Mutual Defense Assistance Control Act of 1951

(Battle Act)

22

INTRODUCTION

In a number of hearings during the first part of 1951, the Committee on Foreign Affairs considered various measures to restrict U.S. trade with Soviet bloc countries, North Korea, and Communist China and to refuse or terminate U.S. aid to any foreign country which was allowing strategic goods to be exported to Communist nations. Thereafter, the committee favorably reported and the Congress adopted legislation, the Mutual Defense Assistance Control Act, commonly known as the Battle Act for Hon. Laurie C. Battle, chairman of the special legislative subcommittee appointed to consider the legislation (Public Law 213, 82d Congress), which provided for control by the United States and cooperating foreign nations of exports to any nation or combination of nations threatening the security of the United States or that of a cooperating nation.

The legislation resulted from the concern of Congress and the American people about trade in strategic items and the desire to make sure that our enemies were not being assisted in building up their war machine by such trade with the United States and its allies. The committee believed that efforts to contain Communist aggression were hampered by other countries' exports of strategic materials to Communist countries, especially when there was a substantial reciprocal trade benefit to them. The Congress was particularly anxious to curtail any support for North Korea and Communist China, against whom the United States and its U.N. allies were fighting a bitter war in the defense of South Korea.

Witnesses from the State Department testified at several of the hearings. They indicated that existing Government

6

controls on U.S. trade with the Soviet bloc were extremely effective, but problems posed by Western Europe and Japan were more complicated as Western Europe was especially dependent on trade with Eastern Europe for coal, timber, and foodstuffs, and Japan had a similar interest in trade with Communist China. Other witnesses from the Department of International Trade opposed efforts to make trade controls with the Communist countries too rigid and detailed. Existing controls, they claimed, were going far toward realizing U.S. policy. One witness also said that cutting off Western Europe's trade with Soviet bloc countries would lead to virtual collapse of Western Europe's economy, whereas the opposite would not be the case.

On April 3, 1951, Hon. Charles Sawyer, the Secretary of Commerce, told the Committee that the relative importance of East-West trade had been exaggerated, especially in relation to the total trade of the East European countries. He also emphasized that, without parallel restrictions by other Western countries, U.S. businessmen would be at a real disadvantage. Negotiations for such restrictions were underway, Mr. Sawyer said, and he felt that the Department of Commerce and the Export Control Authority had achieved a good working relationship under the Export Control Act of 1949.

The Battle Act hearings and the legislation resulting therefrom were a manifestation of the concern of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and Congress during this period about the security of the United States and its allies. Executive officials naturally sought to preserve more flexibility in their policies, and concern over East-West trade was modified somewhat by pressures from American industry and labor to avoid jeopardizing the U.S. economy. Following the death of Stalin and particularly after the cease-fire in Korea, there was a feeling that the immediacy of the Communist threat had diminished. The resurgence of economic and military strength in Western Europe also contributed to this feeling. Prohibitions were modified and increased flexibility in the regulation of economic relations with Communist and neutralist nations became an important element in U.S. foreign economic policy.

MUTUAL DEFENSE ASSISTANCE CONTROL ACT OF

1951 (BATTLE ACT)

(H.R. 1621, H.R. 1939, and H.R. 4550, 82d Cong., 1st Sess.)

MONDAY, MARCH 5, 1951

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON H.R. 1621 AND H.R. 1939,1

Washington, D.C.

The special Subcommittee on H.R. 1621 and H.R. 1939, providing that no economic or financial assistance shall be furnished to foreign countries which permit the exportation of war materials to Russia and other Communist-dominated countries, met in executive session at 3:30 p.m., in the Foreign Affairs Committee room, G-3 in the Capitol, Hon. Laurie C. Battle (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Mr. BATTLE. The subcommittee will come to order, please. We have here from the State Department, Hon. Willard L. Thorp, Assistant Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, accompanied by Mr. Harold Linder, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, Mr. Robert Wright, Assistant Chief, Economic Resources Staff, Department of State, and Miss Florence Kirlin, Congressional Relations Staff, Department of State.

