10836 ar. attempt made to work out an unani- mous-consent agreement for tomorrow ou the next chapter of the appropriation bill. I shall be glad to work with the acting majority leader on that basis. So after the distinguished Senator from South Dakota shall have concluded, if the acting majority leader would care to proceed with the chapter of the bill dealing with Interior Department ap- propriations, and propose a unanimous consent that even though it is not fin- ished tonight, there should be a limita- tion of 10 minutes to each Senator on each amendment, in that chapter from now until it is concluded, I believe such & unanimous-consent agreement can be made I may just as well tell the acting majority leader now that after that chapter has been concluded tomorrow, the junior Senator from Wisconsin would like to make a few remarks, and possibly the senior Senator from Missouri would likewise like to make some remarks, on the report, which is now really the pend- ing question I do not care to go into the discussion of another unanimous-consent request, but after those speeches are concluded, no matter what chapter of the appro- priation bill is taken up, I believe we can get a limitation of debate for that chapter, and I believe we can get a limi- tation for chapter V, perhaps with the exception of the amendment affecting the cancer and heart items, which I believe Senators on the other side desire to discuss more fully. It is immatenal to me when the Federal Security chapter is considered, except, of course, I should like to see the entire bill disposed of. We can proceed soon, I am sure, with the chapter on the Interior Department appropriations. I want the acting ma- jority leader and the distinguished Sen- ator from Tennessee to know that I am doing my level best to arrive at a decision on the appropriation bill. Mr. McFARLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator from South Dakota yield? Mr. MUNDT. With the same under- standing, I yield. Mr, McFARLAND. Iam most anxious that we proceed with the consideration on the appropriation bill It is very important. The distinguished Senator from Tennessee has sat here very pa- tiently, and it is rather out of the ordinary for 2 or 3 days to be spent on other matters tn the middle of the consideration of an appropriation bill. In order to try to make a little prog- ress, Mr. President, I wish to propound & unanimous-consent request, but first, I should like to ask whether other Senators desire to make speeches on the subject the Senator from South Dakota is about to discuss. Is the junior Sen- ator from Wisconsin going to speak this evening? Mr. WHERRY. No: I have already said that, after the address of the Sen- ator from South Dakota, if the Senator desires to present a unanimous-consent request that the Senate proceed with the pending question, which is chapter VII of the appropriation bill, and that debate on amendments shall be limited to not to exceed 10 minutes for each Senator, I shall not object. I state to the acting CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE majority leader that if it is late this eve- ning when that chapter is concluded, to- morrow there will be at least two speeches to be made on the report, and until they are out of the way it will be impossible to get a unanimous-consent agreement on the next chapter, but when they are out of the way I believe that can be done. Mr. McFARLAND. Mr. President, in order at least to propound a unanimous- consent request, I ask unanimous con- sent that upon the conclusion of the address of the Senator from South Da- kota the Senate proceed to the consid- eration of the unfinished business, House bill 7786, and that debate on each amend- ment shall be limitec to 20 minutes, the time to be controlled, respectively, by the senior Senator from Tennessee [Mr. MCKELLAR] and the opponent of the committee amendment or the proponent of any other amendment, for the re- mainder of the day. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, I will agree with that, with one exception. I think the limitation should run to the individual Senators rather than to the amendments. I do not anticipate any long debate on the Interior Department appropriation bill amendments at all, and if the Senator will modify the re- quest to limit the time to 10 minutes to each Senator, I shall be glad to agree to the request Mr. McFARLAND. The only difficulty is that Senators could rise and talk for 10 minutes each, and use all the time. I do not see how for the remainder of the day there could be any harm in at least agreeing to as much as I have pro- posed, in order that we may proceed for the short time that will be left. Mr. WHERRY. I am satisfied that if the distinguished Senator will accept my suggestion we can proceed with the ap- propriation bill, and it wil] not take any longer, except that if more than one Senator desires to speak on any partic- ular amendment, he would have the op- portunity. I doubt if that will happen. Mr. McFARLAND. The time Is pass- ing, and I accept the suggestion, and add this much to the request, that all remarks shall be germane to the amend- ment under consideration. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hoey in the chair). Is there objection? Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. President, I do not care to disrupt any possible agree- ment between the majority and minor- ity leaders, but I understood that I had a tentative agreement that the agree- ment would also contain a provision that at 12 o’clock tomorrow, if we do not finish the particular chapter now pending, the junior Senator from Wis- consin might have 40 minutes to discuss the matter he had planned to discuss. Mr. McFARLAND. Mr. President, I should like to get this agreement con- cluded for today, and then we will try to reach one for tomorrow. Mr. McCARTHY. Iam not sure if I understood. Is the request to extend over unti] tomorrow? Mr, McFARLAND. It js only for to- day. It depends on the senior Senator from Tennessee. Probably we could pro- ceed to 6 o'clock or some such hour, if there is no objection. JULY 24 The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the Senator from Arizona? Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, in or« der to solve this situation, if the Sena- tor would like to modify his unanimous- consent request further, in the event that chapter VII is not concluded—— Mr. McFARLAND. I understand it can be concluded in 10 minutes. Mr, WHERRY. Then why does not the Senator continue with chapter VII, and when the consideration of that chap- ter is concluded, propose another agree- ment for tomorrow? Mr. McFARLAND. Surely we can agree on our proceedings for en hour today. I will propound a unanimous- consent agreement for tomorrow I understand it will take only a few min- utes to conclude chapter VII. Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. President—— Mr. WHERRY. Just a moment. If chapter VII shall be concluded and an- other chapter is taken up today, it will be satisfactory with me that the Senate remain in session until 6 o'clock, but I tell the distinguished Senator that a new unanimous-consent request will have to be proposed for the session of tomorrow, and that unanimous-consent request should include, if it is proposed, that 40 minutes be allotted to the Sena- tor from Wisconsin Mr. McFARLAND. I should like to accommodate the Senator—— Mr. WHERRY. Let me finish my sug- gestion. That the Senator from Mis- souri will want at least 30 minutes, and that is all that would be required tomor- row, until we finish with the appropria- tion bill tomorrow. I should be glad to enter into a unanimous-consent agree- ment to follow that course, and then, when we get these two chapters out of the way, we can take up another unani- mous-consent request. I think that by following that course we can accomplish what is desired. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous-consent request? Mr. McCARTHY Mr. President, I do not want to hold the Senate up indefi- nitely, but I should like to understand the request. Would the Senator have any objection to modifying his unani- mous-consent request to contain a pro- vision that at 12 o’clock tomorrow the junior Senator from Wisconsin may have a period of 40 minutes and the senior Senator from Missouri have a period of 30 minutes to address the Senate? Mr. McFARLAND. Mr. President, I want one agreement made at a time, an agreement for today, as requested by the Senator from Nebraska, then I am going to propose a unanimous-consent agree- ment for tomorrow which will include the Senator from Wisconsin. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request? The Chair hears none, and it is agreed to. Mr. McFARLAND. Mr. President, I have one more unanimous-consent re- quest to make. Will the Senator from South Dakota yield to me for that purpose? Mr. MUNDT. I yield. Mr. McFARLAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the
1950 Senate convenes tomorrow it convene at 11 o’clock a. m.; that the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. McCartuy] may spcak for a period of 40 minutes, and that the Senator from Missouri [Mr. Donne.u] may speak for a period of 20 minutes. Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, 30 minutes. Mr. McFARLAND. That the Senator from Missouri may speak for 30 minutes; that thereafter, after a quorum call, the Senate proceed with the consideration of the appropriation bill, and that until 5 o’clock the debate on each amendment be limited to 10 minutes for each Senator, and that the debate must be germane to the amendment under consideration. Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, I object to any kind of limitation of any kind or character on debate. Mr. McFARLAND. Does the Senator object if I remove the provision respect- ing limitation and simply leave it that the debate must be germane to the amendment under discussion? Mr. LANGER. I object to the Senator from Missouri [Mr. DonNELL] being lim- ited or the Senator from Wisconsin |Mr. McCartuy] being limited. The Senate is a place where we can debate at length. If a Senator wishes to talk for only 10 minutes, very well. I object to Senators being limited in debate. Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. President, will the Senator from North Dakota withhold his objection? Mr. LANGER. I withhold my objec- tion. Mr. McCARTHY. I may say that I am sure I will be able to complete my re- marks in less than 40 minutes. Mr. LANGER. Very well; then we can proceed with the unfinished business, I object. Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, I as- sure the Senator I can complete my re- marks within 36 minutes. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, what was the ruling on the previous unani- mous-consent request? The PRESIDING OFFICER. That has already been agreed to. Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. President, will the Senator from Arizona propound his unanimous-consent request again with tlre provisions that the Senator from Wisconsin may address the Senate be- ginning at 11 o’olock a. m. tomorrow, and that thereafter the Senator from Missouri |Mr. DonnEetL] may proceed? I assure the Senator from North Dakota that I shall not take more than 40 min- utes. Iam sure that will cover the objec- tion by the Senator from North Dakota. Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, I also assure the Senator from North Dakota that I shall not speak for more than 30 minutes. Mr. LANGER. Mr, President, I ob- ject. Mr. McFARLAND. Mr. President, I wish to thank the Senator from South Dakota for having yielded to me. Iam sorry I took up so much of his time. STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOY- ALTY INVESTIGATION Mr, MUNDT. Mr. President, as was so well brought out a few minutes ago by the chairman of the Committee on Ap- propriations [Mr. McKexrarj, by, the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE ‘acting majority leader (Mr. McFar- LAND], and by the minority leader (Mr. Wuerry], the Senate has now spent about 3 days discussing conditions and situations described in the so-called re- port of the Tydings subcommittee con- ducting the investigation of communism in Government. I have for some time been thinking of addressing the Senate on a subject closely connected therewith, but out of deference to the Appropria- tions Committee have kept my notes on the subject in my desk in the hope that we could proceed with the appropria- tion bill. However, when the Senator from Maryland [Mr. ‘'yp1nas] elected ‘0 make this question the matter of business be- fore the Senate by filing his committee report in the middle of consideration of the appropriations bill, I think the Sen- ate quite appropriately has decided to discuss the many ramifications of the report and the conditions upon which the report is based, because it is doubtful whether anything is more important to Americans today than bringing a quick and victorious conclusion to the war in Korea. Aside from that, nothing else is more important, I think, than to do something about the alarming situation which confronts us on the home front due to the abundance of Communists creeping around in this country endeav- oring to sabotage the war effort and to destroy the freedoms of America, and, in fact, unless we take action on the home front to safeguard ourselves against Communist treachery we shall undoubt- edly squander many American lives needlessly in Korea. Let me say in the first place that I as- sociate myself completely with the re- marks made by the minority leader, the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Wuerry] when he said there were three things the Senate should be doing mighty fast in view of the situation which confronts us. The first is to have printed the entire hearings which were held and all the tes- timony which was given to the subcom- mittee headed by the Senator from Maryland [Mr. Typrncs] on the problem of Communists in Government not a carefully sifted and censored reprint of the hearings, but the hearings in toto; on the theory that the American public is entitled to know at least on what evi- dence the subcommittee based its strange and bizarre report. I associate myself first of all with that point of view. Mr. McCARTHY,. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? M~. MUNDT. Yes, I yield for a ques- tion. Mr. McCARTHY. Does the Senator agree with me that it would be very im- portant to the Senate at this time to find out just who took upon himself the re- sponsibility to emasculate the report of the hearings and cif out certain sec- tions, and to include others? We found out this morning that 40 pages of re- marks and questions by the Senator from Massachusetts were removed from the record without his knowledge or the knowledge, apparently, of any members of the committee. I do not even know that the majority members knew that those remarks were removed. Will the Senator agree that at this time we should 10837 find out who is responsible for this un- usual maneuvering in the committee room? Mr. MUNDT. Yes; I think we should get as much information as we possibly can. Personally I regret exceedingly that we have reports presented to the United States Senate which are anony- mous in authorship. I think it is un- fair, I think it is unjust, I think it is unsenatorial that we carry the concept of secrecy to that degree. But at all events I believe the country is now en- titled, and the Senate is now entitled, to the full transcript of the hearings be- fore the committee. If I correctly un- derstood the two members of the sub- committee who engaged in a colloquy this afternoon, the Senator from Massa- chusetts [Mr. Lopce] and the Senator from Connecticut |Mr. McManon], they are now in agreement on the point that the hearings should now be printed in full. Mr. McMAHON. Mr, President, will the Senator yield to me to make the situation crystal clear? Mr. MUNDT. I yield. Mr. MCMAHON. Each member of the committee has a complete set of the typewritten transcripts of the testimony, It might have been ir. the possession of the Senator from Massachvsetts (Mr. LopcE! and the Senator from Iowa (Mr, HICKENLOOPER] as well as the other Sen- ators on the subcommittee. All the testimony, I have been informed, has been in the hands of each Senator on the subcommittee, If any part of the ex- ecutive testimony has not been printed, I think it would be well that it be com- pletely printed. I am sure that any of it is available to the Senator from Wis- consin [Mr. McCartuy] or to the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Mounpr], be- cause, of course, it is in the hands of all the members of the subcommittee. If the Senator finds any part of the testi- mony that is not printed—and I am not aware of it—my copy of the transcript is open to the Senator from Wisconsin, to the Senator from South Dakota, or to any other Senator. Mr. MUNDT. Mr, President, I take it the Senator from Connecticut 1s not questioning the integrity of the Senator from Massachusetts |Mr. Lopcr] when he told the Senate an hour or so ago that the printed copy was not complete. The Senator from Connecticut is not quar- reling with that statement of the Sena- tor from Massachusetts, is he? Mr. McMAHON. I know only what was developed by the Senator from Massachusetts earlier today, that there were some pages in the typewritten transcript that do not seem to have been printed in this very thick compila- tion of the testimony. So far as the Senator from Connecticut is concerned my copy is available to anyone. I think it can all be put in the CONGRESSIONAL RecorbD, or reprinted as an appendix of the record of the hearings. Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, we all find ourselves in agreement now, I take it then, that the public is entitled to the full transcript, whether it has been printed or not printed. Mr. McMAHON. No matter how ime material it may be.
