Page images
PDF
EPUB

SUCCESSION IN CASE OF DEATH OF PRESIDENT OR
VICE PRESIDENT

Silent on this, thus leaving unchanged the
present provisions of amendment XX.

QUALIFICATIONS FOR OFFICE OF PRESIDENT OR
VICE PRESIDENT

Repeats the provisions appearing both in
article II, section 1, clause 3, and in amend-
ment XII to the effect that either the per-
son voted for for President or the person
voted for for Vice President by an elector
must be an inhabitant of some other State
than that of the elector. [This provision
currently makes it highly improbable that
the President and Vice President finally se-
lected would come from the same State.]
Silent as to other provisions in Constitution
relating to qualifications, thus retaining
them, to wit, under article II, section 1,
clause 5 he must be a "natural born" citizen,
at least 35 years of age, and have been a
resident of the United States for 14 years;
under amendment XII no person ineligible
to office of President shall be eligible to office
of Vice President.

The joint resolution (S. J. Res. 100)
proposing an amendment to the Consti-
tution of the United States providing for
the election of electors of President and
Vice President in the several States, for
the election of President and Vice Presi-
dent by such electors, and, in certain
cases, for the election of President and
Vice President by the joint membership
of the Senate and House of Representa-
tives, introduced by Mr. SMITH of New
Jersey, was received, read twice by its
title, and referred to the Committee on
the Judiciary.

HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION
REFERRED

The joint resolution (H. J. Res. 294)
continuing the availability of appropria-
tions for the Small Defense Plants Ad-
ministration for the month of July 1953,
and for other purposes, was read twice
by its title, and referred to the Commit-
tee on Appropriations.

REPACKING OF IRISH POTATOES

IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE-
CHANGE OF REFERENCE

Mr. TOBEY. Mr. President, at the re-
quest of the distinguished junior sena-
tor from Idaho [Mr. WELKER] I ask
unanimous consent that the Committee
on Interstate and Foreign Commerce be
discharged from the further considera-
tion of the bill (S. 2124) relating to the
repacking of Irish potatoes which have
been introduced or delivered for intro-
duction into interstate commerce, and
that it be referred to the Committee on
Agriculture and Forestry.

While this is a bill that properly was
referred to the Committee on Interstate
and Foreign Commerce in the first in-
stance and the subject matter of which
is within the jurisdiction of that com-
mittee, I ask that this referral be made
for the reason that the Senator from
Idaho is very anxious to hold early hear-
ings on the bill and it will be impossible
for the Commerce Committee to hold
hearings before the end of the present
session. In addition, the legislation does
relate to an important problem affecting

SUCCESSION IN CASE OF DEATH OF PRESIDENT OR
VICE PRESIDENT

Restates same provisions found in amend-
ment XX, to wit, that Congress may provide
for succession.

QUALIFICATIONS FOR OFFICE OF PRESIDENT OR
VICE PRESIDENT

There being no office of elector it is obvious
why section 2 outright repeals the provision
appearing both in article II, section 3, clause
3, and in amendment XII to the effect that
either the person voted for for President or
the person voted for for Vice President by
an elector must be an inhabitant of some
other State than that of elector. [This
eliminates present improbability of electing
both a President and Vice President from
the same State.] Although amendment
XII is specifically repealed, the provision
placed in that amendment that no person
ineligible to office of President shall be eligi.
ble to office of Vice President is repeated.

agriculture and one which, I understand,
has been the subject of considerable
study and research. It is understood
that when the Committee on Agriculture
and Forestry has concluded its consid-
eration of the bill that it then will be
re-referred to the Committee on Inter-
state and Foreign Commerce.

The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there ob-
jection to the request of the Senator
from New Hampshire? The Chair hears
none, and it is so ordered.

NOTICE OF HEARINGS ON PRO-
POSED AMENDMENTS OF TRAD-
ING WITH THE ENEMY ACT, AS
AMENDED

Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, on be-
half of the subcommittee of the Com-
mittee on the Judiciary which will hold
hearings on all measures relating_to
amendments of Trading With the En-
emy Act, as amended, I desire to notify
the Senate that public hearings will be-
gin on Monday, July 20, at room 457 of
the Senate Office Building, to consider
such measures, including Senate bill 34,
Senate bill 145, Senate bill 146, Senate
bill 151, Senate bill 155, Senate bill 249,
Senate bill 373, Senate bill 1765, Senate
bill 2085, Senate bill 2171, Senate bill
2231, Senate Joint Resolution 92, and
Senate bill 2315. In addition, if other
bills or measures are introduced prior
to the beginning of the hearings, those
measures will also be included in the
hearings agenda. At the indicated time
and place, all persons interested in the
proposed legislation may make such
representations as may be pertinent.
The subcommittee consists of myself,
chairman; the Senator from North Da-
kota [Mr. LANGER]; the Senator from
New Jersey [Mr. HENDRICKSON]; the Sen-
ator from Maryland [Mr. BUTLER]; the
Senator from Tennessee [Mr. KEFAUVER],
and the Senator from Missouri [Mr.
HENNINGS).