SUBCOMMITTEE PROCEDURE

I think it might be well, before we start, to clear up one thing about the procedure of requesting a report from the State Department. I talked with the Honorable Dick Richards and I talked with Mr. Thorp, also, about this situation. The subcommittee instructed me to either

1 Members of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, 82d Cong., 1951-52: Democrats: John Kee, West Virginia, chairman until his death on May 8, 1951; James P. Richards, South Carolina, who succeeded Mr. Kee as chairman; Thomas S. Gordon, Illinois; Mike Mansfield, Montana; Thomas E. Morgan, Pennsylvania; Laurie C. Battle, Alabama; A. S. J. Carnahan, Missouri; Thurmond Chatham, North Carolina; Clement J. Zablocki, Wisconsin; Abraham A. Ribicoff, Connecticut; Omar Burleson, Texas; Brooks Hays, Arkansas; Chet Holifield, California; Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jr., New York; Edna F. Kelly, New York; and Henderson Lanham, Georgia.

Republicans Charles A. Eaton, New Jersey; Robert B. Chiperfield, Illinois; John M. Vorys, Ohio; Frances P. Bolton, Ohio; Lawrence H. Smith, Wisconsin; Chester E. Merrow, New Hampshire; Walter H. Judd, Minnesota; James G. Fulton, Pennsylvania; Jacob K. Javits, New York; Donald L. Jackson, California; Christian A. Herter, Massachusetts; and B. Carroll Reece, Tennessee.

Boyd Crawford, staff administrator.

Members of the special subcommittee were:

Democrats: Laurie C. Battle, Alabama, chairman; Omar Burleson, Texas; and Edna F. Kelly, New York.

Republicans: Robert B. Chiperfield, Illinois; James G. Fulton. Pennsylvania. Special preliminary hearings on these bills were held Feb. 6, 7 and 8, 1951, prior to the appointment of the special subcommittee and were printed at the time. The special subcommittee then met on Feb. 26, 1951, in executive session but no transcript was made of that meeting.

draft a preliminary report or to look into the question of asking the State Department to make a report on these bills, H.R. 1621 and H.R. 1939.

Mr. Richards was of the opinion that that normally is a function of the full committee, which suited me all right. And, in talking with Mr. Thorp, I believe that our general agreement was that if it covered as wide a scope as we were talking about, it would take almost as long to write such a report as it would to go through the hearings up here. So the question concerns what form of report and how wide a scope do we want to cover; whether or not the gentlemen can just appear before us, or whether we want a written report on these bills from the State Department.

Mr. CHIPERFIELD. Mr. Chairman, do you not think we could determine that better after we hear from these gentlemen?

Mr. BATTLE. That suits me.

Mr. CHIPERFIELD. And we could discuss it in executive session or do whatever we wanted to do. I just make that as a suggestion.

Mr. VORYS. Well, what I thought we said the other day-and the subcommittee was given wide latitude in doing whatever they pleasedbut what I thought we said was that if we would in just a routine way request a report from the State Department on these bills, we could run over that. Then we could be more intelligible about any explanatory stuff.

Mr. BATTLE. It is my understanding that that is correct, but with this one addition: that what we wanted was a wider coverage than just what it would take to cover these bills. Now, we can talk about this in executive session, or we can go ahead and start having some hearings and then decide what we want to do.

Mr. VORYS. Since we have these gentlemen here, I think we ought to hear their views, recommendations, and everything of that sort. Mr. BATTLE. All right.

PURPOSE OF HEARINGS

Mr. Thorp, you are already completely familiar, I am sure, with the general overall question that we are seeking a little light on relative to shipments and transshipments and reshipments to countries behind the Iron Curtain. I am particularly interested also in the discussion here in the next few days covering the point that was covered in the press about these Italian machines that were being shipped behind the İron Curtain, in which they quoted or misquoted you as saying that we were going to facilitate our shipments of the same machines over to Italy at the same time that they are shipping the ones that they are making behind the Iron Curtain.

I would just like to turn the floor over to you and have you handle that in any way that you see fit, or lead off in any way that you see fit, to get us started on this inquiry.

Mr. VORYS. Just a second. As I understand it, & transcript is being taken of this. Is that right, or not?

Mr. BATTLE. Mr. Thorp, would you like to express your ideas as to whether it would be desirable to have this completely off the record, or have it in transcript form, or how you would like us to keep your remarks?