10838 Mr. MUNDT. No matter how imma- terial it may be, nor how material] either. Mr. WHERRY. Will the Senator yield? Mr. MUNDT. I yield. Mr. WHERRY. The Senator does not say that the printed volume is the full transcript of the hearings, does he? Mr. MUNDT. No. I think the Sena- tor agrees with the Senator from Massa- chusetts that a part of it has been de- Jeted or censored or deliberately omitted. Mr, WHERRY. Mr. President, I am not talking about the report. I am talk- ing about the hearings. I believe the hearings are the important part of it. I suppose the committee has jurisdic- tion with respect to the number of re- ports to be printed, and what it shall do with them. The Senator from South Dakota said he was in complete agree- ment with other Senators about the matter. The junior Senator from Nebraska feels, as he stated on the floor last Friday night, that the complete hearing should be printed, the executive hearings and the open hearings, without comments such as have been made by some of the clerks of the committee which, I under- stand, have not been authorized in all instances. I feel that all the hearings should be printed so the Members of the Senate may have copies, and that other copies may be available so that those interested may be permitted to interpret the testimony as they see fit, rather than as the hearings are interpreted by the committee. Does the Senator from South Dakota agree with me on that point? Mr. MUNDT. That is precisely what I have been advocating. It is precisely what the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr, Lopce] advocated; and if I correct- ly interpreted the remarks of the senior Senator from Connecticut {Mr. McMa- HON], that is what he also feels should be done. If I am in error as to that, I shall be glad to be corrected, Mr. WHERRY. If that be the case, I am quite satisfied that it will take the adoption of a Senate resolution to ac- complish that purpose. I think the hear- ings not only should be made available to all Members of the Senate, but they should also be made available to the public. So I should like to ask the Senator whether he or any other Senator who would care to do so would join me in urging the adoption of such a resolution, 80 that a complete copy of all the hear- ings, whether held in open or. in execu- tive session, may be available for the use and convenience of all Senators. Mr, FERGUSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. MUNDT. I yield for a question. Mr. FERGUSON. I wish to advise the Senator that I join in such a move, as I suggested earlier today. Ireferred to the statement in the New York Herald Tribune that not only should all the pro- ceedings be made avatiable in printed form, but also all the records of the committee should be made available in such form. Mr. McMAHON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. MUNDT. I yield. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr, MCMAHON. I was not aware that my remarks needed any interpretation; I thought they were very plain on their face. I wish to say for the Recorp that 1,484 pages of testimony are reproduced in the green volume which we have before us; and that statement is not made in derogation of my belief that if there are further pages, such as the ones the Sen- ator from Massachusetts has mentioned, they, too, should be printed. Mr.MUNDT. Very well, Mr. President. I also agree with the Senator from Ne- braska on his second point, namely, that since we have had a report which is strictly partisan in nature—with three Democrats saying the investigation was full and fair and complete and that no Communists were found in any jobs in the Government, but with the two Re- publican members of the subcommittee refusing to associate themselves with that type of report, and calling it a whitewash, therefore the American people are entitled to have come from the investigation something which is a little more significant, objective, mean- ingful, and helpful than a report which no one seems to have written, a report which everyone connected with seems to wish to disavow, and a report which sat- isfies positively no one in the country. I join the Senator from Nebraska in his position in that respect, Mr. President. So, Mr. President, I submit that the Senate could do little of more importance or urgency than to adopt a resolution establishing a strictly bipartisan inves- tigative committee, composed of a mem- bership to be equally divided between the Republican and the Democratic Parties, a committee whose members would be acceptable and satisfactory to both the Republican and the Democratic Parties, and who would have authority to see the records and search the files, access to which was denied to the Tydings inves- tigating committee, and with a mandate to bring back to the American people a report on the important question of Com- munists in our Government, and to bring in the report at the earliest possible date. I think it is a disgrace that an inves- tigation of this importance has to end up in a wide-open case of political bick- ering, with no one being satisfied with the results, and even with the great Com- mittee on Foreign Relations of the United States Senate itself strenuously disavow- ing any connection with the report and refusing to permit it to come out as though it had been accepted by the full committee and transmitted officially by ii to the United States Senate. I think the situation in that connec- tion is well described in a clipping which I took from the New York Times of today, reading as follows: Group Backs McCagrny—KnicutTs oF Co- LUMBUS CHaPrer Votes To PROTEST DENUN- ciation or SENATOR Delegates to the fifty-third annual meet- ing of the Long Island Chapter of the Knights of Columbus voted yesterday afternoon to protest the denunciation by a Senate sub- committee majority of Senator Jossru R. McCsrtuy's charges of communism in the State Department. The meeting was held at the Knights of Columbus Institute, 81 Hanson Place, Brooklyn. JULY 24 The protest will deplore the stand of the three Democrats on the Foreign Relations Committee subcommittee headed by Senator Muttarp E. Typincs, Democrat, of Maryland. It will go by telegram today and call for further investigation. The delegates, of whom there were 150, also voted confidence in Senator McCagTHy and to urge passage of the Mundt-Ferguson Communist contro! bill by the Senate and the companion bill introduced in the House by Representative Ricnarp M. Nixon, of California. I mention that simply to indicate that here is a group of typical, fine Ameri- cans who protest against ending the in- vestigation on the note on which it pres- ently has been ended. Mr. President, I now wish to address myself primarily to the sentiment ex- pressed by the Senator from Maryland in his concluding remarks, when he pre- sented this strange report to the Senate. He said, in concluding: Mr. President, there are the facts for the Senators to ponder, I have no remedy to suggest. My. President, the problem before us is extremely serious. We have a war going on abroad against communism, while we have Communists roaming around in this country, under cover, in- filtrating this mighty government, en- gaging in espionage and sabotage. Yet, the chairman of the investigating com- mittee, who also is the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has said to the United States Senate: I have no remedy to suggest. He also said: I return the matter to the hands and the consciences of the Members of the Senate as we think of men and events in one of ths most critical hours in the history of this Republic and of the freedom of mankind on this planet. Mr. President, it is to that text that I shall address myself, because I think that we, as the Senate of the United States, have a mandate to find a remedy and not simply to throw in the sponge supinely by saying, “I turn the matter over to the United States Senate,” at a time when our American boys abroad who are fight- ing Communists are poorly equipped and are badly outnumbered, in a war at°’a time this administration has prevented any legislation from being passed so as to give these fighting men assurance that their home front is being protected against Communist treachery, espionage, and sabotage. Mr. President, th. Senate must meas- ure up to the challenge on the home front presented by the war in Korea. I, therefore, also wish to associate my- self most emphatically with the third point made the other day by the dis- tinguished Senator from Nebraska {Mr. Wuerry], the minority leader, when he said that in addition to having all the reports printed and in addition to setting up a bipartisan group to make a fearless and impartial investigation into the mat- ter of Communist infiltration into Gov- ernment, the Congress should immedi- ately enact proposed legislation known as Senate bill 2311, the so-called Mundt- Ferguson-Johnston bill, to build up controls over the entrance into the Gouv-
1950 ernment of persons who would engage in subversive activities. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. MUNDT. I yield. Mr. WHERRY. After all, the situation now is that it is not sufficient to dis- charge from the Government service any Communists who are in it, but we must consider ways and means of keeping Communists from entering this Govern- ment, as they attempt to enter it. Mr. MUNDT. Precisely; the time has come when we must do something about Communists at the entrance gates, as well as the Communists who already are in the Government service. All the charges and political bickering and countercharges of the last few days have dealt with the problem of whether or not we should do anything to get rid of the Communists now in our Govern- ment or to assess the responsibiilty for putting into cffice Communists who al- ready have entered the Government service. However, now I am asking the Senate, and particularly the majority party and the administration, and also the members of the committee who brought in this so-called report, what they propose to do to bar the Commu- nists at the entrance gates today and tomorrow and the next day, while we are having a war with communism in Korea. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a further question? Mr. MUNDT. I yield. Mr. WHERRY. Is it not also a fact that the report of J. Edgar Hoover, the head of the FBI, reveals that there are more than 55,000 Communists in the United States? Mr. MUNDT. Not only is that true, but the report of J. Edgar Hoover also discloses that for every Communist in the United States, there are perhaps 10 per- sons who are controlled and contami- nated and directed by the Communists. So, Mr. President, in the United States today there are perhaps more than 550,000 persons who are ready, know- ingly or unknowingly, wittingly or un- wittingly, to engage in any kind 02 sabo- tage or espionage activity, as they may be directed from Moscow, and with those directions transmitted through the Com- munist headquarters in New York. Up to this late hour, however, the Demo- cratic Policy Committee of the Senate keeps pigeonholed the only bill now pending in Congress which proposes a disclosure of who those Communists are, and proposing to do something about curtailing their treacherous activities. It is to that text that I wish to address myself. Mr. President, in his speech, the Sen- ator from Maryland said he thinks there is nothing we can do about it. He asked the question, “What are we going to do about it?” This afternoon I propose to discuss the answer to that question. Mr. MARTIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. MUNDT. Iam happy to yield. Mr. MARTIN. Will it not be most difficult to get Communists out of the various industries of the country, while we are preparing munitions for war, and CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE also will it not be most difficult to get Communists out of our transportation systems, where they can make it very difficult to transport soldiers across the continent and across the seas, unless we can rest almost assured that all the Com- munists are out of governmental posi- tions in Washington? Mr. MUNDT. Not only will it be diffi- cult, but completely impossible, because the FBI alone cannot do that job, unless we enact legislation which requires the Communists to register themselves or make it illegal when they fail to do so. We are not talking about something that may happen in the future. Let me read a statement from the front page of this morning’s Washington Post, which I think would be interesting reading to me if I were a member of a Democratic policy committee trying to pigeonhole a bill which proposes to take some action about communism in America. I am not asking those Demo- cratic Members, Mr. President, to vote for this proposed legislation; I am ask- ing them to give the Senate the right to vote. I am asking them simply to take their foot out of the door jamb. I am asking them, in time of war, to give the Members of the United States Sen- ate the right to express themselves on this important measure. I think the time has come when the American public should be told who it is within this body who declines even now to permit the Senate to vote on a bill which has been endorsed by the Ameri- can Legion, in its convention, by the Vet- erans of Foreign Wars, by the Knights of Columbus, by the United States Chamber of Commerce, by the National Education Association, by the Daughters of the American Revolution, and by a great many other organizations. Every Senator has a right to cppose this bill. My friend from North Dakota {[Mr. LANGER] delivered a speech in opposition to 1t recently, and thai was his privilege. He has a right to offer amendments when the bill comes up on the floor. He hasa right to vote against it if he chooses to do so. But aside from the Senator from North Dakota, the only Member of this body who has said anything to indicate that he opposes this measure .s the ma- jority leader, the Senator from Iilinois IMr. Lucas], who succeeded in having the legislation taken off the floor as the pending business, the day I got it taken up. I am not sure, now—and I am not trying to quote the Senator—whether he is going to vote against the bill; but I submit that neither the majority leader nor the policy committee of the Democratic Party, in time of war, has any right in common justice to keep this body from considering legislation de- manded by virtually every outstanding patriotic organization in America. Let them stand up like men and be counted, if they want to; that is all right. But let them not by some parliamentary trick try to keep the country from knowing who is for or who is against this anti- Communist legislation, or keep the boys at the front from having the kind of protection they require on the home front in these serious hours. I started to read an article from the Washington Post of this morning. It 10839 appears on the front page, and the head- ing is, “Train wrecked deliberately, Frisco agent says.” It is an Associated Press dispatch, and reads as follows: HOLLAND, Mo., July 23.—Someone deliber- ately wrecked a north-bound Frisco passenger train near here early today, killing the en- gineer, seriously scalding the fireman, and slightly injuring 12 passengers, the carrier’s special agent said tonight. E. H. Wilson reported that the lock of a switch had been cut—apparently by saw- ing—and that a signal light which would have shown red had been broken. He said the open switch sent the Mem- phis-to-St. Louis Memphian, traveling at about 60 miles an hour, into a sidetrack. Mr. President, let me read that again— and I recommend it as serious bedtime reading for the members of the Demo- cratic Policy Committee of the United States Senate: He said the open switch sent the Memphis-to-St. Louis Memphian, traveling at about 50 miles an hour, into a sidetrack. Sabotage is going on in time of war, and unquestionably, in my opinion, such sabotage is planned and instigated by Communists in America as a part of their program to destroy the defense effort and war effort of this country. And still, for political reasons, the Democratic Pol- icy Committee and the majority leader refuse to bring up the one piece of legis- lation devised to do somcthing about it. I want you to read that again, because we are going to read more about this, Mr. President. Whether a Communist in- fluence was directly or indirectly re- sponsible for this particular wreck is still unknown but it is typical of what we must expect if we do nothing to curb the Communist traitors in this country, If the Communists can be positive that the Democratic Policy Committee will continue to pigeonhole this bill so long that, before it comes up, we shall be so far along the road to recess or adjourn- ment that both Hous2s cannot act before the Congress finishes its work, Sena- tors can be sure they will have to read a good many more articles like this in the newspapers, because the present situa- tion is an open sesame to the Com- munists. It is a wide-open invitation fer espionage, sabotage, and destruction. I am going to have more to say about it, Mr. President, than merely this one case. But this one happened to be July 23, which was only yesterday. The wreck occurred yesterday, and the agents reported that the lock of a switch had been cut, apparently by sawing. Yes, a disastrous wreck occurred on the Santa Fe not long ago, involving two passenger trains going down the track in the same direction. Mysteriously, portions of the undercarriage of one of them broke down. Was that sabotage? Was that the work of some Communist agent? It might well have been. Cer- tainly there is nothing on the statute books to make Communist agents dis- close themselves. Officials of the Santa Fe do not know how many Communist repairmen they have in their yards, Are men so gullible and naive at this late date when we are fighting commu- nism abroad as to assume that the Com- munists in America will do nothing to help their associates in Korea? TI hore naiveté has not reached that stage on
10840 the floor of the United States Senate, We are confronted with & colossal chal- lenge. We cannot correct it by the happy system New Dealers use so often of simply appropriating money. They say ‘$10,000,000,000, and the job is done.” Such an amount is not going to do the job, whether it be $10,000,000,000, $15,000,000,000, or $20,000,000,000, if we permit to crawl around in Government and out of it Communist saboteurs, un- known, untouched, unlabeled, with no law against them, no way to detect them, no way to punish them, nothing to ex- pose them. I do not know that we have billions of dollars enough, Mr. Presi- dent, to fight a war 5,000 miles away while the Communists at home drive the dagger of tyranny into the backs of those who are trying to support the heroes abroad in the war. I may say to the chairman of the Ap- propriations Committee, I do not know whether there is anything more im- portant before the United States Senate than trying to find a way, now, to get some kind of promise from the majority leader or the Democratic Policy Com- mittee, that they are going to discon- tinue “operations road block” insofar as doing something about communism at home is concerned. This operations roadblock is nothing new. It has been going on for a long time. I know the CIO is against the proposed legislation. I know some of our Democratic col- leagues are courting the votes of the CIO. I know they hesitate to do any- thing that the political leaders of the CIO Political Action Committee find un- favorable or undesirable. But, Mr. President, there is something more im- portant in these days than courting the votes of the CIO: It is the problem of defeating communism in Korea and protecting the home front against such sabotage as that referred to in the Wash- ington Post this morning. Of course, Mr. President, none of us can say positively and with authority that the train wreck I have referred to on the Frisco line or on the Santa Fe or any of the other individual wrecks, ex- plosions, collisions of tugboats, fires, or other acts of violence and destruction which seem to be occurring with in- creasing regularity and mystery are di- rectly the result of Communist sabotage, or even inspired and motivated by the cunning anti-American propaganda of the Communists in this country. But of this we can all be 100 percent positive and completely sure—unless steps are taken promptly to expose, identify, and curtail the activities of American Com- munists they will more and more fre- quently and brazenly be conducting acts of espionage and sabotage to weaken our war effort in Korea and any other hostil- ities we may be compelled to engage in in order to avert the spread of communism abroad and the collapse of freedom at home. Mr. President, I read an interesting item in the newspaper for July 20——. Mr. McMAHON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a queston? The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from South Dakote yield to the Senator from Connecticut? Mr. MUNDT. I am glad to yield. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. McMAHON. Of course, the Sen- ator realizes, does he not, that the CIO, to which he has made reference, has been engaged in a very valiant cam- paign during the past year to drive Com- munists from its membership? I am sure the Senator from South Dakota shares with me considerable satisfac- tion at the fine results they have achieved in shedding some of the Com- munist-inspired gentlemen who were secking to get control of some of the vital unions. Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. MUNDT. Inasecond. The Sena- tor from South Dakota has said in many public addresses that, by and large, he thinks American labor in the past few years has done a better job of ridding its ranks of Communists than have the colleges and universities of the United States, or the motion picture industry, or than has radio and a number of other enterprises and associations. That does not belie the fact however, that the CIO still has certain Commu- nist-led organizations. Some have been weeded out; some are still there. There are still in the CIO certain persons either controlled or contaminated by the Communists. Nor does it belie the fact that the CIO is officially on record against this proposed legislation, and those Senators who are looking for votes from the CIO hesitate to do the thing they know they should do to sup- port legislation striking at the heart of communism in America. Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, does not the Senator believe that the one thing which will help the CIO in its fight against communism in the CIO or in any other labor organization would be Senate bill 2311? Would it not aid them and help them to do the thing they want done in their organization? Mr. MUNDT. There can be no ques- tion in the world about that. Many local labor groups have contacted the junior Senator from South Dakota, com- plimenting him on his efforts to get this bill passed, and saying it is the best device they know of to complete the job which has been so nobly undertaken to drive Communists out of the labor or- ganizations in this land. Mr. President, perhaps we can make some progress in this direction. I want my Democratic colleagues to listen to this very carefully. I read an exclusive story published on July 20 in the Wash- ington Post stating that certain Demo- cratic leaders are working on a compro- mise antisubversive bill embracing some of the features of the controversial Mundt-Ferguson bill. The article says: Informed sources say the plan favored by the policy makers would not embrace all of the Republican bill, but probably would be patterned after the less stringent internal security bill passed by the House. It goes on to say that the Democratic policy committee would meet to consider the problem and that Assistant Attorney General Ford would meet with the policy committee. Mr. President, I should like to make a comment or two about this strange un- orthodox way to pass legislation which we have now reached in the United JULY 24 States Senate. In my 12 years in Wash- ington, some of which were spent in the House and some of which were spent in the Senate, I have always assumed that the best way to get a piece of legislation passed was to introduce it, have it re- ferred to a bipartisan committee al- ways composed of a majority of the party which happens to be in control in that particular branch of the Con- gress, and to hold public and open hear« ings at which those in favor and those opposed to the proposed legislation cam testify. Finally, there ts a roll-call vote of the committee members, and if the bill is approved, a report is issued by the committee in which Republicans and Democrats join. If some member of the committee opposes it, he may file a mi- nority report. That is the way I under- stood Congress has always operated un- der our democratic system. That was my understanding of representative gov- ernment and the legislative process. On my visit to Russia in 1945, I was escorted to the presidium and I saw a legislative hall twice as large as our Sen- ate Chamber, with loudspeakers and hearing aids, and with beautiful mahog- any and rich painting. I learned that all the bills were introduced by a policy committee. They did not have any open hearings. The policy committee of the Politburo would meet and discuss the kind of legislation they wanted, and then they would ram it through. I hate to think, Mr. President, of ram- ming through legislation as being the next phase of the New Deal's efforts to destroy the legislative process of Con- gress in America. I hate to believe that “ramming it through” is the next step by which they will endeavor to estab- lish the autocracy of the Executive in America. I dislike to read in the press that ramming legislation through is a device which will be employed. But if it is, Mr. President, let me assure my Democratic colleagues that my interest in subversive-control legis- lation is so great that I shall be happy to support this so-called compromise legislation, provided it is not a com- promise with principle, provided it is not @ compromise with communism, pro- vided it is not in language which has for its purpose getting the Daughters of the American Revolution, the Knights of Columbus, the American Legion, the United States Chamber of Commerce, and other organizations off the scent and off the trail, and contains only beautiful words which mean nothing—an anti- anti-Communist piece of legislation which speaks against communism, but with nothing to stop it or to curtailit. I shall support no toothless substitute or compromise. Mr. President, this is not a Republican bill, It happens that the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Frercvson] and I have our names on the bill and have worked on it for the past 3 years. However, the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. JoHN- ston}]—a Democrat—also has his name on it and has worked for it. It happens that there has just entered the Chamber the very distinguished junior Senator from Maryland (Mr. O’Conor] who has worked very thoughtfully and construc- tively in connection with S. 2311 and
