Page images
PDF
EPUB

UNITED NATIONS TECHNICAL COOPERATION PROGRAMS (SECTION 709)

The Senate amendment extended the authorization of the appropriation contained in the Mutual Security Act of 1952 for United Nations Technical Cooperation programs for a period of 6 months by making the authorization apply to the calendar year 1953 rather than the fiscal year. The House bill contained no such provision. The conference agreement includes the Senate language. The full amount authorized for fiscal 1953 was not appropriated during the fiscal year. The extension of the authorization will permit a request for a supplemental appropriation of the remainder of the amount authorized.

AMENDMENT AND REPEAL OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS (SECTION 710)

The Senate amendment contained a provision amending section 516 (a) of the Mutual Security Act of 1951, as amended, so as to express the policy of the Congress to encourage the efforts of other free countries in fostering private enterprise, in discouraging monopolistic practices and in the strengthening of free labor unions, and to encourage American private investment abroad and the exchange of ideas and technical information. The House bill repealed section 516 (a). Since, however, it was not the intention of the House thereby to repeal the objectives of the subsection, the conference agreement follows the Senate language which more clearly expresses those objectives, with a clarifying modification to confine the "exchange of ideas and technical information" to the elements of private enterprise covered in section 516 (a) as amended in the conference agreement. PACIFIC PACT

The House bill contained a provision stating that the Congress favors the negotiation of a Pacific pact, consistent with the United Nations Charter, for the common defense of the free peoples of the Far East, South Asia and the Pacific Ocean area, and the United States participation in such a pact. The Senate amendment contained no such provision. The conference agreement omits the provision. The Mutual Defense Assistance Act of 1949, as amended, includes a somewhat similar expression of congressional policy as follows:

"The Congress hereby expresses itself as favoring the creation by the free countries and the free peoples of the Far East of a Joint organization, consistent with the Charter of the United Nations, to establish a program of self-help and mutual cooperation designed to develop their economic and social well-being, to safeguard basic rights and liberties and to protect their security and independence."

GUARANTIES

The House bill contained three provisions relating to guaranties-one, extending the terms of guaranties to 20 years; the second, extending eligibility to countries not participating in the Mutual Security Programs; and the last, extending the types of risks covered by guaranties to "war, revolution, or civil disorder." The Senate amendment contained no such provisions. The House yielded on the last provision, but the Senate conferees accepted the other two House provisions. These, together with the proviso in section 706 (d) of the conference agreement permitting the issuance of guaranties until June 30, 1957, also accepted by the Senate conferees, should help to broaden the investment guaranty program so as to stimulate greater investor participation.

[blocks in formation]

House bill contained no such provision. The conference agreement omits the provision. The managers on the part of the Senate receded as to this provision and joined in expressing the judgment of the committee of conference that the Senate language might be misinterpreted and that the provisions of the Mutual Defense Assistance Act broadened by section 2 of the Mutual Security Act of 1951, as amended, grant sufficient authority as to the use of military equipment and materials, thus making the Senate language unnecessary.

R. B. CHIPERFIELD,
JOHN M. VORYS,
WALTER H. JUDD,
JAS. P. RICHARDS,
LAURIE BATTLE,

Managers on the Part of the House.

Mr. VORYS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to extend their remarks on this report, immediately preceding the ordering of the previous question.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Ohio? There was no objection. Mr.VORYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, the conference report does not differ materially from the bill which went from the House because the two bills were quite alike in principle. There were no great differences between them.

Out of 30 items that were in dispute, the House receded on 9, the Senate on 11, and 10 were compromised.

As to the differences in the various limitations on amounts to be authorized, the conference report roughly splits the difference between the two Houses. We had $4.9 billion, the Senate had $5.3 billion. The conference report is $5.1 billion. We went up $158.5 million, they came down $161.5 million. Therefore they cut their amount $3 million more than we increased ours. The conference report is $2.5 billion, or 33 percent, less than the Truman budget request for the fiscal year 1954, and $670 million, or 11 percent, less than the original Eisenhower request.

