. President, it seems to me that the issue before the Senate today is a rather clean-cut one, namely, 1s it to be funds for creamy furniture in a night club in Rome or funds for a gambling casino in Le Havre—also being built with ECA funds—or 1s 1t to be money for guns and modern equipment for our boys in the front lines in Korea today? As Mr. Truman has said, ‘You have got to make up your minds, It is one or the other.” Mr. President, in view of the course of events, I think it is out of order for us to make commitments to the extent pro- vided in this bill for economic aid in western Europe at this time If my amendment is adopted, the tax- payers of the United States will be saved, and will have available for other pur- poses, in excess of $700,000,000; and still the ECA will have available for its pro- gram in western Europe the princely sum of $1,950,000,000. Mr. FLANDERS. Mr. President, I should like to inquire whether the Sen- ator’s time is exhausted. If it is not, I should like to ask him a question in his time. Mr. KEM. Mr. President, have I con- sumed my 30 minutes? I think I have about done so. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Sena- tor has approximately 1 minute remain- ing. Mr. KEM. Then I am glad to yield to the Senator from Vermont. Mr. FLANDERS. I should like to ask the Senator from Missouri if he was say- ing, a few minutes ago, that $67,000,000 worth of machine tools had been ex- ported from America to England and that the identical machine tools were re- exported from England to Russia. Mr. KEM. I said that at the same time that we were giving machine tools to Great Britain, machine tools were be- ing exported by Great Britain to Russia and the satellites. I said, further, that the records show that in the month in question, England imported an amount JULY 31 of machine tools which subsequently were exported—the same, identical ma- chine tools—to Russia and the satellites, Mr, FLANDERS. The Senator from Missouri did not give the figures for that transaction, did he? Mr. KEM. Yes, I did. Mr. FLANDERS. Were those the fig- ures for the same, identical machine tools? Mr. KEM. I shall be glad to repeat them. Mr. FLANDERS. That is the ques- tion I was asking. Mr. KEM. I do not know whether they were Marshall plan machine tools, but they were identical machine tools shipped from the United States. Mr. FLANDERS. Sixty-seven million dollars’ worth, as I recall Mr. KEM. It was $67,000 worth, I be- lieve. Mr. FLANDERS. Oh, then I feel con- cerned, but not quite as much concerned as I feared I was going to be Mr. KEM. I shall repeat my state- ment, for the benefit of the Senator from Vermont. During the 5 months ended May 31, 1950, more than $2,633,900 worth of machine tools were exported by Brit- ain to Russia, Finland, Poland, and Czechoslovakia—$454,538 worth of these tools were exported during the month of May alone. During the 5 months which ended May 31, 1950, Britain reexported more than $67,320 worth of machine tools, and ma- chine tools are being given to Britain un- der the Marshall plan Does that clear up the matter? Mr. FLANDERS. That answers the question, yes The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Missouri has used 31 minutes. The Senator from Tennessee is recog- nized. Mr. McKELLAR. Mr. Piesident, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Arizona [Mr HAYDEN]. Mr. HAYDEN. Mr. President, I wish to discuss the amendment I have offered to the committee amendment on page 447 in line 18, namely, to strike out “$2,.391,930,000" and insert “$2,450,- 000,000.” I should like to state that when this item was under study by the Appro- priations Committee, it received very careful consideration, Upon recom- mendation by the chairman of the com- mittee, the Senator from Tennessee | Mr, McKE.tar], we voted an amount of $2,- 500,000,000. On that question, on a record vote, the result showed 11 in favor and 10 opposed. It had been suggested by other mem- bers of the committee that the amount should be $2,450,000,000; and at that time I moved to reconsider, in order that we might have a more nearly unanimous committee report. That was done; and by a vote of 17 to 3 the amount was fixed at $2,450,000,000. Subsequently, a few days later, a mo- tion was made to cut the appropriation by 10 percent under the budget estimate. The action on that question resulted in the further reduction of $58,070,000 which leaves the amount that now ap- pears in the bill.
1950 It is to restore the appropriation in the amount voted in the committee by & majority of 17 to 3 that I have offered the amendment to the committee amend- ment. In regard to the amendment offered by the Senator from Missouri to my amendment to the committee amend- ment—— Mr. KEM. Mr. President, will the Senator yield at this point for a ques- tion? Mr. HAYDEN. I yield. Mr. KEM. I should like to ask the Senator on what date that vote was taken in the committee. Mr. HAYDEN. About 3 weeks ago. Mr.’KEM. Let me inquire what day of the month it was. Mr. HAYDEN. On June 29. Mr. KEM. That was just 2 days after the operations began in Korea. Would the Senator from Arizona agree that our situation has taken on an entirely dif- ferent aspect since that date? Mr. HAYDEN. Yes; and therefore I am more than ever convinced that the amendment proposed by the Senator from Missouri to my amendment to the committee amendment should not be adopted, for the following reasons: It is & favorite maxim of Josef V. Stalin that “production wins wars.” He has made that statement many times from the piatform and has repeated it in his writ- ngs. Mr. KEM. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. HAYDEN. I yield. Mr. KEM. Was it not also a favorite maxim of Lenin’s that, “We shall cause the Americans to spend themselves to their destruction”? Mr. HAYDEN. Of course, everyone knows that the Communists would like to see a financial panic in this country. But permit me to proceed. The greatest single deterrent to an all- out Communist attack on the peace of the world today is that Stalin and his Politburo know that in two World Wars the United States has demonstrated its capacity to produce abundantly every type of munitions and all the material needed to carry on that kind of war. The decisive factor is always military strength resting upon a firm, secure foundation of economic strength. The critical importance of western Europe to the free world can be illustrat- ed with a few figures: Western Europe has 274,000,000 people. The Soviet Union and its satellites in Europe have approximately 255,000,000 people. Steel capacity in western Europe, including of course, that of Great Britain, is about 50,000,000 tons a year as against 31,000,- 000 tons in all the Soviet sphere. Coal output in western Europe is about one and one-half times as great as in eastern Europe, counting in the Soviet Republic. Western Europe's electric power is now almost five times larger than that of eastern Europe, and its system of trans- port is infinitely superior, as is its level of skills. Why should we allow the Communists to more than double their ability to de- feat us by securing possession of these industrial resources of western Europe? CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE It is only against this background that the supreme significance of Marshall- plan accomplishments can be properly appraised. During the first 2 years of its operation, it has sparked an increase of 24 percent in average industrial pro- duction for all participating countries. This becomes all the more dramatic and heartening when we look at individual figures for industries of central impor- tance to defense production. There has been, under the Marshall plan, a 52- percent rise in steel output, and 58 per- cent for cement, along with 21 percent for electric power, and 17 percent for hard coal. At the same time, there has beon a 30-percent rise in the yield for all grains, 19 percent for fats and oils, and 16 percent for meat. Hence in the event of a shooting war on the Continent, western Europe is now in a much better position to feed itself without the need to ship vast quantities of American and Canadian foods in bot- toms that would then be required for war matériel. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Arizona yield to the Sen- ator from Nebraska? Mr. HAYDEN. I yield. Mr. WHERRY. Of this whole alloca- tion, how much money is to go for food? Mr. HAYDEN. The point is that we do not now have to send wheat to Eu- rope, because they are producing it them- selves. Mr. WHERRY. That is the point. So when the Senator says they need food—— Mr. HAYDEN. I did not say that. I said the conditions had improved so that the European people can feed themselves, but that we can help to improve their economic position. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the S nator yield further? Mr. HAYDEN. I yield. Mr. WHERRY. That implies that we need to continue the same amount of food shipments. Mr. HAYDEN. It implies nothing of the kind, It implies less need for food- stuffs, as I have just stated. Mr. WHERRY. Why should we not then transfer the aid funds to military needs, if food is in abundance and cloth- ing is in abundance? Mr. HAYDEN. I do not think the Sen- ator heard me. Mr. WHERRY. I heard every word. Mr. HAYDEN. If we can help to create @ sound economic situation in western Europe, with ability on their part to sup- port their armies, then they are in a much better position to fight commu- nism. Mr. WHERRY. Well, they have food, they have clothing—what else do they need except military equipment? That is ane point the Senator from Missouri made, Mr. HAYDEN. Their need is for more steel and more coal to use in making munitions. Mr. WHERRY. They are getting the steel] from us, from which to manufac- ture the equipment. Mr. HAYDEN, No; they are making it themselves, 11837 Mr. WHERRY. Will the Senator say now that food and clothing are taken care of, that military equipment would be the next thing in order, so far as appropriations are concerned? Mr. HAYDEN. If I had to say that, then I would also say that we should cut down in our economic effort in the United States and put the money into arms and a larger army. Mr. WHERRY. Certainly our unnec- essary expenditures should be cut down and transferred not only to home but also in order to further the national defense, That is exactly the position the Scnator from Nebraska has taken, and that is exactly what the Senator from Missouri has been suggesting. Mr. HAYDEN. I ask the Senator from Nebraska to please debate that question in the time of some other Senator. The VICE PRESIDENT, The Senator from Arizona declines to yield further. Mr. HAYDEN. Mr. President, the Marshall plan is developing an inte- grated economic power which in turn is giving rise to an integrated military power both of which are being welded with our own. Let us never forget that the Atlantic Pact could never have been signed, or if signed, would have been meaningless, unless the Marshall plan had first revived and vitalized western Europe’s economy; unless the Marshall plan had first pushed back the Commu- nist thrust to take over; unless the Marshall plan had made it possible for western Europe to turn out some arms today, but many tomorrow, for its own protection and ours. Too sudden a diversion of Marshall- plan aid from general industrial pur- Poses to specific military purposes, at this stage, would plunge western Europe into that disorder from which it has only lately emerged. It would derange, for the sake of an immediate and piddling arms production, the soundness of an economy which promises prodigious arms production later on. In this whole situ- ation, timing is the key. Let us always keep in the front of our minds the cen- tral fact that western Europe has be- come laboratory and pilot plant for a United States foreign policy that is bold, affirmative, and tough-minded. The Marshall plan and the Atlantic Pact are the twin motors of that foreign policy and the forerunners of its application elsewhere. What has been done in western Europe can be duplicated wher- ever necessary in the rest of the non- Communist world. Let us therefore, not be guilty of the murderous stupidity of impairing the Marshall plan which has proven its value by its deeds, and which against handi- caps has shown that the ways of freedom can win. The Marshall plan has pio- neered not only the single greatest suc- cess of our foreign policy but has also fashioned the formula for a foreign pol- icy that makes sense. It brings to its job an accumulation of skills and expe- rience that can develop and extend that formula, around the globe. The Mar- shall plan, in its aims and techniques fs the hard core of our foreign policy, tested and tempered. To do it damage would pe in Bismarck’s phrase “worse than a
11338 crime, a blunder"—a blunder that would haunt us all our days. Let me ask, how can a starving people, a dispirited people, be expected to fight when they have no incentive even to live, much less to fight? To the extent that we have restored and improved the economic condition of the people of Europe, we have made it possible for them to develop a fighting spirit which can aid us in a world-wide defense against the advance of communism, My judgment therefore is that the pro- posal of the Scnator from Missouri is contrary to the best interest of our own national defense. I have always said that we might practice altruism, and we might well say that we could not see people starved, but the prime pur- pose of and the controlling reason for the Marshall plan has been the defense of the United States of America. Any wavering of United States in- terest in the Marshall plan, any crip- pling cuts in financial support for any of its interlocking activities would have a disastrous effect upon western Europe today. For the Marshall plan is not only the sign and seal of United States partnership but also the way by which western Eurpoe can attain the strength, economic, political, moral, and military, which, in today’s world, are the pre- cursors of peace. Mr. WATKINS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? The VICE PRESIDENT. The time of the Senator from Arizona has expired. Mr. McKELLAR. Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from Tvow Jersey. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized for 15 minu.es. Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Pres- ident, I find that I have prepared re- marks that would require somewhat longer than 15 minutes for delivery. Therefore, I shall ask unanimous con- sent that the early part of my statement be incorporated in the Record, and that I may proceed with that part of my statement which I feel is important to the discussion which is now under way. Before doing that, I may say that, as a member of the Foreign Relations Com- mittee, and as one who has watched very closely the historic progress of European recovery through the ECA program, I rise to oppose any further reduction in the amount to be appro- rriated for the ECA. I wish also to announce my support for the amend- ment of the Senator from Arizona [Mr. HavvEen] to raise the amount of new money for economic cooperation from $2,391,930,000 to $2,450,000,000. This ‘igure, added to the estimated carry- over from fiscal 1950, would make avail- able to ECA a total of some $2,727,000,000. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that there be inserted at this point in my remarks the few pages which I shall pass over without reading. There being no objection, the portion of the statement referred to was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: My support of this figure rests on two grounds. The first is that sharp reductions have already been made, and that any fur- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE ther substantial reduction this year would gravely imperil the whole program. My second reason is that today, more than ever, the ECA program is a vital element in the defense of the United States. Let me consider first of all the question of reductions. It was anticipated from the be- ginning that the annual figures for ECA would decrease at a rate of about $1,000,- 000,000 a year, beginning at about $5,000,- 000,000 and declining to about $4,000,000,- 000 in the second year, $3,000,000,000 in the third, and $2,000,000,000 in the fourth and last year. We have done better than that, Mr. Presi- dent. In the present year the figure author- ized by the Senate, plus the carry-over from fiscal 1950, was about $2,977,000,000. The committee figure, as adjusted by the Hayden amendment, brings us to a total of about $2,727,000,000. This is eight and three-quar- ters percent below the amount authorized by the Senate. It ie also over 9 percent below the $3,000,000,000 originally forecast for the third year of the program. Nevertheless, the question has been raised whether a greater reduction cannot safely be made, in light of the other great demands upon our economy. An amendment has been proposed which would bring about a reduc- tion in available funds, as compared with the amount authorized, of nearly 35 percent. We lave heard another proposal that the en- tire program should be abolished. I feel that these proposals should be immediately answered. There are several points that we must re- member. The first is that the ECA has been so cooperative in cutting its earlier esti- mates that in lignt of recent domestic price rises the actual size of the 1951 ECA pro- gram, in terms of goods and services, will have to be very substantially reduced. A de- cline in United States prices enabled the ECA on May 25 to submit a reduced estimate of $2,933,000,000, including carry-over, which was 11% percent below the total authorized by Congress. The Hayden amendment brings us to a total figure more than 7 percent be- low this final ECA estimate. But since that final ECA estimate was made, prices in this country have advanced rapidly. They are already at or beyond a point where the program originally planned by ECA for the current year would cost some 300,000,000 more than the revised estimate. In effect, the price rice in this country, even allowing for a resulting increase in European dollar earnings through exports to the United States, has already brought about a further material cut in the size of the pro- gram which ECA can carry out this year. We must remember that fact in considering any proposed new cuts. The second fact which we must remember is that a cut in ECA dollar aid is multiplied many times in its dampening effect on the European economy. In very many instances, where dollar aid allows a European business- man to buy a key piece of machinery in the United States, or to buy raw materials for processing in his own factory, the resulting increase in econemic activity in Europe is several times the amount of the dollar aid involved. These are the multiplying factors which have made it possible for the total economy of western Europe to rebound s0 rapidly in the first 2 years of the program. Naturally, when the impact of every ECA dollar is multiplied in this way, the impact of any reduction in the ECA program is mul- tiplied in the same degree. Thus a relatively small reduction in this carefully calculated appropriation for ECA will have an adverse effect on the European economy far out of proportion to the amount of money we save in our national budget. Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Myr. Presi- dent, having discussed two of the points, I proceed now to the next one. JULY 31 The third point I want to stress is in answer to the argument that the Mar- shall-plan countries no longer need our ald becauss, it is said, they are already better off than they were before World War II. In my judgment this is entirely incorrect. To be sure the industrial pro- duction of the participating countries is now 120 percent of the 1938 level. But if we are to have the whole picture clearly in mind we must also remember the following factors: First. Agricultural production, even though the ECA program has raised it almost as dramatically as industrial pro- duction, is still below prewar levels. Second. The income from the s0- called invisible exports—overséas in- vestments, shipping, tourism, banking, and other services—-which before the war accounted for a very significant share of European income and an even larger share of their foreign exchange, is now a@ mere fraction of the prewar figure. In studying this question we have all been interested in raising that figure so far as we could, but at the moment it is merely a fraction of the prewar figure. Third. To make up for the wear and tear of the war years, capital investment, as distinguished from consumption, is claiming a larger share of current pro- duction than it did before the war. Fourth. The total population of these Marshall-plan countries has increased considerably since 1938. All these factors add up to the unde- niable fact that the conditions of life in these countries today are still well below those of 1938. We cannot do away with this fact simply by ignoring it. Dra- matic progress has indeed been made since the almost desperate period before ECA began, but a great deal more needs to be done before western Europe can go ahead without dollar aid. Now, the three major points which I have inserted without discussing them, I shall now sum up. First. Because even with the Hayden amendment we will be making a 9 per- cent cut in the amount authorized for ECA, and because of the sharp increase in American prices in recent months the ECA program for fiscal 1951 will have to be very substantially curtailed as com- pared with original plans—even if no further cut is made. That is one of the things which have been very clear, cs- pecially since the Korean crisis. Prices have gone up, and further aid has been cut accordingly. Second. Because of the fact that every dollar of ECA aid means several dollars of new economic activity in the partici- pating countries any reduction in a care- fully planned ECA program means an adverse effect on European recovery sev- eral times greater than the amount of the reduction. Of course, that applies also to every dollar they get to put into plants to make military matériel. Third. Despite spectacular production progress since the dark days of 1947 the conditions of life in the ECA countries are still well below those of 1928, and much further progress must be made if we are to have stable economies in Europe. The facts lead inevitably to the con- clusion that the reductions already made
1950 are very substantial and that if we go beyond these reductions we will jeopard- ize the entire movement toward Euro- pean recovery and self-reliance, which, Mr. President, I feel are an essential part of an ajl-out military activity in those countries. Now, Mr. President, even if these points are agreed to, the question re- mains, What good is this program to us, the American people? What is it worth, especially in light of the new miiltary emergency? In concluding I wish to address myself to that question. In my judgment, the ECA program for European recovery is more than ever & vital element in the defense and secu- rity of the United States, From the be- ginning this program has been presented to us, and quite accurately so, as a meas- ure of defense against communism. I may say in passing that I think it is more than that; I think it is also a positive, constructive program to enable these free peoples with whom we share a com- mon civilization once again to live de- cently, to maintain and develop their free institutions, and once again to con- tribute to the free world the tremen- dous strength and vitality of which they are capable. But let us for the moment view the ECA program simply as a de- fense against communism, because even though that is the negative side of the picture it may be a matter of life and death today. In my judgment the im- portance of ECA from that point of view is greater than ever. There are two rea- sons for this, one political and psycho- logical, and the other military. First, as to the political aspect, it is known that people who are hungry and discontented turn to extreme political movements. That is why the Commu- nist Parties had such tremendous suc- cesses in France and Italy just after the war, and we know what a vital part the passage of the first ECA bill in 1948 played in preventing the Communists from winning the Italian election that spring. Even in other countries, where communism is not numerically strong on the surface, its potential power—and that of other extremist groups with which communism collaborates when it is convenient to do so—is greatly en- hanced by the presence of miserable and disaffected groups whose governments are unable to improve their lot. That is true all over the world today. ‘That is the angle which the Russians are using with such terrible effect. The contribution which the ECA pro- gram has made in preventing these dis- astrous political developments can never be measured, but there can be no ques- tion that it has been vitally important, It has immeasurably bolstered.the po- litical and psychological defenses of western Europe. If it is abandoned now, those defenses will be in grave danger. The second reason why the ECA is vital to our security has directly to do with military defense, Because we in America have viewed western Europe as a stra- tegically vital area—perhaps the most vital in the world outside our own shores—and because we have seen that Comnuiunist possession of this area with its great industrial power and its long CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Atlantic coast line would place us in the gravest kind of military danger, we ne- gotiated and ratified the North Atlantic Treaty, and we inaugurated a program of military assistance to these countries, Now, in the face of the Korean crisis, it is expected that this military assistance program will be greatly accelerated, and that a great share of the new equipment required for the common defense will be manufactured in Europe, I desire to stress that statement. A great share of the new equipment re- quired for the common defense will be manufactured in Europe. That is what we will be doing with the military-aid program and the ECA program. But this military-defense program cannot succeed unless these countries maintain and increase their economic health. At the beginning we made it clear that European recovery would have priority over the military program under the Atlantic Pact. Novw, it is obvious that the priority has vad to be reversed under the pressure of circumstances. But it is as true as ever that to build up military defense without also building up the economic foundations of the countries concerned would be like building a struc- ture on sand. There is no essential part of the economy of a country that does not contribute to its total posture of mili- tary defense. Roads, hydroelectric- power projects, food production, manu- facture of steel, clothing, and countless other items are basically necessary for defense. And these are the very sectors of the European economy in which the ECA is capable of building up production and economic health. In dddition to this basic relationship between economic progress and defense, it now appears essential that ECA should contribute directly to military production in the participating countries by releas- ing counterpart funds for manufacture of military equipment. That is my own personal judgment, and I think it is im- portant that we should consider it at once. In light of these facts, Mr. President, I think we would be clearly mistaken if we were to take the view that ECA and the military program are incompatible. Far from being in conflict, they vitally reinforce each other. Taking them both together, in the strategically vital area of free Europe, we are now planning a greatly expanded over-all effort. Simul- taneously we are planning a shift in the emphasis of that effort in the direction of greater military defense. I may add that this expanded effort, and this shift in emphasis, both apply to the European countries themselves, fully as much as they apply to the United States. But this shift in emphasis need not mean, and must not mean, abandonment or drastic curtailment of economic re- covery. Economic recovery becomes more essential than ever, viewed as an integral part of the political and mili- tary defense and the military potential of these countries, whose safety is so vital to our own. For these reasons, Mr. President, I urge the rejection of any amendment further reducing the appropriation for the Eco- nomic Cooperation Administration. In 11339 my carefully considered judgment, this appropriation is a basic element in the defense and sccurity of the American people at this critical time. Mr. KEM. Mr, President, will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. If I have time to yield, I shall be glad to yield. Mr. KEM. I should like to ask the distinguished Senator where he proposes that the Government of the United States gct the money which he wants to send to western Europe for economic aid? Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. It must come from all the people, realizing that it is a part of our strategic defense in his critical hour. Mr, KEM. Does the Senator realize that the budget is out of balance, and will be more out of balance, approxi- mately $17,000,000,000, for the current year if we appropriate $10,000,000,C00 for military defense? Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. The Sen- ator from New Jersey does realize that, but we must tighten our belts, Mr. KEM. Does the Senator from New Jersey know of any proposal to raise that very large amount of additional money during the current fiscal year? Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. This year and next year I think we can doit. The Finance Committee is now studying the subject. Mr. KEM. Just where does the Scna- tor propose to get the money? Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I am not a member of the Finance Committce, but I have discussed it with Senators who are members of that committee, and they think it can be found on a pay~as-youe go basis. Mr. KEM. Where can we get this enormous sum of money? Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I imagine it will have to be done by increasing in- come taxes all along the line. Mr. KEM. Does the Senator think our economy can stand such an increase of income taxes? Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. That would apply to the whole military budget. All the bill calls for on this point is $2,000,000,000. The military budgct is $13 ,000,000,000, plus $10,000,000,000, plus $4,000,000,000, the request for which will come to us today. Mr. KEM. I understood the Senator from New Jersey to say that the mili- tary should have priority. Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. The mili- tary certainly must have priority, but I consider the economic program which I am discussing to be a high point in the whole military picture. Without eco- nomic recovery, we cannot have military recovery. Mr. CONNALLY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Iam glad to yield to the Senator from Texas. Mr. CONNALLY. Let me ask the Senator whether it is not true that the Senator from Missouri is against all ECA appropriations. He offers an amend- ment to cut them a certain amount, but is it not a fact that he is not for any of them, and never has been?
11340 Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I cannot answer the question of the distinguished Senator from Texas. No doubt the Senator from Missouri can answer it himself. The Senator from Missouri is troubled by the enormous figure for mili- tary expenditures, and overlooks, it seems to me, the fact that for ECA it is only $2,000,000,000 as against $20,000,000,000, at a time when this $2,000,000,000 is as important to our security program as any part of the military program, Mr. CHAVEZ. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield to the Senator from New Mexico. Mr. CHAVEZ. I fully agree with what the Senator from New Jersey has said as to the necessity and the importance of the ECA program, The Senator from New Jersey has been discussing our fight against communism and the urgency of taking care of western Europe. Does the Senator from New Jersey mean west- ern Europe from the standpoint of par- ticular governments, or western Europe as a geographic unit? Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. So far as the Senator from New Jersey is con- cerned, of course the immediate matter before us at the present time is the ECA program with respect to ECA countries. If I gather what the Senator from New Mexico has in mind, he is indicating that we should include all of western Europe. I agree with him that we should consider it as a geographic unit and move right in on that basis, I would include Spain, too. The VICE PRESIDENT. The time of the Senator from New Jersey has expired. Mr. CHAVEZ. May I ask that he be granted one more minute so that I may ask another question? The VICE PRESIDENT. The time is under the control of the Senator from Tennessee. Mr. McKELLAR. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from New Jersey. Mr. CHAVEZ. Does not the Senator from New Jersey agree with me that if this fight against communism is worth while, and if the ECA program is worth while—and I believe ECA as a whole is worth while—both Germany and Spain should be included in the program if the desires of the Senator, which he has stated so well, are to be realized. Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. In order to clarify my position I may say that I think Spain should be included in our considerations. So far as the people of Japan and Germany are concerned—and I include Japan also—I think they too should be given the opportunity at least voluntarily to come in and defend their own countries and civilizations. They should not be made to stand defenseless against being attacked. Mr. CHAVEZ. Not only that, but the geography which is involved should be considered as well. If we are to take care of western Europe, how can we carry on the fight without including Germany and Spain? Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I think western Germany should be included, and I should like to see all of Germany included in order to prevent the onrush of communism, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. KEM. Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes to the distinguished minority leader. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Kem amendment which seeks a reduction in ECA appropriations to $1,950,000,000. The “watchdog com- mittee,” after an elaborate study, pre- sented very firm evidence before the Ap- propriations Committee, in which it rec- ommended $2,200,000,000. If we add the amount of money which the Adminis- trator has not used during the last year, which is upward of $200,000,000, the Kem amendment provides an amount which comes close to the amount which the “watchdog committee” felt was nec- essary for ECA. My. President, I believe an emergency exists, Certainly I would be willing to appropriate all the money and shall vote to appropriate all the money that is nec- essary for the military to accomplish the mission in the face of the challenge which now confronts‘the administration in the Korean situation. However, I ask my distinguished colleagues who are ar- guing against the Kem amendment, on the theory that we cannot cut any one of the projecés covered, to turn to page 383 of the hearings on the foreign aid appropriations. There we find listed 22 projects, including Jamaica irrigation project, Gold Coast road development project, Northern Rhodesia road project, and British Honduras road project. I was in British Honduras last year. That project has not even been started. All that is being done about it is to attempt to sell to the people the idea of British Honduras. Several hundred thousand dollars are asked for that project. Proj- ect after project of similar character could be listed. Mr. President, I would ask those who say seriously that they want to preserve the resources of the country if they feel that projects such as that, which they would not even start in this country today, are more impor- tant to our national defense than are the bullets and tanks which our soldiers now need? I ask them to answer that ques- tion. That is the whole thing in a nut- shell. We must use money that we do not need to spend on the foreign front and we must use money that we can spare on the domestic front to carry on mili- tary operations. I believe the expenses for military operations will increase. By way of a thumb-nail sketch only, we have MAP, $4,200,000,000, and if we add to that figure the new military appro- priations which are being asked and the appropriations for foreign aid, and simi- lar items, such appropriations will ag- gregate nearly $30,000,000,000. I appeal to the distinguished chair- man of the Committee on Foreign Rela- tions to scrutinize these projects. I be- lieve the President will scrutinize them, I would not be at all surprised, when he reviews the appropriations for for- eign aid and also those for domestic pur- poses, that he will either rescind some of them or impound the money, which we need s0 badly at this time for our military forces. That makes sense. Mr. CHAVEZ, Mr. President, will the Senator yield? JULY 31 Mr. WHERRY. I have only 15 min- utes. However, I shall be glad to yield. The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Nebraska yield to the Sen- ator from New Mexico? Mr. WHERRY. I yield. Mr. CHAVEZ. I have only a brief question to ask the Senator. I agree that all of it amounts to a lot of money. It runs into billions of dollars. Making these appropriations will hurt the Amer- ican people. However, unless we do, what will we have instead? Mr. WHERRY. In answer to the question of the Senator from New Mex- ico, the first thing we should do is to meet the challenge on the battlefield. Developments such as the road project in British Honduras can wait until we decide the issue in Korea. If we are to stop such projects in this country, we must stop them overseas as well. I was in British Honduras last year. To complete that road will take many years, and it has nothing to do with the pres- ent situation with which we are faced. I believe every Senator should see the reasonableness of thessituation. I do not say that we should cut out all ECA appropriations. I say that with the rec- ommendations of the “watchdog com- mittee” together with cuts that can be made on projects such as those I have mentioned, the amount proposed under the Kem amendment can easily be ade- quate. I rose to explain the amendment which I shall offer, and it is the only one I intend to offer. It has to do with the sale of strategic materials to the satellite countries and Russia. The amendment will be stated after 2 o'clock. The purpose of the amendment was sug- gested to the Senator from Nebraska by the debates on the floor of the Senate, participated in by many Senators, par- ticularly my good friend from Missouri {Mr. Kem]. Its purpose would be to strengthen section 117 (d). That section provides: The Administrator is directed to refuse delivery insofar as practicable, to partici- pating countries of commodities which go into the production of any commodity for delivery to any nonparticipating European country which commodity would be refused export licenses to those countries by the United States in the interest of national security. So far as I am able to determine, no organization has been developed by the ECA Administrator to effectuate this re- quirement. The difficulty which I am sure and other Members of the Senate have experienced in trying to get sta- tistics with relation to western Europe- eastern European trade proves that point. The ‘watchdog committee,” to which I have referred previously, in its analysis of the ECA program, as pub- lished in March 1950 discussed this point in detail. It pointed out very forcefully the failure of the ECA to obtain coopera- tion from the participating countries, as provided for in section 117 (d). This is what the committee said. I read from their report: The problem confronting Congress fe the fact that efter nearly 2 years the whole. hearted cooperation of European countries