1950 has made speeches around the country endorsing it. He is not a Republican. It happens that the Senator from Mis« sissippi [Mr. Eastianp! and several other Senators, including the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. MayBank] support this proposed legislation and have urged its passage. It is not a Republican bill. But if that is why the majority leader continues to sit on the lid in “operation roadblock"-—if that is why the Demo- cratic Policy Committee refuses to bring up the bill, let me say that I have con- sulted today with the junior Senator from Michigan, and he and I are per. fectly willing to withdraw our names from the bill and to let it appear only in the name of the Senator from South Carolina |Mr. Jounston]. We are willing to go further than that, Mr. President. If the Democratic policy committee does not want to have Repub- licans introduce legislation any more, and if they are going to oppose it by “operation roadblock” if it is introduced by Republicans, we are willing to delete our names from the bill, and I am willing to give the bill to the acting majority leader today and let him introduce it as his bill de novo with the name of the Democratic policy committee on it. I am sorry, Mr. President, that the idea of ramming legislation through by substituting secret star-chamber pro- ceedings in the policy committee for the open hcarings of a legislative committee seems to be the new order of the New Deal. As a minority member I resent it, but I cannot successfully resist it. They can introduce this bill. Let the Senator from Illinois [Mr. Lucas] introduce it, or let the Senator from Maryland | Mr, Typincs] introduce it, but let us not con- tinue letting down the American boys fighting and dying in Korea while we play party politics at home. This is not a Republican bill, Mr. President. I am perfectly willing to dissociate myself completely from it if the Democratic policy committee will simply advocate the basic concepts.and principles in- volved in the proposed legislation. Sen- ator Fercuson and I are not concerned with face saving. Weare concerned with saving freedom in this era of global conflict. Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. MUNDT. I yield. Mr. FERGUSON. I wish to take only time enough to say that I join with the Senator from South Dakota in his re- marks about removing my name from the bill. As I advised him, I shall be very glad to remove my name from the bill, but I do want to advocate its passage. TI want to work for the passage of the bill. I do not want to sacrifice the principles involved in the bill, but, so far as my name being on the bill is concerned, I join the Senator in withdrawing our names from the bill if that is essential to securing action. Mr. MUNDT. I thank the Senator very much. I was sure the Senator would express that attitude. With him, as with me, this is a matter of princi- ple—not partisan politics, We are serious, Mr. President, about wanting to do something about the sabo- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE teurs, the traitors, and the foreign agents who are working as Communists in this country. We want the Democratic policy committee and the majority leader to know that as of today the time is here either to fish or to cut bait, as we used to say in Isaak Walton League circles out in South Dakota. If what it takes in this present Democratic Congress is to delete the names of Republican sponsors of proposed legislation, then the major- ity can take our names off this bill and put on it any names they choose. They can put their own names on the bill. They need not come around, as they have come to me in secret, and ask, “What kind of compromise will you make?” I will answer that in public, Mr. President, because I believe public busi- ness should be publicly arrived at. Iam against the kind of star-chamber pro- ceedings suggested when the Democratic Policy Committee undertakes the job of one of our legislative committees, when it calls in Peyton Ford of the Attorney General’s office, when it conducts its hearings in secret, and then endeavors to ram through a bill which it hopes will hold the support of the Communists, Communist sympathizers, the CIO, syn- thetic progressives and liberals, bleeding heart sentimentalists, as well as the chambers of commerce, the American Legion in an effort to be everything to all men. Mr. President, all we ask is that it be an honest bill, that it does not compro- mise with the basic purposes, the pro- visions, the prohibitions, and the prin- ciples incorporated in Senate bill 2311. We ask that it compel Communists to register. We ask that the registration be public. We ask that the Communists be compelled to identify their front or- ganizations in their literature. We ask that the Communists identify their offices and members by their right names. We ask that the bill compel the Communist Party to make a financial report, just as legitimate parties, like the Republicans and Democratic Parties are compelled to make such reports. We ask that such a bill deny Communists the right to hold an appointive Fedcral job, under a penalty to be imposed for violations. We ask that it impose such a@ penalty on the bureaucrat who know- ingly hires a Communist as well as upon the Communist who seeks and gets the job. We ask that it deny Communists the right to get Federa) passports to travel abroad, to sabotage our foreign affairs and destroy our war effort under official passports. Those are the basic and fundamental principles of this legis- lation. If they want to put a Demo- cratic label on it, that it is agreeable to us. We will make any required and proper compromise. We will support it if it carries only the names of the mem- bers of the Democratic policy committee, or we will join with them in a common effort. The purposes of S. 2311 are nothing new. Such legislation is not new in our country. The Senator from Michigan, others, and I have been working on it for the last 3 years, A similar piece of legis- Jation, not quite as carefully drawn and not as completely tested, passed the 10841 House of Representatives in the Hight- jeth Congress on a roll call vote of 319 to 58. The Members of Congress who voted for that piece of legislation will vote for this kind of bill. Most of them have been reelected to Congress, Mr. President. This is not something conceived in the dark and written in secrecy, as this pro- posed compromise apparently is to be brought into being by the heads of the Democratic Policy Committee. Why do the politicians of the Policy Committee want to write legislation, I ask, instead of the Military Affairs Committee or the Committee on the Judiciary? Are they thinking, sir, of security, or are they thinking of the next election? We are told the Policy Committee intends to write the bill. That is another step down the road toward the presidium procedure that I saw so nauseatingly revealed to me at Moscow in 1945, but if we must submit to that in order to have anti-Communist legislation enacted, then submit to that we shall. S. 2311 has been studied for 3 years by the Committee on the Judiciary, and after that study the committee passed it by a vote of 12 to 1, It had passed the subcommittee by a vote of five to nothing. S. 2311 has been endorsed by a great many organizations, some of which I have named this afternoon and some of which I shall name later. 8S. 2311, as a piece of legislation, has been endorsed by the American Bar Association at two national conventions. Its constitution- ality, workability, practicability, and utilitarian value have been recognized, Why try to rewrite it? Why try to re- vise it? Why endeavor to make it more attractive to the left-wingers in America? This address today is intended primar- ily to disclose to the Democratic Policy Committee that they need not indulge in any legislative legerdemain. They can put their name on the bill if they want to. They can take the name of the Senator from Michigan [Mr. Fercuson] and my name off the bill, and they can take Rep- resentative Nixon’s name off the com- panion bill in the House. They can do that if it will do the job. They can re- write the preamble of the bill, if that will do the job. The Senator from Michigan and I will join them. Let us stop kidding the public. Let us stand up ana be counted. Let us see what goes on behind the iron curtain of the Democratic policy committee of the Senate. Mr. President, thisis war. It is about time that some people in this coun- try quit thinking of this Korean war as some kind of game, with American boys being used as the bloody pawns and chessmenin Korea. It is about time that some authority make another fireside chat to tell the American people what they are fighting for and against whom we are fighting the war. When they de- fine our enemy as communism, as they must, it will be clear to all that the time has come to stop the sabotage, espionage, and conspiracy of the Communists in the United States. 8. 2311 will aid greatly in achieving that result. If we cannot do that, let us call the whole business off, and get the boys out of the blood bath they are experiencing
10842 because so many men have so badly planned in high places for so very long in America. The Communists arc do- ing their best to destroy the fine type of unity we have in this country. It is time we found out who js behind such propa- ganda, who is supporting it, and who fs promoting it. It is time we found out who is behind the peace petitions. It is time we find out who fs behind the let- ters we are getting, many of them from fine, reputable sources, urging us to keep hands off Korea, bring back the boys, and stop the war effort. Mr. President, all we have to do is to read the Communist press. Here is the People’s World, the Communist paper published in Chicago. Here is the Daily Worker, the Communist paper published in New York. Here is the Communist paper published in Los Angeles. Each is filled with propaganda of this kind, try- ing to create disunity among those sup- porting this war in Korea. I read the headline from the Dally Worker of July 6: “Youth Gets 100,000 To Sign for Peace Since Truman Inva- sion.” That is the type of propaganda we are faced with. The propaganda line is to the effect that all that need be done is to vacate Korea and give it to the Com- munists, the way Owen Lattimore sug- gested in the first. I am not concerned today whether Owen Lattimore is a Com- munist or an Eagle Boy Scout. In his owr writings he has said the American foreign policy should be to let Korea fall, and then let it look as though we had not pushed her into the hands of the Communists. The Communists are ad- vocating that. I do not know where Owen Lattimore stands today. Neither do Icare. I know the Communists are advocating that. Iam not for that, and other Senators are not for that. We shall stand by the war effort until we can bring it to a victorious conclusion. The saboteurs and Communists oper- ating in this country are carrying out their nefarious work to destroy the unity behind our war effort by getting good Americans to sign peace petitions which they do not understand and do not realize have been placed in their hands directly or indirectly by the Communists. It is the same kind of sabotage that runs trains off tracks, that blows up harbors, that causes strange explosions on am- munition-laden ships, and it is part of the sabotage that will manifest itself all over our country, while unrealistic men say the thing to do is engage in war against communism in Korea and solicit the votes of Communists and their friends at home. So again, in the language of a South Dakota Shakespeare, I say that the time has come for the Democratic policy com- mittee to fish or cut bait, and to do it in the light of day and not behind the iron curtain of the policy committee, with its eyes on November instead of Korea, where they should be. Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr, MUNDT. I am glad to yield to the Senator from Wisconsin. Mr. McCARTHY. Is the Senator aware of the fact that last June 17, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE less than a month before he was asked by the State Department to submit rec- ommendations to our Ambassador at Large, Mr. Jessup, the man whom the Senator mentioned, Owen Lattimore, in the Communist publication, the Com- pass, boasted and complimented the State Department because they had accomplished the impossible of allow- ing China to fall without allowing the American people and the world to know that we had shoved her? In that article, published in the Compass on the 17th of June, he went on to say that our task now is to accomplish the same mission in Korea, namely, to allow Korea to fall and not let the public know that we had pushed her. In other words, that we should do the same thing in Korea which he boasted the State Department had done in China. Within less than 30 days thereafter Mr. Acheson asked Mr. Lattimore to submit a secret memorandum to him, which was submitted and finally made public. It was made public after Mr, Acheson had denied that such a docu- ment was in existence and only because I had threatened to make it public myself if he did not do so. Then the State Department made the document public. In that secret document we find the State Department’s architect, its adviser, advising the State Department again what we should do, namely, that we should allow our allies to fall and not let the world know we pushed them, Mr. MUNDT. The junior Senator from South Dakota is not at all an author- ity on the subject of Owen Lattimore. I do know something about the case of Alger Hiss, but having followed one of the traitorous State Department people all through his tortuous path in Govern. ment is enough for one Senator in one lifetime. It happens that the junior Senator from South Dakota was Acting Chairman of the House Un-American Activities Committee when we—in the Enghtieth Congress—gathered and docu- mented and disclosed the evidence lead- ing to the conviction of Alger Hiss. I was in charge of that investigation at that time. As yet, the American public has never been given the whole, sordid story of the influence of Alger Hiss as a high official in our Department of State. Sometime I shall again address the Sen- ate on that subject. I concentrated most of my time and my effort on the Hiss case for many,many months. SoI turn Owen Lattimore, and what he stands for, over to the Senator from Wisconsin or any- one else who may want to follow his activities. I did happen to note that he said in public, and in his own writings, that the thing he was advocating was to let Korea fall into the hands of Communists, but not let the world know we were push- ing her in. And since I know something of his association with the State Depart- ment and its personnel, it looks as though the administration is still fol- lowing the Lattimore line, if the actions of the Policy Committee of the Demo- eratic party honestly reflect the attitude of the administration. I believe anyone must accept the logic of that statement. JULY 24 Either we are against communism or we are for it. It is pretty hard to ask the Communist clique in America for votes one day and ask them for $10,000,- 000,000 with which to kill them the next day. We ought to decide. We cannot stand with one foot on each side of the fence forever. Uncle Sam is a pretty tall man, and he can do that for awhile, but even he gets tired after awhile with one leg on one side of the fence and the other leg on the other. He has to put both of them on one side of the fence sooner or later. I believe that when we are at war is a time for decision. We cannot be on both sides of the Korean question. We cannot be with the South Koreans when we fight and with the North Koreans when we seek votes in political campaigns. There is no wonder that so many organizations are bombarding the policy committee of the Democratic party asking, “What goes on? Why don’t you let the Senate vote? Whom are you trying to comfort, the American heroes who are dying ubroad, or the Communists boring from within at home?” It has to be one or the other; it cannot be both. The American public is entitled to an honest and a public answer. A vote on S. 2311 will provide for such a test. Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. will the Senator yield? Mr. MUNDT. I yield to the Senator from Wisconsin. Mr. McCARTHY. In view of the fact that the Congress a year ago voted $75,- 000,000 to help the anti-Communist forces in the Asiatic theater; that 1t later voted $27,600,000 for the fortifica- tion of South Korea, Iran, and the Philippines; that it also voted last year the sum of $10,300,000 to furnish planes, guns, tanks, and ammunition for South Korea; that the action by the Congress was almost unanimous, that the Presi- dent signed the bill without a word of protest; and that the State Department then stepped in, with the aid, of course, of the Commerce Department, and was successful in keeping all except the ex- penditure of $200 for some baling wire, to be spent in over a year’s time—in view of those facts, would the Senator agree with me that the State Depart- ment, with the help of the Commerce Department, is following, right down to the last comma, the voice of Owen Lat- timore, namely, that we make it appear that we are helping our allies, but at the same time pushing them into the arms of communism? Mr. MUNDT. It would certainly seem to the junior Senator from South Dakota that that would be more than an acci- derital coincidence. It certainly would seem that out of $10,000,000 appropri- ated for military aid to Korea, it is strange that $200 of it only was used to help the loyal anti-Communists in South Korea, and that all the rest of it was used, directly or indirectly, to help the Communists of the north. It is just as inconsistent as our policy today when we still are following the Lattimore line at home in our attitude toward communism—“Let the Commu- nists take over, but don’t make it ap- President,
1950 pear we are pushing them into Russta’s hands,” while abroad we are engaged in a noble effort, supported by patriotic Americans all over the country, to defeat and destroy the vicious, aggressive, god- less Communist invaders going south of the thirty-eighth parallel. Mr. President, I wish to talk a little now about what is in this bill (8. 2311) and why it is necessary that the bill be promptly enacted. I think the time has come when Senators should speak out on this proposed legislation. I do not ask everyone to support the bill; but Senators oppose it if they care to, but I think we are entitled to know; I believe that when the boys are being drafted to go into the Army they are entitled to know; I believe that when the taxpay- ers are being asked for another $10,000,- 000,000 for the war in Korea they are entitled to know, what we propose to do about the people who are circulating peace petitions under the banners of communism, about the people who are trying to advocate “Hands off Korca,” so that Russians can take over, about those who are sabotaging switches on the railroads, blowing up harbors, call- ing men out on strike, and precipitating all kinds of confusion and chaos, Should we not at least label them? What can we do about them in govern- ment, or about their trying to gct in gov- ernment, if we are not to have any law to repel them or to punish them? I suggest, therefore, that the first rea- son why we have need of the enactment of S. 2311, the so-called Mundt-Fergu- son-Johnston bill—and I shall cite only facts in the Recorp—is the fact that by the proud admission—it was not really an admission, it was really a proud asser- tion—an assertion of the Assistant Sec- retary of State in charge of security, Mr. Jack Peurifoy, wrote a committee of the United States Senate a letter within the last few months and said, in effect: “Be calm. Be of good cheer. Don’t be dis- turbed about the McCarthy charges. We have been able to get rid of 205 Com- munists and disloyal agents from the State Department alone since Yalta.” He is proud of the fact, and I am proud of him for the work Jack Peurifoy has done as far as it has gone. Unhappily, it is still an uncompleted task. hen, because 205 sounded like a good maiily Communists and disloyal agents in cne department, even since Yalta, he added another paragraph in which he said, “After all, about half were Commu- nists and Communist agents; the other half were homosexuals and sex perverts. So don't be too much disturbed about the kind of people we have had in our State Department since before the Yalta Conference.” Let us talk about the 105 disloyal agents, by their own admission, in the State Department since before Yalta. One wonders why Yalta resulted in so many blunders and gave so many mag- nificent gifts to communism. There were 105 foreign agents by their own ad- mission, That does not count any of the McCarthy charges, that does not have anything to do with the Tydings report. That is 105 who, the Assistant Secretary of State proudly said, ‘We have gotten CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE rid of since before Yalta.” But they were there then, They were conniving, they were moving around, they were planning the sell-out at Yalta. Nothing has been done up to this hour to make it illegal for them to go back to work again in the State Department. Some Government official can hire them tomorrow. There is no criminal charge to be placed against them, no way to smoke them out, no way to expose them. So, Mr. President, the first reason why we need this bill enacted is so that we may have something on the statute books making it a crime for a Govern- ment official to hire a Communist, to destroy our freedom by sabotage within the structure of Government; to make it a crime for Communists surrepti- tiously to sneak in and secure a Govern- ment appointive position. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. MUNDT. I yield to the Senator from Nebraska. Mr. WHERRY. Does Mr. Peurifoy know whether or not those Communists have been separated from Government, even though they have left the State Department? Mr. MUNDT. He does not. I have asked him. He said, “I have done the best I can. I have gotten them out of the State Department.” He knows and I know and the Senator knows some of them are working for the United Na- tions. He fears and I fear and the Sen- ator fears that some of them have got- ten back into our Government. But I believe Jack Peurifoy when he tells me they are out of the State Department, at least. He does not know and I do not know and the Senator does not know whether other Communists have taken their places, because there is not a law on the b6oks to prevent it. But that par- ticular group, along with another one- hundred-and-some sex perverts and homosexuals, are now out of the State Department. Mr. WHERRY. The distinguished Under Secretary, Mr. Peurifoy, testified before a subcommittee of the Commit~ tee on Appropriations that 91 homosex- uals, or it might have been 100, had been discharged since January 1, 1947. When the junior Senator from Nebraska asked him if he knew what had become of those homosexuals, he said he did not know. It might be of interest, if the Senator did not know it, although I believe he does, that the junior Senator from Ne- braska wrote a Civil Service Commis- sioner and asked him to get the names of the 91 who had resigned according to the statement made by Mr. Peurifoy, and check them and see whether or not any of them were now working for the Government. Only in June of this year did the report finally come back—and the distinguished Senator from Michi- gan knows what a difficult time we had getting it—and when it came back it appeared that he found that 14 of the 91 were still working with the Govern- ment, It was not until the matter was referred to him that it was gone into more thoroughly than had been antici- pated. He said some of them had re- signed, but the system does not pro- 10843 vide that when employees are separated from the service they shall not be trans- ferred from one branch to the other, So in this case many of those who had been supposed to be separated from the State Department found their way into other agencies. Mr. MUNDT. In reply I may say I know that to be a fact; that is correct; but I believe the Senate and the coun- try can get some comfort from the fact that under the able jurisdiction of the present occupant of the chair, the Sen- ator from North Carolina {Mr. Hory], a subcommittee of which I am a mem- ber is presently conducting hearings in an investigation of the subject of homo- sexuality, sex perversion, and moral de- generacy and some of the other queer attributes of those former employees of the State Department. I think that is in conformity with the resolution submit- ted by the Senator from Nebraska, We have gathered some of the evidence, and are going to bring in a report which will suggest some techniques and devices to prevent some of the things that have occurred in the post, so that these homo- sexuals and sexual perverts, when sepa- rated from the Government service, shall not be moved from one branch of the Federal service to another. We are dealing only with the homosexuals, the sex perverts, and moral degenerates, We have not been authorized by the Senate to deal with communism, dis- loyalty, and subversion. It was anti- cipated the Tydings subcommittee would attend to that. Mr. WHERRY. I thank the Senator from South Dakota for assuring us that the committee is making a very thorough investigation into this question. I have every faith in the committee, and I hope it will continue its work. I should like to say further that a high official in the District of Columbia who has to do with investigating homosexuals made the statement that while the in- vestigation of the subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations was in progress to his knowledge there had been more than 90 who had resigned as a result of that investigation, Mr. MUNDT. Good. Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. MUNDT. I yield. Mr. FERGUSON. Will the Senator yield to me so I may ask unanimous con-~ sent to place, at the end of the remarks of the Senator from South Dakota, cor- respondence which the junior Senator from Michigan has had with the Chair- man of the Civil Service Commission in relation to homosexuals? ‘That corre- spondence will speak for itself on the question. In 1947 this very problem was called to the attention of the Depart- ment of State. Mr. MUNDT. I yield for that purpose. Mr, FERGUSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have placed at the conclusion of the address by the Senator from South Dakota the corre- spondence to which I have referred. The PRESIDING OFFICER, Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered. (Bee exhibit A.)