On the matter of time, the Senate agreed to the House termination date of June 30, 1954. The House agreed to an extra year for liquidation deliveries of military equipment, up to June 30, 1957. The early termination date for the present law was agreed on, not because the conferees thought that all forms of assistance would finally terminate on that date, but because the conferees felt that the laws, policies, and administration for assistance should be overhauled and changed early next year, as proposed by the President.

As to transfers, there is great flexibility in the mutual security program through a series of authorizations for 10 percent transfers of funds from one title or purpose to another. The House bill provided less transferability than the administration requested. The Senate raised the administration's requested type of transfer authority from 10 percent to 15 percent, which amounted to a 50 percent increase in flexibility. The conferees agreed on 10 percent, on approximately the basis of the administration request.

The two most important conference actions involved the Judd amendment with reference to agricultural surpluses, and the Richards amendment involving EDC, the European army.

There was language in both bills talking about agricultural surpluses but not doing anything very effective about them. Mr. JUDD worked out a constructive, workable position on this, going as far as the conferees were empowered to go within the limitations of the two bills in using agricultural surpluses for foreign aid and mutual security, and requiring a minimum of $100 million in agricultural surpluses-the first time we have ever had a minimum for use of such surpluses-and a maximum of $250 million to be used for such purposes.

He will describe this further in a few

minutes, but I feel the House, the conferees, and the public owe him a debt of gratitude for his constructive states

manship in contributing to the solution

of this problem.

With reference to the Richards amendment, for the last 5 years our legislation having to do with foreign affairs has contained increasingly urgent and insistent statements of the need which has become increasingly apparent and important; Europe must unite. The Richards amendment is the latest and the strongest of these declarations. It refers to the EDC, the European Army, the plan that Europe itself devised for bringing Germany peacefully into the defense of Europe, a great step toward integration which has been awaiting ratification for over a year. The Richards amendment provided that half of the military funds for Europe, which amounted to approximately the funds programed for the six EDC nations, should be available solely for the European Army. I did not vote for this amendment in committee because I felt it would be used by our enemies to discourage rather than encourage the achievement of the result we all desire. As it comes out of conference, however, with changes that the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. RICHARDS] has accepted, I feel it will discourage no one except those who are opposed to the unification of Europe. It does not prevent or delay the procurement of equipment. Therefore, under our production schedules it will have no practical effect until after this equipment has been produced approximately 2 years from now. Meanwhile the Congress will have had two sessions to reconsider any recommendations of the President, as provided for in the amendment. Therefore, it does not tie the President's hands and it does not reverse any of his policies. It shows clearly, however, that while we have a long-time reliable interest in European unification, this must take place or else we reserve the right to do some rethinking based on presidential recommendations. This is an "or else” policy statement.

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. VORYS. I yield.

Mr. GROSS. As to the termination date of this act, does the gentleman think the termination will be observed any more than it was under the old

ECA and Marshall plan, which was supposed to expire in 1952?

Mr. VORYS. As I stated, the House conferees were under no illusions that the whole thing was going to end up about 11 months from now. We did feel, and we urged the other body, and they agreed, that if we put in the termination date of a year from now, that would make sure we would get the new framework of legislation that the administration has promised. It is my hope that this legislation in the future will be on a workable plan, based upon the use of our surpluses, planned to help our own economy, and based upon getting results, a plan that we can live with for a long time.

For some people, this bill is the beginning of the end of United States foreign aid. I think it is the end of the beginning. This beginning period has been marked by emergency bills for relief and recovery, stopgap and piecemeal improvising and temporizing with one crisis after another, and the practice has been never to repeal but always to add other measures on top, resulting in what President Eisenhower has called a "patchwork of statutes." It is time this period ended.

The results of this ad hoc patchwork period have been better, net, in spite of its defects, than some of us realize. We have had no world war III, worldwide recovery has taken place, and vast revolutionary movements are developing behind the Iron Curtain which were stirred up, not by American propaganda or by American agents, but because those people saw the effect of our outpouring of military and economic aid on the economy and the morale of the countries where people are free. East Germans, bled white by their Soviet conquerors, have seen the results of the economic aid which we, the victors, have poured into West Germany. The people of Asia have seen the help we have given Japan. The result is that behind the Iron Curtain in Europe people are willing to struggle and die for the kind of freedom that they can see in the West, and in Korea, prisoners are willing to struggle and die rather than leave the kind of free world they have seen to return behind the Iron Curtain of the Orient.