1950 receiving American ald in controlling the east-west trade has not been obtained. It presumably could be obtained if section 117 (ad) were strengthened by directing the Ad. ministrator to withhold economic aasist- ance from all countries which do not sat- isfy him that they have put into effect con- trols which prevent shipments of goods to the iron-curtain areas which the United States itself does not permit, In this connection it must be recognized that this problem might fall more directly into the sphere of the North Atlantic Treaty and its administration. Nevertheless, cer- tain countries receive economic assistance which do not participate in the foreign mill. tary assistance program. The fundamental question then remains as to whether Ameri- can dollars should go to countries which do not carry out our policies concerning trade with Soviet-dominated countries. I have been quoting from the report, Senate Document No. 142. We are con- fronted with a problem which not only I but the other Members of the Senate have presented in great detail. I have offered this amendment, which I am sure will strengthen the particular sec- tion of the basic ECA Act to which it is directed, which act was intended to accomplish the very thing that is intended by the amendment, Certainly there is no doubt as to what we need. I should like to place in the Recorp at this point, because my time is very limited, exhibit A. Let me state that last year, 1949, according to infor- mation from the most recent reports, which are difficult to obtain, the Office of International Trade, Department of Commerce, shows that there was $1,098,- 000,000 worth of trade between west- ern European and eastern European countries. Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- sent that exhibit A be printed in the Recorp at this point. The VICE PRESIDENT. objection? There being no objection, the exhibit was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Is there Exursit A Western European trade with eastern Europe Total, 1949 Austria ........----..---.-- $75, 771, 000 Belgium-Luxemburg-----._- 115, 097, 000 Denmark -_.--..---.------- 55, 473, 000 France.....--..------------ 105, 616, 000 Germany..-.--.-..-.-----.- 59, 248, 000 Greece __.......-----------« 4,780, 000 Iceland ...----------------- 8, 662, 000 Ireland ~.-2--...----~ +2 e 288, 000 Italy 2. 222-2 eee 86, 247, 000 Netherlands......----------- 107, 002, 000 Norway —-----.---------+--- 54, 987, 000 Portugal ...--..---~-.-.----- 939, 000 Sweden -.---..------------- 109, 213, 000 Switzerland _.._--..---.---- 70, 314, 000 Trieste ....---------------- 1, 891, 000 Turkey _.------.----------- 30, 838, 000 United Kingdom .._--.---.- 217, 539, 000 Grand total...-...-.. 1, 098, 905, 000 Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, this ex- hibit shows the different countries which sold the goods. They include Bel- gium-Luxemburg—$115,000,000 worth; France, $105,000,000 worth; Netherlands, $107,000,000 worth; Sweden, $109,000,- 000 worth; United Kingdom, $217,000,000 worth. And there were others. XCVI-—— 714 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE The total for the first 3 months of 1950, according to the figures I have been able to get, which are not complete, was $186,347,000. I am told that the sales are scasonable and that the first 3 months of this year compare quite favorably with the first 3 months of Mr. President, I ask that the table showing these exports be inserted in the Recorp at this point in my remarks. The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there ob- jection? There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the REcorp, as follows: ExHwir B Exports by ECA countries to eastern Europe, first quarter of 1950 Austria ......----.-------...-- (2) Belgium-Luxemburg-._..._-.- $19, 603, 000 Denmark ~..2.---2------------ 12,318, 000 France .....--.-.------------~ 18, 694, 000 Greece__.....-----------~----~ 1, 231, 000 Germany--..--.----~---------- @) Iceland.......---.------~.---- 1, 489, 000 Treland ~ (@) Italy _.-- 26, 897, 000 Netherland 15, 747, 000 Norway---. 8, 255, 000 Portugal. 373, 000 Sweden __- 21, 541, 000 Switzerland. 14, 016, 000 Turkey -~----.-----.-- ~ 8,651,000 United Kingdom._._.-...--- ~~. 42, 582,000 Total__--2- 2a 186,347, 000 1Not available, Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, in the Washington Star of yesterday there was an article relative to the question I have been discussing. One of the paragraphs States: Leaks, owing to transshipments, are heavy and difficult to block. The United States has many checks on leaks and places a great share of the responsibility for preventing them on the American exporter. Also ECA investigators in Europe follow the goods to their final destinations. Still transshipments to the Soviet bloc reportedly have been nu- merous in western Europe. A recent report to Congress— That is the report of the “watchdog committee”— A recent report to Congress stated that an estimated $200,000,000 in goods had been smuggled out of bizonal Germany in 1948, Mr. HAYDEN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. WHERRY. I yield to the Senator from Arizona, Mr. HAYDEN. Does the Senator be- lieve that the $200,000,000 worth of goods were all strategic and critical materials, or were they merely ordinary goods? Mr. WHERRY. With the informa- tion I have at hand I cannot say that every bit of the $200,000,000 worth of goods was strategic material. What I propose by my amendment is to provide that no ECA country shall be paid any of the funds if it continues to ship to Russia goods such as oil, steel, and espe- cially machine tools which can be used by the military for the purpose of mak- ing war, and which, as the distinguished Senator from Missouri pointed out very forcifully upon the floor of the Senate, were being shipped to Russia to be used 11341 in making more tools to produce more machinery which could be used against our forces in the field. Mr. HAYDEN. Food, of course, is a war material. Mr. WHERRY. Yes. Mr. HAYDEN. Does the Senator really advocate the absolute stoppage of all shipments of food? Mr. WHERRY. No; my amendment does not provide for that at all. Under my amendment, if a participating coun- try should ship food to the Russian Army, they would not get any more food, but so long as England, for instance, uses the food she obtained under ECA, and did not give it to the Russian Army, there would be no restriction. It is a very good amendment, and I hope the chairman of the committee will accept it, because it provides only that the material which is sent to a participating country must not be used to help the Russian forces. Certainly everyone should be for that. The Senator from Arizona does not want materials which can be used against American boys to be furnished to Red China through a satellite country does he? Mr. HAYDEN. Of course not. Mr. WHERRY. The Senator does not want to have such materials shipped to some other country, and to go to the North Korean forces so as to help them defeat our boys, does he? Mr. HAYDEN. Certainly not. Mr. WHERRY. That is what I am seeking. Support my amendment, and all that will be stopped. Mr. HAYDEN. The Senator indicated that $200,000,000 worth of these supplies were strategic materials. Mr. WHERRY. Just amoment. The Senator knows I love him, he is one of my good friends, but the Senator from Nebraska never made such a statement. He showed that $200,000,000 worth of goods were being sent over. I did not say they were all strategic materials. Mr. HAYDEN. How much was? That is the question. Mr. WHERRY. I wish the Senator would find out. Our Intelligence does not know, and I cannot find that out. No one can find it out. I say it is the responsibility of the Administrator to enforce section 117 (d) of the basic act. If he knows that goods are being so shipped, he should stop the shipment of such materials to Russia. Mr. LODGE. Mr. Président, will the Senator yield? Mr. WHERRY. I yield to the distin- guished Senator’ from Massachusetts. Mr. LODGE. I should like to invite the attention of the Senator to the pos- sibility, which I hope may eventuate, that we and the other free nations will develop enough military strength so that in a year or 2 years we will have such great strength that we will be able to re- trieve the influence we threw away in 1945, and that then we can reasonably hope that the free elements in the satel- lite countiies will have a chance, with our influence, working through the United Nations, to regain their freedom, and that the iron curtain will then be pushed back perhaps to the eastern fron- tier of Poland.
11342 In that situation, does not the Senator from Nebraska think it would be a very great pity if we cut off all our channels of political influence and all our channels of intelligence, thereby putting the whole weight of the war on the backs of our own soldiers, and ignoring the fact that modern war is won in part by political and economic means? The Senator does not want to bring about that result, does he? Mr. WHERRY. No. The Senator made a, very positive and a very con- structive statement. I am not at this time talking about the reduction amend- ment, I am talking about the amendment I offer, referring to strategic materials. That is what I am discussing. I wish to make the point that my amendment does not restrict in any way the relation- ship between the countries concerned, so long as the countries do not intention- ally—and I emphasize the word “inten- tionally”—violate the provisions of sec- tion 117 (d) of the basic act, which pro- vides that they shall not send strategic matcrials, knowingly, to one of the satel- lite countries, if it is a potential enemy. The Senator agrees with that, I am sure. Mr. President, may I have another 2 minutes? Mr. KEM. I yield two more minutes to the Senator from Nebraska, The VICE PRESIDENT. The Sena- tor from Nebraska is recognized for two more minutes. Mr. WHERRY. I am satisfied the Senator from Massachusetts desires to reach the same objective I have in mind, Mr. LODGE. Will the Senator yield? Mr. WHERRY. I have just 2 min- utes. Let me complete this point, and then I will yield. I read from the ar- ticle in the Washington Star of yes- terday: In the Interest of national security— And that is what the Senator desires— In the interest of national security, Amer- ican officials belicve technical information as well as strategic goods should be kept from the Soviet. But in the absence of cene sorship, the Nation has to rely on a volun- tary control plan, The OIT has undertaken to advise American businessmen in doubt as to what may be sent. Mr. President, what I should like to have established, and it would be pro- vided by the amendment, would be a co- ordinated export license system applica- ble to the European countries which work with us, in order to prevent the export of strategic materials, and a co- ordinated plan so that these countries will not intentionally export materials which can be used by Russia or the sat- ellite countries for war purposes. I now yield to the Senator from Mas- sachusetts. Mr. LODGE. I understood that the Senator’s amendment was worded so broadly that it would stop virtually all the export trade. Mr. WHERRY. No. Mr. LODGE. I would go along with an amendment which would prevent the sending of purely military materia, but I do not wish to cut off our channels of intelligence and make it impossible to use economic and political methods in CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE the struggle in which we are engaged. The President has said-— Mr. WHERRY. Let me read my amendment at this time. Mr. LODGE. Permit me to finish this thought. The President has said that one of our aims is to liberate Korea and that another of our aims is to become strong enough to resist aggression. Of course, those are two of our aims, but I think the President could have gone fur- ther. I think Americans want us to regain the initiative and organize peace in a free world. That is what I think the President ought to say. If we take young men away from their homes and jobs it ought to be for some great pur- pose: We ought to accomplish something radically new and that means a type of war we have not had before, because it involves the political and the military. Mr. WHERRY. I _ wholeheartedly agree with the Senator from Massachu- setts. Let me read the amendment. The VICE PRESIDENT. The time of the Senator from Nebraska has again expired. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator from Missouri yield me one more minute? Mr. KEM. I yield the Senator from Nebraska one additional minute. Mr. WHERRY. I will read the amendment: Provided further, That, during any period during which the Armed Forces of the United States are actively engaged in hostilities while carrying out any decision of the Secu- rity Council of the United Nations— Which is the situation now— no part of the funds appropriated in this paragraph shall be used to provide assistance to any participating country which exports or permits the exportation, to the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics or any of its satel- lite countries (including China and northern Korea), of any article or commodity— Which is the language in section 117— usable by, or which may be used in the man- ufacture of any article or commodity which may be useful to, the armed forces of the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics or such satellite countries. Mr. LODGE. It seems to me that in- cludes food. Mr. WHERRY. If food were used in- tentionally to help bolster the Russian Army the Senator would not want that to be done. The VICE PRESIDENT. The time of the Senator from Nebraska has again expired. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Recorp at this point in my remarks the amendment, and also the complete article published in the Star, part of which I read, but which I did not com- plete. There being no objection, the amend- ment and article were ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: On page 448, line 24, strike out the period and insert a colon and the following: “Pro- vided further, That, during any period dur- ing which the Armed Forces of the United States are actively engaged in hostilities while carrying out any decision of the Se- curity Council of the United Nations, no JULY 31 part of the funds appropriated in this para- graph shall be used to provide assistance to any participating country which exports or permits the exportation, to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics or any of its satel- lite countries (including China and north- ern Korea), of any article or commodity usable by, or which may be used in the manufacture of any article or commodity which may be useful to, the armed forces of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics or such satellite countries.” — War PorenriaL Goops Reacwina Rep SatTe.- Lites Despre CONTROLS—-FLOW OF MATE- RIALS DIMINISHES, But Too Mucu Is Grr- TING BY, UNtrep States Orriciats Sar (By L. Edgar Prima) Despite a stringent export control system here and pledges of cooperation from Mar- shall-pian countries, war-potential goods still are being shipped behind the iron cur- tain from the United States and western Europe. Officiais of the State and Commerce De- partments and ECA say the flow is being cut down, but that too much is getting by, both openly and secretly. Here are the reasons: 1. The Marshall-plan nations do not have a formal joint export control set-up. Most have individual systems, none of which is as strict as ours, while others apparently have no controls worthy of the name, 2. Leaks, owing to transshipments, are heavy and difficult to block, The United States has many checks on leaks, and places a great share of the responsibility for pre- venting them on the American exporter, Also, ECA investigators in Europe follow the goods to their final destinations. Still transshipments to the Soviet bloc reportedly have been numerous in western Europe. A recent report to Congress stated that an estimated $20,000,000 in goods had been smuggled out of bizonal Germany in 1948. Bizonia produces many strategic items which the Russians are willing to buy at premium prices. 3. The customs systems of western Eu- rope are far below the effectiveness of United States customs, and some prohibited goods undoubtedly are exported illegally by Amer- icans each year. In this connection, an ECA official said, “gome of the Marshall-plan nations do not have any clear idea of what and how much some of their exporters are shipping.” MAJOB PROBLEM IS EUROPEAN It was stressed that the problem is not 80 much the transshipment of goods produced in the United States. This problem 1s under fairly good control. More important are shipments of items produced in western Europe and sent to other ECA countries or to Switzerland and then to iron-curtain nations. For months, some legislators, led by Sen- ator Kem, Republican, of Missouri, have been asked what the United States is doing to stop such leaks. An opponent of ECA, Senator Kxem said on July 17 that Commerce Department offi- cials made it clear to him that Marshall- plan countries “still are making substan- tial shipments of war materials to Rusela and her satellites.” He recommended that ECA Administrator Hoffman be given the power to halt all ECA aid to those countries permitting such ship- ments, Senate Republican Leader WHERRY, who plans to introduce an amendment to the ECA portion of the omnibus appropriations bill tomorrow, agrees with Senator Kear, His amendment would bar ECA funds to any nation exporting to Russia or ita satellites anything that might become useful for mill- tary purposes,