10844 Mr. BRIDGES. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. MUNDT, I yield; yes. Mr. BRIDGES. The Senator spoke about the Assistant Secretary of State, Mr, Peurifoy, announcing with pride the separation of 105 disloyal persons from the State Department. Mr. MUNDT. Since before Yalta. Mr. BRIDGES. I wonder if the Sena- tor would show us how the wheels within the wheels work. Is the Senator aware that when the Senate Appropriations Committee in the fall of 1947 left for an inspection of the European scene, Mr. Peurifoy told the committee that 10 per- sons who were employed in the State Department were to be fired, and that the orders had gone out to fire them by reason of disloyalty to the United States of America? I wonder if the Senator knows that when we returned from abroad, Mr. Peurifoy being on that trip, he found that the orders to fire them had been canceled from above in the State Department, and that they in turn were allowed to resign and slip out, so there would be nothing on their records? That is one more indication, is it not, I ask the Senator, of the need of the proper labeling of these individuals in and out of Government? Mr. MUNDT. There can be no ques- tion in the world about that. There is not any question in the world but that wherever there is a Communist in Gov- ernment he is part of a conspiratorial cell. So unquestionably, while Mr. Peurifoy was away, some member of that cell succeeded in getting the orders canceled. Now, Mr. President, the second reason why I think we should pass S. 2311 at this time is the fact that with regard to the testimony of Mr. Peurifoy, in which he asserted proudly that they had gotten rid of 105 disloyal persons, each of whom would have been kept out of his job had the so-called Mundt-Ferguson bill been in operation. If it is about to be renamed the Lucas-Tydings bill, and have the same text, maybe I should call it that. If that bill to prevent commu- nism had been in effect, Mr. President, these disloyal agents would not have got- ten their jobs. S. 2311 would have pre- vented that. The second reason is we know that some disloyal individuals were mighty important. Iam not going to dilate this afternoon on Alger Hiss, but some day, inasmvch as the junior Senator from South Dakota acted as chairman of the subcommittee which investigated the Hiss matter from beginning to end, I shall dilate further on that subject. I think last January I discussed it for 3 hours. Much of that story, however, has never been told. Anyway, we know that Alger Hiss, with his great potentiality for evil, which may have found its most far-flung tentacles in the precipitation of the Korean war, worked on as a close confidante and fellow of the present Sec- cretary of State and as a member of the conspiratorial Communist cell in Gov- ernment. His associate, Henry Julian Wadieigh, has confessed to the same type of crime for which Hiss was convicted. He turned State’s evidence and testified CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE against Hiss in the New York trial. Marzani is in jail for the part he played. Judy Coplon has been convicted, An- other has fied the country. Mr. President, we have heard much about the Presidential Loyalty Board. We heard about that today. I would suppose a good loyalty board would check, first of all, the people working in the most sensitive position, in the Atomic Energy Commission. Yet with monot- onous repetition we have read day after day of instances where individuals have been picked up for violating the security phases of atomic energy and arrested as spies. Mr. McMAHON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield at that point? Mr. MUNDT. Yes. Mr. McMAHON. I am delighted that the Senator has adverted to that situa- tion. The Atomic Energy Commission took over the atomic-energy project on January 1, 1947. The act that was passed—— Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, I yield with the understanding that I do not lose the floor, because it appears the Senator from Connecticut is not direct- ing a question to me, but is making an observation. Before I yield, I want it to be understood that I do not lose the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the Senator from South Da- kota yielding to the Senator from Con- necticut without losing the floor? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered. Mr. MCMAHON. The act which was passed, which sometimes bears my name, started to be administered by the Atomic Energy Commission on that date, Janu- ary 1, 1947. That Commission has direct- ly and indirectly some 70,000 employees. From that day to this there has not been a single solitary violation of any law of the United States respecting security proved or alleged against any employee of that Commission. I say to the Senator from South Da- kota that Gold and Fuchs and Green- glass and the rest of them came into the project during its administration by Gen. Leslie Groves, of the Army; and the gen- eral would still have had control of that program if the proposal by the minority party in the House of Representatives had been adopted, because a motion to recommit the act was defeated by only seven votes. Mr. President, let us have done once and for all with the insinuation or in- nuendo that the Atomic Energy Com- mission has nilsadministered the atomic affairs of this country so as to permit the infiltration of the likes of Fuchs and Gold and the rest of them, because by the Atomic Energy Act the Senator from Connecticut and his colleagues on the Senate committee provided for the FBI to take over the investigation of viola- tions against the law of the United States by employees of the Atomic Energy Commission. It was under the United States Army in the stress and heat of war that Fuchs and Gold and others committed their depredations. Mr, President, I should like to con- clude by saying that no one alive can guarantee that among some of the thou- sands of persons—no matter how great JULY 24 may be the care that is used—there will not be, in the future, some breach of se- curity. However, I can testify that those who are administering that act are doing their level best, in cooperation with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, to maintain inviolate that great organiza- tion. I should like to serve notice now, once and for all, that the effort to tie up Fuchs and Gold and Greenglass with the pres- ent administration of the Atomic Energy Commission or with any of the Atomic Energy Commissioners should cease, in common decency. Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. MUNDT. I yield. Mr, KNOWLAND. I do not disagree with the statements just made by the Senator from Conpecticut; but in the interest of historical accuracy, I think it should also be pointed out that the law passed by the two Houses of Con- gress establishing the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy has unusual char- acteristics, due to the nature of the prob- Jem involved and the high degree of se- curity required, for in that bill pro- vision is made that the Members of the Joint Cammittee shall have access to all the security files. The Senator from Connecticut, the Senator from Iowa, the Senator from California, and the other members of the Joint Committee have from time to time personally examined files; and we have had an opportunity to have very full and free discussions with the members of the commission, and to point out from time to time what are regarded as necessary changes in policies. It is that opportunity to ex- amine the files which has been denied to the Senate Committee on Foreign Re- lations in connection with the matter the Senator from South Dakota is discuss- ing. I merely wish to point out that the committee of which we are members does have, under the statute, power to ex- amine the security files of persons in- volved in that connection. Mr. MUNDT. That is precisely cor- rect. Mr. McMAHON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for 2 comment at this point? Mr. MUNDT. If it is brief. Mr. McMAHON. Mr. President, I am delighted that the Senator from Cali- fornia has pointed out the things he has just stated. I should only like to add that in the case of the 81 persons who were referred to and who were the sub- ject of charges by the junior Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. McCartuy], the same privilege was given to the subcom- mittee of the Foreign Relations Commit- tee; and the FBI files of those persons— files of the same quality and character as those to which the Senator has re- ferred—were also available to the sub- committee of the Foreign Relations Committee. Those are the files the Sen- ator from Connecticut consulted. How- ever, the Senator from Massachusetts and the Senator from Iowa found it in- advisable to consult any more than 9 or 14 of them, respectively, Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, I shall not engage in a prolonged discussion
1950 of the Atomic Energy Commission at this time. Since it is a little aside from the point we now have before us, be- cause the Atomic Energy Commission is handled by means of special legislation. I think I should point out in that con- nection however that certainly there is nothing in the housing shortage in America which seems to make for an over-crowded condition among persons suited for living in glass houses, be- cause even the Atomic Energy Commis- sion does not have a perfect record in connection with these matters. Let me refer, for instance, ‘to one Hans Freid- stadt, who was given a scholarship under the Atomic Energy Commission, but who turned out to be a Communist. That mistake certainly cannot be attributed to General Groves, of the United States Army, or to J. Edgar Hoover, or to any~- one other than those with the Atomic Energy Commission. Of course, I sup- pose that misiake was an honest one. Nevertheless, Freidstadt is still with us, for according to the publication I now hold in my hand, Freidstadt is editor of a Communist student bulletin at the University of North Carolina, for this publication bears the notation, “Hans Freidstadt, box 562, Chapel Hill, N. C.— published by the North Carolina student section of the Communist Party of the U.S. A.” Apparently Freidstadt is doing that to eke out a little extra spending money, since he has been removed from the scholarship which had been granted to him by the Government. Let me point out that he was removed from that scholarship, due to the good work done by the Senator from Iowa (Mr. HicKEN- LOOPER], Mr. President, this particular issue of that publication is devoted to the theme You Must Defeat the Mundt-Ferguson Bill, They take that position because they know that if that bill or any similar piece of proposed legislation is enacted into law—regardless of who are the per- sons who endorse it—and if a piece of legislation embodying such principles is placed on the statute books, with the re- sult that Communists are required to register in the open, not only will such persons not be granted scholarships, but Gold and Fuchs and Greenglass and all the rest of that nefarious crowd will be able to be apprehended much more easily, because they will be smoked out into the open. Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Mr. Presi- dent, will the Senator yield to me for about one minute, to permit me to make a statement, with the understanding that by doing so he will not lose the floor? Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, if we may continue the friendly informality we have been enjoying today, and if I may yield for the purpose requested without losing the floor, I shall do 50. The PRESIDING OFFICER. With- out objection, the Senator may yield for that purpose. Mr. MUNDT. Then I yield. Mr, HICKENLOOPER. Mr. Presi- dent, in regard to the statement made a moment ago by the Senator from Con- XCVI-——683 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE necticut [Mr. McManon], let me say that I think he was perfectly sound and fair when he said that Fuchs was not connected with or employed in the proj- ect under the present Atomic Energy Commission. However, I thoroughly dis- agree with the Senator when he says that since the Commission has been in control of the atomic energy program there has not been a single breach of secrecy. I disagree with the Senator from Connecticut as to that. Without itemizing them, I will say there have been numerous breaches of security under the present Atomic En- ergy Commission security set-up, and there have been numerous disappear- ances of materials and things of that kind. I recall one particular employee of the Commission, in that connection; it was necessary to open some packing cases and remove certain things which he had surreptitiously taken out, some- time after the Commission was created. I remember repeated instances of the disappearance of material and the dis- appearance of certain documents, Therefore, I could not let the record stand—according to my view and my recollection and according to the evi- dence about matters of that sort—as showing that there has not been a single breach of security under the present Atomic Energy Commission. I thank the Senator from South Da- kota for yielding to me. Mr. McMAHON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a moment at this point? Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, I am re- luctant to do so, for I should like to return to the bill I have been discussing. Mr. MCMAHON. I can say what I have to say in 30 seconds. Mr. MUNDT. Very well. Mr. McMAHON. Mr. President, the Senator from Iowa has referred to cer- tain matters which were developed in connection with an investigation in con- nection with the charges of mismanage- ment, made over a year ago against the Atomic Energy Commission. I should like to point out that in my statement, when I referred to breaches of security, I meant persons such as Gold and Fuchs and spies. I think the Senator will agree with me that there has not been one case which has devel- oped which in any way in the slightest degree compares with the terrible things that happened to us as a result of the admission of Fuchs and company into the project. Mr. McFARLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. MUNDT. I am glad to yield for 8 question. . Mr. McFARLAND. I wonder how much longer the Senator from South Dakota will take. Numerous comments have been made by other Senators dur- ing the speech of the Senator from South Dakota. Of course, I could have objected to having that done, but I did not wish to do so. Let me call attention to the fact that the senior Senator from Tennessee [Mr. McKeuianr) has stayed here all day tong, since 11 e. m., hoping to get just a few minutes’ time devoted to the un- 10845 finished business, the appropriation bill, @ bill which is most important. Mr. MUNDT. If I am not interrupted further, I think I can conclude in 15 minutes. I have hesitated to refuse to yield to other Senators who have re- quested that I yield to them, when they have had comments to make. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Here. after the rule will be enforced. Mr. MUNDT. Very well, Mr. Presi!- dent. I have already stated two reasons which I have for enactment of the Mundt-Johnston-Ferguson bill, The third reason is that it proposes legisla- tion in strict conformity with the regu- Jations which the Federal Bureau of In- vestigation has consistently made for dealing with communism. There are many persons who feel that we should directly outlaw the Com- munist Party. As is well known, the Director of the FBI has spoken against that particular approach in handling Communists in this country. Neverthe- less, I wish to point out that the FBI has expressed itself very clearly in regard to legislation such as that proposed by Senate bill 2311, the so-called Mundt- Ferguson-Johnston bill. On March 26, 1947, Mr. J. Edgar Hoover, in testifying before the Com- mittee on Un-American Activities of the House of Representatives, of which I was then a member—and, Mr. President, let me say incidentally that was the last time the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation testified before a con- gressional committee on proposed legis- lation dealing with this subject; so here we have his last and final word, so far as it is contained in testimony before a committee of the Congress. On page 40 of those hearings, which are available to any Senator who may care to examine them, the following is to be found: There has developed, however, as a result of Communist propaganda, some fanciful feeling among Communists that no distinc- tion should be drawn and that Communiste have a right to Government jobs, I disagree in that. Mr. President, in conformity with that disagreement, we wrote into this pro- posed legislation a specific prohibition against permitting a Communist to ob- tain a Government job by appointment. It is the only legislative prohibition of that sort now before the Congress for its consideration. A little later, on page 43 of the hear- ings, J. Edgar Hoover, on the subject of national defense, made a statement which I desire to quote. That subject, Mr. President, is something we should be thinking about in these days, in time of war. On the subject of national de- fense, J. Edgar Hoover, in part 2 of the hearings before the Committee on Un- American Activities of the House of Representatives, Eightieth Congress, first session, on March 26, 1947, said: The Communist Party of the United States ig a fifth column if there ever was one. I wish I could put that on a little desk motto to be placed in front of members of the Democratic policy committee the next time they hold their meeting, so
10846 they could see it, because it is important. We are at war, and they fiddle while the fighters are dying in Korea, J. Edgar Hoover says: The Communist Party is a fifth column if there ever was one. It Is far better organ- ized than were the Nazis in occupied coun- tries prior to their capitulation. They are seeking to weaken America just as they did in their era of obstruction when they were alined with the Nazis. Their goal is the overthrow of our Government. There is no doubt as to where a real Communist’s loyalty exists. Their allegiance is to Russia, not the Unitied States, The D.rector of the FBI says that the allegiance of the Communists about whom the Democratic Policy Committee refuses to let the Senate legislate is with Russia, not with our Government. So let. 1t never be said, of this side of the aisle anyway, that we seek to give aid and comfort to the Communists in time of war. If catastrophe involves us and sabotage occurs, let the responsibility rest with the majority leader and the majority policy committee, who them- selves have stood with operations road block from month to month, denying this body the right to vote on the only measure before 1t to smoke the Commu- nists out into the open. On page 44 of the same hearings, J. Edgar Hoover again says this—testify- jing, Mr. President, on legislation dealing with this problem, on his last appear- ance before a congressional committee on the subject; and let this give the eterna] lie to the Communist propaganda So slyly spread around America, that the FBI is not for the bill—S. 2311—that J. Edgar Hoover is not in favor of this kind of Communist-control legislation. Let him speak for himself in the quota- tion from page 44, wherein he says: Victory will be assured once Communists are identified and exposed— That is in essence the bill—S. 2311— which identifies, exposes, and denies them Government jobs— because the public will take the first step of quarantining them so they can do no harm. Communism, in reality, is not a polit- leal party, It is a way of life—an evil and malignant way of life. It reveals a condition akin to disease that sproads like an epidemic and like an epidemic a quarantine is neces- sary to keep it from infecting the Nation. The bill—S. 2311—is a quarantine, un- less the Democratic Policy Committee keeps in effect an ordinance denying Americans the right to use the quaran- tine. I predict the Senate will pass it speedily and overwhelmingly, once Sen- ators are given an opportunity to vote on it. On page 44, I was asking a ques- tion. Before giving Mr. Hoover’s an- swer, I read my question, as follows: Mr. Munopr. We have had witnesses be- fore this committee during the past few days, and, for that matter, during the past few years, who have said, in one way or an- other, that the Communist Party in America, anq@ in all countries, is under the direction of the central party headquarters in Moscow. I take it that you agree thoroughly with that point of view? To this question Mr. Hoover replied: Mr. Munprt, I might say that at least for the last several yeais the direction of Com- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE munist activity has emanated from Paris with a very definite pipeline into Moscow. By reason of matters of expediency they have dropped, for the time being at least, much of this activity from Paris, that emanated from there, although they have a direct tie-up to the Communist headquarters in Moscow. So we now have in this country run- ning loose in a sizable Communist con- spiratorial organism directly tied in with Moscow. The Director of the FBI has warned the Senate, the country, and the Congress. It is time, I say again, that this body measure up to its challenges and do something on the home front to smoke these Communists out in the open, Identify them, expose them, deny them passports, deny them Federal jobs. This is precisely and specifically what S. 2311 would do. Finally, J. Edgar Hoover, on page 47 of this committee report on these hear- ings, was asked the following question by Mr. Nixon, Representative from Cali- fornia: Mr. Nixon. Having in mind the infiltration of Communists as we have it in America to- day, without doing anything further nbout it, to expose them, to drive them out. of labor unions, out of Government, out of our other institutions, do you see a real present danger to this country in the event of a confilct with the followers of communism in Europe and in Russia? Replying to Mr. Nrxon’s question, Mr. Hoover said: I most certainly do, Congressman, There we have the warning. We may not be able to penetrate the iron curtain set up by the Democratic policy com- mittee and get action on this legislation; I do not know. I am hopeful. I am optimistic. We shall continue to try, But if we fail, and sabotage and treach- ery and revolution wreck the American home front while we are engaged in a bloody war in Korea or elsewhere against communism, let the responsibility be nailed squarely on the door of the Demo- cratic Policy Commitee of the United States Senate. That is where it will Squarely and fairly belong. The Director of the FBI has called attention to the danger. He says that in time of war that would be a serious risk, unless we identify and expose the Communists. The American public has a right to know, while history is being made, the political maneuvering of Mos- cow’s followers, which helps to fore- shadow the shape of the history to come, The fourth reason, Mr. President, we are urging the Democratic policy com- mittee and the Democratic majority leader, the Senator from Illinois [Mr, Lucas], to give the elected representa- tives of the people in the United States Senate an early right to vote on the only measure before us striking at the con- spiratorial dangers of communism on the home front is that we are now at war with communism in Korea. Let them vote as they will, but let them not con- tinue to keep under cover and under- ground and out of sight and away from the Senate the only bill designed to do something about communism here at home. So much for the reasons, Mr. Presi- dent. The bill, itself, I hope every Sen- JULY 24 ator has read by now. artainly he should have. Every Senator has written letters about S. 2311. Every Senator has had ample notice about it. It has been discussed long enough. If he has read it, as he should have, and as I assume he has, he knows that it simply provides for identification and exposure and de- nial of Federal employment. It does not affect labor unions. It does not affect organizations, other than Communist Party organizations and those controlled by it. It denies passports. It prohibits employment of Communists by the Gov- ernment, and it establishes an appeal board, through the Subversive Activities Control Board and the appellate courts, so that no injustice can be done to any- one. That is the measure we submit for the Senate's approval. . I have named some of the organiza- tions which have endorsed it. Twice in its national conventions the American Legion has endorsed it. I know the ma- jority leader said on the floor of the Sen- ate recently that it does not make much difference to him whether they endorse it or not. But it mikes some difference to me, Mr. President, and to the most of us. The members of the American Legion do not deal lightly with measures of this character with reference to our na- tional security. They consider them seriously. They are in favor of this proposed legislation which is in the in- terest of national security. So are the Veterans of Foreign Wars. The AMVETS have endorsed the bill. It has been en- dorsed by the Disabled American Vet- erans who have left a part of their blood and their limbs overseas in fighting for freedom. They have endorsed it. It is strange, is it not, that a few men mect- ing in secret behind the iron curtain of the Democratic policy committee, counting the votes for next November and evaluating the political possibilities, can say, “We are not going to let the Senate vote on this proposed legislation. We want the votes for the CIO; we want the votes of the Lawyers’ Guild. So we shall not let the measure come to a vote”? Mr. President, if they want to vote “nay,” that is all right, but give the Senate a chance to vote on a measure which is so important. All Senators have letters from the United States Chamber of Commerce urging them to support this bill. I re- ceived one a few days ago. What are we doing to support it? The Senator from Mississippi |Mr. EasrtanpJ, the senior Senator from South Carolina {Mr. Mayank], the junior Senator from South Carolina {[Mr. JoHNstTon], and the junior Senator from Maryland LMr, O’Conor], are in favor of it. They have spoken up in public. But we do not have to have many fingers on our two hands to count the support we have had from the Democratic side of the aisle. I hope they will have courage to stand up within the next few days and say, “Count me among those willing to be counted in favor of legislation striking at communism at home.” Oh, you may lose a friend or two in come liberal group, but you will be dcing
