Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954, General: Economic and Political Matters, Volume I, Part 1

ECA–MSA Executive Assistant’s files, FRC 55 A 79, box 186, “W. Averell Harriman”

Memorandum by Theodore Tannenwald, Jr., of the Office of the Director of Mutual Security to the Director of Mutual Security (Harriman)

restricted

[Washington,] March 25, 1952.

I believe that over the course of the next two or three weeks you should personally visit each member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Particularly with those members of the House Committee who are relatively unknown, a visit from you will be most effective. In addition, I believe you should see a few members of the Senate Armed Services Committee. I believe you should establish certain priorities for your visits, as follows:¹

• First Priority—those whom you should have lunch or dinner with alone—
  • Tom Connally, Chairman, Senate Foreign Relations
  • Walter F. George, Senate Foreign Relations, and Chairman, Senate Finance
  • Richard B. Russell, Chairman, Senate Armed Services
  • Alexander Wiley, Ranking Minority Member, Senate Foreign Relations
  • John J. Sparkman, Senate Foreign Relations
  • Brien McMahon, Senate Foreign Relations
  • James P. Richards, Chairman, House Foreign Affairs
  • Mike Mansfield, House Foreign Affairs
  • John M. Vorys, House Foreign Affairs
  • Walter H. Judd, House Foreign Affairs
• Second Priority—those to whom you will want to pay more than a brief visit—
  • Guy M. Gillette, Senate Foreign Relations
  • H. Alexander Smith, Senate Foreign Relations
  • Laurie C. Battle, House Foreign Affairs
  • A. A. Ribicoff, House Foreign Affairs
  • Brooks Hays, House Foreign Affairs
  • Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jr., House Foreign Affairs
  • Frances P. Bolton, House Foreign Affairs
  • Charles A. Eaton, Ranking Minority Member, House Foreign Affairs
  • Jacob K. Javits, House Foreign Affairs
  • Lyndon B. Johnson, Senate Armed Services
  • Russell B. Long, Senate Armed Services
  • Wayne Morse, Senate Armed Services
  • H. Styles Bridges, Senate Armed Services
  • William F. Knowland, Senate Armed Services
• Third Priority—those members of the Senate Foreign Relations and House Foreign Affairs Committees who are not covered by the above—
  • Theodore Francis Green, Senate Foreign Relations
  • J. W. Fulbright, Senate Foreign Relations
  • Bourke B. Hickenlooper, Senate Foreign Relations
  • Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., Senate Foreign Relations
  • Charles W. Tobey, Senate Foreign Relations
  • Owen Brewster, Senate Foreign Relations
  • Thomas S. Gordon, House Foreign Affairs
  • Thomas E. Morgan, House Foreign Affairs
  • A. S. J. Carnahan, House Foreign Affairs
  • Thurmond Chatham, House Foreign Affairs
  • Clement J. Zablocki, House Foreign Affairs
  • Omar Burleson, House Foreign Affairs
  • Chet Holifield, House Foreign Affairs
  • Edna F. Kelly, House Foreign Affairs
  • Henderson Lanham, House Foreign Affairs
  • Robert B. Chiperfield, House Foreign Affairs
  • Lawrence H. Smith, House Foreign Affairs
  • Chester E. Merrow, House Foreign Affairs
  • James G. Fulton, House Foreign Affairs
  • Donald L. Jackson, House Foreign Affairs
  • Christian A. Herter, House Foreign Affairs
  • B. Carroll Reece, House Foreign Affairs

I am attaching hereto a memorandum indicating the points that are of most concern to the individuals listed above.

Theodore Tannenwald, Jr.

[Attachment]

restricted

[Washington, Undated.]

Points of Concern to Members of Congressional Committees on 1953 Mutual Security Program²

First Priority.

1. Senator Connally:

a. “Economic Aid” to Europe. The Senator believes we are “giving away” our dollars to those who are too lazy to do anything for themselves, France in particular. Large groups of Texans share this opinion.

b. Administration’s “misuse” of powers granted to it, in particular the transfer power.

c. Reductions in the funds.

2. Senator George:

a. Obligations and expenditures for all programs, including projected plans for the 1953 program. His greatest concern appears to be that we cannot and do not use the money we have received. His position on this matter will determine his position on reductions in amounts.

3. Senator Russell:

a. His principal concern is that the scope of assistance is increasing, not decreasing. His approach is best expressed in Section 503 of the Act of 1951, limiting the scope of aid after June 30, 1952. Some discussion with him on defense support for Europe, and the scope of assistance outside Europe would be advisable. He probably favors a reduction in amount.

b. Management of the Program so as not to impede the military in its performance. There has been no mention of this problem thus far, but it may be advisable to sound out the Senator on this matter.

c. Personnel reduction. Senator Russell was largely responsible for Sec. 504(d) in the Act of 1951. He may feel that further reductions are necessary.

