Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
4525658
label
House Speech Defense Legislation, July 26, 1950
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4525658
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
House Speech Defense Legislation, July 26, 1950
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Speeches
subjects
Korean War, 1950-1953
Legislation
National security
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4525658
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1950-07-31
month
7
year
1950
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1950-07-01
month
7
year
1950
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
95e1def091ba4627
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D13, folder "House Speech Defense Legislation,
July 26, 1950" of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the
Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. The Council donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
-Pord speeches in/touse
7-26-50
MR. SPEAKER - At the outset I yield to no citizen in my devotion
to this country and I consider it an outrage that anyone in the House
should secuse another of opposing legislation for the defense of our country.
Yesterday the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.Waleh) during the general debate on
H.R.9178 stated that he could point out that I had failed to vote for the
defense of my country. Immediately on the floor of the House I challenged
him to prove such a false and preposterous statement. The gentleman indi-
cated that he would at some later date but at the time he uttered the
accusation it was obvious he vas talking to hear himself talk, with absolutely
no knowledge whatsoever as to how I had voted on any measure that has come
before the House in the 81st Congress. You will note in the printed record
today that the gentleman from Indiana during our collequy frankly admitted
he didn't know me from Adam. For any member to accuse another without
facts at hand to substantiate such a charge is irresponsibility of the
worst sort.
Earlier during this same speech in which he made the false accusa-
tion concerning my voting record, the gentlemen from Indiana patted himself
on the back for never condenning any individual without a full and fair
hearing or trial. Yet in the same speech, all within a period of ten
minutes, the gentleman from Indiana openly accused a colleague of voting
against the defense of his country when during our collequy it was obvious
he know nothing concerning my voting record. Mind you, my colleagues,
the gentleman from Indiana frankly admitted he would have to supply the
data from the record when I challenged him to back up his statement. I
respectfully suggest that the gentleman from Indiana be somewhat consistent
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
Digitized from Box D13 of The Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
Page Two
when he contends he never accuses or condemns without all the facts at
hahd.
The gentleman's own record in the House is rather interesting.
During the first session of the 81st Congress there were approximately 68
highly significant legislative issues on which there were roll call votes.
On 16 of the 68 the gentleman was not recorded. It should interest the
House that on these same significant issues I was recorded on 65 out of
the 68 roll calls. This is a somewhat better record than that of my
colleague from Indian.
It should also interest the House that on 42 significant issues
in the 2nd Session of the 81st Congress the gentleman from Indiana failed
to vote in twelve instances while my own record indicates my absence on only
3 occasions out of the 42. Again, if attendance to duty is a criterion, the
gentleman from Indiana has a far worse record than I.
Here are some other interesting facts which should be called to
the attention of the members of the House. During the First and Second
Sessions of the 81st Congress through June 30. 1950, there were 430 roll
calls. I missed 17 out of the 430 roll calls, in other words I was on the
job 96% of the time. The gentleman from Indiana missed 260 out of the 430
roll calls, in other words he was on the job 40% of the time and absent 60%
of the time. In this same period there VIID 205 roll call votes on legislative
matters. I missed 8 out of the 205 and the gentleman from Indiana missed
66 out of the 205 roll call votes. During the same period there were 225
quorum calls. The gentleman from Indiana missed 204 out of the 225 quorum
calls and I missed 9 out of the 225. I ask/i the members of the House, who
has the better record for being on the job?
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
Page Three
Those of us who have been selected for this position of responsi-
bility by the voters of our respective districts owe it to ourselves and
our constituents to be on the job. The gentleman's record in this regard
is obviously inferior to my own. Perhaps if he vas more conscientious about
his attendance record, the gentleman from Indiana would know accurately the
voting record of his colleagues and would not fly off the handle and make
such irresponsible statements concerning the record of a colleague.
Yesterday after the collequy between the gentleman and myself,
a member of the House suggested that as a test of our loyalty I put my
service record of 47 months in World War II against the gentleman's Army
record of approximately 13 months. I assure you that that is not a fair
and honest basis for any test of loyalty or devotion to our nation's security
and welfare. Many of our fellow citizens served our nation well and
faithfully in a civilian capacity during World War II, perhaps even
contributing more than we who were in the various branches of the Armed
services. What does perplex me, however, is why the gentleman from
Indiana should ignorantly resort to derogatory and irresponsible state-
ments of the kind made yesterday on the floor of the House.