1950 something worth while for those who are fighting for the Stars and Stripes in Korea. The Knights of Columbus have en- dorsed the bill; the National Education Association has endorsed it: the small- business organizations have endorsed it; the American Bar Association has en- dorsed it. I shall not read the whole list. The Communist Party, of course, is against it. Every issue of the Daily Worker is against it. The so-called Na- tional Committee to Defeat the Mundt- Ferguson-Johnston Bill is against it—a little group downtown in an obscure of- fice, administered by persons represent- ing a list of leftist organizations as long as a bamboo fish pole. They would be compelled to register under S. 2311 be- cause they are contaminated or con- trolled by the Communist Party. A few synthetic self-proclaimed liberal groups are against it. Some honest individuals are against it too. Some persons sin- cerely believe we should do nothing about communism in America, But, Mr. Presi- dent, by and large, the proposed legisla- tion is supported by organizations of the types which I have mentioned and op- posed only by those giving aid and com- fort to godless aggressive communism. Mr. President, as I draw to a conclu- sion, let me say that the main reason I took the floor today was to make a few simple points simply clear. The first one is that the Senator from Michigan [Mr. Frrcuson], Representative Nixon, and I have no pride of authorship in this bill. We have worked for it and on it for 3 years. If the little secret cabal in the Democratic Policy Committee is hearing testimony behind closed doors for the purpose of working out some kind of clandestine compromise, let them bring it out, and we shall support it if it is honest and effective. But do not let them bring out any sham legislation; do not let them bring out any trick legisla- tion; do not let them bring out any pious phrases that will not accomplish any- thing, or we shall propose to substitute Senate bill 2311 lock, stock, and barrel, and insist on a roll-call vote. We are willing to support an honest compromise. The Democratic policy label can be placed on it and we will still support it. I want to make it clear that the bill which we are supporting is not a thought- contro] or a police bill. It is what it says; it says what it means. It is clear. It is concise. It provides for registra- tion, identification, exposure, informa- tion as to financial income, financial sources, who belongs to the Communist Party, where are its headquarters, what are the names of Sts officers, the litera- ture it circulates, the broadcasts it sponsors, and the front organizations it supports. It denies an appointive Fed- eral job or a Federal passport to all Com- munists, ziving the right of open hear- ings before the Subversive Activities Con- trol Board, which is a better break than front organizations receive today, be- cause the Attorney General puts them on the list and they have no recourse. We give them recourse and the right of appeal to the courts. Perhaps if the Democrats write the bill in their clandestine meeting they will want to leave out of it the Alger Hiss- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Amerasia amendment which defines es- Pionage and makes it a crime to steal documents from the State Department. It defines the crime which Wadleigh com- mitted over 500 times. It defines as a crime what Alger Hiss did, and proposes 8S a penalty 10 years in the penitentiary and a $10,000 fine. It extends the stat- ute of limitations on such crimes against the Government to 10 years. I should like to see that amendment retained in the bill, but we can, I hope, work out a compromise on that if some Democrat politician is afraid that by supporting the proposed legislation he might be giving some credence to the charges in connection with the Amer- asia case beceuse in time of war is when we should do something about home se- curity, and not think altogether about the votes at stake at the polling places next November. In conciusion, Mr. President, this bill was reported last March. It had b2en considered for 18 months before it was re- ported. It is important; it is urgent. It will do much more in the final analysis to win the war in Korea than will many of the executive controls by whicl. Amer- icans are to be coerced to do certain things. We receive exccutive messages and listen to fireside chats and procla- mations saying we must do something to contro) and coerce patriotic Americans in this country. But let us not do any- thing about the Communists; let us not even permit the Senate to vote with regard toCommunists. ‘Let us do some- thing about the businessman, the farm- er, the laboring man, the shopkeeper,” these administration spokesmen tell us. Let us set up some kind of controls to push them around. Maybe that is neces- sary, but what a strange mind it must be to concentrate all the power and might of Government upon good Ameri- cans and refuse to do anything about bad Americans, about Communist. con- spfrators and traitors. At a later date I shall have more to say about that type of New Deal-Fair Deal logic. I promised that I would be through by 5 o’clock in order that the Senate might proceed with the consider- ation of the appropriation bill and 5 o'clock is 1.0w here, but I wanted to get before the Senate some of the provisions of the bill and to give the Congress and the country the assurance of the Senator from Michigan and myself that we are for the purposes and the provisions of the bill and are not interested in the name or the label. We want legislation to guard the home front. Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. MUNDT. I yield. Mr. KNOWLAND. Has the Senator from South Dakota given any thought to the fact that in the event the Democratic leadership does not permit the bill even to come to a vote or to be debated on the floor of the Senate, it would be possible to add the provisions of the bill as a rider to the other type of legislation which the Senator has mentioned? Mr. MUNDT. Yes; we have surveyed every possibility. If we cannot get any cooperation or assurance from the pow~ ers that be in the Democratic Party here in the Senate that they will bring 10847 up this legislation, we shall use every parliamentary device available to us to have a vote on the floor of the Senate on this most important home-front leg- islation. Exuisrr A UNITED STATES Civr. SERVICE ComMMIssION, Washington, D.C., May 16, 1950. Hon. Kennetw 8. WHerry, United States Senate. Dear SENATOR WHeERRY: This is in reply to your letter of Aj ril 26, 1950, in which you asked to be advised as to how many of the 91 persons removed from the Department of State because of a sexual deviation have been eubsequently reemployed by other Federal departments or agencies, To protect the Federal service from re- employment of persons who have been sepa- rated or forced to resign for reasons of une suitability the Commission's regulations proe vide that agencies shall report the real rea- sons for separations. After obtaining the list of 91 persons from the Department of State, the Commission again called to the attention of all depart- ments and agencies its requirement relating to the proper manner of reporting separa- tions of persons concerning whom there are questions of suitability. Our records have now been noted in these cages to refiect the actual reasons for separations, Check of these names against our records disclosed that, at the time of the check, 13 of these persons were employed by the exec- utive branch of the Government. In 9 of these 13 cases the Commission had jurisdic- tion to investigate and to initiate such cor- rective action as was necessary. In 1 of these 9 cases the person resigned before comple- tion of the investigation. In 7 of these 9 cases investigation has been completed and the separation of these persons has been in- structed. The remaining case in which the Commission has jurisdiction is pending com- pletion of investigation, In the remaining case pending completion of investigation and the three cases in which the Commission has no jurisdiction, the em- ploying agencies have been notified that un- favorable information pertaining to suitabil- ity is available to them at the Department of State. So far the Commission has not been advised of the results of the agency's consideration of the matters reported in the other three cases. In summary, of the 91 persons concerning whom you :nquired decisions have not been reached in 4 cases of persons now employed in the Federal service, according to our lat- est information. In each of these 4 cases the employing agencies have been notified that unfavorable information pertaining to suitability is available to them at the Depart- ment of State. Sincerely yours, Harry B. Mrrcuve.., Chairman. UNITED STATES Crvit SERVICE COMMISSION, Washington, D. C., June 9, 1950, Hon. HoMER FERGUSON, United States Senate. Dean SznaTor Fercuwon: This has refer- ence to your letter of May 16, 1950, in which you asked for additional details concerning the cases of those persons who had been sep- arated from the Department of State because of sexual deviation who were shown subse- quently to have been employed elsewhere in the Federal service. As you are aware the amount of informa- tion I am able to furnish concerning these cases ie governed by the President's directive concerning the release of confidential in- vestigative information. In addition, a spe- cial committee of the Senate has been ap- pointed to inquire into the details of this matter.
10848 You indicate that you have been fur- nished a copy of my letter to Senator WHERRY. I am able to advise you of developments which alter the statistical information fur- nished to Senator WHerrry. In that letter it was pointed out that the action that was taken by the Civil Service Commission when we received the list of 91 cases from the Depaitment of State. In brief, cases of those individuals who were still within the juris- diction of the Civil Service Commission have been reopened for investigation and decision. In all of these cases, both those that wero within the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission and those that were under the sole jurisdiction of the department or agency, the information was furnished to the employing departments and agencies Of the 91 persons, 1 person ig shown to be presently employed in whose case the Civil Service Commission has jurisdiction and in whose case separation has not been in- structed. Investigation of this case is not yet complete. In one other case, the Com- mission has rated incligible and instructed the separation of the individual. We have not yet recelved official notice from the em- ploying agency of his separation We have been informally advised that his separation will be effective within the next 2 weeks. These two individuals are shown to occupy clerical positions, one at grade GS-3 and the other at grade GS-4 ‘The cases of the three additional Individ- uals are no longer within the Jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission. In these cases we have not yet received formal advice as to the final action taken by the employing agency We have been advised informally that one of these individuals will be sep- arated within the next 2 weeks One of these three individuals is shown to occupy a position at grade GS-9, the other two are shown to be employed in clerical pcsitions. We do not believe that any good purpose would be served by furnishing the informa- tion requested concerning former employees who are no longer in the Federal service. With best personal wishes, I am, Sincerely yours, Harry B MItTcHrt, Chairman. U'itep STATES Civi. Service COMMISSION, Washington, D.C, June 23, 1950. Hon Homrr FERGUSON, United States Senate Dear SFNaTOR Frncuson’ This is in fur- ther reply to your letter dated May 16, 1950, as requested in your letter dated June 14, 1950, concerning the employment records of the 91 persons separated by the Department of State because of sexual deviation The Mst of the 91 persons separated by the Department of State was received by the Commissio on March 24, 1950. A check of the Commission's files at that time disclosed thit 22 of thase persons had heen employed in the executive branch of the Federal serv- ic? subscquent to their separation from the Department of State However, at the time of that check, records were found of only 18 who were stil) employed. These were the 13 referred to in our letter to Senator Wurrry, copy of which you received from Mr. Peurifoy. The status of these 13 cases was finally checked immediately prior to dis- patch of the letter to Senator WHERRY on May 16, 1950, and the letter contained the information disclosed by this check. Subsequent to the date of our letter to Senator WHrrry, the Commission received information that two additional persons were employed in the executive branch of the Federal Government at the time the letter was dispatched, but notifications of these appointments had not been received by our Service Records Division when our check was made. In these cases the employing agencies were immediately notified that un- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE favorable information relating to suitability is available to them in the files of the De- partment of State, and steps were taken to initiate investigation by the Commission, We were subsequently notified that one of these persons was separated by the employ- ing agency. The case of the other is cur- rently being investigated by the Commission, Of the 13 cases referred to in our letter to Senator WHERRY, only 1 is still employed in the executive branch of the Federal service In this case the Commission does not have jurisdiction to require separation. The in- formation in our files has been reported to the employing agency The agency has ad- vised that after considering all the facts in the case it does not contemplate separating this employee. It is hoped that this will supply you with th? destred information concerning these cases. Sincerely yours, Harry B. MITCHELL, Chairman, Uniren States Civit Cervice COMMISSION, Washington, D.C, May 19, 1950. Hon HoMER FERGUSON, United States Senate. Dean SENATOR FERGUSON; Answering your letter of May 16, 1950, it will take some time to get together the information desired, par- ticularly in relation to classification of jobs. However, we are proceeding with the mat- ter and will advise you further as soo) as pssible Sincerely yours, Harry B MITCHELL, Chairman. (P 601) Of the gioup of 11 individuals terminated under the McCarran rider in June 1947, one was reappointed to a temporary position in the Department. The rider under which this action was taken provided, among other things, that “such terminations shall not affect the rights of such officer o: employee to seek or accept employment in any other department or agency of the Government, if declared eligible for such employment by the United States Civil Service Commission.” Subsequent to his termination, the indi- vidual referred to pursued the provision of the law quoted above, and was rated cligible on loyalty and suitability for Federal em- ployment by the Civil Service Commission. The individual’s case was considered by the Fourth Regional Loyalty Board of the Civil Service Commission and later post-audited by the Loyalty Review Board. The loyalty boards acted on the basis of a full fleld in- vestigation conducted by the FBI after his original termination. Following the decision of the Civil Service Commission, the individual requested rein- statement. The Department took the matter under consideration and in the meantime reviewed the information upon which the Civil Service Commission based its determi- nation, As a result of this review, the De- partment agreed with the findings of the Civil Service Commission Loyalty Board and determined that the individual could be re- employed without adversely affecting the na- tiona) interest. It was about this time that the Depart- ment started work on the United States Government's participation in the Haitian Government’s bicentennial Celebration. There was a temporary need on this project for a person with the technical skills pos- sessed by the individual in question. I there- fore approved the employment of this person for the temporary job. On December 7, 1940, the individual was given a 90-day appointment to expire on March 7, 1950. JULY 24 The Civil Service Commission has advised the Department that its records do not re- fiect employment of the other individuals by the Federal Government. May 16, 1950. Hon, JoHN PEURIFOY, Assistant Secretary of State, Washington, D.C. Dear JonHNn' I appreciated your furnishing me today with the copy of the letter of May 16 from Chairman Mitchell of the Civil Serv- ice Commission to Senator Wherry. That letter was in response to the latter’s request for information ‘‘as to how many of the 91 persons removed from the Department of State because of a sexual deviation have been subsequently reemployed by other Federal departments or agencies.” I had made a similar inquiry of you in person and on the record of the Senate Ap- propriations Subcommittee hearing February 28 Mr Mitchell’s letter is responsive to that inquiry which I had addressed to you, but I find it inconclusive tor my purposes, In view of the fact that Mr Mitchell appar- ently has the full intormation I am seeking I have redirected an inquiry to him, a copy of which I am enclosing for your information. With best personal wishes, I am, Yours sinceicly. DEMAND OF COMMUNIST PARTY OF HA- WAI THAT UNITED STATES QUIT KOREA Mr. BUTLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to insert at this point an article from the Honolulu Advertiser of July 20, entitled “Territory of Hawaii Communist Party Demands United States Quit Korea,” which makes it clear that the Communists in Hawaii will do their utmost to sabotage the American military effort in Korea. I believe this news article indicates strongly the great importance of main- taining Federal control of Hawaii through the territorial form of govern- ment and through a federally appointed governor in order to make sure that the Communists there are not successful in endange1ing our military operations in the Far East. LEAFLET DISTRIBUTED—TERRITORY OF Hawalr COMMUNIST Party DEMANDS UNITep STATES Quit Korga The underground Communist Party of Hawaii has called for immediate withdrawal of American military forces in Korea and a ban on the use of the atomic bomb in a one- page mimeographed sheet widely circulated in Honolulu Wednesday. The circular, vio- lently attacking the policies of the American Government in the Far East, carried no indi- vidual signatures. At the bottom it said “issued by the Communist Party of Hawaii, P. O. Box 3886” Both the FBI and the Army counterintel- ligence department have knowledge of the vitriolic leaflet and its contents Both agen- cles are noncommittal cn what action might be taken Sole acknowledged Communist in the Ter- ritory is Charles K. Fujimoto, who purports to be the party’s chairman. Entitled “Prevent World War III,” the cir- cular turned up on streets throughout the elty. It alleges that President Truman increased the danger of an atomic war when he ordered military action against the peoples of Asia, which can only lead to world disaster. The Red propaganda leaflet echoed the hands off Korea policy of the Communist Dally Worker newspaper, published in New York City, and deninnded that the Govern-
1950 ment which first uses the atomic bomb be labeled an enemy of mankind, The mimeographed broadside, ignoring the fact that this Nation now is engaged in a critical military action, alleges that “the mil- itary provocation in Korea was a planned smoke screen behind which to intervene against the struggle for independence of the peoples of Korea, China, Formosa, the Philip- pines, Vietnam, Indonesia, and Malaya. It further charges an attempt to nullify the will of the Korean people which was expressed in the last election by force of American arms The local Communist mouthpiece also alleges that the United States Government is carrying on the policy of Wall Street big business to dominate the world. Then, making the customary Communist pitch, the leaflet continues: “Think clearly, fellow Americans; consider the facts deeply. Our country, our sons and daughters, are in grave danger. At first it was military supplies, and naval and alr force aid. A few days later 1t was a few bat- talions of American troops, now jt is divi- sions and whole armies. Next it will be atomic bomus and wholesale slaughter of millions of people, Such a course can only lead to a third world war with the existence of all the people of the world at stake. “Such a course can be stopped by the united demanu of the people for peace. “Demand a halt to the aggressive military adventures of our administration before they touch off world-wide atomic war. “Hands off Korea. Demand the immedi- ate withdrawal of United States warships, alr force, and troops, and an end to ship- ment of arms to the puppet regimes in Korea, Formosa, Vietnam. “Ban the atomic bomb and declare that government an enemy of mankind that first uses It. “We must—all of us who cherish freedom, who abhor atomic death for hundreds of millions—unite our ranks, combine in @ solid front of the people for peace. “Let your desire for peace by heard. “Issued by the Communist Party of Hae wali, post office box 3886.” MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE A message from the House of Repre- sentatives, by Mr. Chaffee, one of its clerks, announced that the House had insisted upon its amendments to the bill (S. 2160) to amend the Public Health Service Act to authorize annual and sick leave with pay for commissioned officers of the Public Health Service, to author- ize the payment of accumulated and ac- crued annual leave in excess of 60 days, and for other purposes, disagreed to by the Senate; agreed to the conference asked by the Senate on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon, and that Mr. Prisst, Mr. Bremi.ier, Mr. WILson of Oklahoma, Mr. Wotverton, and Mr. HucH D. Scort, Jr. were appointed managers on the part of the House at the conference. The message also announced that the House had insisted upon its amend- ments to the bill (S. 2822) to amend the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (U. 5. C., title 12, sec. 264), disagreed to by the Senate; agreed to the conference asked by the Senate on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon, and that Mr. Spenor, Mr. Brown of Georgia, Mr. Pat- man, Mr. Monrongy, Mr. WoLcosT, Mr. Gameiz, and Mr. KuNKEL were ap- pointed managers on the part of the House at the conference. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS, 1951 The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (H. R, 7786) making appro- priations for the support of the Govern- ment for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1951, and for other purposes. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the unanimous-consent agreement, the time for debate on the appropriation bill is limited to 10 minutes to any Senator, and the debate or comment must be per- tinent to the issue. The next amendment will be stated. The next amendment was, on page 250, line 5, to strike out “$7,000,000” and to insert “$7,400,000.” Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, the appropriation in the Budget for the gen- eral administrative expenses of the Bu- reau of Reclamation last year was $4,- 300,000. I undertsand that due to a reallocation of functions provably a comparable figure for the functions to be performed this year would be $7,490,- 000. The House cut this amount to $7,000,000, The committee has raised the figure to $7,400,000, or virtually to a figure identical with the appropriation for the group functions of last year, Since the over-all program of the Bu- reau of Reclamation for 1951 is being reduced below that of 1949-50, it seems to me that the administrative costs of the Bureau of Reclamation can also be reduced. ‘Therefore, I think we should go back to the House figure of $7,000,000. I hope the committee amendment will he rejected. Mr. HAYDEN. Mr. President, the Senator from Illinois has stated the basic reason for the increase trom $4,300,000 to the amount that appears in the bill. He is in error, however, about one figure. The record which I have before me shows that to the $4,300,000 there was transferred from other branches of the service $3,189,000, which had been paid on separate projects. The Senator also overlooked the increased cost required by law by reason of the pay acts, which amounts to $224,000. Actually 1f we ap- propriated a comparable amount to last year it would be $7,713,000. The Budget allowed $86,000 more, or $7,800,000. As it stands, the appropriation is $400,000 under the Budget Bureau's figure. We are actually providing less money than was provided for all these purposes last ear, y Mr. DOUGLAS. I read from the re- port of the House Committee on Ap- propriations at page 173: Since the over-all program of the Bureau im 1951 is reduced below that of the cur- rent year, $7,000,000 should be entirely ade- quate for general administrative expenses. Mr. HAYDEN. We listened to the ex- planations, and the committee decided to increase the amount $400,000 under the Budget estimate. We should like to take it to conference on that basis. The ING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the commit- tee amendment on page 250, line 5. The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, on page 951, line 10, after the word “expenses”, to insert a colon and the following addi- 10849 tional proviso: “Provided further, That not exceeding $150,000 of funds avail- able for expenditure under this appro- priation shall be used for salaries and expenses in connection with information work.” The amendment was agreed to The next amendment was, under the subhead “Administrative provisions,” on page 251, line 20, after the word “bind- ing”, to strike out “not to exceed $75,000 for services as authorized by section 15 of the act of August 2, 1946 (5 U §&. C. 65a), including such services at rates for individuals not to exceed $100 per day, when authorized by the Secretary” anti insert “services as authorized by section 15 of the act of August 2, 1946 (5 U.S. C, 55a), at rates for individuals not in excess of $100 per diem (not ex- ceeding $100,000 for individuals)”; on page 252, line 4, after the word “Recla- mation”, to insert “payment, except as otherwise provided for, of compensation and expense of persons on the rolls of the Bureau of Reclamation appointed as authorized by law to represent the United States in the negotiation and adminis- tration of interstate compacts; and, without reimbursement or return under the reclamation laws;”; in line 13, after “(e))”, to insert “including payments on account of dependents of employees in field offices in project areas engaged in construction and related activities”; in line 18, after the numerals “1945”, to insert “to be reimbursable to the extent therein provided"; in line 21, after the word “prints”, to strike out the semicolon and “and studies of recreational uses of reservoir areas, a8 authorized by law”; in line 22, after the amendment just above stated, to insert a colon and the following proviso: “Provided, That funds appropriated for the Bureau of Reclama- tion shall be available for expenditure through the facilities of the National Park Service in amounts of not to exceed $25,000 for any one reservoir area for studies of recreational areas and plan- ning for their utilization, and funds so expended shall not be reimbursable or returnable under the reclamation law.”; on page 253, line 4, after the amendment just above stated, to strike out the colon and the following proviso: “Provided, That no part of any appropriation made herein shall be available pursuant to the act of April 19, 1945 (43 U. S. C. 377), for expenses other than those incurred on behalf of specific reclamation of projects except $7,000,000 under the head ‘Gen- eral administrative expenses’ and $375,- 000 ($175,000 for reconnaissance and $200,000 for general engineering and re- search) under the head ‘General investi- gations’”; and in line 11, after the amendment just above stated, to insert a colon and the following proviso: “Pro- vided further, That, except as otherwise provided by the act of April 19, 1945 (43 U. 8. C. 877), or by any other law, no part of any appropriation made herein shall be available pursuant to the said act of April 19, 1945, for expenses other than those incurred on behalf of specific recla- mation projects except expenses under
10850 the head ‘General administrative ex- penses’ and under the head ‘General Lad investigations’. The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, on page 256, after line 10, to insert: TRANSFER OF EPHRATA AIR FONCE BASE For the purpose of assisting in the con- struction, operation, and maintenance, and eettlement programs on the Columbia Basin project in the State of Washington, the Armed Services, General Services Adminis tration, or other Federal agency having own- ership or custody thereof or interest therein, is authorized and directed to transfer to the Bureau of Reclamation, without reimburses mient or transfer of funds, all of their right, title, and interest to certain buildings, facil- ities, and equipment at the Ephrata Air Force Base, Ephrata, Wash, including the following buildings in accordance with block and building numbers: Block 800, building No. 68; block 1900, buildings Nos. 10, 11, 12, 18, 14, 16, 17, block 2000, four buildings num- bered 75, two buildings numbered 56; block 8000, buildings Nos. 66, 131, 58, block 2900, buildings Nos. 59, 58, 55, 57, €6, 89, 90, 85, 4, 124, 141, two buildings numbered 60, two buildings numbered 64, two buildings nume- bered 635; block 3300, eleven buildings num-« bered 28, block 3400, seven bulldings num- bered 28, block 3500, buildings Nos 43, 46; block 3600, buildings Nos. 34, 36, 36, 38, two buildings numbered 37, block 3700, buildings Nos 35, 38, four buildings numbered 31, two buildings numbered 32, two buildings num- bered 34, two buildings numbered 37, block 8800, buildings Nos 35, 38, 39, 42, two build- ings numbered 37; block 4300, buildings Nos, 19, 20, 21, 22, block 4400, buildings Nos. 113, 114, two buildings numbered 112, block 4600, buildings No, 134, block 4700, buildings Nos. 94, 95, 96, 99, 109, 100, 35, 108, 104, 110, Fix buildings numbered 97, block 4800, buildings Nos, 53, 40, 102, 101, 103, 105, 107, 111, two buildings numbered 32, five buildings nume- bered 106, three buildings numbered 98, tu- gether with one sewage-disposal plant No, 116, one water tank No. 115, cne well, one flag pole No 118, two gurbage racks Nos. 155, two garbage racks Nos 158, one wash rack No 63, two grease racks No, 62, and sewer systein, water lines, electric-power lines, railroad epur and siding, road improvements, and all other facilities and equipment incident to the foregoing property, and including land and rights-of-way formerly under Reclama- tion withdrawal to other federally owned land on which said buildings are situate, which have heretofore or which may hore- after be declared suiplus to the needs of the Armed Forces. The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Geological Survey—Surveys, investigations, and research,” on page 258, line 18, after the word “activities”, to strike out “$19,129,000” and insert $19,382,000.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Bureau of Mines—-Construc- tion,” on page 261, line 4, after the word “expended”, to strike out “$1,372,600” and insert “51,268,100.” The amendment was agreed to, The next amendment was, under the subhead “Administrative provisions,” cn page 261, line 22, after the word “ex- ceed”, to strike out “one hundred and forty-five” and insert “one hundred and fifty, of which one hundred and forty. five shall be.” The smendment was agreed to. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE The next amendment was, on page 263, after line 8, to insert: The Veterans’ Administration {s author. ized to transfer to the Department of the Inte.jor, for the uee of the Bureau of Mines, without compensation therefor, full juris- diction, possession, and control of a parcel of 43 aores, more or less within the bound- aries of the Fort Snelling Government Resere vation in Hennepin County, Minn. The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the subhead “National Park Service—Main- tenance and rehabilitation of physical facilities,” on pige 264, line 10, after the word “Service”, to strike out “$7,250, 000” and insert "$7,448,100." Mr DOUGLAS. This 1s an appropria- tion for the maintenance and rehabil- itation of physical facilities of the Na- tional Park Service. I should like to call attention to the fact that for the fiscal year 1949-50 the appropriation was $6,990,000 The House bill increased this amount by $260,000, to $7,250,000. The Senate committee 1s raising the amount by virtually $200,000 more, to a figure which is nearly a half million dollars more than the amounts for last year. Mr, President, this appears to have been inserted 1n the bill prior to the outbreak of the Korean war. I think we must transform our thinking with referpnce to these matters in view of the events of last month. We must curtail our civilian expenditures, As the Pics- ident has very properly stated, new cap- ital investments should be reduced, Similarly, maintenance and rehahbilita- tion appropriations should be reduced. I see no justification, in view of the na- tional emergency, of spending half a mullion dollars more on the maintenance and rehabilitation facilities in the na- tional parks than we spent last year. I hope the committee amendment will be rejected. This is a very mild thing to do, because even under the House bill we would spending about $200,000 more than we spent last year. Mr. HAYDEN. Mr. President, I should like to point out that we made a very serious mistake during the Second World War in following the philosophy which is advocated by the Senator from Illinois. We thought it would be a good thing to cut down on capital investments and on operation and maintenance ex- penditures. As a matter of fact, dur- ing the war the parks were occupied by military personnel, and the public was able to go there as well, For lack of maintenance, the roads are now 1n a deplorable condition This money would merely keep them open so that the public could get in and out of the parks. No extravagance is in- volved in this appropriation. It is de- signed primarily to maintain what we have. War or no war, that must be done, The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amend- ment on page 264, line 10. The amendment was agreed to. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will state the next amendment. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Construction,” on page 264, JULY 24 line 17, afler the word “expended”, to strike out “$20,542,000” and insert “$19,- 667,000.” Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, now we come to an item of new construc- tion. Last year, 1949-50, $14,595,000 was appropriated. On the face of it the committee seems to be covering itself with glory because it has reduced the amount appropriated by the House. It reduces the figure from $20,542,000 to $19,667,000. The first reaction on seeing the reduction 1s to say to the committee, “What a fine job it 1s, because you are cutting down the appropriation by nearly $900,000.”" However, if we go back and make comparisons with last year we find that it is more than $5,000,000 above the 1949-50 figure. Mr. President, I can see no excuse for increasing the construction appropria- tion by $5,000,000 when we are in the midst of hot hostihties in Korea and when we are faced with terrific financial difficulties. So, Mr. President, I move to strike the amount in the committee amendment and substitute in its stead “$15,000,000” The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amend- ment offered by the Senator from Ih- nois to the amendment of the com- mittee. The amendment to the amendment was rejected. The amendment of the committee was agreed to The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will state the next amendment of the committee. The next amendment was on page 264, line 18, after the word “exceed”, to strike out $8,935,000" and _ inseit “$7,935,000.” Mr. MAYBANK. Mr. President, the city of Charleston, S. C., is celebrating the two hundredth anniversary—— The PR&SIDING OFFICER. Under the unanimous-consent agreement there can be discussion only of an amendment, Mr MAYBANK. I thank the Presid- ing Officer. I was absent in a meeting of the Committee on Banking and Cur- rency when the agreement was entered nto. The PRESIDING OFFICER The Chair realize. that. The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the com- mittee on page 264, line 18. The amendment was agreed to. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will state the next amendment of the committee, The next amendment of the commit- tee was on page 264, line 23, after the numerals “1950,” to insert “and, in addi- tion, the Secretary is authorized to incur obligations and enter into contracts, not exceeding a total of $100,000 for the con- struction of a public information build- ing in the Theodore Roosevelt Na- tional Memorial Park, N. Dak.;” and on page 265, line 6, after the word “appro- priation”, to insert a colon and the fol- lowing additional proviso: “Provided further, That not to exceed $150,000 of the funds available for the Independence National Historical Park, Pa., shall be available after January 1, 1951, for the
1950 management, protection, maintenance, and rehabilitation of Independence Hall, grounds, and structures in that park.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the subhead “General administrative ex- penses,” on page 265, line 15, after the word “officers”, to strike out $1,264,500” and insert “$1,314,500.” The amendment was agreed to. Mr. ECTON. Mr. President, before proceeding further, I should like to re- vert for a moment if I may, to the amendment on page 260? Last year the Committee on Appropriations inserted an amendment to provide that the Gov- ernment should take over the chrome mine in Montana, and that amendment was in the bill when {t passed the Senate. The conference committee deleted it. In view of the Korean situation and the emergency of the war, I wondered if the distinguished Senator from Arizona, the chairman of the subcommittee, would consider an amendment along that line at this time. Mr. HAYDEN. Under the parliamen- tary situation, Mr. President, committee amendments are to be acted on first. The Senator does not propose to amend the committee amendment, but proposes to add a new provision, does he not? Mr. ECTON. I propose to add a new provision. Mr. HAYDEN. The Senator will have an opportunity to do that after the com- mittee amendments have been acted on. It is not in order at this time. Mr. ECTON. Very well. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will state the next amendment of the committee. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Fish and Wildlife Service— Management of resources,” on page 266, line 11, after “(16 U. S. C. 695-695c)”, to insert “and not to exceed $30,000 for payment, in the discretion of the Sec- retary, for information or evidence con- cerning violations of laws administered by the Fish and Wildlife Service”; and in line 14, after the amendment just above stated, to strike out “$7,157,000” and insert “$7,082,000.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Investigations of resources,” on page 266, line 22, after the word “law”, to strike out “$3,900,000” and insert “$4,125,000.” Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, last year there was appropriated $3,324,000 for “Investigations of resources” in the Fish and Wildlife Service, a term which, like an overcoat, can cover a multitude of sins. The House, passing on this pro- vision long before the Korean crisis, raised the sum to $3,900,000. The Sen- ate committee, not to be outdone, raised it to $4,125,000, or $800,000 above last year’s appropriation. Mr. President, I cannot believe that the need for investigations into scien- tific and economic studies and investi- gations, conservation, management, pro- tection, and utilization of fish and wild- life resources, including related aquatic plants and products, is so great a na- tional necessity that we should spend CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE $800,000 more for them than we did last year. I believe we can let the aquatic life be relatively less investigated than the committee plans call for, and the war effort can then move forward a lit- tle bit better. Eight hundred thousand dollars will equip two or three companies of soldiers. I cannot see that economic and scientific investigations of fish and wildlife, aquatic plants and products, publication and statistics, are as impor- tant as guns, artillery, and other muni- tions of war. So I hope very much that the committee will agree with me. I still hope that they will agree when I pro- pose that we strike out “$4,125,000” and substitute “$3,325,000”, which is the same as last year’s appropriation, thus saving $800,000. I look toward the very able Senator from Arizona with a gleam of hope in my eye that at last we may be able to save some money. I wait with bated anxiety for his reply. Mr. HAYDEN. Mr. President, I sin- cerely regret to disappoint the Senator, but he forgets a very important fact, namely, that the fish supply is a very large part of the food of the American people, and that it is essential, in order to carry on a war, that we have an ade- quate food supply. The only increase the committee has allowed above the House figure was for fish freezing ex- periments. At present it is exceedingly difficult to catch the fish at sea and bring them in in a fresh condition. An- other provision is for a fish survey of the blue fin tuna in the North Atlantic. On the whole, this appropriation is fully justified. I might add, if the Senator is inter- ested in knowing it, that the committee denied requests for $977,000 worth of new construction and new development by this bureau. We felt we should hold it to where it is, but that if it is to oper- ate effectively, the amount carried in the bill is required. Therefore I hope the committee amendment will be supported. Mr. LEHMAN. MY. President, I de- sire to associate myself with the remarks made by the able junior Senator from Illinois. With the exception of the ap- propriation for the office building, we have not been making any savings, and have not very much to show for our efforts in economy. It seems to me that one thing the Members of the Senate overlook is the fact that in the case of this appropriation bill, many of the in- creases were drafted before the Korean situation developed, and before it ap- peared that we may be involved on an even wider scale in other parts of the world, I would ordinarily follow the recom- mendations of a standing committee, be- cause I know the amount of work and effort that has gone into any report a standing committee makes, but it seems to me that wherever it is possible now to save money without affecting the na- tional defense or the national security, or without impairing or prejudicing Measures necessary for the health and welfare of the people, or the efficient prosecution of the ordinary and current activities of the Government, we should do so. It seems to me that this is en 10851 item which could very readily be cut without detriment to any of the people of the country. Therefore I urge that the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amend- ment of the Senator from Illinois to the amendment. The amendment to the amendment was rejected. Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, I should like very briefly to state that I hope that the committee recommenda- tion will be followed. This amendment is vital to the New England fish industry, which at the present time is competing, with a great deal of difficulty, with Canada, Newfoundland, and Greenland. Two hundred and thirty-five thousand dollars of the amount proposed is to carry on experiments in freezing fish at sea. The purpose of doing that is to bring them in in an orderly way, so as not to have a glut on the market at one time. Mr. McKELLAR. Mr. President, this is not only proposed for the benefit of New England, but for the benefit of the entire country, including Mlinois. Mr. SALTONSTALL. I agree with the Senator from Tennessee. Mr. CHAVEZ. Mr. President, I agree with the Senator from New York that we should do something because of the military emergency, by way of proper retrenchment; but American soldiers cannot fight well unless they have some- thing to eat. Food is just as much a part of warfare as is a gun, or artillery, or some other military equipment. I am glad the amendment of the Senator from Tllinois was rejected. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the committee amendment on page 266, line 23. The amendment was agreed to. Mr. HAYDEN. Mr. President, in con- nection with the amendment I should like to make the statement that last year there were established four new stations for the training of men who are engaged in this service. I have been ad- vised that there is some question as to whether the estimates as set forth in the 1951 justifications provide sufficient funds for continuing on a full-year basis four additional cooperative wildlife units created by the Congress last year. It is my understanding that $11,000 additional is required to activate com- pletely these units on a full-year basis, and I see no objection to the Fish and Wildlife Service making up this defi- ciency for these units out of lapses, delay in filling positions, or such other minor adjustments as might be necessary within the total appropriation recom- mended for “Investigations of resources.” It was suggested that we add to the amount of money provided in the bill to accomplish this purpose, but I believe it can be done within the sum appro- priated., The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will state the next committee amendment. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Construction,” on page 267, line
