There has never been any doubt as to where I stood. Back in December 1947 I opposed the Marshall plan on the floor of this House. I said:

We must recognize the necessity of learning to live in a world with other nations having different ideologies. If we cannot learn to live in such a world without meddling with the political and strategic factors of other nations, we have already lost the peace our young men and women fought so gallantly to win.

I opposed going into World War I until Congress declared war. I then went to war the first day men were accepted for the first training camp and I served 5 years in the Army. I opposed World War II until Pearl Harbor, and I have consistently opposed, and will continue to oppose, the taking of direct or indirect steps into world war III. But at the same time I have always worked for, and shall continue to work for, an America strong enough to serve as a deterrent to any potential enemy—a strong America able to repel and crush aggression if we are attacked.

Mr. GARY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 mintues to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. SIEMINSKI).

Mr. SIEMINSKI. Mr. Chairman, history relates that there are two general ways for a nation to promote its interests at home and abroad; one, by peaceful negotiation to obtain what it needs to live, and the other, by war. Because

this bill seeks to continue America's ability to promote its interests in the future, as well as now, by peaceful negotiations, I shall support it.

America, in its new role, confronts the dicta by which its people live, "it is more blessed to give than to receive," and in giving, we shall receive. Aid, cast across the waters, will return one hundred fold.

Mr. TABER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. BENTLEY).

Mr. BENTLEY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations giving me these few minutes to make my position clear on this matter. Some of you may recall that a few weeks ago I and three of my colleagues from the Committee on Foreign Affairs stood up in this Chamber and fought the authorization bill for this legislation. We fought it hard, and we had the support of a great many Members on both sides of the aisle. I have now decided, however, with a great deal of reluctance, reluctance which I believe is shared by the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, to support the appropriations figure as we find it in the committee bill of $4,433,000,000. You may recall at the time the authorization was under consideration that my colleagues and I had a series of amendments which would have reduced the authorization ceiling of five billion by approximately a billion dollars. We find that figure now has been reduced by, I think, some $705 million, and if you take all of the unobligated carryovers, reductions have been made in the neighborhood of $1,100,000,000. I do not like the program in its present form. I think that further reductions are in order, and I agree with the gentleman from Minnesota, I would like to see it cut another

$400 million or approximately another 10 percent. But, as I tried to make clear on the occasion of my previous appearance in the Chamber, I am not opposed to the program, only to the authorization figure. I believed for a long time that a figure of roughly $4 billion was the correct figure for this year, based upon considerable research and investigation of my own. Without speaking for my colleagues who signed the minority report with me, I do intend to support the committee, although I will at the same time support reductions in the above-stated amount.

made a perfect bill. made a perfect bill. You may recall w did it last year on the military bill. We put an overall expenditure limitation on, so the military could not spend the $109 billion at any time they wanted during the year. Despite the outcry, when the end of the trail was reached at the end of the fiscal year, it developed that they could not have spent even what we allowed them, and they did not

Mr. WHEELER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. COUDERT. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. WHEELER. The gentleman's fig

not take into contemplation the bill to

Mr. WHEELER. My understanding from published reports is that the present administration immigration policy proposes to bring all of these people into this country. Now I want to know whether, under this plan, you propose to feed them, clothe them, house them, and give them medical attention before you bring them in or after you get them here? Mr. BENTLEY. Well, not being a member of the Committee on the Judiciary I would say to the gentleman from Georgia that I imagine they will be brought over here pretty much at their own expense or at the expense of private charitable organizations, and if they do come over, the number which has been proposed, I hope that they will be absorbed in the economy of this country. I might say to the gentleman from Georgia that I have not made up my own mind whether I will support that particular piece of legislation or not.

Mr. TABER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. COUDERT).

Mr. COUDERT. Mr. Chairman, there are 1 or 2 points that I would like to make and have in the RECORD on this bill.

This bill carries a total of $4,400,000,000, approximately, of new funds. So far as I am concerned, the committee has done a grand job in pruning the new requests in cooperation with the administration. The fact still remains, howistration. The fact still remains, however, that there are some $15 billion, or will be when this bill is enacted, of available money for spending for this program. gram. So that when we read in the newspapers about a billion-dollar reduction by the committee, it is not a billiondollar reduction out of a $5 billion request for new money. For practical purposes, it is a modest 7-percent reduction out of $15 billion.