We have achieved a great deal with our efforts; we must not let up at the very time they are beginning to bring about the results we sought. For the future, however, our efforts must be better planned, with no waste and extravagance, and with requirements that will bring about results-"or else."

We are coming into a period when we will want to export to the whole world. We want to finance exports however, not with grants, but with loans, repayable in imports of commodities we need, things that will help, not hurt, our own economy.

We are coming into a period when independance of free nations will have to involve interdependence of responsible nations. Freedom from tyranny does not mean freedom from responsibility for other nations any more than for ourselves. Independence from domination does not mean a license to do

as they please, for all nations any more of the conference report to the guaranty than for ourselves. provision and explain that briefly.

We are coming into a period that must involve mutual prosperity, and mutual responsibility along with mutual security. I believe that next year will see the need of the beginning of this new period.

Mr. CHIPERFIELD. Mr. will the gentleman yield?

Mr. VORYS. The House had three provisions with reference to guaranties. We have had a guaranty program in this law for about 5 years. The House provisions extended the period of guaranties from 14 to 20 years to be more effecSpeaker, tive, made guaranties available over a larger area of countries, and also provided for guaranties against war or revolution. The other body objected to the last provision and struck that out. Otherwise, the guaranty provision is continued. Up to date there have been $200 million authorized for guaranties. There have been $120 million of that used. No money at all has had to be paid out to meet the industrial guaranties and about $500,000 in premiums have been collected.

Mr. VORYS. I yield. Mr. CHIPERFIELD. Mr. Speaker, first of all I wish to thank the managers on the part of the House for the splendid work they did in bringing to a successful conclusion the conference on H. R. 5710.

The industry and the knowledge of detail of the distinguished gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. VORYS] was the backbone of the conference on the House

side.

Minnesota [Mr. JUDD] did yeoman work The distinguished gentleman from in presenting a substitute amendment to the McClellan amendment and the Fulton amendment, which were designed to make maximum use of our surplus agricultural products. I believe his substitute embodies the best provisions of both of these amendments and should not only help our own economy but be of great value to our friends who need this help. Incidentally, it is not a “give away" program.

The distinguished gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. RICHARDS] argued most forcefully for his amendment and the substance of it is retained in the bill. I am hopeful his desire to bring about an European Defense Community will be successful and that by his efforts it will be expedited.

The distinguished gentleman from Alabama [Mr. BATTLE] worked most diligently and approached the issues in a bipartisan manner. He attended every session although during the conference he became a proud father of a baby boy.

So far as the bill itself is concerned, we were able to reduce the Senate authorization by $161,500,000 while only increasing the House authorization by $158,500,000. So we had a little better than a 50-50 break so far as the conference was concerned.

We were able to retain the House version so far as termination date of the mutual-security program is concerned but did extend the time for liquidation for both military and economic items. So far as the military end items are concerned, there is a long lead time necessary after the actual contract is entered into and before actual deliveries can be made.

We retained the House version of only 10 percent transferability while the Senate had increased such transferability to 15 percent.

On the whole I feel the conference was very successful. Both the Senate and the House conferees were fair and a sound and workable bill has resulted. Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. VORYS.

Mr. GROSS.

I yield.

I wonder if the gentleman would address himself to page 20

Mr. GROSS. What do you mean by guaranties? Are you guaranteeing to indemnify exporters indemnify or somebody? Whom are you guaranteeing something? Mr. VORYS. There are rather elaborate provisions, which I cannot take time now to explain. We have explained it each year for the 5 years it has been here in the law. We guarantee those who are exporting or providing equipment in accordance with the mutual-security program, against incontrovertibility funds and against seizure of their property by the governments of foreign countries. In general, that is what the guaranties are.

of

[blocks in formation]

Mr. VORYS. On guaranties, there was no increase of the authorization. There is about $80 million left of the $200 million that has been available for that purpose.