1950 The attitude of ECA, State and Commerce Department officials, however, is that such a step must be accompanied by “moral sua- sion.” These nations are sovereign and would resent our interference, they explain. EACH MUST MEET PHOBLEM Further, these officials hold that each na- tion has to meet the problem in light of its own trade and political relations with the Soviet bloc as well as its interest in the common security. This explanation drew the sharp retort of “hogwash,” from Senator Kem. He asserted that we had no reluctance about interfering in the Italian elections of 1948 nor in trying to promote the Schuman plan for a European jron-steel pool. The American control system was set up in March 1948 to check the export of scarce strategic materials and to halt all shipments of such goods to the Soviet bloc as a matter of national security. The Secretary of Commerce is in charge of the system. An interagency Advisory Committee on Requirements represents the Central Intelligence Agency, National Secu- rity Resources Board, ECA, and the State, Dofense, Interior, and Agriculture. The group helps with the security review of individual cases and the strategic evalua- tion of commodities. It approves the Post- tive List of Commodities, which is broken down into the so-called 1-A and 1-B lists, 1-A EXPORTS FORBIDDEN Articles of greatest importance are in the 1-A category and may not be exported to iron curtain countries, They may be shipped to other countries, under license, however, Items on the 1-B list, of lesser importance, may be exported to the Soviet orbit in certain restricted quantities. An applicant for an American export ll- cense must furnish much specific informa- tion and faces criminal action for falsifi- cation. He must describe in detail the com- modity to be shipped. He must name the country in which the goods will be consumed and the ultimate consignee. He must also list the names and addresses of all interested parties (agents, brokers, middiemen, etc.) and give specific details on the end-use of the item to be exported. Marshall plan nations have been informed of our positive list and told why controls are Important to the common security. “We meet with the representatives of these countries in informal, continuing con- sultations,” Wright, the State Department’s assistant chief of the Economic and Secu- tities staff, declared. NATIONS ARE COOPERATING “They know what we want and we are working it out on a cooperative, mutual de- fense basis. We don't feel we ought to go beyond that,” he added. (It has been reported in some quarters that the United States brought the matter of British oil! shipments to the Chinese Reds to the attention of London. The shipments were stopped soon thereafter.) Earlier this month, Senator Kem, quoting data from the Ofice of International Trade, told his colleagues that during the first 4 months of 1950, Great Britain shipped to Russia more than $1,087,000 worth of ma- chine tools, a tenfold increase over the same period last year. He listed in detail the amounts of ma- chinery, ball bearings, steel-mill products, electrical goods, and even arms, sent to the Soviet and its satellites by Britain, Belgium, France, and Luxemburg. The Senator stressed the importance of machine tools and Senator Franpers, Re- publican, of Vermont, a machine-tool manu- facturer, supported him in principle. “I should ike to enunciate, sir, a profound truth, which is that the only inanimate CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE thing which reproduces itself is a machine tool,” Senator FLanprrs sald. Robert N. Golding, ECA consultant and former general counsel of the congressional ECA watchdog committee, had an explana- on. SOME TOOLS NONSTRATEGIC “There are strategic machine tools and nonstrategic machine tools,” he declared. “Why, we have some we'd be willing to ship to Russia today if she wanted them.” He insisted that before one became alarmed over a line in a trade report that a general item had been shipped one should try to ascertain specifically what the item ‘was. “For all we know the electrical goods sent to the Soviet orbit by the western Europeans might have been light bulbs.” Mr. Golding conceded, however, that we don't get very complete information on what the Marshall plan countries ship. In an interview at his office, Mr. Golding expounded on the meaning of east-west trade for the recovery of Europe. Last year it totaled $2,600,000,000. “If the Marshall plan countries are to get certain foods and raw materials from the east they must ship machinery and manu- factured goods. That's all there is to it. If they don’t, the Russians will cut off the trade. And the Europeans would look to us to supply the needed items,” he warned. Mr. Golding added that the aim of east= west trade should be to increase the eco- nomic strength of western Europe in relation to the east. There is one other related problem which the Commerce Department has under con- sideration, but for which there is apparently no real peacetime solution. That 1s the control of technical data. In the interest of national security, Amer- ican officials believe technical information as well as strategic goods should be kept from the Soviet. But in the absence of censorship, the Nation has to rely on a volun- tary control plan. The OIT has undertaken to advise American businessmen in doubt as to what may be sent, Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from New York (Mr. LEHMAN]. Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, since we have very limited time remaining, I ask unanimous consent to insert in the Recorp at this point in my remarks a statement I have prepared on the pend- ing legislation. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Stennis in the chair). Without objec- tion, it is so ordered. Mr. Lenman’s statement is as follows: Mr. President, IT am, of course, deeply gratified that the Appropriations Committee in the face of the present crisis has now recommended the full appropriation of $26,900,000 for the point 4 program. I[n view of the committee's action, my amendment to make this full amount available for the self-improvement and perhaps even for the self-preservation of democratic nations is unnecessary. I have never faltered in my belief that the full amount of $26,900,000 is essential if we intend to initiate and en- courage any kind of a realistic, cooperative economic effort among nations which, though friendly to us, and anxious to become self-sustaining, do not have the organiza- tional and technical talent to use fully their own resources. As I have said, I am deeply gratified that the Committee on Appropriations has acted to restore the funds which the President recommended for tmplementing point 4. I would like to take this occasion to say that I am aware of the need for economy in 11343 Government expenditures. I have joined, and will continue to join, my efforts with other members of this body in cutting down on expenditures for purposes which are non- essential to the security, operation, and wel- fare of this Nation. But economy is simply a slogan if we do not balance our expenditures in such a way as to use fully all the money we are putting into these efforts to improve the welfare of this Nation and insure its security. We proposed, for instance, to spend up- ward of $30,000,000 for a program of infor- mation and propaganda designed to convince the peoples abroad that our motives ure un- selfish and that we do desire to advance their welfare and insure their security as well as our own, TI have urged an increase in this appropriation, too, and it is very likely that we will finally spend for this purpose far more than the amount now provided in cur- rent legislation. Speaking from a strictly selfish viewpoint, ‘we can say that our investment in the United Nations has now paid rich dividends. The peace-loving nations of the world have thrown their moral weight and, in some cases, their physical strength behind the efforts to repel aggression in Korea. This weight was and is being exerted through the United Nations. We dare not weaken that organization by skimping or hedging on a vital economic program which {s to be car- ried out under its auspices. In mid-June 64 nations, including the United States, met at Lake Success to pledge funds for the program of technical assist- ance to underdeveloped areas. At that meeting at Lake Success the United Btates was one of 50 countries which pledged a@ total of $20,000,000. The United States pledged $12,000,000. This pledge was, of course, contingent upon 4 congressional aue thorization and appropriation. That pledge was made in good faith, although the other nations were perfectly aware that the Amer- ican Congress had the last word on the ex- penditure of funds. I am confident now that the Congress of the United States will live up to that solemn commitment. One of the chief difficulties in the Senate's consideration of the point 4 program is per- haps our lack of understanding of it. Most of us have little appreciation of the specific activities intended to be carried out. We can understand the information program in terms of the Voice of America, but the point 4 program 1s much less easy to comprehend. I understand that the chief difficulty faced by the Appropriations Committee in consid- ering this proposal was the lack of a concrete and itemized prcgram, Since this program is an international pro- gram, based upon cooperative undertakings with other countries, no detailed and item- ized schedule of activities was possible until the nations involved had been consulted for their views on what services they required. The contemplated program is in two parts: A program of activities through the United Nations and a program contemplating bi- lateral arrangements between the United States and individual countries. No part of this point 4 program is or should be uni- lateral. This is not a ready-made program— it must be tailored to sult the interests and requirements of the countries involved. The basic theme of the point 4 program is the extension of technical assistance in all flelds of endeavor, We intend to make avallable to foreign countries our own rich store of technological and sctentific knowledge, in industrial, agricultural, public health, and educational fields. We propose to send ex- perts and advisers, seeds and disease-resist- ant strains of special crops, and to export the knowledge we have to raise the standard of living, to cut down disease and epidemics,’ and to inereage the productive output of all these countrics,
11344 For 10 years the United States has been carrying on technical-assistance programs through the Institute of Inter-American Af- fairs and under the terms of Public Law 402. Our technicians have visited many countries abroad. This Institute of Inter-American Affairs, in cooperation with Latin-American countries, has developed demonstration proj- ects which have changed the living condi- tions and the way of life of thousands of impoverished and disease-ridden people. By Gemonstrating modern scientific techniques, health has been improved, working condi- tions made tolerable, and more and better food put into the mouths of hungry indl- viduals. American geological experts have given ex- pert advice and made preliminary surveys which nave resulted in the location of entire new fields of critical ores and minerals. We have shown how to reclaim wasted lands, we have cradicated malaria, we have stopped epidemics, we have brought hope to areas where hope was lost, we have given stability to governments struggling to rehabilitate their economies. I should lke to give some specific exam- ples: A child health speciatist of the United States Children’s Bureau, working im the town of Nuevo Laredo, on the Mexican bor- der, was instrumental over a 2-year period in reducing the deaths of children under 1 year of age by more than 60 percent. Clinies for the treatment of yaws, established by the In- stitute of Inter-American Affairs in Haiti, helped cure 100,000 farm workers in that country. Drainage work carried out by the Institute for the Control of Malaria made it possible to bring 10,000 acres of farmland back into cultivation. Pioneer work in this field has also been done by the World Health Organization. In one rich agricultural area in India malaria had been 80 severe that 104 villages had been totally abandoned. World Health Organiza- tion teams, in the space of lees than 1 year, succeeded in eliminating infected mosqui- toes from the area surrounding these vil- lages. Refugee families came back to the vil- lages to bring back into production lands urgently needed to meet the tremendous food shortages facing India today. The point 4 program would include not only work in the field of health but in the development of natural resources, Tungsten, tin, and deposits of lignite coal adequate to support an important mining industry have existed in Thailand. In that country a team of three United States and four native geologists has just completed a basic survey of these resources as a pre- liminary to the large-scale developments of these deposits. In Brazil, the cooperative work of United States and Brazilian geologists has uncovered the largest manganese reserves in the Western Hemisphere. Such developments help to meet the needs of these countries as well as of the world generally, and provide new sources of income and employment for the country in which they are located. In Liberia, United States technicians have helped map out roads and the timber sup- ply, and to open up iron deposits, American agricultural experts have helped expand rice production for the local market, and the pro- duction of palm oil and cocoa for export. In one village near Monrovia, the result has been to increase the average cash income of the people from $5 to 835 per person. In El Salvador, American agricultural technicians have helped develop and dis- tribute to the farmer new corn varieties which produce 45 to 60 bushels per acre, in- stead of the old varieties which produced only 12 bushels per acre. In the Philippines, fish is second only to rice in the national diet. The work of Ameri- ean fishery experts under our technical ald program for the Philippines is resulting in replacing primitive-type fishing gear with more efficient devices. The price of fish to CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE the consumer has decreased because of the more plentiful supply, and the quality of the marketed product is improving. The rural education program of the in- stitute of inter-American Affairs in Bolivia has resulted in nearly doubling the number of rural school centers. The project has directly or indirectly benefited well over half a@ million children and adults. The impact of these activities on the economy and living conditions of other peoples is tremendous. And they know that it is the United States which is cooperating with them to make such improvement pos- sible, The UN, as I have stated, has also been at work, through ite specialized agencies, pro- viding technical advice and assistance in various areas of the world. These efforts have been on &@ small scale because the funds available have been small and the number of technicians available for this work has been limited. I have already referred to the ac- tivities of the World Health Organization. It is this kind of work which led the chair- man of the UN conference which formulated that UN program, to call it the most con- structive program so far prepared by the UN. This then ts the point 4 program. It is not a relief program. It calls for no shipment of food, goods, or other commodities. It calls for no capital loans or grants. It is simply a program for the sending of experts from this country and from other countries to share their technical knowledge with those who have little or none, It calls ror bringing to the United States alert young scientists and professionals from these un- derdevcioped nations so that they may learn first-hand our methods and our techniques. I have tried to bring it out of the half light of vague generalities into the full light of specific detalls. I have tried to in- dicate its importance in the great struggle which is agitating the world today. I would like to say to this Senate that the point 4 program, or even the promise it holds forth— for it will take some time for this program to show resulte—may mean as much in the present world struggle aa the military meas- ures which we must and will take. Point 4 establishes the essential frame- work for the building of the structure of world peace for that day—and I pray it may come soon—when we will no longer be forced to think in terms of war, of death, and of conflict, and may turn with full heart to goals of peace, freedom, and fullness of life for ourselves and our fellow men, Mr. LUCAS. I yield myself 10 min- utes. Mr. President, it is somewhat amazing to me that in this unusual hour of peril to our Nation and to other free coun- tries throughout the world, there should be offered amendments which would emasculate the European recovery pro- gram. If there was ever a time when men should yield and bend, regardless of their previous positions with respect to the European recovery program, it is at this particular hour in the history of our Republic. But, instead of that, we find the same Senators who have fought the Marshal} plan from the very begin- ning, still on the floor of the Senate mak- ing the same kind of arguments against this recovery program which has done so much to place the western European democracies once again upon their eco- nomic feet. Yet, the amendment offered by the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Kem] and the amendment offered by the Sen- ator from Nebraska [Mr. WHesrry] would, if they were adopted, absolutely destroy the European recovery program in its entirety. JULY 31 Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr, LUCAS, I cannot yield. Mr. WHERRY. The Senator issued a challenge. , Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I have only 10 minutes. I ask the Senator please not to ask me to yield. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois declines to yield. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I make the statement that whatever the Sena- tor from Nebraska may say about his amendment in the form in which it is at present, as the Senator from Massachu- setts said and the Senator from Arizona has said, certainly food is war ma- terial, and if food is sent to the people of Russia, or her satellites, even though it is not sent direct to the army, it is replacing food that goes direct to the Russian Army. That is a fact that can- not be challenged. But to destroy all the trade between the east and the west in Europe—and that is exactly what would be done by the amendments—is to destroy the Marshall plan. Mr. Presi- dent, this means in no sense that I am for shipping real war material, such as planes, tanks, and guns, to Russia or any of her satellites. The Senators who have been against the ECA program from the beginning desire to destroy it through the back door if they possibly can, by means of the type of emascu- lating amendments they have offered. They have tirelessly attempted to de- feat this program by making it un- workable. Mr. President, if it were not for the Marshall plan at this moment, in my humble judgment—and I think it is the judgment of the great mass of Ameri- can people—the European countries who are now the beneficiaries of the Marshall plan would be under the iron and tyrannical heel of communism. If it were not for the Marshall plan, the Kremlin, the men of Moscow, at this very moment would have France, Italy, Belgium, and the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, and Denmark, in their tyrannical and enslaving grasp. Only England would be standing up against the threat of the infiltration of the com- munistic poison. Yet, notwithstanding the communistic threat throughout the whole world at this very moment, which, in view of what is now happening in Korea, is very evident, for we know who is behind the North Korean movement, we know the power which is behind it, we find Senators still clinging to the old isolationist stand in the United States Senate, saying in effect “Give them noth- ing. Cut the appropriations for the Marshall plan down a billion dollars.” We can live alone in this atomic world. That would destroy the plan in its entirety. It would destroy the morale of the free people of the countries of west- ern Europe. Never in the history of America have we had such need for friends and allies as we have at this very moment. This is a crucial hour, one of the most dangerous hours in the history of America, Yet there are Senators who - geek to destroy a plan which has done so much to keep communism from spreading its poisonous tentacles throughout the western democracies,