10852 6, after the word “expended”, to strike out “$2,401,090” and insert “$2,423,450.” Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, this is an item, “For construction and acquisi- tion of buildings and other facilities al- leged to be required in the conservation, management, protection, and utilization of fish and wildlife resources and the ac- quisition of lands and interests therein, including continuing the construction of fish cultural facilities on lands owned by the State of South Dakota.” Mr. President, for this purpose last year we appropriated $1,800,000. The Bureau of the Budget, which has looked on these appropriations with a somewhat liberal eye, I may say, and has not exer- cised great intestinal fortitude in trying to save money for the taxpayer, raised this sum to $2,401,000. The House went alons wiih the Bureau of the Budget. The Senate committee, however, in its anxiety to improve the fish culture fa- cilities of South Dakota and elsewhere, raised the sum by $22,000. This may seem to be » small amount, but it is $6C0.000 over the amount appropriated last year. While I do not wish to have an undue amount of fun with this appropriation, I should hke to suggest that culture can be furthered in other ways than pisca- torial culture, and it would seem to me that the general cause of enlightenment is not particularly helped by raising the cultural level of the fish in this area. Mr. President, here is a chance where we can save money; we can spend as much as last year, but reduce appropriations $600,000. I want to underscore what the distin- guished junior Senator from New York (Mr. Lenman] has said. This budget was drafted in December, presented to Congress in January, long before the Korean hostilties were ever dreamed of. Yet we are blithely going ahead, not only putting it into effect, but raising the ante in a great many instances. Now, let us go back to last year at least and save $600,000, even though the cultural level of the fish in South Dakota may be somc- what less than it otherwise would be. | Mr. HAYDEN. Mr. President, permit me to say to the Senator from Illinois, that the Senate committee did not insert the itcm for the State of South Dakota. That was adopted by the House of Repre- sentatives. The amount provided for in this bill is modest. The increases al- lowed by the Senate committee are very small compared with the absolute need. The demand throughout the United States, if we could supply it, would re- quire $1,000,000 or $2,000,000 to provide for the hatching of fish so that they might be placed in the streams where they could be caught. We have added nothing of that kind to the bill at this time. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President. in the committee amendment on page 267, line 6, I move to strike out the Senate com- mittee figure of $2,423,450, and to insert the figure $1,800,000. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amend- ment of the Senator from Illinois to the committee amendment, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE The amendment to the amendment was rejected. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the committee amendment. The amendment was agreed to, The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will state the next committee amendment. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Migratory bird conservation fund,” on page 267, after line 21, to sirike out: Fér carrying into effect section 4 of the act of March 16, 1934, as amended (16 U. 8. C. 718-718 h), an amount equal to the sum received during the current fiscal year from the proceeds from the gale of stamps, to be warranted monthly and to remain available until expended. And in lieu thereof, to insert: For carrying into effect section 4 of the act of March 16, 1934, as amended (16 U 8. C. 718-718h), amounts equal to the sums re- ceived during the current year and each fiscal year thereafter from the proceeds from the sale of stamps, to be warranted monthly and to remain available until expendcd. The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the subheal “Territories and island posses- sions—Administration of Territories and possessions,” on page 270, line 8, after the word “Columbia”, to strike out “$3,- 329,500” and insert “$3,392,180.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Construction of roads, Alaska,” on page 270, line 17, after the word “ex- pended”, to strike out “$20,400,000” and insert $18,883,212.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, on page 271, after line 8, to insert: CLAIMS, ALASKA ROAD COMMISSICN For payment of claims certified by the Comptroller General of the United States to be due for overtime compensation earned in 1945 and prior fiscal years under the provi- sions of section 23 of the act of March 28, 1934 (48 Stat. 522), $12,693, to remain avail- able until June 30, 1952: Picvided, That no part of the amount received by any claimant in excess of 10 percent thereof shall be paid or delivered to or received by any agent or attorney on account of services rendered in connection with any such claim, and the same shall be unlawful, any contract to the contrary notwithstanding, and any person violating this provision shall be deomed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon convic- tion thereof shall be fined in any sum not excecding $1,000. The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Construction, Alaska Rail- road,” on page 272, line 1, after the word “expended”, to strike out “$31,000,000” and insert “$28,700,000.” The amendment was agreed to. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will state the first committee amendment in the next chapter. The next amendment was, under the heading “Chapter VIII—Executive and independent offices—Title I, Executive Office of the President, Bureau of the Budget,” on page 280, line 9, after “(28 U. 8, C. 2672)”, to strike out “$3,386,000” and insert “$3,412,000.” The amendment was agreed to. JULY 24 The next amendment was, under the subhead “Office for Emergency Manage- ment—Philippine Alien Property Admin- istration,” on page 281, line 6, after the word ‘exceed’ to strike out “$160,000” and insert “$215,500.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the heading “Independent Offices—Ameri- can Battle Monuments Commission,” on page 282, line 19, after the word “type- writing”, to strike out “$695,000” and in- sert “$670,000.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, on page 283, line 11, after the word “elsewhere”, to strike out “$8,680,000” and insert “$8,- 500,000.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the heading “Atom Energy Commission,” on page 287, line 1, after the word ‘‘justi- fied”, to strike out the colon and the fol- lowing additional proviso: ‘Provided further, That no part of the foregoing appropriation or contract authorization shall be used in connection with the pay- ment of any contractor or firm of con- tractors engaged under a cost plus a fixed fee contract or contracts at any installa- tion of the Commission, where the fee for community management is at a rate in excess of $90,000 per annum, or for the operation of a transportation system where the fee is at a rate in excess of $45,000 per annum. Mr. O'MAHONEY. Mr. President, the clerk has proceeded to the chapter deal- ing with the Independent Offices. I think it was the understanding that the chapter on Labor and Federal Security of the measure would be taken up next, The chapter on Labor and Federal Se- curity was postponed because of the ab- sence of one of the members of the com- mittee. I think that is the next in order of business. While I am very happy to have the rapid progress we have achieved in the last few minutes on chapter VIII, it is my opinion that the orderly proce- dure should be to return to chapter V. Mr. CHAVEZ. We are ready to pro- esed with that chapter, Mr. McKELLAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate revert to chapter V. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, that will be in order. The clerk will state the first committee amendment, in chapter V. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, a par- Hiamentary inquiry. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it. Mr. DOUGLAS. I hope very much the Chair will rule that the items in the Independent Offices chapter which we dealt with thus far have not been for- mally approved. b Mr. McKELLAR. Oh, yes; they have een, The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendments which have been considered have all been approved. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I did not hear the title of the new chapter read. I have never seen Walter Johnson or Bob Feller in their palmiest days move with such speed as the clerk moved in reading those items. In the space of
1950 about 2 seconds we suddenly got over to page 287, and I had a batch of dmend- ments ready from page 280 on. I ama green 7ookie here, and I will not say that there are curve balls, but I will say that there are some speed balls being thrown. I move to reconsider the votes by which the amendments from page 280 on were agreed to. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Which amendments? Mr, DOUGLAS. I suggest that when we return to chapter VIII we begin afresh. Mr. McKELLAR. The Senator from \ Tilinois can present the amendments he hasin mind. There {s no need to recon- sider amendments which have been agreed to, to which the Sena-or does not propose to offer amendments. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I have amendments on pages 280, 281, 282 The PRESIDING OFPICER. Amend- ments from page 277 through page 283 have been adopted. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I did not hear the title of that chapter read. We seem to have suddenly moved out of Interior into Independent Offices, and as I said, Walter Johnson never threw faster balls in his life than were thrown just now. Mr. McKELLAR. Mr President, I ask unanimous consent that when we return to chapter VIII, the Scnator from IIli- nois may offer his amcndments. Mr. DOUGLAS. I thank the Senator. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The mat- ter will be left standing as it is then, and when we return to chapter VIII the Sen- ator may offer his amendments. Mr. CHAVEZ. Mr. President, may we proceed now with chapter V? Mr. McKELLAR. It begins on page 128. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The first amendment under chapter V will be stated. The first amendment under the head- ing “Chapter V—Department of Labor and Federal Security Agency—Title I— Department of Labor—Office of the Sec- retary,” was on page 128, line 19, after the figures $1,861,000”, to insert a colon and the following proviso: “Provided, That the compensation of the Solicitor shall be $14,000 per annum." The amendment was agreed to. Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, the amendinent just stated was in line 1, on page 129; is that correct? The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. Mr. McKELLAR. It is at the top of page 129. Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, I raise the point of order that the amend- ment is legislation on an appropriation iI, Mr. McKELLAR. Mr. President, it is too late for the Senator to raise the point of order at this time, for the amendment has already been adopted. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Delaware wish to move that the vote on the amendment be re- considered? Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes; and I s0 move. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agrecing to the motion of the Senator from Delaware that the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE vote by which the amendment was adopted be reconsidered. {Putting the question.) The motion was agreed to. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment on page 129, ines 1 and 2, is now before the Senate. Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, I raise the point of order that this amend- ment constitutes legislation on an ap- propriation bill. The PRESIDING OFFICER The point of order is well made, and is sustained. The next committee amendment will be stated Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, let me inquire whether the amendment just rejected on a point of order is on page 129 The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, at the top of that page Mr. CHAVEZ. That amendment re- lates to the Solicitor for the Department of Labor The PRESIDING OFFICER. The next amendment will be stated. The next amendment was, under the heading “Title I¥—Federal Security Agency—Food and Drug Administra- tion,” on page 138, line 7, after the word “exceed,” to strike out “seventeen pas- senger motor vehicles for replacement only” and insert “sixty-five passenger motor vehicles, of which seventeen shall be for replacement only.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, on page 138, 1n line 15, after the word “opera- tions”, to strike out $5,066,700" and in- sert “$5,666,700.” Mr. DOUGLAS’ Mr. President, I am trying to move with speed, but it is a little difficult for me to make sure just what amendment is now pending. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment is that in line 15, on page 138 Mr. DOUGLAS. In that connection, Jet me ask the reason for the inclusion of provision for the purchase of 48 auto- mobiles. Is that provision proposed in order to enforce the oleomargarine law? Mr. CHAVEZ. Yes. The reason for the addition is because of the necessity for replacements. It has been a long time since the department has had any replacements whatever of the old cars. After complete hearings and a showing made by the Department as to the real necessity for obtaining automobiles as replacements, the committee made this recommendation. Another reason which justifies the adoption of the recommendation which is made by the committee is that a short time ago the Congress passed legisla~ tion by which oleomargarine became a Jegal commodity, as it were; and Con- gress placed upon the Food and Drug Administration of the Department of Labor the duty and function of carrying out the provisions of the oleomargarine Jaw. Some of the automobiles covered by the amendment are to be used by that particular agency. Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, to this committee amendment I call up my amendment marked “7-13-50—F.” That amendment is submitted on behalf of 10853 myself, the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Git- LETTE], and the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Humpurey). Mr. McKELLAR. To what amend- ment does it relate? Does it relate to the one on page 138, in line 15? Mr. LEHMAN, Yes. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment offered by the Senator from New York, for himself and other Sena- tors, to the committee amendment will be stated. The Lecisyative Cierx. In the com- mittee amendment, on page 138, in line 15, it is proposed to strike out “$5,666,- 700” and insert ‘‘$5,966,700.” In the committee amendment, on page 161, in line 1, it is proposed to strike out “$535,100” and insert “$547,100.” Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, the purpose of the amendment is to increase from $624,000 to $936,000 the funds avail- able for the enforcement of the inspec- tion provision of the oleomargarine law recently enacted by this Congress. I submit this amendment to the commit- tee amendment only because I believe that adequate inspection affects millions of our people. In letters printed in the CONGRESSIONAL Recorp of April 1, 1949, the Food and Drug Administration and the Bureau of the Budget estimated that enforcement of the new oleo law would require 950 agents on the basis of only one check or inspection visit a year to every public eating place in the United States. This would mean an expenditure of $6,000,- 000. Of course, I do not ask for any such sum. I do propose and urge that the sum appropriated be increased to that requested by the President, namely, $936,000, Even that sum, according to testimony of Mr. George Larrick of the Food and Drug Administration, would allow an inspection of only one out of five eating places a year. There are in the United States 525,000 public eating places which should be—if the law is to be adequately enforced—in- spected at least once annually. The amount here proposed, $936,000, would not provide adequate enforcement; but if it is the amount the Food and Drug Ad- ministration now requests, I am reluc- tantly willing to go along with that pro- gram. In these times when the em- phasis must necessarily be on expendi- tures required for our essential security, we must be content with less than what we would ordinarily ask. It was testified that perhaps 10 percent of the restaurants in America, or 50,000 public eating places, are now serving yellow oleomargarine in place of butter, without notice to the public. This is fraud, Mr. President—fraud upon the public and fraud upon the dairy indus- try. I think it should be stopped in any way that is practicable. Rigid enforcement of the law against such fraud and deception was promised by the sponsors of the legislation to take the excise tax off oleomargarine. I now ask that my colleagues who supported this measure join me in voting for an in- creased appropriation for the enforce- ment of that law. Testimony given before the Senate Finance Committee last year disclosed
10854 that in Pennsylvania, 153 out of 500 pub- lic eating places which were inspected were violating the law against the sub- stitution of oleo for butter without no- tice to the public. If this was the situa- tion in Pennsylvania while the tax was still in effect, what will the situation be with the tax removed and the incentive to substitute oleomargarine for butter obviously increased by the greater spread between the price of oleo and the price of butter? Mr. President, I hope the pending amendment to the committee amend- ment is approved. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amend- ment proposed by the Senator from New York and other Senators to the com- mittee amendment on page 138, in line 15. The amendment to the amendment was rejected. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now is on agreeing to the com- mittee amendment on page 138, in line 15. The amendment was agreed to. The PRESIDING OFFICER, The next amendment will be stated. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Office of Education,” on page 142, line 4, after the word “same”, to strike out “$1,900,000” and insert “$2,- 023,420.” Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, I should like to have the attention of the chairman of the committec, the ranking minority member, and also the acting majority leader. I wish to inquire whether it is contemplated that we shall conclude action on the bill tonight. In that connection let me refer to a col- loquy I had on Friday last with the dis- tinguished Senator from Washington [Mr. MacGNuson] as shown at page 10798 of the CoNGRESSIONAL REcoRD, Just before he left the city of Washington. He asked unanimous consent that two amend- ments in which he was interested not be discussed until his return. Mr. McKELLAR. They should be re- turned to and will be returned to when he comes back to the city. Mr. WHERRY. I did not know whether separate arrangements had been made about that with the chairman of the committee. Mr. CHAVEZ. I understand that the Senator from Washington will be back tomorrow. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, the colloquy I had with the distinguished Senator from Washington was to the ef- fect that we would protect him until Tuesday. That arrangement was made in order to get him to withhold objection to consideration of the bill in his absence. In the event it is contemplated that the bill will be passed tonight, I thought I should make that point now. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, is the pending amendment that on page 142, in line 4? The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct, Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, in the appropriation bill for last year—that is for 1949-50—we provided $1,900,000 for salaries and expenses of the Office of Education. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE The appropriation bill as passed this year by the House provides that that sum shall be continued, and the bill as passed by the House also provides that the sala- ry increase which went into effect shall be absorbed by means of a reduction of the personnel of that agency. In the judgment of the House of Representa- tives the number of employees in the Of- fice of Education, particularly for over- all administration, is excessive—or, in other words, that there is fat in that of- fice, and that the increases in salaries can be absorbed by means of a reduction in the personnel. However, our committee has recom- mended an increase in that amount by $123,420, both over the amount of the appropriation made last year and over the amount voted by the House of Rep- resentatives this year. Mr. President, here is a bureau or agency which the House of Representa- tives thinks is overstaffed. I think my sympathy with the objectives of the Of- fice of Education is rather well known. However, this is no time to play favorites. We need general retrenchment. I be- lieve that this office, by means of in- creasing the efficiency of its work, can carry on at last year’s level with the amount voted by the House of Repre- sentatives. So, Mr. President, I hope the commit- tee amendment will be rejected. so that we may save $123,000. Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. will the Senator yield? Mr. CHAVEZ. I yield. Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment suggested by the Senator from Illinois, and to support the committee amend- ment. Speaking as the ranking mem- ber on the minority side of the aisle, we went into this very thoroughly. As a matter of fact, the amount allowed the Office of Education will keep that office only at its present level, and, because of the salary adjustments, if this amount were not allowed, it would actually mean a curtailment of the Office of Educa- tion, There has been considerable re- organization in the Department over a period of time, and I think that the jus- tifications for this amount were amply sustained before the committee, Mr. CHAVEZ. Not only that, but the budget estimate for the 1951 item was $2,168,600. The committee allowed only sufficient to keep up the 1950 item, as it were, and allowed only $2,250,300. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the committee amendment. The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Public Health Service,” on page 145, line 11, after the word “deter- mine”, to strike out “$14,900,000” and insert “$14,500,000.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, on page 145, line 15, after the word “vehicles”, to strike out $10,000,000" and insert “$9,600,000.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, on page 148, line 8, after the word “only”, to sirike out “$1,357,000” and insert $2,107,000.” President, JULY 24 Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, this appropriation is for the administration, namely, the payment of salaries and ex- penses of hospital constructions serv- ice. The Hill-Burton Act is one of the best bills I think that this Senate has passed in recent years. But this 1s not an item for the construction of hospitals; it is an item for the administration of the Federal grants which are given for hospitals, It is overhead. For the year 1949-50 there was appropriated $1,132,- 000. The House increased this by $225,- 000, to $1,357,000, The Senate increased the amount io $2,107,000, or a figure $750,000 above the House, and about $1,000,000 over last year. The increase allowed by the commit- tee is for research in hospital adminis- tration—not basic research into diseases, but research into the management of hospitals. I think such research can be done by private agencies. Ido not think the Federal Government is exactly fa- mous fer its efficient hospital manage- ment. At any rate now is not the time to start such a program. The House has already allowed $225,000 more than last year for this item. Mr. President, this is another illustra- tion of a budget drawn up long before the Korean hostilities, long before these additional expenditures of at least $10,- 000,000,000 had fallen upon us, which for various reasons the Senate feels itself committed to. Despite the fact that the circumstances have certainly changed an increase is asked. I very much hope that we can hold to the House figure and thus save $750,000. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the commit- tee amendment. The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, on page 150, line 2, after the word “including”, to insert “grants of adrenocorticotriphic hormone (ACTH), cortisone, and other chemical substances, and for”, and in line 7, after the word “diseases”, to strike out “and including not to exceed $200,- 000 for transfer to the Department of Agriculture for research into utilization of plant material and vegetable sources of cortisone.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, on page 150, line 21, after the word “Act”, to strike out “$20,086,000” and insert “$20,686,000.” Mr. MURRAY. Mr. President, I un- derstand that this portion of the bill is to be passed over until the Senator from Washington [Mr. Macnuson] can be present. Mr. CHAVEZ. That, I think, was one of the items the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. WHERRY] had in mind. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator desire to have these items passed over? Mr. CHAVEZ. We were to act on them today, but when the Senator from Washington returned, if he wanted them reconsidered, he would have the opportunity. Mr. McKELLAR. That was the un- derstanding. The PRESIDING OFFICER. With that understanding—