So

The proposal of the administration for spending in this year as opposed to the spending in this year as opposed to the new obligational authority requested is $6.8 billion. $6.8 billion. The actual expenditures for 1953 fiscal year were $5.5 billion. today, Mr. Chairman, with debt limit increase legislation facing us, with the necessity of new taxes facing us, and probably in addition continued enormous deficits with the inevitable inflationary consequences, we are planning to spend $1,300,000,000 more than was ever actually expended on this program in any ally expended on this program in any year.

I am very sorry that the subcommittee did not see fit to attach an expenditures limitation to this bill. It would have

thorize the expenditure of an additional $3 billion-$4 billion—$5 billion—$X billion, whatever amount the Commodity Credit Corporation has in stock?

Mr. COUDERT. Those figures, I assume, are not included. That is a new program on top of all else.

Mr. WHEELER. This program, I may say, is to be charged to the Department of Agriculture.

Mr. COUDERT. I assume the gentleman is correct in that respect.

Let me make one further point, so that we may get the comparisons of what we are doing. Perhaps somebody may be inspired to offer an amendment to this bill to limit expenditures for the current year to the amount of the expenditures in the last fiscal year, which represented the greatest expenditure we have ever had for this program.

Back in 1947, President Truman appointed what became known as the Harriman Commission, a committee to survey foreign aid and the capacity to pay for foreign aid. On that committee were Mr. Harriman, Secretary of Commerce, as chairman. It included Mr. Randolph Burgess, presently an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury; James B. Carey, of the CIO; George Meaney, of the A. F. of L.; Paul Hoffman, formerly president of the Studebaker Corp., and who later became the head of the ECA program; Dr. Moulton, president of Brookings Institution; Owen D. Young; and Mr. Sprout, president of the University of California. In 295 pages of carefully considered and reasoned thinking, this committee came up with the conclusion in 1947 that the maximum amount that it was safe for the United States to spend in foreign aid of all kinds was $4,250,000 a year, and that was at a time when we were spending only $35 billion a year, and not $75 billion a year, as at present.

Mr. TABER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. COTTON].

Mr. COTTON. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the subcommittee which was charged with the duty of considering this appropriation for the mutual security program, I will say a few words although I do not expect to use the entire 10 minutes. I, too, wish to join with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in expressing my admiration for our chairman, the gentleman from New York [Mr. TABER] and the gentleman from Virginia, and for my colleagues for the faithful and earnest way in which they have grappled with these problems.

I want to say to the House, that this amount, this report of your committee is a compromise. Holy Writ says "Blessed are the peacemakers." But it has been my observation in this Congress that when anyone comes in with what they conceive to be a fair and reasonable compromise, which is the way the legislative process works, that they usually have to defend themselves desperately against both sides and nobody is satisfied. That in a sense is true today. We were dealing with a subject upon which the feeling runs more intense than almost any other subject we have to deal with in the Congress.

First, I would like to say just a word to those who believe this program should have been cut more deeply. I do not expect these gentlemen to pay much attention to what I say because I am frankly one who, since I have been a Member of the Congress, has been a consistent supporter of our foreign aid program under whatever name it appeared from the days of the Marshall plan. I have supported foreign aid during the years of the past under other administrations. It is only natural that I should support it today under the present administration, and I suppose it is also only natural that some of my good friends from the Middle West and elsewhere who do not feel as I feel about it should refer to me sometimes as an "eastern internationalist" and all the other terms that are applied to those of us who believe in the program.

Mr. MILLER of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for a question?

Mr. COTTON. I yield very briefly to the gentleman.

Mr. MILLER of Kansas. I have heard the Marshall plan and the ECA and all the other alphabetical plans held up to scorn here a number of times. I wonder whether the gentleman might say, having said that he supported these plans in the past, whether he has in mind that they have done some good? Would the gentleman say what might have been the situation if these plans had not been brought into existence?