1950 having a population of 270,000,000. We need them as our friends. We need them as our allies. We need them at this hour. We should give them not only the kind of assistance we give them under the Marshall plan, but also give them military aid to meet the challenge of communism, the onrush of communism, which seeks to sweep over the world and enslave us all, Mr. WHERRY Mr President, will the Senator yield? Mr. LUCAS. I cannot yield. Mr. President, the Senator from Mis- souri talks about being realistic in this hour. I wish more Senators were as realistic as those who have been going along with the Marshall plan and the mihtary-assistance program, the Atlan- tic Pact, and all other bipartisan mcas- ures the last few years in our efforts to find the road to a durable peace. I sub- mit that the jumor Senator from Mis- sour. has consistently advocated a short-sighted and ineffectual foreign policy. His course 1s not the wise one at this hour of history. Certainly through aid to Turkey and Greece, by the Maishall plan, we have kept com- munism from. spreading throughout Europe, as it is in China today. Mr. President, I say we are the ones who are the realists in this hour, and that the Senator from Missour: and others who join with him in trying to reduce the appropriation by $1,000,000,- 000 are still unrealistic, they are still living in the McKinley age of 40 years ago, believing that this country can get along without the people of western Europe. The Senator from Missouri says we have to see things as they are. We who favor the Marshall plan contend we do see things as they are. As a result of what 1s going on 1n Korea this very mo- ment we contend we can look into the future and see the great dangers which exist to the American Republic. Mr. President, the affair in Korea is not a local one. No one knows what will happen tomorrow. A move similar to that in Korea may be made in other parts of the world, followed by a com- munistic tirade such as we have heard against us recently. So to reduce the ECA appropriation at this moment is to play directly into the hands of Stalin and his group of international bandits who run the Politburo in the Kremlin at Moscow. Of course, Stalin would like to have that done. He has never wanted the Marshall plan. He has fought against it from the beginning. He would not permit Poland or Czecho- slovakia or other countries to come into the Marshall plan because he saw in the Marshall plan something worth while for the economic recovery of those na- tions across the sea. Recovery in their economic affairs is a direct aid and com- fort and help to the United States of America. Mr. President, appropriating for ECA aid is not throwing money down a rat hole; this amendment is a direct blow at England. Who was it who first came to our aid in Asiatic waters? It was England with her fleet. She is also sending ground troops to help us along. _Yet, for the past months and years, we CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE have heard tirades against socialistic England whenever we have tried to grant and loan her money under the ECA program. As I said before the Korean affair on the floor of the Senate, when the chips are down in the world-wide conflagra- tion in which we may be engaged, we will find England—regardless of the kind of government she has; and no one detests socialism more than I do— standing by the side of the United States of America. At the present time she is our real ally in Europe and Asia To hurt England at this hour, through culting off money under the ECA pro; gram, not only will be doing a disservice to our western European allies, but it will be doing a disservice to the safety and security of our own country. It will give aid and comfort to communism. Irepeat that at this particular hour we need all the friends we can have. We should do nothing to disturb the rela- tionship which exists at this moment with respect to the ECA funds which we are sending across the water. Mr. President, I sincerely hope the Senate will not vote for any of these crippling amendments. They are emas- culating amendments, designed to crip- ple the ECA to the point where it cannot be effective, to the point where Paul Hoffman, the great Administrator, will have no possibility of administering it in an efficacious way. The Kem amendment would defeat our purposes in that respect and would disturb the morale of the people of west- ern Europe, at this time when we in America should do everything within our poor power to raise and lift their morale. So I hope the Senate at this hour will be more realistic than it has ever been before. I hope Senators who in the past have voted against ECA appropriations, at this time will give ECA the benefit of the doubt, because ECA needs the co- operation of all Members of the Senate— America needs this unity and the free world needs it. The Senate must rise to a level of high wisdom. We must reject amendments which would bring utter chaos to our friends abroad. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator’s tame has expired. Mr. KEM. Mr. President, how much time have I remaining? The PRESIDING OFFICER. Seven minutes. . Mr. KEM. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Nebraska. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, there seems to be some question about the re- port of the “watchdog” committee and where it came from. I should like to call attention to the fact that the report is to be found on page 265 of the hearings before the Appropriations Committee, and it was given to the Appropriations Committee members, Mr, President, the distinguished ma- jority leader would have us believe that those who have not voted to provide every dollar that ECA has wanted are responsible for the situation which exists today. To the contrary, the responsibility for the situation existing today rests on the present administration because of its _ policy in regard to Asia. No one can _ 11345 deny that. That is clearly demonstrated by the fact that the policy in regard to Asia the administration has had up until very recently has now been completely repudiated, it has adopted a policy en- tirely contrary to what its policy has been. So far as China is concerned, the ad- ministration’s policy was to “wait until the dust settles.” The administration has followed a policy that the situation in China had nothing to do with ECA or with Korea. I voted for China aid, I voted for Korean aid, and I voted for the sending of military equipment to Korea. How- ever, what has the administration done in that connection? Under the military assistance program of last year this ad- ministration allotted the Scuth Koreans only $2,600,000. However, how much did the South Koreans get? They did not get a dime’s worth, They finally were allotted a little wire for repairs which cost $200. It 1s on the way there now, and has not yet been paid for, Yet some Senators claim that the re- sponsibility for what has happened rests on the shoulders of Senators who had the nerve to stand on this floor and ask that such action be justified or else that the policy be changed. What has hap- pened is the fault of this administra- tion, Mr. President, which ever since 1944 has followed a policy of “wait and let the dust settle in China ” I voted againt confirmation of the nomination of the present Secretary of State, the man who was the architect of that policy, and who still is Secretary of State and still is the architect of the foreign policy of the United States, and will continue to be until he has been repudiated by the President. The vote I cast against the confirmation of his nomination is the best vote I ever cast. Why should anyone want to vote for money in support of a policy of the kind I have indicated? Why should anyone wish to support a policy of “wait until the dust settles’? How can anyone dis- pute the fact that today our boys are being attacked by troops using equip- ment and supplies, including gasoline, which, under our policy, have been al- lowed to go to the Chinese Reds? Mr. President, my amendment will clear up such a loophole arid will make it possible for us to make sure that no further strategic materials will go from this country to Russia and her satellites, in eastern Europe or Red China. Let us be united in stopping such things. That is the way to win the war in the Pacific, The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Nebraska has ex- pired. Mr. McKELLAR. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the senior Senator from Texas [Mr. CONNALLY]. Mr. CONNALLY. Mr. President, the question before the Senate at this time is an amendment proposed by the Senator from Missouri, relating to the ECA. The minority leader has seen fit to take a considerable amount of his time to talk about political considerations and the Secretary of State and what hap- pened in China, I do not care to discuss those matters. I am willing to discuss
11346 them, but they are not before the Sen- ate. Mr. President, the amendment offered by the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Kem] calls for a very large cut in the ECA ap- propriation. Is the Senator from Missouri really in- terested in the ECA appropriation, or is he endeavoring to cripple ECA and wound it and cut down its appropria- tion? I have before me the records of the vote on the original Economic Co- operation Act of 1948. Among Senators who voted “nay” at that time, the name of the Senator from Missouri shines like an evening star. When we examine the vote on the question of the passage of the Economic Cooperation Act of 1948, we find that among the “nays’’ is the name of the Senator from Missouri. When we examine the vote on the question of the passage of the Economic Cooperation Act of 1948, as amended, among the seven “nays” is the name of the distinguished Senator from Missouri. Again, Mr. President, when it came to the question of furnishing military as- sistance to Europe, allied more or less with the general principle of the ECA, we find among those voting “nay” the name of the distinguished Senator from Missouri. And when it came to the question of the North Atlantic Treaty, lining up the Gemocracies of western Europe with Canada and the United States and other countries, we find that among those who voted “nay” was the Senator from Mis- souri. Mr. President, with that sort of a record behind the Senator from Mis- souri—opposing the North Atlantic Treaty and the arms aid and the ECA— can we expect anything good, so far as ECA is concerned, to come from the hands of the Senator from Missouri; who has been against it? Yet he appears as its friend. He wants to amend the act, He wants to cut the original item as we agreed upon it in committee by about $1,000,000,000. The proposal would cut the amount of the appropriation in the pending bill from $2,391,930,000 to $1,- 950,000,000. Mr. President, this is not the time for us to halt or to equivocate on the ECA program. A time of peril is not a time to retreat. This is no time to run for cover. ‘Wy, initiated this program to aid in the economic rehabilitation of western Eu- rope. We realized when we did so that economic rehabilitation is, after all, in aid of military preparation and military defense. Military defense cannot pro- ceed except upon the basis of a sound economy. ‘The reports from western Europe regarding what has been done under ECA are astounding, so much so that they sometimes shake one’s credu- lity. Production in those countries has been vastly improved; in most cases, to a point above the prewar level. So, Mr. President, I hope the Senate will not send to western Europe the message that we are lacking in our willingness to continue this program to the point of achieving its result. Reference is made to our solemn re- sponsibility to Korea and Asia. We are aware of those responsibilities, but we cannot, before the whole world, send CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE forth a message that we are weakening, that we are unable to meet our respon- sibilities, that we are unwilling to keep faith with the powers of western Europe whom we have assured of our aid through the ECA program, through the Atlantic Pact, and through the arms- implementation program, I stand for all those things. Mr. President, the free governments of Europe, the United States, and Can- ada are all tied up with a single faith. We could not, if we would, cut ourselves loose from them. If democracy is to survive, the free nations which advocate democracy must stand together, must keep the faith, must carry out the pro- grams designed to accomplish the sur- vival of democracy and freedom, and which are designed to bring about the destruction of the evil and fatal policies of communism. Mr. KNOWLAND. Mtr. President, will the Senator yield? The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Texas yield to the Senator from California? Mr. CONNALLY. I yield. Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I do not disagree with what the able Senator from Texas has been stating in his ca- pacity as chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, but it seems to me— and I think it important to bring it up at this point—that the world is faced at the present time, as we are meeting here, with the necessity of having a united front—one that cannot be sabotaged— with the change which takes place to- morrow with Mr, Malik assuming the chairmanship of the Security Council? It seems to me that the able Senator from Texas, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and the State De- partment should be able to work out some method or propose some resolution whereby mo person may assume the chairmanship of the Security Council without first taking an oath to support the action of the Security Council. To invite or permit Mr. Malik to gain the chairmanship by rotation is like permit- ting a member of the Capone crime syn- dicate to head the FBI. Certainly, if we are going to do these things which the able Senator from Texas has expounded, we should have some additional coopera- tion in keeping Mr. Malik from taking his seat. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Texas has expired. Mr. McKELLAR. Mr. President, I yield two more minutes to the Senator from Texas, The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized for two more minutes. Mr. CONNALLY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from California, His ideas and mine have gone along pretty much together in regard to foreign prob- lems. However, to do what the Senator from California suggests would probably require action by the United Nations. Whether that could be accomplished be- tween now and tomorrow, when Mr. Ma- lik takes over as President of the Secu- rity Council, would be doubtful. It would at least be a very difficult under- taking, JuLY 31 Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I merely desire to say that I contacted Mr. Hickerson, of the State Department, this morning and pointed out that the Presi- dent of the United States is not permit- ted to assume the Presidency until he has taken an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. Mr. CONNALLY. That is correct. Mr. KNOWLAND. It seems to me that today the United Nations Security Council could adopt the resolution that no one could assume the chairmanship without agreeing to uphold and defend the Charter of the United Nations. Mr, CONNALLY. I agree with the Senator from California, and if that can be accomplished, I hope that our repre- sentatives and others will advocate it, But, Mr. President, I do not view the re- turn of Mr. Malik to the United Nations with any satisfaction whatever. I can- not believe that he is going to take the position as head of the Security Council for any good purpose, so far as the things recently done by the United Nations are concerned, or so far as its ultimate ob- jectives are concerned. Myr. Malik is proposing to return to the Security Coun- cil for some strategic purpose. I trust that members of the Security Council will, while keeping their own counsel, see to it that he does not undermine the high purposes of the United Nations. Mr. LODGE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Texas yield to the Senator from Massachusetts for a question? Mr, CONNALLY. I yield. Mr. LODGE. Does not the able Sen- ator from Texas think that Mr. Malik has probably returned with the express purpose of confusing American public opinion and weakening our whole mili- tary effort? Mr. CONNALLY. I agree with the Senator. I think his return is largely tied up with propaganda. Russia wants to pretend before the world that she is the peace advocate, and that the United States and Great Britain are the impe- rialists. I doubt not, as suggested by the distinguished Senator from Massachu- setts, that Malik’s purpose is not a good one, but that he is an emissary of con- fusion, distraction, and disturbance, which he hopes will spread throughout the world, as a part of Russia’s propa- ganda methods, I hope the Senate will reject the amendment of the Senator from Mis- souri. We cannot turn back on the course we have charted, at this partic- ular juncture in world affairs. We want unity. We want the world to know that we stand just where we stood before— in unison with the free nations of west- ern Europe. If Europe is to survive, if we are to survive, we must stand together for freedom and for democracy. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Texas has expired. The Senator from Missouri! is recog- nized Mr. KEM. Mr. President, I can only wish that those of us who have opposed ECA from the beginning had been as suc- cessful in persuasion as we have been in prophecy.