Mr. President, in connection with this
announcement, I may say that I am ad-
vised today that some witnesses from
outside the country are presently here,
and it might be of convenience to them
if earlier hearings can be scheduled. If

SUCCESSION IN CASE OF DEATH OF PRESIDENT OR
VICE PRESIDENT

Section 4 of amendment XX authorizes
Congress to provide for succession. (See
Presidential Succession Act of 1947, 61 Stat.
380( 62 Stat. 672; 3 U. S. C., sec. 19.)
QUALIFICATIONS FOR OFFICE OF PRESIDENT OR
VICE PRESIDENT

Both article II, section 1, clause 3, and
amendment XII provide that either the per-
son voted for for President or the person
voted for for Vice President by an elector
must be an inhabitant of some other State
than that of the elector. [This provision cur-
rently makes it highly improbable that the
President and Vice President finally selected
would come from the same State.] Article
II, section 1, clause 5 fixes the qualifications
of the President as a "natural born" citizen,
at least 35 years of age, and a resident of
the United States for 14 years. Amendment
XII fixed the qualifications of the Vice Presi-
dent to be the same as the President by pro-
viding no person ineligible to office of Presi-
dent shall be eligible to office of Vice Presi-
dent.

that can be arranged, I shall make every
endeavor to do so.

ADDRESSES, EDITORIALS, ARTI-
CLES, ETC., PRINTED IN THE AP-
PENDIX

On request, and by unanimous con-
sent, addresses, editorials, articles, etc.,
were ordered to be printed in the Ap-
pendix, as follows:

By Mr. WILEY:

Address delivered by him before the In-
stitute of Public Affairs at the University of
Virginia on July 10.

By Mr. KENNEDY:
Statement prepared by him on the ob-
servance of Lithuanian Independence Day.
By Mr. FLANDERS:
Commencement address entitled "Freedom
Is for the Brave," delivered by Paul G. Hoff-
man before Occidental College, Los Angeles,
on June 14, 1953.

By Mr. HENDRICKSON:

Address entitled "Can-and Should-
Farmers Stand on Their Own Feet?" delivered
by Wheeler McMillen, editor in chief of the
Farm Journal, before the Commonwealth
Club of California, at San Francisco, Calif.,
on July 3, 1953.

By Mr. GILLETTE:

Article entitled "Why Is United States
Consumer Being Ignored?" published in the
Trainmen News of July 13, 1953.

By Mr. MORSE:

Release by the National Hells Canyon As-
sociation containing comments by James T.
Marr, president.

AMERICA'S LEGAL EXPERTS OPPOSE
BRICKER AMENDMENT 15-0
Mr. WILEY. Mr. President, I have
been placing in the CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD a series of replies which have
come to me from outstanding legal ex-
perts of our country with reference to
Senate Joint Resolution 1, popularly
known as the Bricker amendment.

I have sought the judgment of the out-
standing legal lights of America's great
universities because I have felt that if
there is any source for relatively impar-
tial, scholarly judgment which should
be solicited, it is that of these men, who
have dedicated whole lifetimes to study
and teaching of the law.

My initial reproductions of the full texts of their messages may be found in the Appendix of the RECORD on pages 4114-4115 and 4244-4245.

Initially, beginning on June 24, I had written to deans of America's great law schools.

Then on July 2, in order to broaden the response, I wrote to some of the outstanding professors of law of the universities.

I did so with no advance knowledge whatsoever as to where they respectively might stand on the Bricker amendment.

I have now received 15 replies, including the replies of 9 deans of American law schools, and 6 professors of constitutional law and international law.

The deans are from the great universities of: Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Tulane, Northwestern, Harvard, and Indiana. The latest two are from the deans of the law schools of the University of Minnesota and the University of Nebraska.

Of the total of 15 replies, the amazing score is: 15 against the Bricker amendment, none for the Bricker amendment.

Obviously, one does not reckon the merits of some great issue by numbers. It is the quality of legal judgment which basically counts.

But I point out this amazing unanimity because I think that it is extremely interesting and because it speaks volumes.

After all, we have always held to the idea that there must be an overwhelmingly preponderance of evidence and legal support in favor of a proposed constitutional amendment.

We have never believed that amendments to the Constitution should be made willy-nilly, on a subject in which opinion is divided or in which opinion weighs against the proposal. That is why, fortunately, we have a Constitution limited to only 22 amendments in 164 years instead of a Constitution with 1,000 amendments.