Mr. COTTON. Of course, I will be very happy to reply to the gentleman that I have a very deep conviction that they have not only done some good, they have done worlds of good. They have not been perfect. I am thoroughly aware of the soft spots in them. I am thoroughly aware that some of the money has been wasted and that some of the things that we have done have been foolish things.

On the whole, I think that those who view the matter objectively, in the light of history, will agree that the work of this foreign program which has been an integral part of our national defense has accomplished a great deal of good, and that is why I am still supporting it today.

Let me say to my friends who feel that this bill should be cut more deeply, that it is a deep conviction in the minds of some of us that this is not an aid program, but rather it is what its name implies, a security program. I think that if the Soviet Union had an airbase across the line in nearby Mexico from which they could strike us almost instantly any

time they wished, and if because of the fact that a military base is always a military target, they furnished some aid to Mexico and encouraged and bolstered up that country, most of us would say this was hardheaded military tactics rather than soft charity. I think that if the potential enemies of this Nation were receiving from neighboring Canada uranium and other vital strategic materials, and in order to keep their position as a favored customer they made certain concessions to our neighbor, I think we would view that situation with wholesome respect and regard it as smart military defense on the part of our potential enemy, rather than an attempt to win friends with dollars or conduct a giveaway program.

So I have felt from the start that we should continue this program. Within this subcommittee I want to say to you that I presented, to the best of my ability, almost every argument that was presented by the gentleman from New York [Mr. JAVITS], on this floor a few minutes ago. I, too, felt that having called to the leadership of this Nation a man who is regarded as having a better knowledge of the world situation than any other living man, we should go just as far as we can go in giving him the tools to work with, and we should also give to the whole world assurance that we are thoroughly behind this program.

the good of this Nation and I feel bound to support this compromise figure which our committee arrived at.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New Hampshire has expired.

Mr. COTTON. May I have 2 more minutes?

Mr. GARY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman from New Hampshire 2 minutes.

Mr. COTTON. I thank the gentleman from Virginia.

May I say a word in these 2 minutes to that other group who appear to be disappointed because the program was cut so much. Frankly, I have been rather surprised as a friend of this program that anybody could interpret the result of this committee's deliberations as in any sense a rebuff to the President of the United States or a crippling blow to our program for mutual security. When you bear in mind that if all of the new money asked for, by the Bureau of the Budget, namely, $5.1 billion, it was only reduced and reduced carefully after the most painstaking study, by $700 million; so we appropriated $4.4 billion, new money for this program. When you bear in mind the fact that there were carryover funds unobligated of $2.1 billion and that after carefully considering the reasons why these were not obligated and the moral obligations

Mr. COTTON. I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas.

Mr. NORRELL. I understand that early this year a rather important number of men went to Europe, having some official designation by the now Administrator of Mutual Security, to determine whether or not this program should be continued. I have not heard that discussed yet. If the gentleman is familiar with the report which they made, would he or some other member of the committee discuss what their findings and recommendations might have been?

Mr. COTTON. I thank the gentleman for his question. I wish I had time to answer it, but I hope he will forgive me if I leave it for someone else to answer, because I have only 2 minutes left and there are other matters that I wish to discuss.

Mr. NORRELL. Then I will ask the chairman or the ranking minority member to discuss it sometime during the debate.

Mr. COTTON. Now if I may continue, I was one member of the subcommittee who strove to the best of my ability to see to it that this program was supported by approximately the full appropriations requested by the President.

We found soft spots that should be cut and we cut them but I did not want to see it reduced more than $500 million and said so. However, I do not agree with my friend from New York. I believe it was our duty to go over it carefully and to make reductions where we honestly believe they should be made. I want to say to my friends who feel it should have been cut more deeply that we did our work conscientiously. I feel that every member of our committee earnestly desired to accomplish the best results for

reduced by only $400 million. So they still had reappropriated by our committee $1.7 billion. With a backlog of nearly $10 billion obligated but still to spend with $1.7 billion carryover, and with $4.4 billion new money they have all the money they can spend effectively or intelligently during the next fiscal year. When you bear this in mind I do not see how anybody can say that our committee has not discharged its obligation faithfully. On the contrary we have taken such action as to reassure the Nation that this Congress is behind President Eisenhower and to reassure a waiting world that this Congress is prepared to continue definitely and firmly, but wisely and frugally, our program for mutual security.