1950 I well remember that when the orig- inal bill was presented in this body the Senator from Texas raised his voice until the rafters of the Chamber re- sounded-—— Mr. CONNALLY. There were no raft- ers in the Senate Chamber, Mr. KEM. The Senator from Texas said, “We are voting for the peace of the world.” ECA was sold to us as a policy of insurance against war. I well remember, Mr, President, when the first bill was before us. Its propo- nents told the Senate, “You have two alternatives; either pass this bill or arm yourselves to the teeth.” The Senate passed the bill. The ink was hardly dry on the Presidenw’s signature when the administration was back again, present- ing the largest war budget in the peace- time history of the United States. We voted for that budget. Then the ad- ministration came back again and said, “It is not sufficient to arm the people of the United States; we must arm the peo- ple of 12 nations of western Europe.” So we did that. And so on and on and on. Each prophecy has fallen short of per- formance. Each time it has been nec- essary for the majority leader and for the chairman of the Senate Committee on Forcitn Relations to come back with additional proposals, each time involv- ing the expenditure of vast sums of money. It would not have been so bad if we had the money to spend, but we have been mortgaging the future of the United States. We have been placing a lien on the Nation to be paid sometime, somehow, by our children and our chil- dren's children. All the time we have been causing an inflation whuch 15s rising like a great monster to plague us. The people suddenly find that the moncy backed by the ercdit of the United States in which they have had faith docs not have the purchasing power that they thought it would have. Mr. President, there is so much about the ECA bill that is based on a delusion that I do not know how to start discuss- ing it. Much is said about the defense of western Europe, and it is contended that if we pass the bill we shall aid west- ern Europe in defending itself. I have before me the budget estimate for July 1, 1950, to Jun2 30, 1951, revised May 4, 1950. Running through the budget at random I see that the United Kingdom is to have 33 projects in 19 territories which call for specialized items of equip- ment from the United States to be used in improving basic economic conditions in the territories which will lead, in time, to further developmental activity. I see that the Belgian Government is to have money for road building and de- velopment projects in the Congo. France is to have money to improve roads, to open up new production areas in west and equatorial Africa and in the Cameroons, for the development of soil conservation in Algeria, rice production in Morocco, and for the development of iron deposits in French Guinea. The Portuguese Government is to have money for the erection of a livestock utilization plant in Angola. Involved, among cther things, would be a slaugh- terhouse, a byproducts plant, a quick- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE freeze cold-storage plant, a steam and power plant, and a cold-storage plant for the distribution of meat products. Approximately 6,C00 metric tons of meat each year could be supplied to Brazza- ville, Leopoldville, and other equatorial African markets, metropolitan Portugal, and the United Kingdom. The Netherlands is to develop small farming projects in Dutch Guiana, to make possible the immigration of Dutch, Indo-Eurcopeans, and possibly others to Surinam. In Surinam it is proposed to have a project involving the reclamation of 5,000 hectares of coastal land on which to raise rice and other products. All of these projects are to be paid for by taxes on the American people. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Missouri has expired, Mr. McKELLAR. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Min- nesota [Mr. Tuys]. Mr. THYE. Mr. President, I rise to announce that what I have recognized in the European recovery program has been a good investment of American dollars tuward permanent peace, bring- ing to our side the support of the nations of western Eurcpe in our attempt to es- tablish permanent peace in the world. The present Presiding Officer was with me on the vis:t which he and I were privileged to make to nations of western Europe. We traveled by car from Frankfurt across to Munich. We were in the company of 5 other Members of Congress who visited 13 nations of western Europe. We talked not only with farmers, small-business men, and corporxtion executives, but with men and women in the governments of those countries, and we commenced to sense that threugh the ECA and the Atlantic Pact we were rehabilitating the best citi- zens and restoring to the channels of commerce the hidden dollars of those nations. Yes, Mr, President, we were enlisting the best efforts of France, Italy, the Netherlands, the Scandinavian countries, Great Britain, and Greece in an attempt to try to rebuild their econ- omies and their governments. When we visited Norway we found the pecple very enthusiastic. They were re- building their fishing fleet, which meant so much to them; they were rebuilding their merchant marine, which meant much to their commerce. It was ECA dollars which made that possible. Mr. President, when I returned to the United States, in speaking to citizens of my State I told them that I thought through ECA funds we had made a good start toward permanent and lasting peace, I have in my hand a letter which I re- ceived today from Albert S. Goss, master of the National Grange. I shall quote only a few words from his letter. He says: ECA as a means of meeting the threat of communism has been an outstanding success. This is not alone the judgment of the Na- tional Grange, but is the unqualified con- clusion of the four national farm organiza- tions that inspected the work of ECA in May and June of this year. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator’s time has expired, 11347 Mr. THYE. Mr. President, may I have half a minute? Mr. McKELLAR. I yield half a min- ute to the Eenator from Minnesota. Mr. THYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the entire letter from Mr. Albert S. Goss printed at this point in the Recorp as a part of my remarks. There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: NaTronaL GRANGE, Washington, D. C., July 31, 1950. Ton, Epwarp J. TH ye, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. Dear Senator Tuyve: ECA as a means of meeting the threat of communism has been an outstanding success. This is not alone the judgmont of the National Grange, but is the unqualificd conclusion of the four national farm organizations that inspected the work of ECA in May and June of this yerr. The elements of this outstanding success of ECA in checking aggressive communism are the identical elements needed to check it as the war bccomes hotter. There ele- ments ore: (1) expanded industrial output of Europe; (2) xericultural production at least equal to that of prewar; and (3) a coh- sequent faith among Europeans, and a fear among Communists that we are determined to continue unabated our oppozition tuo communitm through ECA. The most imrortant task of ECA, and the most difficult part of its task, lies abead. We should not make the fatal mistake of re- ducing its funds at this critical stare below its full needs We anticipate intensified Fursian efforts in many parts of the world to divert us from our purpose of promoting sound European recovery before the job is completed. We hope that you will give full support to the continuation of this essential program, Sincerely, A 8. Goss, Master, the National Grange. Mr. McKELLAR. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Ore- gon |Mr. Morse]. Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, as a Re- publican I rise to support the recom- mendations of the Appropriations Com- mittee with respect to ECA, and I would quickly invite attention to these points: Point No. 1 is that in my judgment the recommendations of the Appropriations Committee are in keeping with the spirit and intent of the great Republican plat- form of 1948 in which we pledged to the American people that we would keep partisanship at the water’s edge, so far as foreign policy was concerned. In my judgment, any attempt to cut the heart out of the ECA program by the Kem amendments at this time cannot be rec- onciled with the spirit and intent of that plank of the Republican platform. Point No. 2 is that it can now be stated that in February, March, and April, 1947, we were nearer to war than the American people realized. I speak as a member of the Armed Services Committee of the Senate. There were many of us in those critical months who expected the Rus- sian troop movements which were west- ward in those days to take Trieste and Italy by force, if necessary. The Con- gress took some very quick action on two fronts to show Russia that we were will- ing to defend the peace. We proceeded with the appropriations recesary to
11348 strengthen our military defenses in Eu- rope, and we proceeded with ECA. I happen to be one who believes that ECA, as much as has our military appropria- tions, strengthened our position in Eu- rope. Iam not on the floor of the Senate today going to cast a vote that will weaken the position of the allies we need in Europe in the critical months and years ahead, because I believe, Mr. Presi- dent, that Russia will try to lick us-—— Mr. KEM. Mr. President, will the Sen- ator yield? Mr. MORSE. I shall not yield to the Senator from Missouri. I am talking about his amendment which I think is an undesirable amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator’s time has expired. Mr. MORSE. I shall not vote for an amendment which would weaken, in my opinion, the strength of my Nation in the critical months ahead. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator’s time has expired. Mr. CONNALLY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have inserted in the Recorp a letter from the Secretary of State, dated July 27, 1950, and a letter from William Foster, Acting Adminis- trator, Economic Cooperation Adminis- tration, dated July 27, 1950. There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in the Rrcorp, as follows: JuLY 27, 1950. The Honorable Tom ConNALLY, United States Senate. My Dear SENATOR CONNALLY: I have read the letter which Mr. William C. Foster, Acting Administrator for the Economic Cooperation Administration, is forwarding you with re- spect to the importance of the appropriation for the European recovery program, I concur completely in Mr. Foster’s letter and wish to take this opportunity to endorse his statements to you, You will recall that this question of the importance of ECA funds was raised when I appeared before the Foreign Relations Com- mittee earlier this week. I should like to emphasize again that the mounting eco- nomic strength of western Europe is of parae mount tmportance to the fulfillment of the policies which the United States Government has been pursuing. I cannot urge too strong- ly that the Congress take action to provide adequate funds to support this mounting strength. Sincerely yours, DEAN ACHESON. EcoNOMIC COOPERATION ADMINISTRATION, Washington, D.C., July 27, 1950. Hon. Tom Connatty, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. Dear SENATOR CONNALLY: It 1s expected that the Senate will vote very soon on the eppropriation for the European recovery program. This vote and the amount to be @ppropriated take on new significance in view of the struggle in which we are now engaged. I think !t vital that certain considerations be emphasized in advance. Vast new expenditures for military pure poses are called for and in light of this cir- cumstance all proposed appropriations must be strictly scrutinized so that resources can be husbanded for the moat essential needs. But among such needs high priority must be given to the sums required for maintain. ing the economic strength of our friends and increasing their military strength as well. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE It is important to recollect that early in 1948 the Communist threat to western Eu. rope was a clear and present danger. The Marshall plan has not only so far prevented this threat from being translated into ac- tion, but has greatly increased the strength of western Europe to resist the danger. The continued need for world-wide strength to prevent further aggression and to preserve the peace is apparent. Tt is this strength which the current vote on ECA will decisively affect. It is this strength which obviously must be made up out of the resources of the whole free world and not the United States alone. And the rest of the free world, particularly the free nations of western Europe, are now, as @ result of Marshall aid, in a position to con- tribute substantially to that end. What are the political, phychological, and economic changes in the OEEC nations that two and a quarter years with ERP aid have accomplished and which justify that state- ment? Those changes include: A greatly increased industrial and agricultural production; an attainment of reasonable internal financial stability; a political stability allowing for freely chosen democratic governments with constantly declining totals of Communist voters; the sharp reduction of arbitrary re- strictions on intra-European trade; the in- stitution of the European Payments Union with its promise of convertibility within Eu- rope; and a steadily growing beltef by the people of Europe in their own future. Without the assistance furnished by this country through the Foreign Assistance Act, this strong economic base could not have been built. And a strong economy and stable society is the foundation of military strength. In the months ahead, this economic base will have to bea. a far heavier load as the free nations of western Europe build up their military strength. It is, therefore, more es- sential than ever that ECA assistance be con- tinued so that the European economy can carry the load of rearmament, as well as con- tribute to the maintenance of a decent standard of living. It is clear that such a continuation of ECA assistance, together with mutual defense assistance, will guarantee more security and @ greater increase in military strength for each United States dollar that is spent than we could possibly achieve relying on United States production alone. This multiplying effect has been demon- strated many times over the past 2 years in the industrial field. For example, electric power capacity in western Europe has vastly increased since April 1948. This increase re- sults mainly from expansion of plants through capital investment, of which about 95 percent was contributed by the European countries themselves, and only 6 percent from ECA dollars. Yet without this & percent in dollars the develcpment could not have been built. Similarly, in military items, though the ratio of total production to dollar in- vestment may not be so dramatic, the effect of each dollar made available to Europe will be multiplied many times. In this connection and because of our own military effort, question has been raised re- garding future use of local currency counter- part funds. While it is clear that In some countries st least a portion of the counter- could well be directed toward expand- ing facilities to be used for production of military equipment, there are many in- stances where present use of counterpart should be maintained best to help attain this new objective. For instance, where the ma- jor portion of a nation’s counterpart is now ing released for such purposes as develop- ment of electrical energy supply, {mprove- ment of basic transportation facilities, such as roads and railroads, or increasing the fa- cilities of important seaports, these develop- ments can contribute substantially and di- rectly to increasing production for military JULY 31 purposes or to the movement of troops and supplies. It is true, moreover, that wise use of counterpart will further increase the mul- tiplying effect to which I referred and our efforts will be directed to that end. Up to this point the Marshall plan has been chiefly concerned with building resistance to communism within certain of the par- ticipating countries; from now on equal em- phasis must also be given to building resist- ance to aggression from without. But in either case the proved principle of the Mar- shall plan is applicable; that American aid brings increased returns when coupled with self-help and mutual aid by the participat- ing countries. On the other hand, with- drawal of adequate support by the United States would result in almost immediate eco- nomic disruption of the western European nations. Therefore, I urge in the national interest and in order effectively to wage the peace, that you, Mr. Chairman, and the members of your committee, all of whom are so aware of these dangers, press for a fully adequate afmount. The Marshall plan is firmly identified in the European mind as the symbol of United States partnership in attaining peace and strength. Any sharp curtailment of Mar- shall aid might well be profoundly misun- derstood as indicating a loss of United States interest in the economic stability of Europe. However, a further endorsement by the Senate will give confidence in the pres- ent and hope for the future to the entire free world. Sincerely yours, WILLIAM FOSTER, Acting Administrator, The PRESIDING OFFICER. The hour of 2 o’clock having arrived, under the unanimous-consent agreement the Senate will proceed to vote on the pend- ing question, which is on the amendment offered by the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Kem] to the amendment offered by the Senator from Arizona [Mr. HaypvEn]. Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Mr. President, & parliamentary inquiry. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it. Mr. HICKENLOOPER. I have an amendment which I should like to of- fer at the proper time. It refers to the first section of chapter X-B, with refer- ence to the Economic Cooperation Act as it now stands. Would I be precluded from offering an amendment to that section after action is taken on the amendment offered by the Senator from Missouri to the amendment of the Senator from Arizona? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator’s amendment would not be in order until the amendment proposing to change the figures is disposed of. After that is disposed of the Senator’s amend- ment would be in order. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The absence of a quorum has been suggested. The clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk called the roll, and the following Senators answered to their names: Anderson Connally Gillette Benton Cordon Graham Brewster Douglas Green Bricker Dworshak Gurney Bridges Eastland Hayden Butler Ellender Rendrickson Byrd Ferguson Hickenlooper Capehart Fianders HE’ Chapman Frear I Wand Chavez Gcorge Lumphrey