Mr. GROSS. So then, as a matter of fact, within the past few weeks, in the House we have passed legislation to guarantee $16 million or $200 million on the same basis. That is correct, is it not?

Mr. VORYS. No; the gentleman is incorrect.

Mr. GROSS. We had a bill out of the Committee on Banking and Currency to do exactly the same thing.

Mr. VORYS. Not quite the same purpose; but the gentleman is correct that we have had an earlier bill of $100 million this year for a somewhat similar purpose.

Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. VORYS. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. McCORMACK. In In connection with the Richards amendment, which disturbs some of us, at least, with all due respect to my distinguished friend the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. RICHARDS), as I understand, the form and substance of that amendment are contained in the conference report?

Mr. VORYS. As to what is form and what is substance, I leave that to the

wisdom of the gentleman. The language is on the first page of the conference report.

The big difference is that, as the Richards amendment passed the House, it could have been interpreted to prevent the obligating or the use at all of about $1 billion of this money until the EDC was in being. In conference it was made clear that procurement could go forward, but that the transfer of materials and equipment procured would be made to EDC, unless Congress provided otherwise, on recommendation of the President.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 11 minutes to my friend from South Carolina, the very distinguished, independent and stubborn, but patriotic and beloved gentleman [Mr. RICHARDS].

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. Speaker, the conference report that we bring to you is, I think, a fair one. As has been said, the House bill authorized $4,998,732,500. The Senate bill, or rather amendment, The Senate bill, or rather amendment, carried $320 million more than the House bill. The agreement reduces the Senate bill. The agreement reduces the Senate bill $161,500,000 and increases the House bill by $158,500,000. The overall figure for military assistance is $3,581,523,000

The SPEAKER. The time of the gen- and $934 million for mutual defense tleman has expired. financing.

Mr. McCORMACK. Will the gentleman yield himself 1 additional minute so that I may ask him a further question?

Mr. VORYS. I yield myself 1 additional minute, Mr. Speaker, and yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. McCORMACK. In other words, the language in the conference report with reference to the Richards amendment in connection with money that may hereafter be appropriated for military assistance funds in connection with the European Defense Community, is that it can be used and obligated for weapons such as tanks, or anything else that can be produced; but unless the European Defense Community plan goes through, there has to be a further recommendation by the President and action by the Congress as to the disposal of the equipment; is that correct?

Mr. VORYS. That is correct. As a practical matter, before that time arrives, under the procurement plan, roughly a couple of years from now, Congress will have been in session at least twice.

Mr. McCORMACK. In other words, there is not a complete freezing of the money?

Mr. VORYS. Oh, no.

Mr. McCORMACK. So that the equipment can be produced, and if it is not used in one place it would be used in another place; it would be capable of use?

Mr. VORYS. That is correct, yes. Mr. JAVITS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

The SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman from Ohio has expired.

Mr.VORYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 additional minute and yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr. JAVITS].

Mr. JAVITS. Would the gentleman agree that the urgency of the European Defense Community was increased by the development in the Soviet Union regarding Beria, showing how unexpectedly things can drop upon us from the Soviet bloc rather than otherwise; and therefore there is every additional reason for emphasizing the fact that the European Defense Community should be created, under present circumstances. This is the real interpretation of current events, it makes this bill more rather than less urgent.

Mr. VORYS. I certainly think there is nothing that has happened to make Europe and ourselves slow down in this respect.

The basic materials program figure is $7,500,000, which is one-half of the Senate figure. The Children's Fund figure is $9 million, a reduction of $4 million from the Senate authorization. The House figure for ocean freight of $1 million was increased to the Senate figure of $1,825,000.

So it will be readily seen that the conference agreement as to dollars and minor details came on a basis of give and take.

The real victory on the part of the House-and it was a major victory-was the retention of the substance of section 540 of the House bill, providing that approximately $1 billion of military aid to Europe must go to the European Defense Community.

Your conferees think that we have done a good job for the House. We have fought hard for the House bill, have abandoned none of its principles, and take pride in unanimously presenting the report for your approval.