Mr. GARY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. REGAN].

Mr. REGAN. Mr. Chairman, I have no idea that anything I might say here will change a vote, for I think most of us have firm convictions as to whether we are for or against this appropriation.

Last year I spent about 2 months in Europe at my own expense to follow up an idea I have had for several years that this was a throwaway proposition and that we were spending these billions in Europe to bring about a phony prosperity here in the United States and to increase the contempt of the people of Europe for American citizens. I am thoroughly convinced after making that trip that I was right in opposing this expenditure. We started off with a very humanitarian plan, the Marshall plan. They told us that in 5 years we would spend $17 billion in rehabilitating Europe. We had two objectives: One was a humanitarian desire to get them back on their feet. We had helped to

devastate the countries through war and bombings and it was very commendable to help them get back on their feet. The second was that when they got back on their feet they would probably be in position to buy our surplus industrial production and agricultural products; so we had an economic angle along with the humanitarian objective. So we had a two-way purpose in supplying Europe with $17 billion in Marshall plan aid over a period of 5 years. But we have created additional agencies. We have spent several times $17 billion in that 5 years. We have built up Europe and its industrial capacity to 150 percent or more of what it was before World War II, to the point now that they are actively competing with us in their manufactured products in all the Latin American countries where we had potential cash customers for our surpluses. We are bringing about in our own country a depression that you cannot avoid if you continue building up Europe as against our own country, and I object to any further expenditures in this direction.

Mr. GARY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. FULTON].

Mr. TABER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman from Pennsylvania 1 minute.

Mr. FULTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Appropriations Committee figure for the mutual security program. I want to compliment the Appropriations Committee; also the gentleman from New York [Mr. TABER], the chairman; and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. GARY], the ranking minority member of the subcommittee for the detailed and thorough way they have looked into this program.

As you know, I am one of those who has consistently supported the mutual security program and the foreign aid program; so I want the program to work efficiently but economically. I am not against the program, but I certainly believe it should be administered more carefully, and the United States taxpayers should get more for their aid dollars. I believe that we who are in favor of the program can do no greater good for it than at this time making it efficient and cutting out all of the fat wherever it might be.

As a coincidence, the figure that the Committee on Appropriations has come up with is just $35 million from my own figure in the various amendments I have proposed here at the time of the authorization debate, and to the two committees considering the legislation. It is just $35 million below my figure. I do not believe that any people of fair mind can come up with an exact figure on this type of program because of the changes that are made as the program moves along, but my studies both in the Committee and abroad this year, confirm the correctness of this economical approach.

I do believe that there are some provisions, for example, the Children's the Children's Fund, UNICEF, aid to Spain, Israel, the Near East, and for various other countries where we have special strategic needs, that there could have been an increase in funds, as well as a designa

tion by the Appropriations Committee so that Congress might emphasize where we feel there should be money expended for certain overall strategic purposes.

I am glad to see that in reference to the special weapons program the amount in the bill has been cut down to $50 million. That is the amount I felt would million. That is the amount I felt would be a good start for the program, but not enough to cause a waste of funds and a throwing around of money foolishly. I tried by amendment which I cosponsored with the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. SMITH], on June 19, 1953, to reduce this authorization to this figure. This debate appears on page 7139 of the RECORD for June 19.

If you will look at the report of the Foreign Affairs Committee, a very good report by the way, we showed on page 1 in the revised administration request, a reduction of $354 million. By the time reduction of $354 million. By the time we got through with our hearings in the Foreign Affairs Committee, the administration had found there were $354 million that were unprogramed or deobligated that they did not need. Applying that same yardstick to this particular program, in the new money and in the program, in the new money and in the money that has remained unprogramed and unobligated from previous years, there is at least the sum of $354 million that can be saved, on the experience of this same Mutual Security Agency. Under those circumstances the committee is clearly right in canceling $400 million of clearly right in canceling $400 million of unobligated funds that would otherwise unobligated funds that would otherwise have been carried over from previous years.