1950 Mr. MURRAY. I was not here, of course, when that understanding was arrived at. Had I been here, I should have asked for an opportunity, myself, to present an argument in support of the program covered by the item Mr. McKELLAR If the Senator wants to do that, he can do it tomorrow. Mr. CHAVEZ. The Senator from Montana can speak then. The PRESIDING OFFICER The Senator from Montana is recognized. The amendment is offered, and he can discuss it. Mr MURRAY. Mr. President, I am not prepared to discuss the amendment at this particular time. I did not know it was to come up, because I had been assured it would not come up in the absence of the Senator from Washing- ton. The PRESIDING OFFICER The Chair wishes to state to the Senator from Montana that under the arrange- ment he will have an opportunity to discuss the amendment when it comes up tomorrow, or at some future time. Mr. McKELLAR. Yes; when it is re- considered tomorrow. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the committee amendment. The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, on page 151, line 3, after the word “diseases”, to strike out “$9,944,000 and insert $10,- 000,000 ” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, on page 151, line 10, after the word “vehicles”, to strike out ‘$14,150,000” and insert ‘$14,- 750,000.” The amendment was agreed to. Tne next amendment was, on page 151, Une 18, after the word “only”, to strike out “$2,040,000” and insert “$2,140,000.” Mr. MURRAY. Mr. President, that is an item in which I am interested, and I assume it is one of the projects that will go over, Mr, CHAVEZ. I understood that was the request of the Senator from Ne- braska, to which the chairman agreed. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will go over. The next amendment was, on page 152, line 16, after the figures “$1,375,000”, to insert a colon and the following pro- visos: “Provided, That the Surgeon Gen- eral is authorized to convey by quitclaim deed upon such terms and conditions as he may prescribe not to exceed 25,000 square feet of land presently included in the site of the National Institutes of Health to the Bethesda Fire Department, a body corporate of the State of Mary- land, for the purpose of erecting and maintaining a fire station to provide pro- tection for the facilities of the National Institutes of Health and for the adja- cent community: Provided further, That such terms and conditions may include an agreement by the Surgeon General to pay to such department on behalf of the United States 3344 percent of the cos: of the construction of the station but not to exceed $20,000, to be charged to the maximum limits of costs set out in this paragraph.” The amendment was agreed to. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE The next amendment was, under the subhead “St. Elizabeths Hospital,” on page 154, line 20, after the word “illness”, to strike out “$1,948,000” and insert “$2,005,000.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Social Security Administra- tion,” on page 156, line 9, after the word “Columbia,” to strike out “$200,000” and insert “$300,000.” Mr. DOUGLAS. This is an appro- priation for salaries and expenses for the Bureau of Federal Credit Unions. This is a very worthy work. I have been a member of a credit union my- self, I have subscribed to the capital stock of a credit union, and sometimes when I was hard pressed I contemplated the possibility of borrowing from the credit union; although I never did. It is a very worthy work. But there is a private association of credit unions, with its headquarters in Madison, Wis., and the President, I believe, some weeks ago laid the cornerstone for the headquart- ers, The Government did a splendid job in promoting the growth of credit unions, but the conduct of these credit unions is more and more passing into private hands, and I think properly so. Last year we appropriated for this Bu- reau $200,000, and that is the sum con- tained in the House report. But there is a further reason why the House figure should not be increased I quote from page 103: Last year the committee suggested that the agency recommend changes in the basic legislation and the committee’s action— Namely, in holding the appropriation down to $200,000— may stimulate the agency to move with greater dispatch in that direction. This indicates that in the opinion of the House the Bureau had not shown great alacrity in putting itself on a more efficient footing. The Senate commit- tee, in its report, on page 74, said: The Bureau is directed to formulate and execute plans with more dispatch than has thus far been displayed to achieve a program more nearly self-sustaining. Implying that in the opinion of the Senate committee this Bureau had been dragging its feet in reorganizing itself and making itself more efficient. But nevertheless, the comunittee, instead of applying a financial stimulus to them to do better, gave them a $100,000 increase. That seems to me like telling a child that he cannot have any more cake, then giv- ing him more cake and telling him not to ask for any more. This may seem to be a small item, but I hope that we will hold to the House figure of $200,000, and save $100,000 for the taxpayers and our defense effort. Mr. CHAVEZ. Mr. President, the members of the subcommittee who lis- tened to the testimony were just as sin- cere and just as anxious to protect the taxpayer as is the Senator from Mlinois. We dislike to think, every once in a while, that the only person on the Senate floor or before committees who is honest and has regard for the taxpayer is the Senator from Illinois. I deny that to be the fact. What happened before the 10855 committee was that the committee tried to provide the stimulus about which the Senator from Illinois so much loves to speak, but once in a while he forgets that there are 95 other Senators who are also sincere and are trying to bring about the best results for the Nation, The Bureau of Federal Credit Unions had been for many years working under the authority of Congress, and it is now about to achieve the ideal about which the Senator from Illinois talks, and to become self-sustaining. It was for that reason that the subcommittee, after lis- tening to the testimony, decided to rec- commend $300,000, an increase of $100,- 000 over the House allowance. That is greater than the 1950 appropriation. The Senator from Illinois speaks about the budget when it suits his convenience, and he forgets about it when it does not suit his convenience. The amount is $75,000 below the Budget Bureau esti- mate The Bureau of Federal Credit Unions was directed to formulate and execute its business with more dispatch than has thus far been achieved. That ts the dispatch which has been so eloquently discussed by the Senator from Illinois. The committee wanted to make it self-sustaining. The PRESIDING OFFICER The question is on agreeing to the amend- ment on page 156, line 9 The amendment was agreed to. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will state the next committee amendment. The next amendment was, on page 156, line 19, after the word “fund”, to insert “of which not more than $404 shall be available for payment in advance when authorized by the Federal Security Ad- ministrator for dues or fees for library membership 1n organizations whose pub- lications are available to members only or to members at a price lower than to the general public ” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, on page 158, line 7, after the word “distribution”, to strike out “$1,500,000” and insert “§1,- 510,000.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Office of the Administrator”, on page 161, line 1, after the word ‘‘Co- lumbia”’, to strike out “$511,100” and in- sert “$535,100.” Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I may say, before I speak on the amendment, that I regret it very much if I have given to any Senator the impression that I re- gard myself as having either more wis- dom or more virtue than has any other Member of the Senate. I do not feel that way, and it is not true. I certainly have not wished to convey that impres- sion. It is not pleasant to rise with re- spect to item after item and be bowled over. Thad a feeling this afternoon that it would be futile for me to make this ef- fort, and that the most discreet thing for me to do was to keep my mouth shut and not try to speak on these items. I was afraid that what I would have to say would be misunderstood and that Mem- bers of the Senate would feel I was either
10856 a crank or J was self-righteous, tainly hope that I am neither. But, Mr. President, we are in a very serious position. We have a deficit of $4,000,000,000, exclusive of the Korean war, and unless we tax for the Korean war, the deficit will amount to billions of dollars in addition. We are told that the way to approach the question is by selective cutting. If we do that, we can deal with items only as they arise. It 1s not a pleasant thing to study this whole bill, item by item and to get up time after time, but I have to do it in this in- stance as I have to do it in other in- stances, because I feel that it is the best war to reduce appropriations To ect down to business, I should like to point out that this is an item for salaties and expenses of the general counsel of the Federal Security Admin- istrator. We expended on this group last yeer $455,000. The House raised this amount by $56,000, thus providing an increase for doing the work which the oleomargarine law will entail. The Sen- ate raised that amount by another $24,000. This means that we shall be spending £80,000 more for lawyers than we did last year. If there is anything of which we have a surplus supply in Gov- ernment it is lawyers, and we can take some of the existing lawyers and have them work a little harder. Also, the various agencies should use the legal services of the Department of Justice. I should be perfectly willing to adopt the House figure of $511,000 and provide a 10-percent increase, but I hope we can save at least $24,000 by rejecting the committee amendment. Mr. CHAVEZ. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield. Mr. CHAVEZ. We should like to do that, but the difficulty 1s that last year there was less money for lawyers in this particular department This year we gave the particular agency more work to do While the Senator from Mlinois may not have voted for the oleomarga- rine bill, Congress did create additional work for the agency. The Senate has heard the Senator from New York this afternoon complain because we cut $300,- 000 off the oleomargarine enforcement provision, and now comes the Senator from Illinois who complains because there are a few additional lawyers re- quired to enforce a law which Congress passed, The amount is still under that recommended by the Budget Bureau. Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, I should like to say a few words on this particular item. I believe the Depart- ments of the Government have too many lawyers. Ihave many timer on the floor advocated that the Attorney Gen- eral’s office, through the Solicitor Gen- eral’s office, should be the legal adviser to the various departments, so that they would be receiving, as far as possible, im- partial advice on legal questions. I be- lieve that no private concern hires as many lawyers to do work, much of which is clerical and much of which is propa- ganda to the people of the United States, as does the Government. While I know that private concerns pay their top lawyers more money, they do not have as I cer- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE many lawyers as the Government em- ploys. I hope the Senate will not con- tinue to increase the legal forces so far as the Government is concerned. Mr. KNOWLAND- Mr. President, as the ranking minority member of the committee, I wish to support the position taken by the chairman of the subcom- mittee. I do not disagree with the Sen- ator from Michigan, as a general propo- sition, that complete reorganization of the legal functions of the Federal Gov- ernment is in order and should perhaps be concentrated 1n the Office of the At- torney General. During the 6 years in which I served 1n the legislature of Cali- fornia I was one of the authors of a bill which did away with independent at- torneys and concentrated the work in the office of the attorney general. But I think that should be done by general legislation, after a study by the Judiciary Committee of which the able Senator from Michigan isa member. I vhink the testimony before our committee justified this nominal increase because of the oleomargarine work and other enforce- ment work which is connected with it. Mr. McKELLAR. Mr. President, I do not always agree with my two distin- guished friends, the Senator from Michi- gan |Mr. Fercuson!] and the Senator from Cahfornia |[Mr. KNow.anp]. I usually agree with my friends on this side of the aisle, and as an efficient and com- petent committee has passed upon this question, I hope the Senate will sustain the committee. The PRESIDING OFFICER The question 1s on agreeing to the amend- ment on page 161, line 1. The amendment was agreed to. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will state the next amendment, The next amendment was, on page 162, after line 9, to insert: Src 207 Appropriations under this title available for salaries and expenses shall be available for travel expenses and for expenses of attendance at meetings concerned with the functions or activity fur wnich any such appropriation is made. The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, on page 162, line 15, to change the section number from ‘'207” to “208.” The amendment was agreed to The next amendment was, under the heading “Title III—National Labor Rela- tions Board,” on page 163, line 17, after “(5 U.S. C. 150)”, to strike out $8,550,- 000” and insert “$8,615,000.” The amendment was agreed to. The PRESIDING OFFICER. That completes consideration of chapter V. Mr. MAYBANK obtained the floor, Mr. CHAVEZ. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr, MAYBANK. I yield to the Sena- tor from New Mexico. Mr. CHAVEZ. Mr. President, at this point I believe it necessary to discuss briefly the effect upon the public assis. tance grants of section 1111, beginning on page 468 of the bill, and known as the antideficiency section, which section further amends section 3679 of the Re- vised Statutes. The subcommittee of which I am chairman received hundreds of commu- JULY 24 nications requesting clarification of this anti-deficiency section with respect to the apportionment of funds for grants, The committee did not consider it necessary to amend the language, and wishes to register its understanding that subsection (e) (1) (B), as it appears on page 472 of the bill, will permit the ap- portionment of funds for public assis- tance grants in order to observe the legal commitments to the several States to make payment of, or contributions toward, sums which are required to be paid to individuals either in specific amounts fixed by law or im accordance with formulas prescribed by law. This same understanding a«ists like- wise in connection with the Employees’ Compensation Fund, administered by the Department of Labor, to which fund the Federal Government makes contribu- tions from which payments are made to employees suffering injuries and occu- pational disabilities. Let me read the language in the bill to which I have referred: (e) (1) No apportionment or reapportion- ment which, in the judgment of the officer making such apportionment or reapportion- ment, would indicate a necessity for a deficiency or supplementul estimate shall be made except upon a determination by such officer that such action is required because of * * ™ (B) emergencies involving the * * * immediate welfare of individuals in cases where an appropriation has been made to enable the United States to make payment of, or contributions toward, sums which are required to be paid to individuals either in specific amounts fixed by law or in accordance with formulas prescribed by law. I thought it would be of interest to the Senate to make this statement. Mr. McKELLAR. Mr. President—— Mr. MAYBANK. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Tennessee. Mr. McKELLAR. I inquire as to the page and line at which we stopped when there were under consideration the amendments to chapter VII of the ap- propriation bill The PRESIDING OFFICER. On page 283. The Senate stopped there with the understanding that the Senator from Illinois would have the right to move to reconsider the committee amendments from page 277 to page 283, for the pur- pose of offcring amendments. Mr. McKELLAR. I thank the Chair. APPROPRIATIONS FOR CHILDREN’S BUREAU Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, the Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended $1,510,000 for the 1951 ap- propriation for the Children’s Bureau. The committee indicated that the rec- ommended figure would permit “the Bu- reau to continue its staff and program at the 1950 level.’’ In a letter to me, Mrs. Jack B, Fahy, executive director of the American Par- ents Committee, indicates that the rec- ommended appropriation will not permit the Children's Bureau to operate at its 1950 level. During the present emer- gency I have no intention of seeking an increase in the recommended figure, but I feel this letter may be of interest to Senators and I ask unanimous consent to have it printed in the body of the Recorp,
1950 There being no objection, the letter ‘was ordered to be printed, as follows: AMERICAN Parents COMMITTEE, Washington, D. C., July 13, 1950. Dear SENATOR LEHMAN: The Senate Ap- propriations Committee reported out 81,510,- 000 for the Children’s Bureau. This ig $12,300 under the budget estimate recom- mended by the President. In the Senate Report 1941 it states “The amount recom- mended will permit the Bureau to continue its staff and program at the 1950 level.” This is untrue. If Congress appropriates any amount less than what the President requested, the Children’s Bureau will have to abandon plans to employ part-time consultants in plastic surgery, nutrition of children in hos- pitals, and medical care of premature in- fants. In addition they will have to choose between reducing services in regional offices or in headquarters. In order to absorb a cut in amounts set aside for operation of regional offices, the Bureau would be forced, either (1) to re- duce in at least one additional regional office the professional services already greatly cur- tailed, by releasing, for example, the medical director, a public-health nurse, or a medical social worker, each of whom performs serv- ices that are essential in the development and administration of maternal and child health and crippled children’s programs; or (2) to curtail even further the travel funds available to regional staff who even now are unable to meet the requests of State agen- cles for consultation. If the Bureau were to absorb the cut in its operation at headquarters, it would be forced to choose between several alterna- tives, each signifying elimination or curtall- ment of greatly needed services, such as: (1) to release one or more of its specialists such ag the sole adviser on children’s dentistry, the one consultant on juvenile-court work, or the only adviser on State training schools for delinquent children; or (2) to eliminate & greatly needed bulletin for parents—in spite of parents’ expressed need for nontech- nical material to help them understand and work with such children at home; or (3) to cease immediately all efforts to develop and carry out a study of different types of hos- pital care given premature babies--al- though prematurity is one of the leading causes of infant deaths today. Sincerely, Mrs, Jack B. Fany, Executive Director. DIXIE MARGARINE CO.—VETO MESSAGE The VICE PRESIDENT laid before the Senate the following message from the President of the United States, which was read, and, with the accompanying bill, was ordered to lie on the table and to be printed: To the United States Senate: I return herewith, without my ap- proval, the enrolled bill (S. 1086) “For the relief of the Dixie Margarine Co., a Tennessee corporation, Memphis, Tenn.” The bill provides for payment of the sum of $69,530.40 to the Dixie Margarine Co., a corporation organized and exist- ing under the laws of the State of Ten- nessee, in full satisfaction of its claim against the United States for refund of capital exacted by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, for taxes for the pe- riod March 1923 to November 28, 1925. The bill recites that the statutory pe- rtod for refund of the moneys collected had expired prior to the date of a decision of the United Siates Supreme Court that CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE the moneys had been illegally collected as taxes and it also having been held by both the United States Court of Claims and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals that relief must be from the Congress and not from the courts. It appears that in 1932 the Supreme Court held in the case of Miller v. Nut Margarine Co, (284 U, 8. 498), that prod- ucts similar to, if not identical with, the products manufactured by the Dixie Margarine Co. were not subject to the tax on oleomargarine. Thereafter, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue re- funded to the Dixie Margarine Co. the sum of $234,512.86 representing all amounts collected as such tax from that company prior to the effective date of the act of July 10, 1930, refund of which was not then barred by the statute of limitations. The act of July 10, 1930 (46 Stat. 1022), amended the act relating to taxes on products defined as oleomar- garine so as to include products such as manufactured by claimant company. The Commissioner refused to refund the sum of $87,410 paid during the period covered by this bill for the reason that no refund claim therefor had been filed by the company within the 4 years re- quired by section 3228 (a) of the revised statutes, as amended, now section 3313 of the Internal Revenue Code. In justice to all taxpayers the Govern--~ ment has had no alternative other than to disapprove, because of its discrimina- tory nature, the enactment of special legislation designed to relieve taxpayers who allow their rights to become barred by the statute of limitations. To ap- prove the instant bill would be to prefer this taxpayer not only over other tax- payers similarly situated from whom such taxes were collected prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in the Miller case, but also over taxpayers generally who are bound by the same statute of limitations. , It is contended that the instant case is to be distinguished from the ordinary case of refund of taxes on the ground that in the Miller case the Supreme Court held that the money collected was not taxes but was an exaction in the guise of a tax. In this connection it is pertinent to note that the Supreme Court case did not involve the Dixie Margarine Co. and the language of its opinion when read in context is hardly susceptible of this construction. However, even con- ceding such a distinction, the case would not differ from those in which similar exactions have been collected by the Government, such as the processing and floor-stocks taxes collected under the Agricultural Adjustment Act—held un- constitutional in United States v. Butler (297 U.S. 1) and Fontenot v. Ricker Rice Mills (297 U. 8. 110), gift taxes collected under the Revenue Act of 1924 on gifts made prior to its enactment, Blodgett v. Holden (275 U. 8. 142); Untermeyer v. Anderson (276 U, 8. 440), taxes col- lected under earlier acts on articles later held not to be taxable as automobile parts and accessories, United States v. Jefferson Electric Co, (291 U. 8. 386), and cases discussed: Cf. Indian Motorcycle Co. v. United States (283 U. 8. 570), and many other situations far too numerous 10857 and of too general occurrence to war- rant further consideration. Return of this tax to claimant would constitute little more than a windfall. It would not reach the consumers who must be presumed to have paid it. For the foregoing reasons, I am con- strained to withhold my approval from the bill. Harry S, Truman, Tue WuirTE Hooss, July 24, 1950. JEWS IN AMERICAN HISTORY Mr. MAYBANK. Mr. President, Harry L. Golden and Martin Rywell wrote a book entitled “Jews in American His- tory,” in which is contained a foreword by the Senator from North Carolina {Mr, GraHaM!. The book deals with the Jewish people in my community, Charles- ton, 8. C. In the book are contained a great many articles taken from Charleston newspapers, with which I am familiar, because this year we are celebrating the two-hundredth anniversary of the Jew- ish congregation in Charleston, 8. C. Therefore I should like to have printed in the Recorp at this point the articles to which I have referred. There being no objection, the articles were ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: THR Two HuNDREDTH ANNIVERSARY OF THE JEWISH CONGREGATION OF CHARLESTON, 8. C., 1750-1960 [From Jews In American History, by Harry L Golden and Martin Rywell, with a foreword by Senator Frank Graham] Remembrances of Charleston—the remem- brances of her laurels as they form a wreath and a song 1s on her lyre, Charleston with its stately mansions, high piazzas and colorful gardens looks out upon the harbor. A subtle strength permeates the peaceful brightness of her sun, the luminous turquoise sky and ecstacy is in the air. Charleston, mistress of the harbor and busy with {ts commerce. Fort Sumter out on the harbor as a remind- er of a period bygone. Charleston stands picturesque and colorful-—famed and for- tunate. 1960 marks the two hundredth anniversary of the organization of the congregation in Charleston. Jews settled early in South Carolina since Gov. John Archdale states he had a Jew for an interpreter in Charleston in 1696. Many have been illustrious citizens in its history, Moses Lindo, Francis Salvador, the Jews of Charleston who fought under Cap- tain Lushington in the Revolution, Solomon N. Carvalho, the artist who accompanied John C. Fremont in 1853 on his expedition to the west. Michael Lavarus who opened the Savannah River to navigation by steam be- tween Charleston and Augusta. De Leon, Penina Moise, the Harleys, Franklin J. Moses, brilliant lawyer who served as chief justice of the South Carolina Supreme Court, Philip Phillips, and Maj. Edwin Warren Moise of the Confederate Army and prominent lawyer. Dr. Elias Marks founded the Columbia Female Academy in 1820 and later the Barhamville school from which Miss Martha Bullock, mother of President Theodore Roosevelt was graduated. Dr. B, A. Rodriguez was a promi- nent dentist who in 1836 was the first to make an artificial plate. Gov. John Archdale, in his new descrip- tion of that fertile and pleasant province of Carolina (London, 1707), telis how, in 1695, be employed a Spanish-speaking Jew— @ marrano who professed “the Christian re- Hgion as the Papists do"—as an interpreter between himself aud the Florida Indians.