THE CONGRESS: A Senator Screams

“It is in a spirit of awe and fright that I rise to make a few remarks,” said Illinois’ Senator Paul Douglas, and grimly tackled the $61 billion defense appropriation. Since the bill would “turn over one-fifth of our national economy to the military,” he thought it deserved a thorough scrutiny on the Senate floor.

Conscientious Democrat Douglas, who drives himself beyond the capacity of most men and the inclination of most Senators, had spent several months looking for soft spots in the bill. The Douglas finger jabbed at old military featherbeds. He wanted to save $50 to $100 million by cutting off flight pay of Air Force officers who did not fly. He proposed to reduce the ratio between combat men and supporting personnel. He suggested that the Navy did not need 95 new luxury planes, costing $215 million, for VIPs. In all, he claimed, his cautious cuts would total nearly $1 billion.

“How Difficult It Is.” Instantly Wyoming’s Joseph O’Mahoney was on his feet. As chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee which had pored over the bill for twelve weeks, he would be the first to agree that there might be waste, said O’Mahoney unctuously. “But I should not like to have any person reading the Congressional Record tomorrow morning gather from what my friend from Illinois has said that the men in uniform . . . are willfully making more mistakes than those which are made by all human beings.”

“The Senator from Wyoming has just shown how difficult it is,” said Douglas ruefully. “Every time we offer suggestions as to how money could be saved . . . then the implication is made that we are somehow attacking the character or patriotism of men in the departments.”

O’Mahoney: “My purpose … is to make clear that he was not intending to attack the patriotism or devotion of these men in uniform.”

Douglas: “I did not intend that . . .”

O’Mahoney interrupted: “If the Senator will permit me.” Douglas spread his his hands in frustration, then dropped his head on his folded arms as O’Mahoney droned on: “If I were to keep silent, I can imagine the words of the Senator from Illinois being read tomorrow morning and by some representative of Tass. being broadcast behind the Iron Curtain misinterpreting his meaning to indicate a lack of faith among American members of Congress in the men who work, who fight, and who die for them.”

Douglas jumped up, clapped his hands to his head, and let out a high-pitched scream of wordless exasperation. He stumbled down the aisle as O’Mahoney, pincenez in hand, watched openmouthed. Outside, Douglas flopped down on a couch, tears spilling down his cheeks. Someone put a cold towel on his head. Half an hour later, he was back in his seat.

“This Is So Huge.” Most Senators could sympathize. Many of them would like to cut the bill too, but lacked the nerve or the knowledge. As Douglas had pointed out, “the average tendency is to say, ‘Oh, this is so huge. We cannot cope with it. We will trust the Department of Defense and we will trust our committee, which is a noble committee. I cannot do anything. I will stay in my office and write letters.’ ”

At week’s end, in ignorance or trepidation, the Senate voted down nearly all the amendments Douglas had labored so carefully to devise, and took an easier course. It voted a straight 2½% cut, proposed by New Jersey’s H. Alexander Smith, which would save $1,525,000,000. This kind of economy took no study whatever, and was in effect an abdication of congressional responsibility for spending public funds. It left to the Secretary of Defense the problem of finding where the money could be saved. With a thumping vote of 79 to 0, the Senate stamped its approval on the final $59,500,000,000 appropriation, and sent it to conference.

In the dark era of secret weapons, chronic war and multibillion-dollar budgetry, this was the way the U.S. Congress worked. Perhaps it was the only way it could work if more Senators were not to run screaming from the floor.