On a program of this kind there cannot be specific programing for longer than a period of 18 months possibly; however, as you know, the lead time on many of these articles runs from 25 to 33 or 35 months. Because of the inherent method of manufacturing military goods there are many engineering changes that must be made. Therefore Therefore it is a fluid program, so that the total amount is one of judgment in general figures and approach. I might say in I might say in conclusion that the figure that the committee has supplied us is a very fair mittee has supplied us is a very fair figure. It is a well thought out figure, figure. It is a well thought out figure, and it is a figure that any Member of this House, who really wants to see the program succeed, can heartily endorse. There might be some minor changes necessary, but the main program will be safeguarded. The program will be looked at abroad from the viewpoint that we are taking care of the defense and solvency of this country as well as the needs of defense abroad. It will also show a little Yankee ingenuity and thought, and a little Yankee wholesome selfishness that we are taking care of our local taxpayers.

Mr. GAVIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. GAVIN. The gentleman has always been a very vigorous and enthusiastice supporter of foreign aid programs over the years. I just wondered what caused the gentleman to change his position.

Mr. FULTON. As a matter of fact, I have never changed any position, as I have always voted to cut these programs

where possible to obtain economy and efficiency. You recall last year that my proposed amendment, and the amendment I supported which passed, offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. VORYS], were responsible for two of the large cuts that were discussed by this House on the authorization bill in the previous debate. As a matter of fact, had either of those cuts not been adopted there would have been many more millions extra in this program. We, on the committee on Foreign Affairs, then said there was too much money in the program that was authorized last year. I pointed out to you that there was, as the Administration admits, $354 million that had not been programed or obligated or spent to this time. I am still the same fellow, cutting down for economy and efficiency where I can, but seeing that the program is adequately run, and I am still voting for the program.

Mr. GAVIN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, does the gentleman actually think that the objectives that were proposed when these foreign aid programs were adopted have been reached, such as breaking down trade barriers in the European countries to bring about progress or prosperity, stabilization of currency and all the other objectives that we were supposed to reach?

Mr. FULTON. I am surprised, if you favor the Simpson bill, that you would be in favor of breaking down trade barriers.

Mr. GAVIN. Secondly, we wanted to coordinate

Mr. FULTON. I am sorry, I cannot yield further.

In the report of the Appropriations Committee it is stated that there had been presented to the Committee on Foreign Affairs a mistaken justification; that it contained a mistake of $1,700,000,000. I cannot understand that, because if the legislative committees are presented one set of figures and then the Committee on Appropriations is presented another, and the General Accounting Office comes up with a 1.7 billion mistake in a figure of $2,175,000,000, it is just impossible for people who are trying to do a good job in this Congress to make up their minds as to what the figure should be. The Appropriations Committee in its reports says "The entire bill as it is presented makes available in new and retained obligating authority of approximately $600 million more than was contemplated at the time the authorizing bill was passed." That means that there is more contemplated than the Bureau of the Budget knew, or the Executive knew about in carriedover funds, at the time the program was made up. So, my question is to the Appropriations Committee, did the Mutual Security Agency and the Defense Department submit error figures, that is, figures that there was a mistake in, to the Executive Department at the time of making up this proposal? Because if they claim they did, then there was a mistaken action on the part of the Bureau of the Budget, on the part of the Executive, and on the part of the Committee on Foreign Affairs at the time of the authorization. If that can

be proved to be the case, the House ought to see that is corrected, as we are all trying to work out this enormously complicated legislation.

Mr. ROONEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. WAINWRIGHT].

Mr. WAINWRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the committee bill. I join with my colleague from Pennsylvania [Mr. FULTON] in congratulating the committee on the bill. I do not go along, however, with all the cuts that have been made by the Appropriations Committee. I intend to support a number of increases which I understand are to be proposed. We are a parliamentary body, working out our differences by compromise. This bill will not be completely satisfactory to anyone in this Chamber.

I did want to call to the attention of this Committee a metaphor that was made recently by the President of the United States at an informal dinner party. The President pointed out to a group of young men that the international problems today overshadowed, in effect, everything else that we do in the world, and in the United States. The most important problem that faces America today is working out a solution to this world situation.