Now, I think it will be agreed by fair minds that our foreign policy has been and still is the containment of communism. It may further be agreed, I think, that there is no excuse for the authorizations in this conference report unless same further the objective of containment of communism. The whole basis of my support of this bill and report is that, if we are going to spend billions for defense, it would be foolish not to spend one-tenth of that to arm our friends-where our friends show cooperation and a will to defend themselves.

Now

It has been said that the Congress has little or no say-so in shaping the foreign policy of the United States. Until a few years ago, even when the viewpoint of Congress was considered by the executive department, only the Senate was considered in the picture because of its treaty ratifying powers. Now things have changed and the House of Representatives is more and more being considered and more and more being consulted in this field because of the large sums that necessarily must be appropriated to implement foreign policy as enunciated by the Executive through foreign aid programs of different kinds. As a matter of fact, in recent years these programs have become so large that they have threatened the solvency of the United States. And therefore it behooves the Congress to take another look at our investment in mutual security abroad and to evaluate the returns on our investment.

Now, let us take a look at the controversial House EDC provision: The House bill provides $2,079,689,870 for military assistance to Europe "of which not less than 50 percent shall be made available only for the organization referred to in clause (C) of section 2 (b)." This means that 50 percent shall be made available only for the European Defense Community. Here is where the House for the first time definitely, emphatically, and mandatorily asserts its voice in the shaping of our foreign policy. Outside of this provision, and the provision of the conference report which is substantially the same, you will find in neither the House nor the Senate bill a deviation or change in the general tenor of foreign aid legislation from 1948 to the present day.

It has been suggested to you by the honest, able, and distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. VORYS] that the conference agreement is a watered-down version of the House position in regard to this item. Begging the gentleman's pardon, may I say that he is utterly incorrect if he seeks to make such an impression. As a matter of fact, I challenge anyone to show me where the language of the conference report changes basically anything in section 540 of the original House bill.

It is true there is some change in verbiage, some shuffling of words, some rearrangement of phrases and clauses, but nevertheless, I assert that there is no new authority, new authorization, new delegation of power, no restriction, no increased elasticity, to this section of the House bill. In other words, the House provision remains, in substance, intact, and nothing can be done under this part of the conference report that cannot be done under the House provision.

Let there be no misunderstanding on the part of our European friends that the provision referred to means simply this: We are through with military aid to the six nations of the European Defense Community-France, Italy, Luxembourg, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Germany-except through EDC. Of this number, only Germany has ratified the treaty signed by all of these 6 nations and Germany unlike the 5 other signatories to the treaty, is powerless to form defense forces of her own, even in the face of the Russian threat on her very borders.

Now why is it so essential for these six nations to band together in a European Defense Community? The answer is simply this: United they could stand but divided they would fall in the face of an attack by Russia. attack by Russia. Here in this small, compact group of nations you have 140 million people-well educated, traditionally patriotic, with great military leaders, strong industrially, with an economy restored by American aid, with the statesmen of every one of these countries publicly recognizing that the only adequate defense from aggression would be through unity, with a treaty to unify already signed over a year ago by each one of the nations; and the only thing wanting is the ratification by the parliaments of these countries. ments of these countries. And yet it is being said everywhere in Europe now

that EDC is dead. If it is dead, the ancient jealousies, rivalries, and competitions of Europe have killed it. If EDC is dead, then it is folly to continue to appropriate billions here to furnish arms for the individual countries where there is no will to bury past differences and unify. We could better use the money in other countries of Europe such as Turkey, Spain, and Germany where opposition to communism is determined; or use it to strengthen our own defense forces here and abroad.

Mr. Speaker, the United States, by solemn covenant, ratified practically unanimously by the Senate, is a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. That organization is composed of practically every friendly nation in the Atlantic area.

Through that treaty we have bound ourselves to consider that an attack upon one is an attack upon all. That means that if any signatory to the treaty is attacked we are at war. To prevent that war coming about, or to be ready if it does come about, we are contributing today to the defense of Europe over 250,000 of our own boys. In addition to that, we are contributing hundreds of our best fighting planes, many naval vessels, airfields, and hundreds of millions of dollars in other arms and services.