I now submit the text of the latest replies, and ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the replies were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA,

THE LAW SCHOOL, Minneapolis, July 9, 1953.

Hon. ALEXANDER WILEY, Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR WILEY: In answer to your letter of June 24 concerning my views on the Bricker amendment, may I state that I am opposed to its adoption. I regard it as a dangerous limitation upon the treatymaking powers and procedure of our Government at a time when the critical international situation requires that the United States be able to act promptly, effectively, and with responsibility, and without additional fetters than already exist.

The present requirement that treaties be ratified by a two-thirds vote of the United States Senate provides the necessary safeguard against abuse of the treatymaking power. In the absence of clear and specific instances to the contrary, which thus far the proponents have not produced, it seems to me to be unwise and dangerous to under

take such a radical change in the fundamental law of our country.

I am taking the liberty of sending copies of this letter to Senators EDWARD J. THYE and HUBERT HUMPHREY, of our State. Very truly yours,

MAYNARD E. PIRSIG, Dean.

THE UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA,

COLLEGE OF LAW, Lincoln, Nebr., July 8, 1953. The Honorable ALEXANDER WILEY, United States Senate,

Washington, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR WILEY: I have your letter of June 26, 1953, asking for my views as to the advisability of adopting Senate Joint Resolution 1 (83d Cong., 1st sess.), titled "A bill proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to the legal effect of certain treaties and executive agreements."

It seems to me that the basic issues are clear.

First, do the facts show that the present treaty provision in the Constitution has worked satisfactorily in the past? It may be that this is really not an issue at all, for it seems now to be conceded on all sides that the present treaty provision has worked satisfactorily in the past. However, in this connection I have the following observation to make. There has grown up some confusion as to the distinction between treaties and executive agreements; but I believe that this confusion can be resolved if the executive and legislative departments will cooperate toward that end. Certainly the confution, which is a most useful one, by classifysion does not justify abolishing the distincing treaties and executive agreements together. Indeed there is no reason to believe that such a classification would solve the problem for it may then be that we shall have treaties and executive agreements on the one side and mutual understandings that fall short of agreements on the other. Such mutual understandings reached with other nations could govern spheres of influence, and so on and so forth.

Second, do the facts show that while the treaty provision in the Constitution may have worked satisfactorily in the past it will not work satisfactorily in the future? I am

aware of no such facts. I am aware that

today we live in a world the states of which are loosely bound together under the United

Nations Charter. There was no such charter 10 years ago. However, I do not regard this fact as convincing proof that from now on we may expect that the treaty power as this power always has been and always will presently vested will be abused. Of course, be liable to abuse even with the proposed

amendment.

It is to be regretted that the subject matter of the proposed amendment lends itself so readily to emotional appeal. Accordingly, it is highly important that, we take particular care to look at the record and reach a decision on the facts.

Sincerely yours,

EDMUND O. BELSHEIM, Dean.

LAW SCHOOL OF HARVARD UNIVERSITY, Cambridge, Mass., July 10, 1953. Senator ALEXANDER WILEY, Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR WILEY: Thank you for your letter of July 2, 1953.

I am pleased to have an opportunity to express myself about the proposed constitutional amendment represented by Senate Joint Resolution 1 (83d Cong., 1st sess.).

This amendment, in its present form as in its preceding forms, seems to me unnecessary and unwise. It is unnecessary because it attempts to guard, by constitutional amendment, against disasters which I do not ex

4

pect. And it is, so it seems to me, unwise because, in an effort to avoid dangers which do not threaten us, it will subject us to rather serious disadvantages in the conduct of our national affairs at a time when our foreign relations are extraordinarily difficult, and when we must be able to cooperate with our friends and make common cause against our enemies.

Article II, section 2, and article VI of the Constitution are not the result of chance. They represent the considered judgment of the men who drafted and adopted the Constitution that foreign affairs are in the first instance the responsibility of the executive branch, and that the required concurrence of two-thirds of the Senate is a sufficient check upon the imprudent exercise of that power. Over the years this system has worked well. It has often been criticized on the ground that it made treaties too hard rather than too easy to enact. Most of the present worry seems to stem from Missouri v. Holland (252 U. S. 516 (1920)), which has been so much discussed that I hardly need mention it. The thought seems to be that if the President and two-thirds of the Senate can make a treaty which will shift from the States to the Federal Government power which was formerly in the States alone, the President, with the concurrence of the Senate, might make some other treaty which would restrict the constitutional freedoms of the citizen in the United States. This certainly has not happened yet. I see no signs of its happening in the future. I expect that a patriotic President and a vigilant Senate will continue to guarantee us against such events as they have in the past. I expect to see the Supreme Court declare ineffectual any treaty provision which might purport to impair the Bill of Rights. And, assuming all these safeguards are broken down, I expect to see the Congress take steps to change the internal law, as it did in Chae Chan Ping v. United States (130 U. S. 581 (1889)).