The Soviet Union is bent on a program diametrically opposed to ours. They are working toward world domination. Their weapons are fear, terror, force, and hatred. Our answer to that program, or, rather, one of the answers to the enemy program is mutual security, this bill. Our allies and friends Our allies and friends are equally as important in this complex picture as any other phase of the battle plan against the enemy. Mr. John J. McCloy in his recent marvelous book on our foreign policy discusses the importance of our friends. He points out that leadership is never truly loved; that it breeds jealousy. However, we must respond to this leadership we have had thrust upon us. Today is our test here in this Chamber.

Now for the metaphor. The President said the world is divided into two camps, which well we know. His comparison was that of a boat race, a crew race. In one crew, the coxswain was urging the rowers on to work together as a team, to row the boat successfully, in unison, to win the race. He was exhorting them, cajoling them, urging them with all the force at his command. He was using reason as the basis for teamwork. But in the other boat, the coxswain was getting the men to row the boat, but when one of the rowers would not cooperate, the coxswain had a pistol in his hand, threatening to shoot an uncooperative rower. From personal experience in World War II I saw a Russian officer pull out his pistol and shoot a defenseless DP who refused some wine he was drinking. This was 2 days after VE Day.

I think the President's metaphor presents a true picture of the world today. This Congress is being urged in true democratic and constitutional fashion to support this program, a program that in addition to being a weapon for democracy is also a small, cautious step

toward world peace. There is no force, no threat, no bodily harm offered or suggested to any single Member of all those here present. We will decide this question of our own free will.

I, for one, will join with many of my younger colleages in supporting the administration, the President, and our country's policy by backing and voting for this foreign aid program.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the The time of the gentleman from New York has expired. Mr. ROONEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 13 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, it is not often that I find myself in a position where I must admit that I am utterly confused. But, with regard to what is going on today, between the White House and the leadership on the Hill in both Houses as to the pending bill, I find the situation is one of utter confusion.

Mr. McCORMACK. The gentleman means the Republican leadership, I assume?

Mr. ROONEY. When I used the word "leadership" I meant the Republican leadership, but I do not imply that there is any real leadership in the Republican Party.

Mr. Chairman, I attended the hearings of this subcommittee on this urgent Mutual Security appropriations request, and I listened to the testimony of men holding such important positions as those held by John Foster Dulles, Secretary of State; former Governor Stassen, who is the Mutual Security Director and administrator of this program; and General Gruenther, who took the place of General Ridgway, who took General Eisenhower's place in Western Europe. And although the majority members of the committee were fully informed by General Gruenther concerning the danger in and the vulnerability of Western Europe and advised by him as to the Europe and advised by him as to the means through which security there might be obtained, they chose to utterly might be obtained, they chose to utterly disregard the advice given them. no one on the committee or, for that matter, here in the House has questioned the facts in the matter. No responsible Republican has disputed the facts as alleged by General Gruenther or the conclusions which he presented to the committee. And then the committee, after having conferred a week ago today at a breakfast session with President Eisenhower which lasted more than an hour and a half, went back to our committee room and proceeded to cut the President's figures by $1,100,000,000.

Yet,

What do we find the leadership of the House doing about this? Only this morning we heard the majority leader, the distinguished gentleman, my friend from Indiana [Mr. HALLECK], announce that this bill will "go through pretty much as reported by the committee." A

minute or so later I went outside to read the Associated Press wire reports, and I found that at about the same time that the gentleman from Indiana made that statement President Eisenhower was quoted as having said that he "thinks a billion-dollar cut in foreign-aid funds approved by the House Appropriations Committee goes too deep." He was quoted as having further said that "the yardstick"-in this appropriation mat

ter-"always must be America's own security." The Republican President believes that the House committee went too far in their meat-ax cut. Yet, we find but one Member from the majority side of this aisle who has the courage to get up here and announce that he is going to present some amendments which will increase the amounts allowed in this billI take my hat off to him-the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. JAVITS).

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

Mr. ROONEY. I yield.