Furthermore, we have contributed to Europe $14,633,000,000 in economic aid, of which EDC countries got 53 percent; and $11,481,000,000 in military aid, of which EDC countries got 71 percent.

Can it be that many of our friends abroad, now balking at joining the European Defense Community, have come to the conclusion that it is not necessary for them to make the sacrifice and defend themselves when the rich and gullible United States will furnish the troops and stand the cost and fight the battle if it comes?

As the center and core of NATO defenses, the European Defense Community agreement was proposed by France in 1950, and, as I said, has been signed by every proposed member nation. But now France is in the forefront of those who draw back from taking the final step of ratification. It is said that France wants no rearming of Germany, even as a member of EDC. In view of past history, I can understand France's fears. But does not France realize that in view of the world menace from communism Germany must be allowed to rearm, and that it is better, far better, for that country to be rearmed as a partner in EDC than otherwise?

Now every military man who has appeared before our committee on the subject has testified that EDC, with Germany in it, is essential to the defense of Europe. General Bradley said it; General Ridgway said it. I am equally sure that President Eisenhower concurs

in that viewpoint; in fact, he has said so.

Our former Secretary of State, Mr. Acheson, believed that. Our present Secretary of State, Mr. Dulles-and I have confidence in in him-has urged and warned Europe about the necessity for the formation of this unified army and command. He has warned Europe on more than one occasion that it was going to be very hard to get Congress to

go along unless something is done about worthwhile to spend additional millions, EDC.

It is true that I have no information that either the President or Mr. Dulles favors this provision in the bill. Nevertheless, it is intended to help, rather than hinder, their negotiations on the subject. They are often told by foreign governments that they cannot agree to this or that because of the attitude of their parliaments. This bill strengthens the President's hand by giving the attitude of Congress in advance.

Does France or Italy or Belgium or the Netherlands or Luxembourg, or even Great Britain, which country not only stands aside from the EDC concept but also reportedly is lately pouring cold water on the idea, think that the United States, now carrying 90 percent of the load in Korea for U. N., with her sons stationed around the world, is going to keep troops in Europe indefinitely? Will not our friends agree that that is a job for Europe itself?

Before closing, Mr. Speaker, may I emphasize that there is no intention in this conference report to cast reflection upon the President or to question his supreme command in the field of general foreign policy. We are fortunate in having today as President of the United States a man who has a keen sense of world responsibility and mutual security. In addition to that, he was and is a great general who understands the limitations and capabilities of war-stricken Europe. This provision is not intended as an attempt by the Congress to usurp his powers. Rather it is a reminder to our European friends, and friends must speak frankly, that Congress must raise the money for this program and Congress thinks there must be an end somewhere to sending money to a Europe still bent on pursuing its traditional rivalries, hates and jealousies a course that gave birth to two great world wars and left Europe desolate.

May I say that I have supported foreign aid and the mutual-security concept, economic and military, from its inception in 1948. I have not always agreed with the past administration or this administration in methods used to reach the desired goal. I have always felt that when we are furnishing the money we have a right to attach some conditions to the gift. And for several years I have supported language placed in every one of these aid bills urging that the economic and military unification of Europe is necessary if we are to succeed fully in our objective. Far be it from me to criticize Frenchmen, Britishers, Italians, Germans, or others for extreme nationalism. I think I understand the sufferings, the complexes, and doubts generated by war, destruction, and invasion. Thank God our spirits have never been withered by such experiences. But if the mutual-security ideal means anything, it means that we are willing to help those who have the will to help themselves. And those who really think must definitely come to the conclusion that money spent to help those who are not willing to help themselves in the long run is money wasted. So it behooves the United States to take another look and ponder whether it is

particularly in Europe, when the EDC countries will not take the steps to defend themselves which all military men say are essential. It may be that next year we will try another road in this worldwide stand against the greatest Scourge ever to blight this earth.