4. Senator Wiley:

a. The amount of the request vis-à-vis the expected deficit. It may be advisable to emphasize to the Senator that the cost of security is a first priority; it is not “can we afford it?” but “can we afford not to afford it?”

5. Senator Sparkman:

No special points. However, the Senator has predicted a $1 billion cut, but has not specifically said he would advocate it.

6. Senator McMahon:

a. The Senator will support the program. Discussions with him might center around the key arguments in support of the program, particularly why defense support is necessary.

7. Chairman Richards:

a. Reduction in amounts. Mr. Richards will, in all probability, sponsor or join in some proposal to reduce the funds, not a crippling reduction, but one he can and will defend on the floor. It will be difficult to convince him that some reduction is not possible. The full amount should be urged, without question, but not in such a way that would prevent us from supplying him with cogent arguments to support the amount finally recommended by the Committee.

b. Defense support. The distinction between OSP, AMP, and defense support should be clarified. Mr. Richards will back defense support funds as he did last year. Emphasis should be placed on viewing defense support as the assistance necessary to produce a total economic effort for defense. His speech of last year (Congressional Record, August 16, 1951, pp. 10358–63) is indicative of the points that can be made, as follows:

1) Production of military equipment requires plants, raw materials, tools, transportation, power, men, wages, food and all the things that are components of a total economic organism.

2) The build-up must be kept going. The alternatives are: (1) lengthen the time, (2) have less defense, or (3) supply all the arms ourselves and accept the continuing burden.

3) A distinction between “ERP” aid and “defense support” is artificial and meaningless; all the productive resources must be joined together to build strength.

Mr. Richards is concerned that defense support items not directly used in military production will be difficult to defend.

c. Attaching conditions. Mr. Richards will look at any proposals of this sort carefully. It would be well to emphasize our own efforts to administer the Program so as to achieve our objectives; and to emphasize the strait-jacket that additional conditions impose.

d. The personnel reduction, particularly the basis for calculating it: including technical assistance personnel and not limiting the reduction to administrative personnel.

8. Congressman Mansfield:

He will actively support the program. His concern is to build the record in the testimony, and to have material available for his own use, on the following points:

a) That the European nations, particularly France, are doing everything possible to assist the common effort—in Europe and wherever they have commitments.

b) Assistance is essential to the security of the free world.

Supporting arguments on these points, particularly the first one, would be helpful to him.

9. Congressman John M. Vorys:

a. “Economic aid”. Mr. Vorys is convinced that defense support assistance is merely “Marshall Plan giveaway” under a defense label. It will be difficult to persuade him otherwise, but the effort should be made. He is willing to support defense support items used directly for military production (AMP type) but not other commodities.

b. Loans. Mr. Vorys may move to increase the percentage of assistance in loans. Although this question has not yet arisen, it might be well to go into it with Mr. Vorys.

c. Conditions. Mr. Vorys will probably want to write additional conditions into the legislation, particularly on European integration. He is quite concerned that Europe is not “integrating” under our urging and that it must do so.

d. India. This question has not been raised yet, but Mr. Vorys will be very concerned when the India program is laid out. His principal concern will be that we are buying a share in the Colombo Plan.

e. Taxes. Mr. Vorys was personally concerned with this matter last year. It might be wise to go into the results of the tax negotiations fully with him to see whether he is satisfied with it and what further we might expect.

f. Personnel reduction. He is concerned that we are over the limit. The base of calculation should be explored with him.

g. The additional cost of equipping 20 odd divisions. He makes the point that for our expenditures thus far we have created about 25 divisions “combat ready”; why does it require several times our present expenditure to get another 20 odd ready?

10. Congressman Walter H. Judd:

a. Dr. Judd’s principal concern is that the Point IV program is becoming a commodity program. We have said that this is not the case. This question should be explored with him fully.

b. Considerable concern with Asia and its importance. His attitude on continuing MSA programs in Southeast Asia might be explored.

11. Congressman Jacob K. Javits:³

a. Financing opportunities in underdeveloped countries. Mr. Javits wants to be sure we are doing all that can be done to push this matter.

b. Relatively small amount of money for underdeveloped countries. Mr. Javits’ concern is primarily to build a good defense for this type of expenditure. He would probably prefer to see more of this type of money in the program. Exploring with him some of the reasons behind our estimates and some additional assurances of our close attention to this side of the program would be helpful.

c. Mr. Javits’ attitude on authority to continue Southeast Asia programs might be explored.

Second Priority.

1. Senator Guy M. Gillette:

a. The Senator’s principal concern seems to be with amounts: justifying the request; why we cannot use the full amounts we do get, and where reductions can be made.

b. He is especially concerned with transferability—presently opposes on ground that permits much too great latitude (including 5% intra-title and 10% inter-title).