Another source of worry is, of course, the Presidential power to enter into executive agreements without consulting the Senate, which came to the public's attention in the Belmont and Ping cases (301 U. S. 324 (1937), and 315 U. S. 203 (1942)). Here I understand that the concern of the sponsors of Senate Joint Resolution 1 is the possibility that a President might commit the United States to an intemperate and dangerous series of international agreements without the Senate's having any chance to express itself.

Government without risk is, so far as I have been able to observe, impossible to achieve. It seems to me that the foreign affairs of a government the size of the United States cannot be run without the use of many minor agreements made from time to time by the Executive with foreign chiefs of state. The President's sense of responsibility imposes a sufficient check upon intemperate use of this power, and the Congress, as in the case of treaties, can always have the last word on any domestic effect (Chae Chan Ping, above).

This whole matter has been so thoroughly discussed by both the proponents and the opponents of the suggested amendment that a protraction of this letter is only repetitive. I spelled out at some length my reasons for opposing a previous version of Senate Joint Resolution 1 in an article called "Restricting the treaty power," published in 65 Harvard Law Review in June 1952, of which I enclose a reprint. I do not consider it wise to limit the powers of the Executive which were deliberately entrusted to that branch so many years ago. I do not expect to see a President make rash international commitments. If he does, I expect to see the Senate refuse to concur. Even if the Senate concurs, should the treaty turn out unfortunately, I expect to see the Congress take ap

[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

It is clear that much thoughtful study has gone into the preparation of both Senator BUTLER'S report, and the statement of the minority views. In my opinion, the minority view is sound, and I urge you to continue your opposition to the so-called Bricker amendment.

I can add little to the discussion in support of the minority view. In going through Senate Report No. 412, I found no reference to the views expressed in meetings of the American Society of International Law. On April 24, 1952, Prof. Manley O. Hudson, of Harvard University, formerly a judge of the Permanent Court of International Justice, and then the president of the American Society of International Law, expressed his opposition to the principles embodied in the present version of the Bricker amendment in arguments which appear sound to me. His discussion may be found at pages 5-11 inclusive of the proceedings of the American Society of International Law at its 46th annual meeting (April 24-26, 1952). In particular, the difficulties encountered by Canada, where the legal situation is substantially what it would be in the United States if the Bricker amendment were adopted, should discourage the supporters of the proposed amendment.

The weakest point in the arguments against the Bricker amendment is the statement that, as the Constitution of the United States now stands, a treaty which is in conflict with its provisions cannot be legally effective. If this is true the argument is plausible that no harm could be done by putting this in writing in the Constitution, and the more so in this case, where the present constitutional position is admittedly based on dicta in Supreme Court decisions.

But the balance of the proposed amendment is unsound, as destroying the independent authority of the President to enter into executive agreements, and requiring express approval by Congress before any treaty becomes effective internally. I trust that your opposition to the proposed amendment will result in its defeat.

I am a lifelong Republican, so that my opinion on this proposal is not motivated by party politics.

I am sending a copy of this letter to each of the Senators from Indiana.

Sincerely yours,

AUSTIN V. CLIFFORD.

INDIANA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW,
Bloomington, Ind., July 9, 1953.

Hon. ALEXANDER WILEY,

United States Senate,

Senate Office Building,
Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR SENATOR WILEY: I have asked Prof. Austin V. Clifford to write you in response to your letter of July 2, as he teaches international law at this school and, there

[blocks in formation]

DEAR SENATOR WILEY: I wish to acknowledge receipt of your letter of July 2, 1953, requesting my opinion on the so-called Bricker resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

May I state at the outset that I am unalterably opposed to amending the treaty clause of our Constitution. Amending the Constitution is a serious business and certainly should not be undertaken lightly or without good cause. When in the course of human events amendments to it appear to become necessary they cannot be clearly or wisely resolved with the contemporary setting of a few months or, perhaps, even a few years, for the Constitution is not an instrument solely for the 1950's, but must act as guiding light for many generations to come. Hence, to limit the consideration of the amendment to but one Senate committeeparticularly in view of its international implications appears to a person unschooled in a sacred reverence for mechanical rules of parliamentarianism as if certain congressional leaders prefer to believe no doubts can be cast upon their own infallibility and manifest a strange desire for haste on a matter which should only be decided after mature consideration based on exhaustive and intensive inquiry.