At the time the gentlemen on the floor of the House made the
reference to my voting record, as I said before, he had no facts, if
ever there were any, to back up his accusation. Subsequently he apparently
learned my name and checked the record. The gentleman from Indiana now
states because I voted for or against certain selected proposals he has
proved his point. The members of the House should know the facts on this
afterthought analysis.
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
Page Four
Let's start with H.R.5895, the Mutual Defense Assistance Act of
1949. This bill originally called for an authorization of $580,495.000
for North Atlantic Pact Countries: plus 500 million in forward contracting
for North Atlantic Pact Countries; plus $211,370.000 for Greede and Turkey,
and $27,640.000 for Iran, the Republic of Korea and the Republic of the
Philippines. On August 18, 1949. on Roll Call No. 188, 209 members of the
House including myself voted for the Richards Amendment. This amendment
Was approved by a bi-partisan vote and it deleted the 500 million for forward
contracting but left intact the sum of $580,495.000 for military aid to
our European allies. Does the gentleman from Indiana honestly contend
that all of the 209 members who voted for the Richards Amendment "failed
to vote for the defense of their country"?
It is interesting to note that the gentleman from Indiana condemns
me for my support of the Richards Amendment yet, according to Congressional
Record, my colleague from Indiana was not present and consequently cast
no vote whatsoever on the Richards Amendment. The record shows his
absence at the time the vote was cast and furthermore he noither book
the time or made the effort to pair himself either for or against the
proposal. One who condemns another should at least have a record of
his own to exhibit.
On the same day after the adoption of the Richards Amendment
a roll call vote demanded on H.R.5895 and on that vote I am recorded in
favor of the bill. Again the gentleman from Indiana, who so glibly and
ignorantly accuses a colleague was not present. He cast no vote and vas
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
Page Five
not paired one way or another. Two hundred and 38 members supported the
bill by a recorded vote. In no vote in the record on this day do I find
on indication of the gentleman's attitude on this bill yet he feels free to
comment on my vote on this issue.
Subsequently the other body considered H.R.5895 and reduced
the authorised appropriation for North Atlantic Pact countries to 500
million but added 500 million for forward contracting and im luded 75
million for the general area of China. The House and Senate conferees approved
the appropriation authorisation of the House ($580,495,000) and added the
500 million for forward contracting as adopted by the other body.
On September 28, 1949 the conference report on this legislation
came before the House. After debate the gentlemen from Wisconsin (Mr.Smith)
offered a motion to recommit. One hundred and 13 members including myself
supported that motion. I supported the motion to recommit because in
my estimation such & vote was consistent with my vote on the Richards
Amendment.
I ask this question, does the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.Walsh)
suggest that all of the 113 members who voted to recommit "failed to vote for
the defense of their country"?
On final passage of the conference report on H.R.5895 the gentle-
man from Indiana and I voted the same, namely. for the bill. This was his
first affirmative support for the legislation and the second time during the
first session that I had supported such legislation. Obviously his blasphemous
comment of yesterday. considering his own record, vas not justified.
The gentleman from Indiana (Mr.Walsh) in his afterthought analysis
makes much of my two votes on January 19, 1950. when the House considered
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
Tago Six
and rejected the first bill authorizing economic aid to Koron. A brief
review of the For Hustorn situation on that date 10 important to on understand-
ing of why 193 monboro of the House rejected this bill. Burly in January
of this yours Just before this voto, both President and Secretary
of State Achoson turned their bacire on and literally abandoned Formona
contrasy to the views of General HoArther who all along has contended VO
must maintain the integrity of Formosa against the activation of ned China.
with the President and the Secretary of State abandoning Formona at that
time vas there any justification for pouring 60 million or more in economic
aid into Korea. of course not.
This bill, H.R.5330, proposed only economic aid to Korea, no
military equipment, only U.S. dollars for the construction of power plants,
fortilizer. etc. It VaB predicted on Jonuary 19th during the debate on
this bill that Communist forces could and would overtun the South Korean
Republic whenever such a military move the to the advantage of the Soviet
Union. That prediction, unfortunately, has como to pass but the recent
developments in Koron certainly suctein the position of those who refused to
pour U. S. economic old into a militarily defenseloss nation. The gontlomm
from Indiana (Mr.Walsh) vanted the US to authorize 60 million for south
Koroan power plants, fortilisors, otc. when all our military leaders sold
the territory could not be defended yet he has the call to accuse no, and
by implication 192 others in the House. for failing to vote for the defense
of our country because ve rejected this proposal.
