Page images


(H.R. 5710, 83d Cong., 1st Sess.)



Washington, D.C.

The committee met in executive session at 10 a.m., Hon. Robert B. Chiperfield (chairman) presiding.

Chairman CHIPERFIELD. The committee will come to order.

Mr. Vorys, yesterday afternoon we were discussing this letter. I think it has been changed and a copy is before each one of you. We can have it read over again.

Mr. VORYS. Does the committee wish to have it read over? There are now copies before all of us.

Mr. MERROW. That suggested change in the resolution was the only thing we had to consider.

Mr. VORYS. I have no great pride of authorship, this is somewhat in the reverse. The President writes the chairman a letter for the benefit of the committee and our response is somewhat less than a satisfactory answer, but our staff drafted one, and then I drafted one, and there has been some redrafting. There is no pride of authorship. Do you think it would be more rapid to read it or simply to ask if anyone has any suggestions?

Chairman CHIPERFIELD. If there are any suggestions, I would welcome them.


Mr. FULTON. I would suggest that we might say the members have been "encouraged" by the meetings instead of "inspired." I would ring down the upper and lower case a little bit on the adjectives. Then we could make reference to the "real" progress instead of the "great" progress. I do not want to be concerned with anything in my district which refers to "supernational government," so I would say, "the first step in integration in Europe on June 15th." That is on about line 10 of the letter of transmittal. I would strike that and put "the first step in integration in Europe" instead.

Chairman CHIPERFIELD. Frankly, the word bothered me, but John says that is what we talk about.

Mr. FULTON. I will dissent from "supernational." I am hounded to death by people who are after me for joining too many things. Chairman CHIPERFIELD. What would you put in place of that?

Mr. FULTON. "The first step toward political intergation," or just simply "integration in Europe." That "supernational" is playing right into the hands of certain people.

Mr. MORANO. Would "unification" be better than "integration"? Mr. FULTON. "Unification" is all right; anything but supernational government."

Mr. VORYS. "Political unity"?

Mr. FULTON. That is all right. Why do you not just call it "integration"? I would strike the "supernational government" and insert the word "integration."

Mrs. BOLTON. "The first step toward integration"?

Mr. FULTON. "Of Europe."

Mr. VORYS. It is not toward; it is in. What it is, is "the first step in supernational government." That is the word they use, and that is what we want. We want Europe to do what we did in 1776 and 1783, but certainly if the word alarms any of the members, there is no reason for using it. This, after all, is the chairman's transmittal letter, and I would be perfectly willing to let the chairman rewrite

the letter.

Chairman CHIPERFIELD. We hear so much, as Mr. Fulton has said, about a world government. I think we might just hold it down a little bit so we would not excite anybody's feelings at all.

Mr. VORYS. Would it not be just as

Mr. FULTON. I would use "unification," because you have got "integration" ahead.

Mr. VORYS. Would it not be just as satisfactory to strike out the words "the first step in supernational government in Europe" and simply say, "in view of the convening of the common assembly of the community on June 15"? What our chairman is saying is that in view of the convening, we can just leave that whole thing out. "The first step in supernational government in Europe," strike those words. I think we can use "real" instead of "great." The whole sentence goes, "The committee has contemplated real progress in this most real step toward integration." And, "In view of the fact that the community is not an applicant for funds authorized in the pending legislation, the committee adopted the enclosed resolution which I have the honor to transmit to you with the hope that it will be that you see fit to transmit.


Mr. SMITH. Put in some periods, John, to break up the sentence. Mrs. BOLTON. A period after "before the" and a capital "hut" in the third line.

Mrs. KELLY. You can strike out "but."

Mrs. BOLTON. Yes.

Mr. VORYS. I feel, Mr. Chairman, that it is somewhat of an impertinence to be tinkering with a letter that you are going to sign. Mr. FULTON. "Which I have the honor to transmit to you." Mr. VORYS. Strike out "it may be."

Mr. FULTON. "It is our hope that you will see fit."

Mr. VORYS. I think that is enough. We will put a period after "you."

Mr. FULTON. "It is our hope that


resolution with personal good wish you will see fit to transmit this Mr. VORYS. I do not know whether you want to put in "personal good wishes and congratulations." I feel strongly about this letter, but I do want to oversell anybody else.

Chairman CHIPERFIELD. With those changes, unless there are any other suggestions, we will write the letter that way.

Mr. FULTON. The words "pull together" are a colloquialism. It is "work together" in Europe.

Mr. VORYS. The colloquialism was suggested perhaps in homely fashion by Mr. Morgan, but it struck me we might get out of the crowds and put in one punching phrase. That is why I left it in. Mr. FULTON. I would substitute "work" for "pull."

Mr. VoRYS. I think "pull together" is all right.

Chairman CHIPERFIELD. How am I going to decide between you two?

Mr. FULTON. I will withdraw it.

Chairman CHIPERFIELD. Mrs. Kelly, do you have a suggestion? Mrs. KELLY. Why not strike out the period after "it" and then start in, "The committee has adopted the enclosed resolution in view of the fact that the common assembly of the community is convening on June 15," and so forth.

Mr. VORYS. May I humbly make this suggestion, that one can compose and 25 can recompose, but once you start composing and recomposing, you have got to get one person off in a corner to find out what the changes will mean.

Mr. SMITH. I suggest the matter be left to the chairman.

Chairman CHIPERFIELD. Without objection, I will work it over with Boyd [Boyd Crawford, committee staff administrator] and if there are any changes that the staff suggests or Mr. Crawford or any member, we will certainly consider them.