1950 Ives McClellan Saltonstall Johnson, Colo. McFarland Smith, Maine Johnson, Tex. McKellar Smith, N. J. Johnston, 8.C. Magnuson Sparkman Kefauver Malone Stennis Kem Martin Taft Kerr Maybank Thomas, Okla, Knowland Morse Thye Langer Mundt Tydings Leahy Murray Watkins Lehman O'Conor Wherry Lodge O'Mahoney Williams Lucas Robertson Young McCarran Russell The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quo- rum is present, The Chair will state the question before the Senate. The ques- tion is on the amendment of the Senator from Missouri |Mr. Kem] to the amend- ment of the Senator from Arizona [Mr, Haypen], inserting the figure $1,950,000,- 000, in lieu of $2,450,000,000, and strik- ing out certain language on page 448, lines 2 and 8. Mr. LUCAS and Mr. WHERRY re- quesied the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered, and the legislative clerk called the roll. Mr. LUCAS. I announce that the Senator from California [Mr. Downey] is necessarily absent. The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Furie BRIGHT], the Senator from North Caro- lina | Mr. Hoey], the Senators from West Virginia [Mr. Kincore and Mr, NEELy], the Senator from Connecticut {Mr, McManon J, and the Senator from Penn- sylvania [Mr, Myers] are absent on pub- lic business. The Senator from Wyoming Hunt] is absent because of illness. The Senator from Louisiana [Mr, Lone), the Senator from Idaho I[Mr. Taytori, the Senator from Utah IMr, Tuomas], and the Senator from Ken- tucky [Mr. W1THERS] are absent by leave of the Senate. The Senator from Florida [Mr, Prepr- per] is detained on official business. The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. KILGorE! is paired on this vote with the Senator from Indiana [Mr. Jenner]. If present and voting, the Senator from West Virginia would vote “nay,” and the Senator from Indiana would vote “yea.” The Senator from West Virginia (Mr. NEELY] is paired on this vote with the Senator from Kansas [Mr. ScHorppe.!. If present and voting, the Senator from West Virginia would vote “nay,” and the Senator from Kansas would vote “yea.” I announce further that if present and voting, the Senator from Arkansas {Mr. Futsricut], the Senator from Pennsyl- vania {Mr. Myers], the Senator from Florida (Mr, Pepper], the Senator from Utah {Mr. THomas], and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr, Wirners) would vote “nay.” Mr. SALTONSTALL. Iannounce that the Senator from Vermont {Mr. Armen], the Senator from Washington [Mr. Carn], the junior Senator from Kansas (Mr. Darsy], the Senator from Missouri {Mr. Donne], the Senator from Indi- ana [Mr. Jenner], the Senator from Colorado [Mr, Muuir«in], the senior Senator from Kansas (Mr. ScHOEPPEL], the Senator from Michigan (Mr. VaNn- DENBERG], and the Senator from Wiscon- sin (Mr, Witry] are absent by leave of the Senate. The Senator from Montana [Mr. Ecron] is detained because of attendance (Mr, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE at the funeral of a close personal friend and is paired with the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Tosgey] who is ab- sent by leave of the Senate. If present and voting, the Senator from Montana would vote “yea” and the Senator from New Hampshire would vote “nay.” The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr, McCartuy J is necessarily absent. The Senator from Indiana |Mr. Jen- NER! is paired with the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Ki.core]. If pres- ent and voting, the Senator from Indi- ana would vote “yea” and the Senator from West Virginia would vote “nay.” The Senator from Kansas’ [Mr. ScuHoeEpre.] is paired with the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Neety]. If present and voting, the Senator from Kansas would vote “yea” and the Sena- tor from West Virginia would ote “nay.” The result was announccd—yeas 12, nays 59, as follows: YEAS—12 Butler Frear Martin Byrd Kem Mundt Capehart Langer Wherry Dworshak Malone Williams NAYS—59 Anderson Hendrickson Magnuson Benton Hickenlooper Maybank Brewster Hil Morse Bricker Holland Murray Bridges Humphrey O’Conor Chapman Ives O'Mahoney Chavez Johnson, Colo. Robertson Connally Johnson, Tex. Russell Cordon Johnston, 8.C. Saltonstall Douglas Kefauver Smith, Maine Eastland Kerr Smith, N. J, Ellender Knowland Sparkman Ferguson Leahy Stennis Flanders Lehman Taft George Lodge . Thomas, Okla. Gillette Lucas Thye Graham McCarran Tydings Green McClellan Watkins Gurney McFarland Young Hayden McKellar NOT VOTING—25 Alken Jenner Schoeppel Cain Eilgore Taylor Darby Long Thomas, Ulah Donnell McCarthy ‘Tobey Downey McMahon Vandenberg Ecton Millikin Wiley Fulbright Myers Withers Hoey Neely Hunt Pepper So Mr. KEm’s amendment to Mr. Hay- DEN’S amendment was rejected. The VICE PRESIDENT. The question now recurs on the amendment offered by the Senator from Arizona [Mr. HaypEn]. Mr. HAYDEN. Mr, President, my un- derstanding is that I have 10 minutes on the amendment. I shall take but 5. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Arizona is recognized. Mr. HAYDEN. Mr. President, with respect to the appropriation for ECA, I would like to point out how the com- mittee arrived at the amount in the bill of $2,391,930,000. When we first consid- ered the amount in the committee we voted on a figure of $2,500,000,000 as rec- ommended by its chairman, the Senator from Tennessee, and the committee agreed to this figure on a vote of 11 to 10, Since many of the members of the com- mittee who had voted against a figure of $2,500,000,000 had indicated they would support an appropriation of $2,450,- 000,000, the committee agreed to have a roll-call vote on the lesser amount. I made the motion to reconsider. I did not feel it would be desirable to have the 11349 committee recommending an appropria- tion which had been agreed to in the committee by a margin of only one vote. On the vote in the committee on an amount of $2,450,000,000 for ECA there were 17 yeas and 3 nays. So the com- mittee had by a substantial majority rec- ommended an appropriation of $2,450,- 000,000. Several cays later, on July 7, 1950, when the committee was in session con- sidering other chapters of the bill, the Senator from Michigan [Mr. Frercuson] made a motion that all items in the for- eign-aid chapter which had not been cut at least 10 percent under the budget esti- mate be cut 10 percent under the budget estimate, exclusive of the funds for mu- tual defense assistance. The committee voted on the motion of the Senator from Michigan, and it carried by a vote of 11 to 10. This meant that ECA would be further reduced by $38,070,000 to allow an appropriation of $2,391,930,000. This is how the figure was arrived at. The following day when the commit- tee was again in session one of the mem- bers of the committee who had voted in favor of the Ferguson motion stated he was willing to move to reconsider and restore the amount to $2,450,000,000, as originally adopted by a vote of 17 to 3. It was agreed not to do this, since the report had already been printed, and the matter could be considered further on the Senate floor. In view of this background, and espe- cially in view of the fact that the figure in the bill of $2,391,930,000 was agreed upon by such a close vote, I move that, on page 447, line 18, the figure “$2,391,- 930,000” be stricken and the figure “$2,450,000,000" be inserted in lieu there- of, as approved by our committee by 17 out of the 20 members, The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Arizona [Mr. HaypEN]. Mr. WHERRY,. I ask for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered, and the legislative clerk called the roll. Mr. LUCAS. I announce that the Senator from California (Mr. Downey] is necessarily absent. The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Fu.- BRIGHT], the Senator from North Caro- lina [Mr. Hory], the Senators from West Virginia |Mi. Kircore and Mr. Negev], the Senator from Connecticut |Mr. Mc-= Manon], and the Senator from Pennsyl- vania [Mr. Myers] are absent on public business, The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Hunt] is absent because of illness. The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Lone], the Senator from Idaho [Mr. TayLori, the Senator from Utah [Mr, Tuomas], and the Senator from Ken- tucky |[Mr, Wirngrs] are absent by leave of the Senate. The Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Kiucore) is paired on this vote with the Senator from Indiana [Mr. Jenner]. If present and voting, the Senator from West Virginia would vote “yea,” and the Senator from Indiana would vote “nay.” The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Myers] is paired on this vote with the Senator from Montana [Mr. Ecron]. If present and voting, the Senator from
11350 Pennsylvania would vote “yea,” and the Senator from Montana would vote “nay.” The Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Nerty) is paired on this vote with the Senator from Kansas [Mr. ScnogrreE.]. If present and voting, the Senator from West Virginia would vote “yea,” and the Senator from Kansas would vote “nay.” The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. WitxHers] is paired on this vote with the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr., Tosry]. If present and voting, the Senator from Kentucky would vote “vea,” and the Senator from New Hamp- shire would vote “nay.” I announce further that if present and voting, the Senator from Arkansas [Mr, FuLsricHt) and the Senator from Utah {Mr. THomas] would vote “yea.” Mr.SALTONSTALL. I announce that the Senator from Vermont [Mr, Armen], the Senator from Washington [Mr, Cainl, the junior Senator from Kansas (Mr. Darsy], the Senator from Missouri [Mr. DonwneL.}, the Senator from In- Giana {Mr. Jenner], the Senator from Colorado [Mr. M1Lirxm], the senior Sen- ator from Kansas {Mr. Scnorrps.}, the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. ‘Fosey], the Senator from Michigan [Mr, VanvensERG], and the Senator from Wis- consin [Mr. Witzy) are absent by leave of the Senate. The Senator from Montana I[Mr. Ecron] is detained because of attendance at the funeral of a close personal friend and is paired with the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Myers]. If present and voting, the Senator from Montana would vote “nay” and the Senator from Pennsylvania would vote “yea.” The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Mc- Cartuy! is necessarily absent. The Senator from Indiana [Mr. Jren- NER] is paired with the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Krucors}. If present and voting, the Senator from Indiana would vote “nay” and the Senator from West Virginia would vote “yea.” The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Scnorrpet] is paired with the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Nee.y]. If present and voting, the Senator from Kansas would vote “nay” and the Sena- tor from West Virginia would vote “yea,” The Senator from New Hampshire {Mr. Topry] ts paired with the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Wirners}. If pres- ent and voting, the Senator from New Hampshire would vote ‘nay’ and the Senator from Kentucky would vote “yea.” The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Cor- DON} is detained on official business, The result was announced—yeas 42, nays 29, as follows: YEAS—42 Anderson Humphrey Morse Benton Ives Murray Chapman Johnson, Tex. O'Conor Chaves Johnston. §,C. O'Mahoney Connally Kefauver Pepper Dougias Kerr Robertson Eastland Leahy Saltonstall Enender Lehman Smith, Maine George Lodge Smith, N. J, Graham Lucas Sparkman Green McCarran Stennis Gurney McFarland Thomas, Okla. Hayden McKellar Thye wil Magnuson Tydinge CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE NAYS—20 Brewster Gillette Martin Bricker Hendrickson Maybank Bridges Hickenlooper Mundt Butler Holland Russell Byrd Johnson, Colo. Taft Capehart Kem Watkins Dworshak Knowland Wherry Ferguson Langer Williams Flanders McClellan Young Frear Malone NOT VOTING—25 Alken Hunt Schoeppel Cain Jenner ‘Taylor Cordon Kilgore Thomas, Utab Darby Long Tobey Donnell McCarthy Vandenberg Downey McMahon Whiley Ecton Millikin Withers Fulbright Myers Hoey Neely So Mr. Haypen’s amendment to the committee amendment was agreed to. The VICE PRESIDENT. The question now before the Senate is on the com- mittee amendment, as amended. Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Mr. Presi- dent, I send to the desk an amendment to the economic cooperation provision and ask to have it stated. The VICE PRESIDENT. The amend- ment will be stated. The LecistativE CLERK. On page 448, line 17, following the colon after the word “amended”, it is proposed to insert the following: “Provided further, That after November 1, 1950, no funds herein ap- propriated shall be made available to any nation of which a dependent area fails to comply with any treaty to which the United States and such dependent area are parties.” The VICE PRESIDENT. The Sena- tor from JIewa is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Mr. Pres- ident, on last Friday, shortly following the adoption of the unanimous-consent agreement to vote today, at a time when at least I and a number of other Sena- tors were of the firm opinion that no particular action was to be had on the economic cooperation section of the bill on last Friday, a point of order was raised to that portion of economic co- operation provision beginning after the word “amended” on line 17, on page 448, striking the remainder of that particular section. Mr. President, it was my intention to discuss any point of order that might be to that particular section, but I did not have the opportunity to do so because I was at a meeting at that time and had not anticipated that such action would be taken then. Business has transpired since the point of order was raised, and I understand under the precedents that an appeal cannot now be taken from the ruling on that point of order. I therefore had prepared the amend- ment which I have sent to the desk, and, as it states, it provides “that after No- vember 1, 1950, no funds heretn appro- priated shall be made available to any nation of which a dependent area fails to comply with any treaty to which the United States and such dependent area are parties.” Anticipating a point of order, Mr. President, I should like to say that I have tried to check the amendment as JULY 31 best I can with the authorities, and the best advice I can secure is that unless new duties are imposed upon some ad- ministrative official, such as the Depart- ment of State, then the amendment is in order, and I think, that no new duties are imposed upon any official, especially in view of the Connally amendment to the authorization act this spring, which specifically provides: “In any case where the Department of State determines that such discriminatory restriction is main- tained or imposed,” and so forth. Mr. President, because I am limited as to time, I should hke to have the en- tire Connally amendment, which is found on page 3 of Public Law 635, the print I have in my hand, in subsection (n), printed at this point in my remarks. There being no objection, the matter referred to was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: (n) It is the sense of Congress that no participating country shall maintain or im- pose any import, currency, tax, license, quota, or other similar business restrictions which discriminate against citizens of the United States or any corporation, partnership, or other association substantially beneficially owned by citizens of the United States, en- gaged or desiring to engage, in furtherance of the purposes of this title, in the importa- tion into such country of any commodity, which restrictions are not reasonably re- quired to meet the balance of payments con- Gitions, or requirements of national security, or are not authorized under international agreements to which such country and the United States are parties. In any case where the Department of State determines that any such discriminatory restriction 1s main tained or imposed by a participating coun- try or by any dependent area of such coun- try, the Administrator shall take such reme- Qial action as be determines will effectively promote the purposes of this subsection (n),. Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. HICKENLOOPER. I have only 5 minutes. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Iowa declines to yield. Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Mr. President, my amendment will particularly affect the inexcusable and unconscionable vio- lation of the rights of American citizens in Morocco. I opposed the insertion of such an amendment last year based upon the solemn promises of the State De- partment and of the ECA that they would, under the power which they al- ready have under the ECA Act and which 1s admitted by Mr. Hoffman and the State Department, correct these abuses and see that American citizens doing business in Morocco secure equal, fair, and equitable treatment with other na- tionals and in full accordance with treaties which are in existence between this country and Morocco. In spite of its promises and in spite of its solemn assurances, the ECA has wholly and com- pletely failed to take action. In spite of the admonition of the Connally amendment this spring, the ECA has Gone nothing to correct these abuses. In spite of the fact that the State De- partment itself has repeatedly said in writing that Morocco is violating its treaty with the United States, so far as