Again, on February 9. 1950, the House Vas called upon to consider
a bill (8.2319) for Korean oconomic aid. It Vas in effect the same bill
no H.R.5330 except cortain U.S.funds VOID authorised for the Island of
Formosa. Frankly this bill with the inclusion of aid to Formona mde
dense, FORD VIBRARY
Page Seven
principally because it was an admission by the State Department under
Mr. Acheson that Formosa the not to be abandoned to Stalin and Red China.
Prior to this change in attitude, Mr. Acheson and the President had abandoned
Formosa. However, with this change in Pacific policy by the Administration,
I could and did support the legislation. Yes, I did vote to reduce the
authorisations, but again in light of our recent military reverses in South
Korea perhaps it would have been wiser to out back some of the economic
aid to the South Korean Republic. Certainly a vote on February 9th of
this year to reduce but not eliminate economic aid to Korea is not a vote
against the defense of this nation. Again as before the afterthought
analysis of the gentlemen from Indiana (Mr.Walsh) is in CITOF.
A short summary of the ill-founded accusation by the gentleman
1s in order. of the 8 record votes to which he refers, either directly or
indirectly. he and I voted alike on two occasions. I would suggest that in these
instances he is 11ke the pot calling the kettle black. On two of the roll
calls when the House considered the Mutual Defense Assistance Act of 1949,
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.Walsh) was nowhere to be found. In other
words, he cast no vote. The members can drew their own conclusions in this
instance. On the other 4 roll calls I voted differently from the gentleman
from Indiana, for good and sufficient reasons. In no vey whatsoever, as
the record shows, did I or the many others who voted similarly. vote against
the defense or national security of this nation. If anything we who disapproved
of Secretary Acheson's policies and supported those of General McArthur in
light of recent developments. are right and the gentlemen from Indiana (Mr.Walsh)
vas quite wrong.
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
Page Eight
In closing, let me my no nan in this House or elsewhere 10 more
devoted than myself to our country and the principles for which 1t stands.
At the same time never have I nor will I ever accuse another in the manner
of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.Walsh).
Each member of the Congress has
a duty and an obligation to vote on each and every proposal as his or
her conscience dictates. It is not within the prerogatives of the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr.Walsh) to determine and judge the merits or errors in my
decisions, particularly when at the time of his comment he was completely
ignorant of the facts. The record is now correct. I thank my colleagues
for their indulgence in permitting me an opportunity to refute the gentleman'
irresponsible statement of yesterday.
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
7-26-50
MR. SPRAKER - At the outset I yield to no citizen in my devotion
to this country and I consider it on outsage that anyone in the House
should accuse another of opposing legislation for the defense of our country.
Yesterday the gentlemn from Indiana (Mr.Walsh) during the general debate on
H.R.9178 stated that he could point out that I had failed to vote for the
defense of my country. Immediately on the floor of the House I challenged
him to prove such a false and preposterous statement. The gentlemen indi-
ented that he would at some later date but at the time he uttered the
accusation it was obvious he Vas talking to hear himself talk with absolutely
no knowledge whatsoover as to how I had voted on any monsure that has como
before the House in the Blot Congross. You will note in the printed record
today that the gentlemen from Indiana during our colloguy frankly admitted
he didn't know no from sdam. For any member to accuse another without
facts at hand to substantiate such a charge 10 irresponsibility of the
worst sort.
Barlier during this name speech in which he made the false accusa-
tion concerning my voting record, the gentleman from Indiana patted hinself
on the book for never condenning any individual without a full and fair
hoaring or trial. Yet in the same speech, all within & period of ton
minutos, the centleman from Indiana openly accused a colleague of voting
against the defense of his country when during our colleguy it was obvious
he Imov nothing concerning my voting record. Mind you, my colleagues.
the contlonan from Indiana frankly admitted he would have to supply the
data from the record when I challonged him to back up his statement. I
respectfully suggest that the gentleman from Indiana be somewhat consistent
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
Insert -
Here are some other interesting facts which should be called to
the attention of the members of the House. During the First and Second
Sessions of the 81st Congress through June 30, 1950, there were 430 roll
calls. I missed 17 out of the 430 roll calls, in other words I was on the
job 96% of the time. The gentleman from Indiana missed 260 out of the 430
roll calls, in other words he was on the job 40% of the time and absent 60%
of the time. In this same period there were 205 roll call votes on legislative
matters. I missed 8 out of the 205 and the gentleman from Indiana missed
66 out of the 205 roll call votes. During the same period there were 225
quorum calls. The gentleman from Indiana missed 104 out of the 225 quorum
calls and I missed 9 out of the 225. I ask the members of the House, who
has the better record for being on the job?