The sole reason that I have been able to discover which has prompted the introduction of this amendment is fear-fear of an imagined peril-a fear which has permeated as a malicious fever throughout our whole body politic. In place of a prideful trust in our traditions, our governmental leaders appear bewitched by a mistrustful anxiety that our institutions will fall because of the influence of foreign ideologies. The effect of this growing distrust on our American faith in our Constitution is moving the Nation toward the abandonment of many of our traditional practices once considered basic. History has ample examples of the tragic results which occur when a nation takes hasty steps engendered by an atmosphere of fear and distrust. When our Nation seeks security by repression, we are taking long steps down the road which will lead to the stifling of our democratic heritage.

From a legal point of view, I am naturally in accord with the minority opinion, and have nothing further to add to their legal arguments at this time. But I repeat, over and above these legal arguments, I am still against all changes in our Constitution which are bred in an atmosphere of haste based on fear and mistrust. Our constitutional tradition is too glorious to be thrust aside and repressed by a handful of men who have far to go to attain the mental stature and attributes of statesmanship of its author.

Sincerely yours,

A. J. THOMAS, Jr., Associate Professor of Law.

LAW SCHOOL OF HARVARD UNIVERSITY, Cambridge, Mass., July 10, 1953. Hon. ALEXANDER WILEY, Chairman, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR SENATOR WILEY: I greatly appreciate the opportunity which you have given

me to comment on the report of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on Senate Joint Resolution 1.

With virtually no qualifications I heartily endorse the position taken by those who expressed the minority views on the committee. It would be superfluous for me to restate opinions which have been effectively devoloped and cogently stated in the minority report. What seems to me to be involved in this issue is not a problem of constitutional law; clearly the presently prevailing decisions in the Supreme Court of the United States give firm support to the position of the minority of the committee. The fear of the majority of the committee, in my judgment, is not that the Constitution of the United States will be misinterpreted by the judiciary but that the Constitution as it has been interpreted and enforced since 1789 will, without amendment, continue to be enforced. What the majority demand is not conservatism but a radical departure from American tradition. Behind this demand lies, of course, the impulse to cut the Nation off from the world in which it exists. The proposed amendment is built on the naive hope that if we can set legal barriers against the community around us that community will disappear and sovereignty will become domesticated and housebroken. Coupled with this radical alarm that traditional powers of the Nation will be exercised in their traditional fashion is the revolutionary dread that executive and judicial powers will continue to be used as they have been used throughout the course of American history. In brief what the proponents of constitutional amendment are seeking is the abandonment of our constitutional system. The motives behind the effort are doubtless mixed, but essentially they are based in the fear that the world is too much with us and that the President and the Supreme Court are no longer to be trusted with those powers which they have always exercised in dealing with the Nation's international relations.

It goes without saying that I am ardently hopeful that the conservation position of the minority of the committee will ultimately prevail.

Respectfully yours,

MARK DEW. HOWE,
Professor of Law.

Mr. BRICKER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. WILEY. I yield.

Mr. BRICKER. Mr. President, the Senator from Wisconsin has placed in the RECORD Some responses from various law deans to his letter addressed to them. Has the Senator offered for the RECORD his letter to the law deans?

Mr. WILEY. I shall be very happy to do so. All I did was to send them a copy of the instrument and asked them to send me their opinions.

Mr. BRICKER. The letters which the Senator from Wisconsin placed in the RECORD were in response to a letter which he sent to them, as I understand.

Mr. WILEY. It was a form letter that was sent to all of them.

Mr. BRICKER. Yes. Mr. WILEY. I shall be glad to place it in the RECORD also.

Mr. WILEY subsequently said: Mr. President, a few moments ago I was requested by the distinguished junior Senator from Ohio [Mr. BRICKER] to have printed in the RECORD a copy of a letter I which was sent to the deans of the various law schools of the country. The letter was sent under the direction of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. In fact, I had not seen it until just a moment ago. But it is a very

good letter. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the RECORD in connection with the various opinions which I today placed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

JUNE 24, 1953. The Honorable DALE COFFMAN,

Dean, School of Law, University of California, Los Angeles, Calif. DEAR DEAN COFFMAN: As you know, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary recently reported Senate Joint Resolution 1 (83d Cong., 1st sess.), a modification of the socalled Bricker resolution, to the Senate and recommended its adoption. Four members filed minority views disagreeing with the majority report of the committee. The resolution, as reported, is titled "A bill proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to the legal effect of certain treaties and executive agreements."

It is possible that this resolution will be considered by the Senate within the next few weeks, and I am most anxious that the Members of the Senate have before them the views of representatives of our great legal institutions as to whether the United States Constitution should be amended as proposed. I should appreciate it, therefore, if I might have as soon as possible your views as to the advisability of this action at this time.