It has been said by some that we must not put conditions to this aid to the EDC countries because they won't like it and because it will slow the attainment of our objective. I have no faith in that philosophy, particularly if other methods have failed. I fully recognize that the United States has no right to tell France, Italy, or any other nation what she must do in the field of foreign policy or common defense. On the other hand, it is equally true that foreign countries have no right to tell us what we must do with our money.

I reassert that if the United States Congress continues to appropriate billions upon billions to formulate mutualsecurity and unified-defense plans, if she is to stretch her economy and invite bankruptcy by doing that, then it is the right, yes, even the duty, in protection of our own people and our military and economic security, to attach conditions to the gift if we feel that otherwise the money raised by the sweat of our people will not accomplish its purpose.

Mr. BATTLE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. RICHARDS. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.

We

Mr. BATTLE. Is not the purpose of the gentleman's amendment to offer an incentive to those countries to get together militarily so that they can stop tary invasion in Europe? There is no Russian aggression if they start a milidoubt in my mind that in substance there is no difference between this section of the report and the House bill itself. have surrendered nothing there. May I say that I supported the gentleman's amendment in the House, in the committee, and in conference and I thoroughly believe it will help to overcome one of the things which has been most difficult for me; that is to continue to appropriate so much money overseas without the maximum results being obtained.

Mr. RICHARDS. The gentleman's support has been consistent and valuable. This is the first time that the Conmandatory provision in legislation in gress of the United States has put a

connection with the authorization of foreign-aid funds.

Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. RICHARDS. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. McCORMACK. Has the gentleman any knowledge as to the position of President Eisenhower or the administration relative to the provisions in the conference report?

Mr. RICHARDS. I personally have received no word from the President on the subject.

Mr. DORN of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. RICHARDS. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.

Mr. DORN of South Carolina. I hap pen to be one of those who has consistently, for the last 6 years, fought foreign aid in its various forms, but I want to compliment the distinguished chairman of my State delegation on this amendment. I think it is a wonderful amendment. It is what the American people want. They want this Congress to have some influence in foreign affairs and settle policy and to set up standards by concerning themselves with all of these billions of dollars that are being sent overseas. I think that is a very, very fine amendment. Europe certainly cannot defend itself unless there is unity, and in that unified organization Germany will have to participate.

that we could not continue to appropri- of building strength, establishing security, ate funds that would be of no avail.

Mr. FULTON. So in the conference report there is no time limit on membership in EDC?

Mr. RICHARDS. No.

The SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman from South Carolina has expired. Mr. VORYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. JUDD].

Mr. JUDD. Mr. Speaker, as one who in 1949 coauthored the forerunner of the present so-called Richards amendment, when we had the first Mutual Defense Assistance Act before us 4 years ago, I have felt all along that such a provision in our legislation would not ham

Mr. RICHARDS. I appreciate my per the President in the conduct of our colleague's commendation.

foreign relations in Europe, but rather

Mr. O'KONSKI. Mr. Speaker, will the would back him up. I supported the gentleman yield?

same or similar proposals under the pre

Mr. RICHARDS. I yield to the gen- ceding President, and I believe the same tleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. O'KONSKI. I want to compliment the gentleman for the fine statement he has made. This is the first time the Committee on Foreign Affairs has shown any signs of intelligence. We said to Iran, "Unless you come to terms with Great Britain, you no longer get any aid from us." If we can lay that kind of a. condition down on Iran, why can we not lay down the same condition on the EDC countries?

Mr. RICHARDS. I thank my friend. Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. RICHARDS. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. GROSS. I think the Members of the House should be cognizant of the fact that this increases the authorization on the part of the House by $158 million. And, I think the Members of the House should understand that the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service was bludgeoned into starting a hearing on the postal rate increase today.

One hundred and fifty-eight million dollars would do much toward settling the increase in the first class postal rate bill. Mr. RICHARDS. The gentleman is entitled to his views.

applies to the present President of the
United States.

and preserving peace in the North Atlantic area. In order to provide further encouragement to such efforts, the Congress believes it essential that this act should be so administered as to support concrete measures for political federation, military integration, and economic unification in Europe.