Mr. SMITH. May I say something on the resolution, Mr. Chairman? I have just a brief statement. I am just wondering if we are setting a bad precedent. In this first paragraph, we make reference to the fact that all of us are well informed on this subject. I wonder if we are? I have read some articles relating to this whole setup in which economists say that it is the establishment and the beginning of a cartel which will have no end. I, for one, am not in favor of any such movement. I think it perhaps looks good on the surface now, but eventually we may pay a terrific price for it. In view of my uncertainty as to what is going to transpire, I would have to vote present on the resolution.

Chairman CHIPERFIELD. I did not bring that up.

Mr. SMITH. I understand that, but I want my position known. Chairman CHIPERFIELD. I certainly agree that you should express your position on it. If the letter indicates anything but the majority opinion, we will see that it is changed.

Mr. SMITH. I do not even care about that. I just wanted the record to show how I feel.

Chairman CHIPERFIELD, Mrs. Church.

Mrs. CHURCH. Just for what it is worth, has the thought occurred to you that here is an agency or a group of people who got together without our instigation? They have taken this magnificent step. Will they be hampered in any way by seeming to come under our friendly combination? Should we also be putting our finger on that particular pie which is getting along so well?

Mr. VORYS. The purpose behind the Presidential letter which is inspired, I am sure, by the Secretary of State, was that it would greatly harden and strengthen the high authority in its appearance before its legislation on June 15 if it had some sort of expression from the President of the United States, and some sort of expression of encouragement from the Congress or from bodies other than Congress. The two things that we are trying to achieve with this are, one, to encourage European unification, which I feel sure we should do. If we set forth the language that the Congress itself has adopted, it is merely a long series of encouragements. And the political community can really get together and everybody from Eisenhower on down has said they have no hope in war.

Mrs. CHURCH. I am in complete agreement. I just felt perhaps this might militate the other way.

Mr. VORYS. It may encourage some foreigners who are planning on going forward on the basis of business loans instead of grants. Commenting on what Mr. Smith said, I read an article by the chairman of Inland Steel with great interest, and he thought it was a sort of cartel and a monopoly. Mr. Randall called on Ben Fairless and the steel men from all over the United States to meet with him recently.1 When they went through explaining that the purpose of the thing was to promote competition and to eliminate cartels, that it was on a basis of encouraging competition and to that extent private enterprise as opposed to Government agencies, although they could not invade the governmental structure of the constituent countries, Mr. Randall said he had no questions, and the statement was sufficient. I have felt as Mr. Smith feels, somewhat encouraged that it is to eliminate cartels rather than to build them up. They fix a price ceiling and anyone can always underbid a cartel.

Mr. SMITH. I would still be apprehensive about any agency that could fix prices.

Chairman CHIPERFIELD. Let us get down to this bill.

Mr. FULTON. Could I make one comment about that before we leave it?

Chairman CHIPERFIELD. All right.

Mr. FULTON. Paragraph 2 of the resolution says, "to obtain capital by loans and not by grants," and urges that "every consideration be given to requests for a loan through authorized agencies or organizations." I think this committee is going too far when before they have applied for any loan whatever, we urge that agencies and private organizations give them credit. I cannot join in something like that on the basis that John Vorys says that before they even have a program, we are approving it. I think the committee should limit itself

1 The persons referred to by Mr. Vorys are Clarence Belden Randall and Ben Fairless who at the time were chairman of the board of Inland Steel Corp. and chairman of the board of United States Steel Corp., respectively.

solely to the fact that we note with satisfaction that the community has been established on a sound credit basis and its purpose, in line with Mr. Smith's comment, is to finance its activities on sound business principles of competition and free markets. That will help out Mr. Smith a little.

Mr. VORYS. Could I comment on that?

Chairman CHIPERFIELD. Yes; Mr. Vorys.

Mr. VORYS. I attempted to use a phrase that I thought was standard in every congressional office, and that is when you do not want to recommend a person or you do not want to recommend a proposition, you recommend that it be given consideration. When somebody writes me to vote for a certain bill, I say, "I assure you I will give it every consideration." I purposely put in there the phrase that I thought had estopped me and the Congress. You merely urge that it be considered; you have not recommended it.

Chairman CHIPERFIELD. We will work it out.

[The text of the President's letter, the response of the committee chairman, and the resolution approved by the committee follows:]

THE WHITE HOUSE, Washington, June 15, 1953.

House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHIPERFIELD: While in Europe, I watched with keen interest the efforts to work out the first steps toward European federation. My experience there convinced me that the uniting of Europe is a necessity for the peace and prosperity of Europeans and of the world.

The recent visit to Washington by the members of the High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community has given me the opportunity to review with them the work and plans of the Community. This Community seems to me to be the most hopeful and constructive development so far toward the economic and political integration of Europe. As such, this European initiative meets the often expressed hopes of the Congress of the United States.

Mr. Monnet, President of the High Authority, has described the general program of the Community for the development of its coal and steel resources which will require extensive investment for increasing production and improving productivity. The new Community does not wish to obtain grants for these purposes, but requires loan capital. The proceeds from the taxes now being levied and collected by the Community would appear to provide security for substantial borrowing.

In due time the Community will probably seek loans for these purposes from United States and European sources public and private. It appears to me that a portion of the financing of this development program by the United States Government or one of its agencies, out of moneys available for such purposes and under conditions insuring proper use and ultimate repayment, would foster European integration in a tangible and useful way.

Today the Common Assembly of the Community convenes to receive the first Annual Report from the High Authority regarding the activities of the Community. Your Committee might consider this an appropriate occasion to express its approval of the progress to date and its keen interest in the success of this and future steps toward European integration.



JUNE 15, 1953.


The White House,

Washington, D.C.

MY DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: Your letter of June 15, 1953, referring to the European Coal and Steel Community, was read to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. The Committee was greatly interested in the information it contained.

« PreviousContinue »