The pending resolution is not before the Committee on Foreign Relations, of which I am chairman. In view of the heavy impact of the possible adoption of the proposed amendment upon the conduct of the foreign policy of the United States in these critical times, however, it seems essential to me that we plumb the depths of our legal learning and experience to determine whether the United States Senate should adopt this proposal.

I enclose a copy of the report of the Judiciary Committee together with the minority

views.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Sincerely yours,

ALEXANDER WILEY, Chairman.

CHILDREN'S FUND APPROPRIA-
TIONS

Mr. WILEY. Mr. President, the pages of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD have recorded my deep and continuing interest in the United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund.

It is a source of regret to me that the Senate-House conference committee on the mutual aid bill adopted the provision of the House bill appropriating $9 million for UNICEF, rather than the appropriation of $13 million for UNICEF, which was adopted by the Senate.

It is my earnest hope that at least the limited figure will be preserved in entirety in the 1954 appropriation bill which is now being prepared by the Senate Appropriations Committee.

It is my further hope that the Appropriations Committee will see fit to appropriate the full back funds-the $9.8 million for UNICEF for the calendar year 1953. That figure had been urged by the previous administration.

Recently, under date of June 5, Mr. Roland R. Hughes, Assistant Director of the Bureau of the Budget, wrote to Congressman JOHN TABER, the distinguished chairman of the House Appropriations Committee:

The estimate for contributions to United Nations Children's Emergency Fund is based.

upon contributions actually received from other countries. If the supplemental appropriation is contributed, the United States share will be less than 331⁄2 percent of the total, including contributions by recipient countries, as provided in the authorizing legislation.

Mr. President. I offer now certain fine letters which I have received from Mr. Eugene McCarthy, chairman of the national board of the Young Men's Christian Association, and from Mr. Wesley Rennie, a member of the executive committee of the national board of the YMCA, and incidentally who is also executive director for the Committee for Economic Development.

Finally, I include the text of a New York Times editorial on this issue.

I ask unanimous consent that all of these items be printed at this point in the body of the RECORD.

There being no objection, the matters were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

NATIONAL COUNCIL OF THE YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATIONS, New York, N. Y., July 3, 1953. The Honorable ALEXANDER WILEY, Chairman, Foreign Relations Committee, Ettee, United States Senate,

Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR SENATOR WILEY: At a meeting of the executive committee of the national board of the Young Men's Christian Associations last week, attended by members from most parts of the country, we had a brief discussion on the program and financial needs of the United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund. Various members of our board and of our executive staff have the kind of continuing contacts that help us to know about the work of the fund in various parts of the world.

Because we were unanimous in our feeling that this United Nations enterprise merits the fullest possible support by the Government of the United States I was requested to express this conviction to you and your colleagues on behalf of the members of our executive committee.

Continuing financial support of the fund by the United States seems to us to be highly desirable.

Cordially yours,

EUGENE R. MCCARTHY, Chairman, National Board.

COMMITTEE FOR ECONOMIC

DEVELOPMENT, New York, N. Y., July 8, 1953. Hon. ALEXANDER WILEY, Chairman, Foreign Relations Committee, United States Senate,

Washington, D. C.

DEAR SIR: I wish to associate myself with Eugene R. McCarthy, chairman, national board, YMCA, in the sentiments expressed in his letter of July 3. It happens that I am a member of the executive committee of the national board of YMCA's, and am serving also as chairman of the committee on public affairs of that organization. We are firmly convinced of the value of the United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund and we feel that continued financial support of the fund should be given by the United States.

We shall appreciate very much whatever you can do to bring about favorable consideration by Congress.

Sincerely yours,

WESLEY F. RENNIE,

Executive Director.

[From the New York Times of July 6, 1953] THE CHILDREN'S FUND

It will take men of determination and sin-" cerity to save the Children's Fund of the United Nations from disaster. On June 5 the Bureau of the Budget directed the House Appropriations Committee to reconsider the appropriation of $9,800,000 to the fund—an appropriation pledged last year by the Truman administration, supported by the Eisenhower administration, and yet to be acted on by Congress. Representative JOHN TABER, chairman of the committee which is holding the bill, has indicated he intends now to have

hearings on it "about July 10." But the fears of the fund's friends are that in the last rush of work the fund will be forgotten.

What is at stake if we do not come through with this small contribution (in reality, the residue of last year's pledge)?

This is at stake: This appropriation of $9,800,000, which in large part has already been matched by other governments, represents aid to approximately 19,600,000 children and pregnant and nursing mothers in a score of countries. It will mean the collapse of ongoing programs for malaria control, preventive tuberculosis measures, and maternal child-welfare centers throughout Latin America; in short, the collapse of all preventive medical work. Throughout Asia 1,000 child-welfare centers are at stake, and some 43 projects, ranging from a yaws campaign to milk conservation programs, face complete disaster.