Mr. McCORMACK. Only the other day, when we had the Defense Department appropriation bill up for consideration, an attempt was made to put in $1,175,000,000 to assure adequate air defense and protect us in case of a sneak attack, and the Republicans were saying that President Eisenhower is the best man to know of those things, and they relied on him, and today they do not rely on him.

Mr. ROONEY. No, in fact they utterly ignore his judgment. At that 11⁄2 hour session at breakfast at the White House a week ago today, the members of this committee listened to the President describe in detail the importance of this program. They heard him say that there was not a watered dollar in the pared-down request, and that it had been reduced to the minimum. In answer to a question put to him by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. CANNON], the former distinguished chairman of the House Committee on Appropriations, he stressed the point that the Hill could no longer rely on what had been accepted or what was said to have been accepted procedure-that the Appropriations Committees were always presented with enough fat in each request to cut out so that they could make sensible cuts and make some real economies, but insofar as this mutual security request was concerned-and not only this request but all requests sent up by the Bureau of the Budget and the Director of the Budget, Mr. Dodge, was present at that breakfast and agreed-every single item of the President's budget was 100 percent solid.

A week ago I stood in the well of this House and discussed before you the matter of the 46-percent cut in the funds requested by the President for the Voice of America. It did not do much good. As far as the leadership in the White House was concerned, nothing was said that day or the day before or the day after with regard to the importance of the requested Voice of America appropriations. Perhaps President Eisenhower feels that there is only one legislative house up here on the hill, and that is the other body, for it seems that it is in the other body that the President places his reliance to do the sensible thing.

It was just a week ago today here in the House that on a roll-call vote designed to restore funds to the Administration's level $80 million for the Voice of America, there were 177 Republican Members who voted against the President. What do we find to be the situation on Voice of America funds to

DULLES TAKES ISSUE ON ANY BUDGET CUT

Secretary John Foster Dulles said yesterday the State Department's overseas information program has done a splendid job on the whole, and he greatly hopes Congress will not sharply curtail its funds.

We also find an expression on this by the President today, a week later, carried on the Associated Press wires. Listen to this, after the action of 177 Republican Members a week ago:

President Eisenhower is highly disturbed over the slash by the House in funds for the State Department's overseas information program, Senator H. ALEXANDER SMITH said today.

And the Member of the other body stated that the President authorized him to disclose his feelings as being such.

And what did the Member of the other body say about the action of the House in regard to the Republican cut in Voice of America funds? Exactly what I called it in the well of this House 1 week ago: "A meat ax cut." And he said that the action of the House "would take the heart out of the program."

Just a while ago we heard the gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. COTTON] say that he hoped that no Member will consider the action of this committee a rebuff to President Eisenhower, in face of the facts I have just outlined to you; or a blow to our program for mutual security, after what he was told by General Gruenther, not only in the committee room but in the White House at breakfast last Wednesday morning. And after General Gruenther warned all of us that all the power and the might of the ruthless machine are still intact in the Soviet empire.

The gentleman from New York [Mr. WAINWRIGHT] said something about his Coxswain shooting those not rowing the boat.

Let me say to you Republican Members of the House that the President would run out of ammunition if he were to try to shoot all of you on that side of the aisle who were not rowing his boat. But he does not propose to waste any ammunition on you. He is going to He is going to use his ammunition over in the other body, and you are going to sit here and vote an empty action. That has happened on practically every appropriation bill this year. You have seen the bills come back from the other body loaded with extra funds, and you have accepted them. You are going to have to accept them.

Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ROONEY. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. FORD. I would like to ask the gentleman from New York whether or not on the occasion that this subcommittee reported this bill did he make any personal objection to the funds that were allocated or recommended for appropriation?

Mr. ROONEY. The gentleman knows I made blanket objections against cutting the bill below the amount requested by President Eisenhower, and I think every committee member clearly under

from New York [Mr. TABER] knew that immediately following the breakfast with the President.

Mr. FORD. But let me ask the gentleman specifically, at the time the subcommittee wrote the bill in finality did the gentleman make any personal objection to the funds allowed?