Despite all those 4 years of words about the necessity and essentiality of vigorous efforts toward military integration, not much has actually been accomplished in that direction. The European Defense Community is still only on paper. Only one Parliament has ratified-Germany's. So in the modified Richards amendment, this parliament, the American Congress, has taken what we talked about last year, a concrete measure to encourage the objectives in Europe we have urged these 4 years. The conference report provides that 50 percent of the military equipment and materials for Europe-or approximately $1 billion worth-will be transferred to the European Defense Community, or the members thereof. If it does not come into being by the time the materials and equipment authorized in the act are

It might be of interest to review the efforts this House has made to encourage and stimulate the unity in Europe which everyone, I think, of our principal ready to be delivered 2 years or more leaders there has said is essential to success of our military assistance program. In the original MDAP Act of 1949, after much struggle in the Committee on Foreign Affairs and on the floor of the House, we finally wrote in a provision that made half of our military aid contingent upon the development of united defense plans for Western Europe. The provision was rejected by the

from now, and if the Congress has not, on the recommendation of the President, otherwise provided in its two sessions before that time, then the equipment and materials will not be delivered to the countries involved but will be used elsewhere, or by our own Armed Forces.

We urgently want the EDC to come into being. That is the only way free

Senate, under White House pressure, but Europe can have real strength. We au

the final act did state that our assist

ance was to be "subject to agreements
designed to assure that the assistance
will be used to promote an integrated
defense of the North Atlantic area-and
to realize unified direction and control."

thorize an additional billion dollars'. worth of military hardware to be earmarked for it just as soon as it becomes effective. That is not designed to weaken the hand of the President; it is designed to strengthen his hand.

Heretofore these governments have said they are for the EDC, but cannot

I remember the hours some of us spend trying to get stronger language, insisting on unity, and we finally agreed get it through their parliaments. Here

on that last phrase when our beloved
former chairman, the gentleman from
West Virginia, Mr. Kee, came up with
it. The least we could ask them to do
was "to realize unified direction and ef-

Mr. FULTON. Mr. Speaker, will the fort" in developing and carrying out gentleman yield?

Mr. RICHARDS. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. FULTON. Does this provision as now written in the conference report bring aid to individual countries if less than all of the members proposed in EDC become members of the organization?

Mr. RICHARDS. No, it does not; and I will tell you why. It does not, because by that method you would never get Germany in it because they have not signed a peace treaty.

Mr. FULTON. The other question is as to the time of membership. There was no provision in the conference report as to when they must become members. Can that be done at any time?

Mr. RICHARDS. That is up to those nations. The United States did not propose the EDC community. Europe proposed it, and France led. We did not tell them to, but we have applauded their action all along in foreign aid legislation and have tried to gently suggest

defense plans.

In 1950 we spoke of encouraging the "unification of Europe" and we wrote a sentence into the act instructing the President to terminate assistance under the act to any nation if he determined "that such nation is not making its full contribution through self-help and mutual assistance in all practicable forms to the common defense of the North Atlantic area." Needless to say, no assistance was terminated.

In 1951 the Congress accepted the objective I had urged from the beginning, namely, to "encourage the economic unification and political federation of Europe."

Last year we went still further. Let me read what we added to the purpose section of the Mutual Security Act of 1952:

The Congress welcomes the recent progress in political federation, military integration, and economic unification in Europe, and reaffirms its belief that the necessity of further vigorous efforts towards these ends as a means

after our representatives, in dealing with the six European countries involved, will be able to say that they cannot get more from the American Congress without the military integration and unification which have been promised so long; but that, with such integration into a common defense, an additional $1 billion worth of materials and equipment will become available to them.

I am convinced that this provision will not injure the President's capacity to deal flexibly and effectively with these other countries. If I thought it would weaken his influence and hamper his efforts, I would be against it. I believe it can prove helpful to have the Congress at last say in a firm, dignified way this which it might better have said a long time ago.

Now may I discuss the amendment dealing with the use of surplus agricultural products, to which the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. VORYS] has referredthe man who knows more about the details of our foreign-aid legislation than anyone else in the Government, in my opinion.

As you know, in the bill as passed by the House there was the so-called Fulton amendment, which stated that it was the intent of the Congress that surplus

« PreviousContinue »