Men of good will, inside Congress and out, should not allow this to happen. The appropriation has been whittled down to satisfy the most conservative tastes. It is to be assumed that everyone in Congress knows the amazing contribution that the Children's Fund has made to the world's children. Let them get on with the job, with our blessing and our contribution.

AID BY TRADE-PAPER BY E. J. BELL

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the body of the RECORD, at this point in my remarks, a paper entitled "Aid by Trade," prepared by E. J. Bell, administrator of the Oregon Wheat Commission of Pendleton, Oreg., for presentation at the Northwest Institute of International Relations, Reed College campus, Portland, Oreg., June 24, 1953.

There being no objection, the paper was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

AID BY TRADE

(By E. J. Bell, administrator, Oregon Wheat Commission, Pendleton, Oreg.)

Since our topic for this morning's session is Key Policies of the Eisenhower Administration. I thought it would be helpful for us to review a few of the significant statements which have been made by President Eisenhower and members of his team since they took office on January 20.

First, there is the state of the Union message delivered by the President to Congress on February 2. In discussing foreign policy, he made the following as his sixth point:

"Our foreign policy will recognize the importance of profitable and equitable world trade.

"A substantial beginning can and should be made by our friends themselves. Europe, for example, is now marked by checkered areas of labor surplus and labor shortage, of agricultural areas needing machines and industrial areas needing food. Here and elsewhere we can hope that our friends will take the initiative in creating broader markets and more dependable currencies, to allow greater exchange of goods and services among themselves.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

"Action along these lines can create an economic environment that will invite vital help from us. Such help includes:

"First. Revising our customs regulations to remove procedural obstacles to profitable trade. I further recommend that the Congress take the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act under immediate study and extend it by appropriate legislation. This objective must not ignore legitimate safeguarding of domestic industries, agriculture, and labor standards. In all Executive study and recommendations on this problem, labor and management and farmers alike will be earnestly consulted.

"Second. Doing whatever our Government Govern can properly do to encourage the flow of private American investment abroad. This involves, as a serious and explicit purpose of our foreign policy, the encouragement of a hospitable climate for such investment in foreign nations.

"Third. Availing ourselves of facilities overseas for the economical production of manufactured articles, which are needed for mutual defense and which are not seriously competitive with our own normal peacetime production.

"Fourth. Receiving from the rest of the world, in equitable exchange for what we supply, greater amounts of important raw materials which we do not ourselves possess in adequate quantities."

On April 7 the President recommended to Congress that the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act be renewed for 1 year. In this message the President emphasized that:

"Our trade policy is only one part, although a vital part, of a larger problem. This problem embraces the need to develop, through cooperative action among the free

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

pared to practice both what we preach and what we expect of others. Only thus can we convince the free world that expanded trade and lessened restrictions are vital elements in our common defense of freedom and our common struggle for world peace." Again, on April 16 when he addressed the American Society of Newspaper Editors, the President said:

"The peace we seek, founded upon decent trust and cooperative effort among nations, can be fortified, not by weapons of war but by wheat and by cotton, by milk and by wool, by meat and by timber and by rice. These are words that translate into every language on earth. These are needs that challenge this world in arms."

Meanwhile, members of the President's Cabinet have made some very forceful and significant statements pointing out the necessity for the United States to promote free exchange of goods and services throughout the world as a basis for economic stability and world peace. The Secretary of Agriculture appeared before the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry on April 9 and emphasized the general advantages of specialization and trade. He pointed out the importance of agricultural exports of wheat, rice, cotton, tobacco, fruits, fats and oils, and the necessity of providing means whereby our customers abroad can earn the dollars with which to pay for the things the United States has to sell.

The Assistant Secretary of Commerce for International Affairs, Mr. Samuel W. Anderson, has made a number of speeches in different parts of the country in which he has presented some very definite factual evidence of the importance of trade to the United States. Mr. Anderson has compiled the fol

nations, a strong and self-supporting eco-lowing figures which are quite significant:

nomic system capable of providing both the military strength to deter aggression and the rising productivity that can improve living standards."

In this message he went on to say: "The building of a productive and strong economic system within the free worldone in which each country may better sustain itself through its own efforts will require action by other governments, as well as by the United States, over a wide range of economic activities. These must include: Adoption of sound internal policies, creation of conditions fostering international investment, assistance to underdeveloped areas, progress toward freedom of international payments and convertibility of currencies and trade arrangements aimed at the widest possible multilateral trade.

"In working toward these goals, our own trade policy as well as that of other countries should contribute to the highest possible level of trade on a basis that is profitable and equitable for all. The world must achieve an expanding trade, balanced at high levels, which will permit each nation to make its full contribution to the progress of the free world's economy and to share fully the benefits of this progress."