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
rage Two
when he contends he never accuses or condemns without all the facts at
hand.
The gentloman's own record in the House 10 rather interesting.
During the first session of the 81st Congross there were approximately 68
highly significant legislative issues on which there vero roll call votes.
On 16 of the 68 the gentleman was not recorded. It should interest the
House that on those same significant issues I vas recorded on 65 out of
the 68 roll calls. This 10 a somewhat better record than that of my
colleague from Indiana.
It should also interest the House that on 42 significant ismos
in the 2nd Secsion of the 81st Congross the gentleman from Indiana failed
to vote in twelve instances while my own record indicates my absence on only
3 occasions out of the 42. seain, if attendance to duty 10 a criterion, the
contleman from Indiana has B for werse record than I.
Insert
Those of us who have boon selected for this position of responsi-
bility by the votors of our respective districts ove it to ourselves and
our constituents to be on the Job. The gentlemen's record in this regard
10 obviously inforior to my own. Perhaps if he vas more consciontious about
his attendance record, the gentleman from Indiana would know accurately the
voting record of his colleagues and would not fly off the handle and make
such irresponsible statements concorning the record of a colleague.
Yestorday after the colleguy between the gentlemn and myself,
a member of the House suggested that as & test of our loyalty I put my
service record of 47 months in World Var II against the gentloman's Army
record of approximately 13 months.
I assure you that that 10 not a fair
and honest basis for any toot of loyalty OF devotion to our nation's security
and velfare. Many of our follow citizens served our nation well and
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
Page Three
faithfully in a civilian capacity during World Vet II, perhaps even
contributing more than we who vero in the various branches of the Armed
services.
What doos perplex no, however, is why the gentleman from
Indiana should ignorantly resort to derogatory and irresponsible state-
ments of the kind made yestorday on the floor of the House.
AD the time the contlemen on the floor of the House made the
reference to my voting record, as I cold before, he had no foots, if
ever there V020 any. to back up his accusation. Subsequently he apparently
learned my name and checked the record.
The gontlemen from Indiana now
states because : voted for or against certain colocted proposals he has
proved his point The member of the House should know the facts on this
afterthought analysis.
Lot's start with H.R.5895. the Natual Defense Assistance Act of
1949. This bill originally called for an authorisation of $580,495.000
for North Atlantic Fact Countries: plus 500 million in forward contracting
for North Atlantic Taot Countries: plus $211,370,000 for Grooce and Turkey,
and $27,640,000 for Iran, the Republic of Koroa and the Republic of the
Philippines. On August 18, 1949. on Roll call No. 188, 209 members of the
House including myself voted for the Richards Amendment. This amendment Vas
approved by a bi-partisen vote and it deleted the 500 million for forward
contracting but left intact the com of 0580,495.000 for military aid to
our Buropean allies. Doos the contleman from Indian honestly contend
that all of the 209 members who voted for the Richards Amendment "failed
to voto for the defense of their country"?
It 10 interecting to note that the gontlemen from Indiana condenns
no for my support of the Richards Anendment yet, according to Congrossional
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
Page Four
Record, my colleague from Indiana vas not present and consequently cast
no vote whatsoever on the Richards Amendment. The record shove his
absence at the time the vote Was cast and furthermore he neither took
the time OF made the effort to pair himself either for OF against the
proposal. One who condomns another should at least have a record of
his own to eshibit.
On the come day after the adoption of the Richards Amendment
a roll call voto domanded on B.R.5895 and on that vote I on recorded in
favor of the bill. scain the gentleman from Indiana, who 00 elibly and
ignorantly accuses a colleague vas not present. He cast no voto and Vas
not paired one vay or another. Two hundred and 30 members supported the
bill by a recorded vote. In no voto in the record on this day do I find
an indication of the gentleman's attitude on this bill you he feels froo
to comment on my vote on this issue.
Subsequently the other body considered H.R.5095 and reduced
the authorised appropriation for North Atlantic Fact countries to 500
million but added 500 million for forward contracting and included 75 million
for the general area of Chin. The House and Sonate conferces approved
the appropriation authorisation of the House (8580,495,000) and added the
500 million for forward contracting as adopted by the other body.
On September 20, 1949 the conference report on this logislation
came before the House. After debate the centlemen from Visconsin (Mr.Smith)
offered a motion to recommit. One hundred and 23 members including myself
supported that motion. I supported the motion to reconnit because in my
estimation such a vote was consistent with my vote on the Richards Amendment.