Mr. ROONEY. I will say to the gentleman that I was not present at the moment when the committee wrote the bill in finality. I had already announced my feelings in this matter before, during and after the time you cut out the first $300 million.

Mr. MARSHALL. To substantiate what the gentleman from New York is saying, I would like to call attention to the fact that the Minneapolis Star Journal this past week carried a story to the effect that in the House only three Republican Members of Congress from the midwest were supporting the President of the United States. I wish that paper had seen fit to publish how the Democratic Members of this Congress supported the President of the United States.

Mr. ROONEY. Exactly so. I wonder if on this bill there are going to be three Republican Members to support it after what happened with regard to the Voice of America last week.

I have in my hand a clipping from the New York Times under today's dateline which says:

Republican leaders of the House of Representatives refused today an administration appeal to sponsor the restoration of part of the $58,263,000 cut in technical foreign aid ordered by the appropriations committee.

I shall insert the remainder of the article:

Harold E. Stassen, Director for Mutual Security, and Joseph M. Dodge, Budget Director, conferred with Speaker JOSEPH W. MARTIN, Jr., on the possibility of having part or takes up the Mutual Security appropriation all of the money put back when the House bill tomorrow.

Late in the day, the House leaders agreed that the disposition of the separate appropriation items in the bill was a matter for "floor determination," indicating they would not ask Republican Members to upset the Appropriations Committee recommendations.

The money involved would pay for technicians and some equipment sent to economically underdeveloped areas to improve living standards and thus lessen the appeal of communism. The administration requested $130,263,500 for technical aid but the appropriations group reduced the amount to $72 million.

President Eisenhower was urged in a telegram from Mrs. John G. Lee, president of the League of Women Voters, to lead in getting the cut restored.

Representative JOHN W. MCCORMACK of Massachusetts, the Democratic whip, has pledged the support of Democratic Members of the House behind a presidential move to restore the technical aid cuts.

But that is not astounding. I understand that this morning at a press conference the leadership of the House said that they were for the full amount of the President's request, that they were against the action of the Committee on Appropriations in cutting the President's mutual security program, but when asked if any amendment was going to be

offered officially by the leadership on the Republican side to restore that money, said it would be restored in the other body. Now, is not that a fine way to run a legislative railroad?

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

Mr. ROONEY. I yield.

Mr. MCCORMACK. I understand there was a reduction in the appropriation in connection with technical assistance for South America.

Mr. ROONEY. Yes; to the extent of almost $10 million. This would wreck our relations with our friends to the south of us.

Mr. McCORMACK. And the President's own brother is down there now. Mr. ROONEY. Exactly so.

Mr. McCORMACK. As the representative of our country trying to bring about better relationships, yet here today we are making his journey and his mission more difficult.

Mr. ROONEY. Exactly.

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ROONEY. I yield to my distinguished friend from New York.

Mr. JAVITS. May I say to my colleague

Mr. ROONEY. I know that the gentleman agrees with me but not with the manner in which I have expressed it.

Mr. JAVITS. May I say this to the gentleman without his putting words in my mouth-and I appreciate his yielding and respect him as a friend and colleague-may I say that we have yet to see what the House will do.

Mr. ROONEY. I will say to the gentleman from New York that I am predicting right now that the responsible leadership on that side of the aisle is not going to support any amendment here today; that they expect the money to be restored in the other body, I think I am making a fairly accurate prediction.

In conclusion, let me say that I shall uphold President Eisenhower in any and every amendment offered by those on the majority side of the aisle to restore the funds he requests. If he does not know the facts in this vital matter, God help us. It surely is a strange situation when a Republican House shows so little faith in the judgment of the man who led their party in their victory less than a year ago.

Mr. TABER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may desire to the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. NEAL].

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New York [Mr. ROONEY] says there is no majority leadership and erroneously charges that the majority does not go along with the President's request for funds for MSA. The gentleman who, like most of his party associates during the last administration, knew no limit to the authorization of funds for any project proposed by the "moneymad," "spend and tax" leaders, seems incapable of evaluating expenditures of taxpayers' money with the knowledge that a debt is a moral obligation of government just as much as it is a moral obligation of an individual. This is evidenced by the fact that a "scream"