2. Senator H. Alexander Smith:

a. Senator Smith’s major concern is with our use of the money, and whether reductions can be made on the basis of past performance.

b. His attitude on authority to continue MSA programs in Southeast Asia might be explored.

c. Senator Smith last year sponsored an organization plan similar to the House plan. The words “unified direction of program” are of considerable concern to him. It would be well to go over in some detail the organizational arrangements, personnel reductions, etc. Overlapping and duplication in overseas operations is a special concern of his.

3. Congressman A. A. Ribicoff:

a. Conditions in the legislation. We should indicate our difficulties with Section 511, and discuss with him suggested changes he has asked us to prepare.

b. Commitments of other countries to support us. He is concerned that the United States is widely committed all over the world, but other countries have limited commitments to us.

c. Ability to use the money granted by Congress: unobligated and unexpended funds.

d. Reporting procedures. Mr. Ribicoff thinks too many reports are required and too much time consumed in preparing them.

e. Personnel reductions. He believes there are too many people in Europe, living too well.

4. Congressman Brooks Hays:

a. The Point IV Program. We should assure Mr. Hays of our concern with the underdeveloped countries and our desire to push the Point IV Program. He is ready to support the whole program.

b. Mr. Hays is concerned that our program—in the eyes of the world—is giving the impression we are making war and raising a crop of millionaires in Europe. Some assurances to him that people are benefitting, are doing their utmost, and that we are trying to assist people would be helpful.

5. Congresswoman Frances P. Bolton:

a. European tax systems and the implication that we are carrying the burden.

b. Our information system and its inadequacies.

6. Congressman Charles A. Eaton:

Dr. Eaton’s concern is not with details but with the fundamental principles:

a. Is our security threatened? He believes it is.

b. Do we need to have all this money, and can we accomplish our purposes with it?

He had doubtless already answered these questions affirmatively for himself. Some additional discussion with him on these points would, however, be worthwhile.

Third Priority.

1. Senator Theodore F. Green:

Senator Green’s concerns are two:

a. The “man in the street” is not benefitting from our assistance.

b. European integration is lagging.

2. Senator J. W. Fulbright:

a. Senator Fulbright’s main concern at the moment is that the TCA programs are putting equipment into the hands of people who do not know how to use it, and for whom it is unsuitable.

b. He has a great and long-standing concern about political unification and would support conditions in the legislation on this point.

3. Senator B. B. Hickenlooper:

a. The extent of U.S. commitments in Europe, ultimately requiring large-scale United States forces.

b. The increasing size and scope of foreign assistance programs and our ability to afford them in view of present and expected deficits.

4. Congressman Omar Burleson:

a. There is too much money in the program. Mr. Burleson would favor reductions.

b. Mr. Burleson appears to feel that we are not doing enough about getting strategic materials from overseas territories.

5. Congresswoman Edna F. Kelly:

a. Israel programs.

b. Extent to which we permit collectivization and religious persecution in Yugoslavia.

6. Congressman Robert B. Chiperfield:

a. Amount of money involved. Mr. Chiperfield thinks it is too much.

b. Use of counterpart for military purposes. Mr. Chiperfield would favor using all counterpart for military purposes.

c. Duration of the program. Mr. Chiperfield feels we are getting in deeper and that there is no end in sight. He will support reductions in the amounts.

7. Congressman Lawrence H. Smith:

a. The reported $300 billion NATO military budget. Mr. Smith still believes the press would not report this if there were no truth in it.

b. Inability of the United States to afford the cost involved. Mr. Smith has in the past urged large cuts in funds and will probably do so this year.

c. Lack of increase in the standard of living. Mr. Smith is concerned that with tremendous production increases the “little man” is no better off than before.

8. Congressman Chester E. Merrow:

a. Lack of European integration. Mr. Merrow feels we should begin to enforce integration.

b. Size of the authorization request: a concern that with large unexpended and unobligated amounts we do not need the amount we are asking for.

c. Fiscal reform. Mr. Merrow feels we should have fiscal reform probably as a condition of aid. His concern is that we are not using our aid to accomplish any of these necessary tasks.

9. Congressman James G. Fulton:

a. The guaranty program and its operation.

b. Sale of surplus ships rather than subsidizing of European shipbuilding.

c. Foreign competition arising from increased European productive capacity.

1. On the following three lists the handwritten notation “Visit” appears next to the following names: Senators Connally, Sparkman, Gillette, Smith, Green, Fulbright, Hickenlooper, Lodge, Tobey, and Brewster. The handwritten notation “Dinner” appears next to the following names: Senators Wiley and McMahon, and Representatives Richards, Mansfield, and Vorys.
2. Copies were sent to Gordon, Wood, Ohly, and Eichholz.
3. An unidentified handwritten notation on the margin opposite Congressman Javits’ name reads: “Second priority”.