On April 11, the President made the following statement in a letter which he addressed to Mrs. John G. Lee, President of the League of Women Voters of the United States:

"In our own country we have practiced the doctrine of expanding production and trade through the free enterprise system. As we are manifestly interested in maintaining markets for our goods, so we must work steadfastly at the task of widening the opportunities of foreign nations to earn the dollars to pay for those goods. We are the world's greatest creditor nation. Debtor nations can pay us only if they can sell to us. They can sell to us only if we buy from them. By recognizing these basic facts, we can clearly demonstrate that we are pre

During the 7 years-1946 through 1952, total exports of goods and services from the United States amounted to $123 billion. During this same period, the United States imported goods and services from other sources in the world in the amount of $78 billion. This represented a deficit of $45 billion in that 7-year period. This is the amount by which sales by other countries to the United States failed to pay for the goods and services they bought from us. In order to fill this dollar gap, our friends abroad used up about $2 billion of their own reserves. They were able to obtain an addition $11 billion from non-Government sources including loans from the World Bank, International Monetary Fund and private loans and investments. The remaining gap is still substantial. Including certain unreconcilable errors in figures, it represents approximately $36 billion of United States Government assistance, mostly in the form of unrequited grants-inaid. This includes the original interim aid program prior to the Marshall plan, about $12 billions during the Marshall plan period, and, in the last few years, our still extensive aid programs. Mr. Anderson goes on to make the following statement with reference to this $36 billion which the United States gave to other countries during the 7 years1946 through 1952:

"The $36 billion which we, in effect, gave to our friends abroad was, I know you will agree, a very worthwhile investment and, as Mr. Paul Hoffman is accustomed to say, it represents about the cheapest bargain this country ever bought. I think there is little doubt that it gave to the world freedom from a Communist-dominated France and Italy as a minimum, and gave to our Western European friends the essential opportunity to rebuild their economies and their production, which is 30 percent to 40 percent higher than it was before World War II. Without this assistance from the United States, I personally would guess that the international position of our country, both economically

and politically, would be vastly less satisfactory than it is now. We might indeed even be fighting world war III at this time had we withheld this assistance to Europe and elsewhere.

"Nevertheless, it is a huge amount representing as it does about $230 for every man, woman and child living in the United States today. If it had not been necessary, our taxes would certainly have been lower than they were."

I believe I have said enough to indicate that the Eisenhower administration is very definitely on record favoring the reduction in tariffs and other restrictions against the importation of goods and services into the United States so that other countries can earn the dollars which they need instead of obtaining those dollars in the form of grants which come from the taxpayers of the United States.

As I read these statements and other material which is being presented at this time, I am prompted to raise two questions for your consideration: First, will the American people permit the Eisenhower administration to put these policies into effect? Second, if the United States removed all tariffs and other restrictions against imports, would other nations be able to sell enough goods and services into the dollar area to close the dollar gap?

There are many instances which indicate that the people of the United States have not as yet fully accepted the principles of free enterprise as related to international trade. Manufacturers of many items and many agricultural groups still resist vigorously any importation of competing products. I am not prepared to say that this is unwise from the standpoint of the groups

affected. I merely point out that while it is one thing to talk in generalities about enabling our friends abroad to earn dollars, it is quite another thing for a citizen of Oregon, for example, to suggest that we permit them to earn those dollars by the importation of wool, meat, nuts, and dairy products. It is easy enough for a farmer in the West to suggest importation of manufactured articles, but it is quite another thing for a Congressman from a New England manufacturing district to support such a policy.

I recently read a rather significant letter to the editor of the New York Times from Marx Lewis, general secretary-treasurer, United Hatters, Cap, and Millinery Workers International Union. In this letter Mr. Lewis refers to the editorial policy of the New York Times as repeating the "traditional arguments of those who have swallowed-hook, line, and sinker-the slogan of 'trade, not aid'." He speaks of the hazards to American manufacturers and to the millions of workers in the smaller industries. He states that the smaller industries would be willing to bear their full share of whatever burden or sacrifice might be involved in promoting international trade. But he goes on to say that the United States has done more to reduce tariff barriers than the countries which are clamoring "trade, not aid." And, finally, he states that if we would reduce our duties to insignificance, it would not narrow substantially the present dollar gap.

It is evident, therefore, that many problems will arise if the administration vigorously pursues a policy of general tariff reduction.

While we are talking about the problems of affected industries, I should like to refer to the report to the President by the Public Advisory Board for Mutual Security. The title of this report is "A Trade and Tariff Policy in the National Interest." A number of recommendations are made which I shall not repeat at this time, but I should like to

« PreviousContinue »