1950 American nationals are concerned, the abuses continue. So, Mr. President, I no longer feel con- strained to take the word of the State Department or to trust the assurances of the ECA that it will correct the mani- fest injustices which I think every Mem- ber of the Senate knows exists. I dislike the necessity of putting in the bill a mandatory clause of this kind, but it is the only way by which to get action by the State Department and the ECA—which not only is charged from the standpoint of its patriotism, but is directly charged under the Connally amendment of this spring, with taking action to correct those abuses. However, those two great departments have wholly and utterly failed and refused to do anything to correct them. My. President, I have supported ECA, and I am still supporting ECA. The VICE PRESIDENT. The time of the Senator from Iowa has expired. Mr. HAYDEN. Mr. President, a par- liamentary inquiry. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator will state it. Mr. HAYDEN, Is the amendment of- fered by the Senator from Iowa in order until the committee amendment in line 18 has been adopted? The VICE PRESIDENT. It is an amendment to the committee amend- ment, Mr. HAYDEN. My amendment is an amendment to perfect the committee amendment, which we agreed will be treated as though it were the text of the bill. I think I am entitled to have a final decision on that question of the adoption of my amendment. The VICE PRESIDENT. The amend- ment of the Senator from Iowa is offered as an amendment to the committee amendment. Mr. McKELLAR. Mr. President, is not this amendment subject to a point of order? The VICE PRESIDENT. No point of order has been made. Mr. McKELLAR. Mr. President, I make the point of order that the amend- ment is legislation on an appropriation bill. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair overrules the point of order, because it seems to the Chair that the amendment is a limitation on the appropriation, based upon the provisions of the ECA Act, as passed by the Coneress, and with particular reference to what is known as the Connally amendment to that act, which stipulates that it is the duty of the Department of State to consider and determine whether there has been any violation of a treaty agreement. The amendment merely provides that if there has been such a violation, the appropri- ation shall not be available. The Chair thinks the amendment is a limitation, and overrules the point of order. This question is subject to debate for 5 minutes by any Senator who desires to occupy that time. Mr. LUCAS, Mr. much time is available? The VICE PRESIDENT. Five minutes is available to any Senator who wishes to discuss this question. President, how CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, before the vote is taken on the amendment, I wish to read one or two paragraphs from the letter of the Acting Administrator of ECA in regard to the amendment: In the first place, I belleve that the pro- viso is wholly unnecessary. It is adopted from an amendment proposed to and reject ed by the Congress this year in the course of considering the authorizing legislation for ECA. At that time it was pointed out that a procedure had been established in Morocco Jast December for consultation between American and French authorities to deal with complaints of discrimination against American businessmen, Since that time al- most all the specific complains concerning such discrimination have been brought be- fore the consultative group. An investiga tion just completed on the ground in Mo- rocco shows that this new procedure, which involved some delays in its early stages, has been speeded up considerably within the last 6 weeks and that the majority of the com- plaints of the American businessmen have been satished. This consultative machinery makes it possible for cases of discrimination to be established and identified, and the au- thority expressed in the Connally amend- ment to the ECA Act enables the Adminis- trator for Economic Cooperation to take such ection, including suspension of dollar assistance or refusal to release franc funds, as is suited to the particular situation. In the second place the proviso would, in its operntions, be seriously damaging. It would, of course, be wholly contrary to the basic theory that the program is based on cooperation among the free countries and not on coercion by the United States, but quite apart from this, the actual operation of the proviso would be ruinous to the carry- ing out of the recovery program for France, for it is at France that the provision 1s di- rected, As I have noted above, ECA is now in a position to deal with discriminations against American businessmen, taking such measures as are best suited to meet and cure the discrimination complained of. Mr. LODGE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. LUCAS. I yield. Mr. LODGE. I should simply like to say to the Senator, if I may do so, that without passing at all on the justice or the injustice of the situation or the question of whether the State Depart- ment has been sufficiently diligent in connection with this matter, it seems to me that the amendment goes against one feature of the Economic Cooperation Act, a feature which is vital to the en- tire conception of ECA, namely, that the recipient nations under the Marshall plan must get all their imports from soft currency areas, wherever it is possible to do so—whereas this amendment would require that France get imports in dol- Jar areas. If we once admit that prin- ciple, then the entire ECA Act is in dan- ger of being converted into a subsidy for American products. For that reason, I intend to oppose the amendment, although I am quite prepared to admit that the State De- partment has been dilatory in dealing with this subject. Mr. LUCAS. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts. Mr, President, I read further from the letter of the acting Administrator of the Economic Cooperation Administration: The suggested proviso would go far beyond this and might require a complete cessation of aid to the whole French Union, a sance 11351 tion wholly out of proportion to the circum- stances. The proposed amendment to the authorizing legislation, which was rejected by the Congress, would have operated to freeze the entire franc counterpart fund. The present proviso is apparently designed with the same sanction in mind. However, presumably in an effort to justify its inclu- sion in an appropriation bill, it has been recast so as to affect the expenditure of appropriated dollars as well. Hence it might operate to shut off all aid in an effort to in- sure that no local currency counterpart fund can be created for the ultimate benefit of the French recovery effort. This would be an even more drastic penalty and one directly opposed to the whole spirit and purpose of the Marshall plan. Mr. President, this amendment is di- rected at France. France is in the throes of economic recovery. France is in a perilous condition, so far as the world situation is concerned. Surely the Congress does not want to do anything which would adversely affect France in her economic recovery at this particular time. So I hope the amendment will be rejected. Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Mr. Presi- dent, will the Senator yield for a ques- tion? Mr. LUCAS. I yield. Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Is the Sena- tor from Illinois aware that last year I went along with the exact position which is set forth in the letter the Senator from Illinois has been reading, doing so based upon the promises of the State Department and of the ECA that they would correct the situation and that they had the power to correct it? Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I know nothing about that, and I do not know whether the State Department has been diligent or has not been diligent. My point is that if the acting Adminis- trator of the ECA is correct in the letter I have been reading, which he has sent to the Senator from Texas—so far as the amendment is concerned—and I believe he is correct—-then if we are go- ing to cripple France at this stage of the game in her economic recovery, by means of adopting an amendment of this kind, we shall be striking a serious blow, in my opinion, against the entire Marshall- plan recovery program. Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr, LUCAS. I yield. Mr. KNOWLAND. I should like to ask the Senator from Illinois—because a@ year ago I felt that there was some validity to the point made by the State Department—-whether he believes that even the ECA Act can set aside a treaty which has been ratified between two sov- ereign governments, and, of course, in that connection ratified by the Senate of the United States, or whether the Senator believes that any law can set aside a treaty, Mr. LUCAS. No; I do not agree at all that a law can set aside a treaty. But I say, and repeat what I said a moment ago, that regardless of any tech- nical arguments which might be made about the treaty aspect of the case, we are in a rather serious situation. Re- gardless of any technicalities which might be raised with respect to whethcr or not a treaty has been violated or has
11352 not been violated, it seems to me that in this case we should rely upon the word of the acting Administrator, when he says definitely that this amendment will injure the recovery program in France, Certainly if we injure the recovery pro- gram in France, we shall be doing a dis- service to the entire ECA program and shall be impairing it. This is the time, it seems to me, when we ought to stand firmly back of the ECA program and should defeat amend- ments which would in anywise cripple it in any part whatever. I hope the amendment will be rejected. The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Iowa [Mr. HickKenLoorer] to the committee amendment. Mr, WHERRY. I ask for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered, and the legislative clerk called the roll. Mr. LUCAS. I announce that the Senator from California [Mr. Downry] is necessarily absent. The Senator from Mississippi (Mr. East ann] is detained on official business, The Senator from North Carolina IMr. Hoey], the Senators from West Virginia [Mr, Kincorr and Mr. Nge.y], the Sen- ator from Connecticut [Mr. McMaxon], and the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Myers] are absent on public business. The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Hunt] is absent because of illness. The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Lone], the Senator from Idaho [Mr. Taytor], the Senator from Utah [Mr. Tuomas], and the Senator from Ken- tucky (Mr. WitTHERS) are absent by leave of the Senate. . Mr. SALTONSTALL. I announce that the Senator from Vermont [Mr, AIKEN), the Senator from Washington [Mr. Carin], the junior Senator from Kansas (Mr. Darsy], the Senator from Missouri [Mr. Donnet.], the Senator from In- diana (Mr. Jenner], the Senator from Colorado [Mr. Munim), the senior Senator from Kansas [Mr. ScHOEPPEL], the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Tosry], the Senator from Michigan [Mr. VANDENBERG], and the Senator from Wis- consin [Mr. Wiuey] are absent by leave of the Senate. If present and voting, the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Scrorr- PEL] would vote “yea.” The Senator from Montana IMr. Ec- TON] is detained because of attendance at the funeral of a close personal friend and if present would vote “yea.” The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. McCartnuy] is necessarily absent. The result was announced—yeas 43, nays 29, as follows: YEA8—43 Brewster Hickenlooper O'Conor Bricker Fill Russell Bridges Ives Saltonstall Butler Johnson, Colo. Smith, N. J. Byrd Kem Sparkman Capehart Knowland Btennis Chavez Langer Taft Cordon Lehman Thye Dworshak McCarran Tydings Ellender McClellan Watkins Ferguson Malone Wherry George Martin ‘Williams Gillette Maybank Young Gurney Morse Hendrickson Mundt CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE NAYS—29 Anderson Hayden McFarland Benton Holland MoKellar Chapman Humphrey Magnuson Connally Johnson, Tex. Murray Douglas Johnston, 8.C. O'Mahoney Flanders Kefauver Pepper Frear ‘Kerr Robertson Fulbright Leahy Smith, Maine Graham Lodge Thomas, Okla. Green Lucas NOT VOTING—24 Aiken Hunt Neely Cain Jenner Schoeppel Darby Kilgore Taylor Donnell Long Thomas, Utah Downey McCarthy Tobey Enctland McMahon Vandenberg Ecton Mulikin Whiley Hoey Myers Withers So Mr. HickEnLooprr’s amendment to the committee amendment was agreed to. The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is on agreeing to the committee amend- ment as amended. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, I have offered an amendment to the committee amendment, which has been printed, and which is lettered “E.” I desire to call up the amendment at this time. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Secre- tary will state the amendment. The LecistaTIve CLERK. On page 448, line 24, it is proposed to strike out the period and insert a colon and the fol- lowing: “Provided further, That, dur- ing any period during which the Armed Forces of the United States are actively engaged in hostilities while carrying out any decision of the Security Council of the United Nations, no part of the funds appropriated in this paragraph shall be used to provide assistance to any par- ticipating country which exports or per- mits the exportation, to the Union of So- viet Socialist Republics or any of its sat- ellite countries (including China and Northern Korea), of any article or com- modity usable by, or which may be used in the manufacture of any article or commodity which may be useful to, the armed forces of the Union of Soviet So- cialist Republics or such satellite coun- tries.” The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Nebraska is recognized for 5 min- utes, Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, I do not desire to use all my time now. The amendment has been discussed. If there is to be opposition, I should be glad later to use the time allotted me. If there is no opposition to the amendment, I am ready to vote on it, The VICE PRESIDENT. The ques- tion is on the amendment offered by the Senator from Nebraska to the committee amendment. Mr. WHERRY. I ask for the yeas and nays. ‘The yeas and nays were not ordered. Mr. WHERRY. I suggest the absence of a quorum. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Secre- tary will call the roll. The roll was called, and the following Senators answered to their names: Anderson Bridges Chapman Benton Butler Chavez Brewster Byrd Connally Bricker Capehart Cordon JULY 81 Douglas Johnson, Colo, Morse Dworshak Johnson, Tex. Mundt Ecton Johnston, 8,0, Murray Ellender Kefauver O'Conor Ferguson Kem O'Mahoney Fianders Kerr Popper Frear Knowland Robertson Fulbright Langer Saltonstall George Leahy Smith, Maine Gillette Lehman Smith, N. J, Graham Lodge Sparkman Green Lucas Stennis Gurney McCarran Taft Hayden McClellan Thomas, Okla. Hendrickson McFarland Thye Hickenlooper McKellar Tydings Hilt Magnuson Watkins Holland Malone ry Humphrey Martin Williams Ives Maybank Young The VICE PRESIDENT. A quorum is present. The question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. WHERRY]. Mr. HAYDEN. Mr. President, a point of order. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator. will state it. Mr, HAYDEN. My point of order is that the amendment as offered imposes additional duties on ECA in that it must find that some countries which would be entitled to the benefits of the recovery program are exporting or permitting the exportation to the Union of Soviet So- cialist Republics of any article or com- modity which may be useful to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics or satellite countries. It would impose a duty upon the Administrator which is not now au- thorized by law. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. HAYDEN. I yield. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, before the Chair rules with reference to the point raised I should like to modify the amendment by inserting in line 10, after the word “including” the word “Com- munist” so that it will read “Communist China and Northern Korea.” The word “Communist” is not now included in the amendment. I should like to modify it in that respect. Mr. President, is the point of order made by the Senator from Arizona open for consideration? The VICE PRESIDENT. It is. Mr. WHERRY. Is it debatable? The VICE PRESIDENT. Itis. It lies in the discretion of the Chair. Mr. WHERRY. Mr, President, section 117 (d) of the basic act provides: The Administrator is directed to refuse delivery insofar as practicable to participat- ing countries of commodities which go Into the production of any commodity for delilv- ery to any nonparticipating European coun- try which commodity would be refused ex- port licenses to those countries by the United States in the interest of national security. Whenever the Administrator believes that the issuance of a license for the export of any commodity to any country wholly or partly in Europe which is not a participat- ing country is inconsistent with the pur- poses and provisions of this title, he shall so advise the department, agency, or officer in the executive branch of the Government ex- ercising the authority with respect to such commodity granted to the President by sec- tion 6 of the act of July 2, 1940 (54 Stat. 71¢), as amended, and, if differences of view are