Remember Guam!

In the Republican Chamber of Legislative Horrors (pre-World War II division), nothing quite brings the shivers to a veteran G.O.P. Congressman like the memory of the party vote against the fortification of Guam.* When the Japanese seized Guam, the No-voters had to start explaining, and those who survived have been explaining ever since. Last week, as the Eisenhower Administration's $38 billion defense budget came up for floor action in the House, the Republicans remembered Guam very well--but the Democrats lined themselves up in a party-line vote against the President's defense budget that might haunt them for years to come.

The new-found Republican solidarity was partly the result of White House pressure, but mostly the work of House Republican Leader Joe Martin. At Martin's request, Pentagon experts worked over the weekend on the $2.5 billion defense reduction proposed by the House Appropriations Committee. They came back with $308 million (later changed to $313 million) in restorations that they considered absolutely essential to the armed forces. Martin presented the list to the 30-member House Republican Policy Committee, laid the facts on the line in cold political terms. Said he: "If we are going to the voters as a party next year, we've got to show more party responsibility." Added Pennsylvania's Representative Hugh Scott: "Are we going to hand the Democrats another phony issue like fortification of Guam and [Republican failure to back] economic aid for Korea [in 1950]?'' With only one dissenting vote (Nebraska's archconservative A. L. Miller) the policy group decided to back the $300 million-plus restoration.

"All Right. All Right." Next morning Joe Martin and other congressional leaders gathered in the White House for a heated 30-minute discussion with Dwight Eisenhower. The President was resigned to a $1.3 billion "bookkeeping" cut, e.g., in capital reserves available to the Defense Department. But he insisted that the remaining $1.2 billion reduction proposed by the House Appropriations Committee would cut into the muscle of U.S. military power. The cold-war balance, he argued, has tipped in favor of the West. The U.S. is involved in delicate disarmament talks with Russia, and it would be far better to negotiate from strength than weakness. "I've dealt with this thing for 40 years," said Ike. "I've gone over the military budget with a fine toothcomb, and I know what I'm talking about."

His box-toed black shoes barely touching the floor as he perched on his chair, Joe Martin argued back. The political reality, said Martin, was that House Republicans simply would not go much above $300 million in restorations. Finally--and unhappily--Ike gave in. "All right," he said. "All right, Joe. You are my field marshal in this thing. If you think $300 million or so is the best you can do, go to it."

"A Monkey on Your Back." Field Marshal Martin went to it. He was among the first to speak when the defense budget hit the House floor that afternoon. He was, he said, all for economy, but "I think the poorest place in the world to begin that economy is risking our national security.'' He ticked off a list of what the proposed cuts would mean: military reductions of 10,000 soldiers, 10,000 sailors, 9,500 airmen, 3,000 marines. 100 naval aircraft, two destroyers and a guided-missile destroyer leader, plus Air Force planes and guided missiles.

Indiana Republican Charles Halleck and Illinois Republican Les Arends gave personal testimony about the political consequences of voting against security (both had gone against the fortification of Guam and economic aid to Korea). ''There was," added Halleck, "provision for some additional battleships before Pearl Harbor. Some of us voted against that. As I say, it turned out to be a matter of great concern to some of us." Pennsylvania's Scott drove home the point. Said he, turning to the Democratic side: "I state this today as a warning that should we enter into a war with even less notice than occurred in the last one, the monkey will be on the back of you who for so long have professed your support of the President of the United States, even asserting that your support has exceeded that of his own party."

"Oh, What Crimes." Texas Democrat George Mahon, chairman of an Appropriations subcommittee on military spending, spoke for the budget cutters. Said Mahon: "Those who would mislead, confuse and intimidate say if you cut this budget it could lead to disaster. How naive, how irresponsible can you be, if you think a cut of 3% could lead us to disaster?" The closest in a series of votes, generally following party lines, came on the fourth day of debate. It was on a Republican amendment to restore $8,000,000 to Army research and development. George Mahon scoffed at programs to study traffic crashes, dreams and the problem of sleeping. "Oh," he cried, "what crimes have been committed on the taxpayer in the name of liberty and in the name of research and development!"

Many Democrats were restive about cutting into national defense, but they had long since been committed by their leadership into steering an economy course (TIME, May 27). Only about a dozen of them marched up the aisle to vote with Republicans. Whips of both parties rounded up stragglers in cloakrooms and corridors. As the latecomers rushed into the House chamber, the vote teetered back and forth. Finally the result was announced: 137 to 133 against adding the $8,000,000. That was about it: after an unsuccessful Republican attempt to send the slashed defense bill back to committee for more money, the House passed it with only one nay vote (New Jersey Republican Gordon Canfield).

Advance in Adversity. The Eisenhower Administration had suffered a painful set-back--yet surprisingly, the overall prospects for the defense budget were improved during the week. President Eisenhower continued to take active leadership in the fight. As rarely before during the budget fracas, his Administration was marching in step. Even if it had been deliberately timed, the announcement of the resignation of Treasury Secretary George Humphrey (see below), who had gotten out of step with his hair-curling-depression remarks, could hardly have been more pointed. Commerce Secretary Sinclair Weeks, an economic conservative by birth, instinct and training, stepped to the firing line with a denunciation of "budget butchers, whose latest proposals go far beyond sound economy and now threaten progress and peace." In the face of the united Administration front, congressional budget-cutting mail was slacking off, and letters supporting the President were beginning to pile up.

The House votes showed Republicans backing the President and Democrats pushing against him in the touchy field of national defense. That fact was not lost on Senate Democrats, long proud of their defense record, who found themselves liking heavy economy less and less. Therefore, with Republican Leader William Knowland pledging to support defense restorations despite his own budget-cutting hopes, the Senate outlook was increasingly promising. Best prospect: the Senate may go along with the $1.3 billion in "bookkeeping" reductions, but restore the $1.2 billion in muscle cuts from the armed forces.

*The memorable vote came on a 1939 proposal to spend $5,000,000 for dredging and improving Guam's harbor, constructing seaplane ramps and a few buildings. Actually, these improvements would have done little to deter the Japanese seizure in December 1941.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.