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
Page Five
I not this question, does the gentleman from Indiana suggest
that all of the 113 members who voted to recommit "failed to vote for the
defense of their country"?
on final passage of the conference report on H.R.5095 the gentle-
man from Indiana and $ voted the como, namely, for the bill. This VIS his
first affirmative support for the legislation and the second time during the
first cossion that I had supported such legislation. Obviously his blas-
phonous coment of yesterday, considering his own record. was not justified.
The gentlemen from Indiana (Mr.Walsh) In his afterthought analysis
makes much of my two votes on Jenuary 19, 1950, when the House considered
and rejected the first bill authorizing economic aid to Horon. A brief
review of the For Rantorn situation on that date is important to an under-
standing of why 193 members of the House rejected this bill. Marly in
Jonuary of this year, just before this vote, both President Truman and
Secretary of State Acheson turned their backs on and literally abandoned
Formosa contrary to the views of General Notarthur who all along has COD->
tonded we crust maintain the integrity of Formose against the aggression
of Rod China. with the President and the Secretary of State abandoning
Formos at that time was there any justification for pouring 60 million
OF more in economic aid into Koron. of course not.
This bill, H.R.5330, proposed only economic aid to Koren, no
military equipment, only U.S.dollars for the construction of power plants,
fortilisor. otc. It the predicted on Jenuary 19th during the debate on
this bill that Communiet forces could end would oversun the South Korean
Republic whenever such a military novo VAS to the advantage of the Soviet
FORD i LIBRARI GERALD
Page Six
Union. That prodiction. unfortunately, has como to pass but the recont
developments in Koron certainly sustain the position of those who refused to
pour U.S. economic aid into a militarily defenseless nation. The contleman
from Indiana (Mr.Waleh) wanted the U.S. to authorise 60 million for South
Korean power plants, fortilisors, oto. when all our military londers sold
the territory could not be defended you he has the caul to accuse 10, and
by implication 192 others in the House, for failing to vote for the defense
of our country because vo rejected this proposal.
Again, on February 9. 1950, the House vas called upon to consider
a bill (S.2319) for Korean oconomic aid. It Vas in effect the same bill
as H.R.5330 except certain U.S.funds word authorised for the Island of
Formosa. Frankly this bill with the inclusion of aid to Formosa made sense,
principally because 10 tao on admission by the State Department under
Hr. Acheson that Formona was not to to abandoned to Stalin and Red China.
Prior to this change in attitude, Mr. Achoson and the President had abandoned
Formoun. However, with this change in Pacific policy by the Administration,
I could and did support the logiclation. Yes, I did voto to roduce the
authorisations, but again in light of our recent military reverses in South
Korea perhaps it would have been wiser to out back some of the economic
aid to the South Koroan Republic. Certainly a vote on February 9th of
this year to reduce but not eliminate economic aid to Horon is not a vote
against the defense of this nation. Again as before the afterthought
analysis of the gentlemen from Indiana (Hr.Walsh) is in OFFOR.
A short summary of the ill-founded accusation by the gentleman
10 in order. of the 8 record votes to which he refers. either directly or
indirectly. he and I voted alike on two occusions. I would suggest that
GERALO FORD LIBRARY
Page Seven
in these instances he Le 111m the pot calling the kottle black. On two
of the roll calls when the House considered the Mutual Defense Assistance
леб of 1949 the gentlenen from Indiana (Mr.Valah) the nowhere to be found.
In other words, he cost no voto. The members can drow their own conclusions
in
this instance. on the other 4 roll calls I voted differently from the
gentlemen from Indian, for good and sufficient reasons. In no vay whatso-
over, as the record shows, did I or the many others who voted sinilarly,
vote against the defense 02 national security of this nation. If
anything
we who disapproved of secretary Acheson's policies and supported those
of General in light of recent developments, are right and the
contlemen from Indiana (Hr.Walah) V:S quito wrong.
In closing. lot no any no man in this House 02 elsewhere to more
devoted than myself to our country and the principles for which 1t stands.
At the 01230 time never have I nor will I over accuse another in the manner
of the gentlemen from Indiana
Each member of the Congross has
a duty and on obligation to vote on each and every proposal as his 02
her conscience dictates.
It is not within the proregatives of the gentleman
from Indian (No.Valsh) to determine and judge the norits or orrors in my
decisions particularly when at the time of his coment he the completely
ignorment of the foots The record is now corrected. I thank my colleagues
for their infulgence in permitting no on opportunity to refute the gentleman's
irresponsible statement of yestorday.
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD