1950 should govern the administration of these programs. The National Science Foundation should consider most carefully the manner in which national policies with respect to scientific research are related to broader questions of educational policy. At present grants for research purposes are being made on a hit- and-miss basis, making the award of research grants, in effect, a new form of patronage. The awarding of research grants must be put upon a more systematic basis, with due recognition given to their impact on the edu- cational programs of our higher institutions of learning. Also the Hoover Commission task force report on Federal medical services, em- phasizing the vital relationship of basic research to the future of scientific medi- cine, stated as follows: We recommend the creation of a Na- tional Science Foundation, not as a specific organizational reform in the Federal medical service, but as an obvious means of insuring the strength in basic sciences upon which our national security rests and upon which the future progress of scientific medicine depends. Some members of our committee feel that the foundation should cover the soctal sciences as well; others stress that it should include lay members. Our concept of a foundation, it should be pointed out, calls for very great powers and resources to sustain and, where necessary, to increase the output of basic scientists, to develop new flelds of knowledge, and to support educational and training institutions. As a people interested in the practical results of scientific research, it is difficult for us to realize how dangerously we have exhausted the scientific resources which make these benefits possible. As Dr. Bush pointed out in his famous report, more than 4 years ago, the bank of scien- tific brains in Europe, from which we borrowed so lavishly in years past, was shattered by the war. In our own com- pany, we have been living on our Scien- tific capital, so to speak, without making adequate provision for the future. In my studies as a member of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, I have been impressed with the fact that the development of atomic energy rests on a complex pattern of theoretical investiga- tions and _ discoveries by scientists throughout the world for the past hun- dred or more years. Basic research is by no means an American monopoly, but we have new and great responsibilities to our own people and to those of other nations, facilities for conducting basic research must be greatly expanded. Many more of our young people must be trained for scientific pursuits—for basic scientific research from which flow the practical results that increase the comforts and conveniences of daily life, that make for greater health and hap- piness, and that guarantee our national security in an age of unprecedented technical developments. In this connection, I note that social sciences are not specifically excluded from the national science foundation bill as reported by the committee. I hope that the social sciences will receive their full share of attention in the work of the new foundation. We must learn how to live in this new age of science, with its enormous possibilities for human welfare or human destruction. The CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE social sciences have a legitimate place in the work of the proposed National Science Foundation. As the members know, a number of Government agencies, including the Atomic Energy Commission, already are conducting scientific research programs along certain lines. Section 14 (j) of the bill very clearly provides that the work of the National Science Foundation will not duplicate that of the Atomic Energy Commission. At the same time, section 14, paragraphs (g) and (h) provide a means of integrating Government activ- ities in scientific and technical research. Establishment of the National Science Foundation will make possible a national policy in these fields, and become an in- strument for maintaining the continuity of that policy. Under the impetus of the foundation, private universities and in- stitutions will carry on a large share of the basic scientific research. Presently these institutions cannot conduct un- aided the costly programs that modern science requires. And many of our most talented youth cannot, without some financial aid, put those talents to use through education in the universities. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, this is one of the most important bills to be con- sidered by this session of Congress. Its enactment will have lasting benefits. It will meet a need recognized by all per- sons who have concerned themselves with the general welfare of our country in this scientific age. I believe the hearings show that we had arrived at the point of graduating about 2,000 basic research scientists in 1941. This number declined during the war to about a thousand a year, and we have gradually increased it to about 1,700 a year. So we are still behind in our annual graduation of scientists before we went into World War II. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Ho.i- FIELD] has expired. Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for two additional minutes. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from California? There was no objection. Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HOLIFIELD. I yield. Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Of course, the gentleman will agree that the reason why the number of young scientists dropped off during the war was the foolish policy that the United States had of drafting young scientists into the armed services, regardless of their ability or the need for them in the field in which they were occupied? Mr. HOLIFIELD. I agree completely with the gentleman’s observation. I say that any drafting in anticipation of a future war should be done on a scientific basis, and I mean scientific by not taking those people that are most valuable to our economy in time of a crisis. Mr. BROWN of Ohio. The gentleman is a member the great Committee on Armed Services, is he not? Mr. HOLIFIELD. No,I am not, at this time. 2435 Mr. BROWN of Ohio. The gentleman was at one time? Mr. HOLIFIELD. I was at one time. Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I hope that when we have this new so-called selec- tive-service extension bill before the House that we will provide for proper exeruption of those men who are neces- sary to science in time of war. Mr. HOLIFIELD. I certainly trust that if a selective service draft is in- augurated, that it shall be done in the proper manner. Mr. JOHNSON. I think the gentle- man also remembers that England fol- lowed a different policy. They exempted those scientists from military service? Mr. HOLIFIELD. That is exactly right, and we had to lean on England for some of our most important scientists in the field of basic science as well as appplied science in the atomic fleld. Mr. WADSWORTH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HOLIFIELD. I yield. Mr. WADSWORTH. The figures which the gentleman gave with respect to the number of graduates show that the number had been reduced to 1,000 dur- ing the war and immediately thereafter. Those figures have increased to 1,700. Mr. HOLIFIELD That is right. Mr. WADSWORTH. And that figure of 1,700 is already 1 year old. Mr. HOLIFIELD. Yes. Mr. WADSWORTH. They are still gaining. thet HOLIFIELD. I am glad to hear at. Mr. WADSWORTH. It is not nearly as desperate as that figure would indi- cate. Mr. HOLIFIELD. I did not mean to say that it was desperate, but I believe the gentleman will agree with me that we are facing an age now where scientific advancement is much more important than it was 10 years ago. Mr. WADSWORTH. And more and more people are going into it. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California {[Mr. Hotz- FIELD] has again expired. Mr. PRIEST. Mr, Chairman, I offer a technical amendment, which is at the Clerk’s desk. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. Priest: On page 1, line 4, strike out “1949” and insert in lieu thereof 1950." The amendment was agreed to. Mr. RICH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word. Mr. Chairman, sometimes I feel that this is the last word, and that the last word is a question: Shall we be able to survive the things that we ourselves do? The burdens you place upon the tax- payers of America. This question be- comes especially pertinent when it is brought out, as was done here this after- noon by the gentleman from New York (Mr. WapswortH], that for scientific research in the Army, the Navy, the Ma- rine Corps, and other branches of Gov- ernment we are spending close to a bil- lion dollars annually. A tremendous sum for research, yet you go at it again, Spend, spend, spend. Notwithstanding this huge expenditure, a bill is brought
2436 in tcday to set up another organization of 24 Board members to be appointed by the President, a bill to establish a big- ger and bigger government by setting up this National Science Foundation. On what foundation? A bankrupt Treas- ury? Apparently no consideration is given to what we may be able to do to save our country from disaster and dis- tress by lightening the load of burden- soni2 expensive government on the pco- ple of this country. No thought of the cost of this bill. No thought on your part of where will you get the money. I do not know where in the world we are going: I do not know where you are headed, except for bankruptcy. Some- times I think some of you do not care a hoot where we go. In your own household when your funds are cxhausted but somebody in the household gets the idea that a new dishwasher \ ould be nice, a new garbage disposal unit, or a new set of cupboards, @ new car or radio; you would not go ahead and obligate yourself, put yourself in debt until you had figured how you were going to be able to finance the im- provements; you would try to keep your household on a good sound basis by getting along with what you had. But that is not the way this Congress does things. Just as in the country at large, so in this very House of Representatives, there are many who are always trying to establish something new, who are urging these departments all the time to go ahead and set up these great organiza- tions without regard as to how they can be financed. Will you ever get sensible? The first thing you know our house is going to tumble down on us and we are going to be in the very position Joe Stalin predicted for us, wrecked finan- cially. And whose fault will it be? Why it will be the fault of those men who have been advocating all these things and who have been squandering the taxpayers’ money and the resources of the country, foisting the load off onto our children, and our children’s children. You ought to be ashamed of yourselves. Honest to goodness, you ought to be ashamed of yourselves. Sometimes I wonder if we have any sense at all. I do not say that we are fools, but certainly we do the things that fools would do. This s about as close as I can come to expressing my- self adequately without being thrown out of the Chamber, but I mean every word I have said. We are in the position right now of setting up this new organization. Two months ago the President said the state of the Nation was good, yet at the time he made that statement he knew that a lot of coal miners were not mining coal; he knew that things were getting tighter and tighter; but because he promised a lot of labor leaders that he would do away with the Taft-Hartley Act he let things go on and on in the coal fields until now there are many communities of the country without sufficient coal to keep warm in this winter weather. He should have put the Taft-Hartley Act in operation in January and we wouldn't be where we are today, no coal, people freezing, men out of work, a mess by a messer Truman. Whose fault is that? It is due to the dilatory tactics of CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE the Chief Exccutive in letting this thing goon. He is liable to bring in a bill, and many of you will support it, to national- ize the coal industry of this country. Right there we start in with his social- istic program. You are getting into it up to your neck. Who said it was the President’s duty to take over these mines? Why, Bill Green. The labor leaders want it and they are going to try to force you to do it. Shame on you if you take over the coal mines. Next it will be railroads, telephones, and what not. Socialism, New Dealism—everything but American- ism. This bill is not necessary, it is not economical, 11 is not for the good of the country, and I am opposed to it today. Because Great Britain went socialistic last week is no reason for us doing so. Because Britain wants Attlee instead of Churchill for Prime Mnunister is their business, but it is our business when they want us to give them a billion and a half to keep the Socialist Government alive. It’s your constituent’s business and I hope they will take care of you for giving us away, I hope they will take care of our Government by watching how you vote to put us into bankruptcy. I say “be nifty and thrifty in Fifty.” Vote this bill down. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania has ex- pired. Mr. KEEFE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I take this time to ask a few questions of the distinguished gen- tleman from Tennessee who was in charge of the writing of this bill, as I understand it, in order that we may get definitely in this Recorp a very clear leg- islative intent whenever the question of interpretation of this bill might arise. Some of these questions I have asked during general debate, but I want to ask them again and pin-point them at this time in order that there may be one place in the Recorp where we can point to and say to whoever may be called upon to interpret the provisions of this bill here- after: Here is what the Congress had in mind when it passed this particular legislation, Most Members of Congress are thor- oughly familiar with the grant and aid program of the Public Health Service and the programs of research conducted at the National Institutes of Health and the programs of research in the fleld of med- icine and related activities that are being given gratis to the National Institutes of Health programs. If this legislation is passed, is it proposed that those pro- grams will be taken over by the National Science Foundation and administered by it as an operating agency? Mr. PRIEST. I am glad the gentle- man asked that question. I, too, think it is important that at one particular place in the Recorp, to use the gentle- man’s words, “we pin-point” this ques- tion in order to establish definitely legis- lative intent. The answer to the gentleman’s ques- tion is ‘‘No.” I have a great interest in these particular grant and aid programs conducted under the jurisdiction of the Public Health Service, as does the gen- tleman. I appreciate his interest. We FEBRUARY 27 have worked together in the past in con- nection with the Heart Institute, the mental-health program, the Cancer In- stitute, and other programs. I would not consent to see anything come that would in any way interfere with that categoric work being done by these insti- tutes in the Public Health Service. I reiterate that the answer to his ques- tion is ‘‘No.” Mr. KEEFE. The answer to the ques- tion is “No” May I say to the gentleman that he well knows I have devoted the major part of my legislative work in the Consress during the past 12 years in the fleld of public health, and I do not want to see any interference or any obstruc- tion of the programs that the Congress has unanimously put into action in the fields that the gentleman has just re- ferred to. A serious question has ariscn in my mind as to whether or not if the National Science Foundation is appointed under the general provisions found in this bill some individual who might be appointed or who may head it might be of strong enough character to say: We are going to take these programs over and run them ourselves as an operating agency. He could do it under this bill? Mr. PRIEST. I do not think so, and if the gentleman would point out any language which he believes would give the Foundation that authority, I should be happy to examine it, and I know that the committee will. Myr. KEEFE. All I have in mind, may I say to the gentleman, is the function of the Foundation, specifically section 3, subparagraph (2), page 2, of the bill where it says that the Foundation is authorized and directed to initiate and support basic scientific research in the mathematical, physical, medical, biolog- ical, and other scienccs. My question with reference to that is this: You do not mean by that language that they are to disturb the existing programs that the Congress has already established in those fields? Mr. PRIEST. Certainly we do not mcan that they should disturb them, and they could not disturb them without having authority, in effect, to nullify an act of Congress, because all of these pro- grams are established by law and are operating under law, and I do not be- lieve that this language relating to initiating and supporting scientific re- search could quite be interpreted to mean that they could nullify an act of Congress, and we do not intend that that be the purpose Mr. KEEFE. A_ further question. There are pending now before the Com- mittee on Interstate and Foreign Com- merce a number of bills relating to categorical programs that affect a num- ber of the great menaces to mankind, arthritis, rheumatism, and so forth. I believe there are two. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin has expired. Mr. KEEFE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for five additional minutes. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Wisconsin? There was no objection,
1950 Mr. KEEFE. I may say to my col- leagues that the subject of this colloquy that is taking place between the dis- tinguished chairman of the subcommit- tee and myself we have previously dis- cussed, and we believe that it is fn the interest of proper legislative action to have answers to these questions which I have given a good deal of study to in connection with this bill. Now I want to ask this question: If the Committee on Interstate and For- eign Commerce decided to pass a bill providing for a new Institute of Health to deal with the problem of rheumatism and arthritis, or multiple sclerosis, or poliomyelitis, or some of the other dis- eases not covered in the categorical pro- gram, you would have no idea but what, when Congress so legislated, those pro- grams would be conducted as the cate- gorical programs are being conducted today, and that the Science Founda- tion would not disturb or take those pro- grams over. Mr. PRIEST. I certainly would have no other idea than that any new re- search institute that might be sect up would operate just as those already es- tablished are operating insofar as any taking over by the Science Foundation is concerned; provided they are set up on the same basis, they would operate the same, and generally we have the pattern there on which all of those research pro- grams do operate. May I say this to the gentleman—and I want to make this clear—I do not want anything that I might say here to be interpreted as mean- ing that there could not be a voluntary cooperation between the Foundation and the Public Health Service, if they so desired, but there is nothing tn the bill, and it is not the intention of the author of the bill or the committee that re- ported it to give it any authority to take over any research work. Mr. KEEFE. I will say to my distin- guished friend, if the present bill did not have provision in it that would permit such correlation, I would not think it would be worth while at all. I am heart- ily in accord with that particular phase of it. Mr. WILSON of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. KEEFE. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma. Mr. WILSON of Oklahoma. Every once in a while the gentleman asks the question whether or not the existing pro- grams could be taken over and operated. May I point out to the gentleman the language on page 17 of the bill in sec- tion 14, subsection (c) as relates to op- eration: The Foundation shall not, itself, operate any laboratories or pilot plants. That may refer to the physical plants and the operation of them and the point- ing out that they cannot take them over and operate along that line. Mr. KEEFE, Well, that does not answer the question that I had in mind. While I thank the gentleman for inter- Jecting that, that is not a contribution to the issue that is before us, may I say in my humble opinion, with respect to the question that I asked. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE The next question is this, may I say to the Chairman: It has been indicated by many who are interested as I am in the passage of this bill ultimately that they may contemplate that the National Sci- ence Foundataion itself will come before the Congress and ask for one integrated over-all appropriation dealing with the question of basic research outside of the appropriation for the Atomic Energy Commission, which is exempt from the provisions of this bill. I would ask the gentleman whether or not it is his intent or the intent of the committee that the present system of having the agencies of Government that are charged with the responsibility for conducting the research come before the Congress and present their needs shall be changed in favor of one over-all appropriation request. Mr. PRIEST. The answer to that question is that there is no intention to have any one agency come before the Congress to ask for an over-all appropri- ation for scientific research, and there is not contemplated any change in the pres- ent policies and practices in that respect. Mr. KEEFE. I thank the gentleman for his statement in that regard. I notice that section 3 (a) 6 of the bill has been amended on page 3 at line 6 to provide that the Foundation shall “evalu- ate scientific research programs under- taken by individuals and by public and private research groups.” The bill con- tained previous to the amendment the following language: To correlate the Foundation’s scientific research programs with those undertaken by individuals and by public and private re- search groups. There is a vast difference between cor- relation and evaluation. I should like to get it clear in the REecorp as to just what the committee had in mind. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin has again expired. Mr. KEEFE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for five additional minutes. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Wisconsin? There was no objection. Mr. PRIEST. I notice the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. HESELToNn] is on his feet. He has an amendment which he proposes to offer, and which I propose to accept as chairman of the subcommittee—and I find no objection to it on the part of any member of the committee—which will read as follows, in Meu of the language in paragraph 6 on page 3: To evaluate scientific research programs undertaken by agencies of the Federal Gov- ernment and to correlate the Foundation's scientific research programs with those un- dertaken by individuals and by public and private research groups, The gentleman will notice that the emphasis here is shifted. There is no effort to correlate the other programs with the Foundation but, after evaluat- ing and saying what others are doing, then it is to map its own program and correlate it with the others. I think there is quite a difference there, and 2437 that that would answer some of the ob- jections raised by the gentleman from New York [Mr. WapswortH] earlier in the day. Mr. KEEFE. I thank the gentleman. May I ask this further question: Is it the intent under this bill that in making the evaluation of these programs the Foundation itself shall be compelled to scrutinize and go into each individual budget and approve or disapprove the budget request made by the operating agencies? . ti Mr. PRIEST. That is not the inten- jon. Mr. KEEFE. Now this final ques- tion: On page 19, line 6, these words are stricken from the bill: . (h) The activities of the Foundation shall be construcd as supplementing and not superseding, curtailing, or limiting any of the functions or activities of other Govern- ment agencies authorized to engage in scien- tific research or development. Why did the committee strike out that language if it is the purpose of this bill to maintain the existing research ac- tivities of the Public Health Service, for example? Mr. PRIEST. It is my understanding that this language was stricken from the bill for one or two reasons, largely be- cause it was believed that other sections of the bill, particularly the so-called Heselton amendment and one or two other sections, made this language un- necessary. Mr. KEEFE. May I say to the gentle- man in conjunction with what he has al- ready said with the apparent consent of other members of the committee as to the purpose of the committee in striking this out as to there not being an operat- ing agency so far as the public health is concerned in the National Science Foundation that perhaps it was thought this was not necessary because it is the legislative intent of the committee now that so far as the operating programs of the public health are concerned, they shall not be transferred to the Founda- tion and it shall not become an operat- ing agency with respect to the health program. Is that correct? Mr. PRIEST. That is correct, and that generally was the reason for strik- ing this language—it was considered en- tirely unnecessary at that point. Mr. KEEFE. I might say to the gen- tleman having satisfactorily cleared up these questions which I have had in my mind with respect to this bill, I shall vote for the bill because I think there is no field in the world in which we need ac- tivity more than we need it in the field of basic research, Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. KEEFE. I yleld. Mr. GROSS. Where in this bill is this safeguard contained? Mr. KEEFE. It is contained in the colloquy which has just taken place be- tween the gentleman and myself, which writes the legislative history of this bill and the construction which should be placed upon it. I realize full well that a bureau which may be set up may pay
2438 no attention, and the Supreme Court may pay no attention to what has taken place here today, but if they follow the usual practice of legislative construction they will go into these debates and the legislative history of the bill which, in my opinion, will be helpful in determin- ing whet the Congress had in mind when it passed the bill. Mr. JUDD. Mr, Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. KEEFE. I yield. Mr. JUDD. Would the gentleman who is now addressing the committee and the gentlsman from Tennessee have any objection to putting that language back into the bill in addition to the colloquy that you have had here? Why should it not be put back in? Mr. KEEFE. I personally would like to see that done. Mr. JUDD. So would I. Mr. KEEFE. I would like to see that language on page 19 retained in the bill. Mr. JUDD. Would the gentleman from Tennessee object to that? Mr. KEEFE. I think it is good Jan- guage and shows the intent clearly. It shows that is the intent of the Congress. Mr. JUDD. Thatisright. Would the gentleman from Tennessee object? Mr. PRIEST. May I say to the gen- tleman, so far as I am concerned, it was not taken out at my request. It was done at the request of some Member, as I re- call it, on the minority side of the com- mittee. So far as I am personally con- cerned, I would not object toit. Ido not think it is necessary. But I do not want to take the responsibility on behalf of the subcommittee by saying that I do not object when, as I recall it, it was taken out on motion of some minority Member. Perhaps I am mistaken about that, but I believe I am correct. Mr. KEEFE. Mr. Chairman, for the past 5 years a proposal for the establish- ment of a national science foundation has been debated and discussed by people in and out of Congress. I have followed those discussions and debates with con- suming interest. I am convinced that a national science foundation properly conceived end properly managed can serve a number of uscful purposes. I would like to vote for the pending bill, H. R. 4846. However, I want to undcr- stand exactly what Iam voting for. My primary interest is in the relationship between the proposed foundation’s ac- tivities and the existing medical research activities of the Federal Government. I have as a major reward of my public career the satisfaction of having helped to form and enact the laws that have played a major part in redirecting the medical research of the entire Nation toward diseases that aflact mankind, and of expanding the support for basic med- ical research in the United States. Per- mit me to briefly explain first how med- jeal research is being advanced through action taken by the Congress during the last few years. The communicable diseases that once were the major causes cf'death are grad- ually becoming relatively less important. We still have not licked polio, nor do we have tuberculosis completely under con- trol. We have yet to bring other in- fectious discases under control. But, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE in taking death rates and illness rates as a measure, diseases which formerly took a terrific toll in human life and suf- fering are now under complete control or have been climinated completely as major causes of death: Venereal disease, pneumonia, yellow fever, typhus, ma- laria, and many other contagious and infectious diseases have been put under control as a result of the magnificent efforts of the researchers, scientists, and practitioners who now are armed with the implements to keep them under control. Today, however, heart disease and dis- eascs Of the circulatory system, arthritis and rheumatism, cancer and mental dis- orders are the major causes of suffering incapacity and death. Recognizing the obligation of the Federal Government to lead in the field of basic research in an attempt to put these killers and cripplers of mankind under control, the National Cancer Institute was established in 1937, The National Mental Health Institute was established in 1946. The National Heart Institute and the National Dental Research Institute were established in 1948. There is pending today in the House o bill which has already passed the Senate to establish an institute for neurology and blindness and an institute for rheumatism, arthritis, and metabolic diseases. Each of these institutes has or will have the authority to make grants for research and to award fellowships. In addition, they have as a result of the unanimous action of the Congress pro- vided urgently needed funds for con- struction of research facilities, particu- larly for heart and cancer investigations. Each of these institutes has a national advisory council composed of outstand- ing people in each field, together with briliant laymen who are dedicating themselves to the effort to find the cause and cure of these terrible scourges of mankind. All of the research grants made by the existing institutes are re- viewed by nongovernmental spccialists of the highest competence. It should be pointed out that under the laws appli- cable to each of these institutes, the Surgeon Ceneral of the Public Health Service can approve no research grant that has not been approved by the ap- propriate advisory council. This system of supporting medical research is a go- ing concern. I am proud to say that I have had a hand in devising this system and have a degree of pride in the fact that it is one system of Federal aid that has not resulted in Federal control. The present system protects the freedom of investigators in medical schools, re- search centers, and in universities. It is helping newer and smaller research cen- ters throughout the country as well as the larger, well-established centers of re- search, It has received continuous sup- port from people interested in public health matters, and the Congress has re- flected that attitude of the general pub- lic by overwhelmingly supporting the program now in operation. I am of the opinion that solely on the basis of dollars-and-cents return and on cold consideration of the Nation’s re- quirements for national defense, we should be appropriating more for medi- FEBRUARY 27 cal research. Time will not permit a demonstration of the cold economic facts aside from the humanitarian aspects that are involved. I can state without fear of contradiction, however, that the results already obtained and clearly in- dicated in the medical research fleld con- ducted under the direction of the Na- tional Institutes of Health have paid huge dividends to the American people. While the current funds available in the field of medical research are wholly in- sufficient, in my opinion, at the present time, I think it is only fa:r to say that the current levels of public cxpenditure are more nearly adequate than they were before the drive to conquer the chronic and degenerative diseases began in carn- est. Iam convinced that as a matter of public policy this expanded scale of re- search is sound and that any contraction would be a disservice to the Nation and the people of the world. Complete can- dor compels me to state that I shall con- tinue to resist any effort to cut back and limit the cfforts of the Federal Govern- ment and other public and private agen- cies throughout the Nation that are con- ducting such a magnificent fight in the public interest in these fields. This po- sition compels me to try to understand the relationship bev.ween the proposed National Science Foundation and the ex- isting medical research program, What will be the effect upon the National In- stitutes of Health and the vast research programs now being conducted in the health and medical fields? I have studied the pending bill, and I confess that 1t 1s so general in its provi- sions that I presently do not have a com- plete answer to the problem. I doubt if there is a member of the Congress that can make a complete and satisfactory explanation, Is the Nationa] Science Foundation under the pending bill going to take over the medical research grant and fellowship activities that are now operating smoothly and in a manner that draws the highest praise from the uni- versities of the Nation and the medical schools throughout the country? If that is the intent of this bill, then I shall be compelled to vete against 1t. I am rais- ing this question during debate so that Members of Congress who feel as I do may have oa definite understanding as to what interpretation of the language in the pending bill will be adopted. I sug- gest, thercfore, that those in charge of this legislation make it abundantly clear that 1t 1s not the purpose of this legisla- tion to take over and destrey, perchance, the efficient, smoothly operating program now being conducted by the Institutes of Health under existing law. If I were to vote for this legislation, it would be on the assumption and understanding that this will not happen. As a member of the Avpropriations Committee, I am interested in another question; nameiy, will all research activi- ties of the Federal Government be sub- mitted to the Congress as a single appro- priation requests? I vigorously oppose sucha proposal. For more than 10 years I have been a member of the subeommit- tee of the Committee on Appropriations that has dealt with the appropriations for medical research. I have tried to make it my business to know the needs of
1950 medical research and the strength and weaknesses of the Federal Government's activities in this field. I would not like to see medical research relegated to a subitem under a single research appro- priation which under general ceilings im- posed by the Executive in making his budget would compel those interested in the field of medical research to fight for a reasonable share of the over-all appro- priation granted to the Foundation. To do so might well mean that the field of medical research so vital to the welfare of the people of this country might be subordinated to powerful pressure groups demanding funds for research in other fields, Another question arises; namely, what is the role of the Foundation’s Division of Medical Research in relation to the ex- isting medical research grants and fel- lowship activities of the Federal Govern- ment? If the task of the Nationa! Foun- dation proposed in the pending legisla- tion is to be assumption of responsibility for securing appropriations for and administering existing medical-research grant and fellowship programs of the various National Institutes of Health, I would oppose the bill. I would like the committee in the course of the argu- ments on this bill to make it abundantly clear as to just what the role of the Foundation is to be in the medical-re- search grant and fellowship programs presently administered by the National Institutes of Health. If I ultimately vote for this legislation, {t will be upon the common-sense assumption that the Di- vision of Medical Research created under the provisions of the pending bill would not destroy the present programs of the National Institutes of Health. I can well see why medical research must be weighed as part of a total na- tional program, and I can see why the full effect of these programs—particu- larly their effect upon educational insti- tutions—should be carefully considered. These seem to me to be the kind of acti- ities that should be the primary con- cern of the Division of Medical Research. If the Foundation is to become an op- erating unit rather than a coordinating and advisory unit operating in the fleld of medical research, then I seriously question the advisability of adopting that portion of the Foundation bill. In concluding, may I say that I would like to have clarified the meaning of the two amendments proposed to H. R. 4846 by the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. Section 3 (a) (6) of the bill—page 8, line 6—has been amended to provide that the Founda- tion shall “evaluate scientific research programs undertaken by individuals and by public and private research groups, including scientific research programs of the Federal Government.” Does this mean that the Foundation will look at general trends in medical research for the purpose of making recommenda- tions, or does it mean that the Founda- tion will review the budgets of the medi- cal research agencies in detail? The answer to this question is necessarily involved in the answer to the question as to whether or not this program con- templates the submission to the Con- gress of one over-all research budget. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE If it is the intent of this amendment to authorize the Foundation to present to the Congress the detailed budgets of funds necessary in connection with the Federal program of research and grants, then I should be compelled to oppose the amendment. The bill as originally drafted defined the Foundation’s inter- est in this matter in the following lan- guage: To correlate the Foundation's scientific research programs with those undertaken by individuals and by public and private re- search groups. There is a vast difference between the provision as originally written in the bill and the amendment proposed. The sub- stitution of the word “evaluate” for the word “correlate” completely changes the meaning and intent of this section. I would ask that the committee in proper time explain in detail just what this amendment means in order that the Foundation if and when created will understand what the iegislative intent was. I also note that the committee which considered the bill proposes that section 14 (h)—page 19, line 6—be stricken. If you will turn to the printed bill you will observe that the original language provided “the activities of the Founda- tion shall be construed as supplement- ing and not superseding, curtailing, or limiting any other functions or activities of other Government agencies authorized to engage in scientific research or de- velopment.” Why has this provision been stricken from the bill? I can see that it might be advisable to reshuffle many of the research activities of the Federal Government and that this clause might possibly forestall some highly de- sirable changes. At the same time I do not believe that the elimination of this provision should be construed as blanket authority for the Foundation to disturb research activities that are logically located and that are operating satisfac- torily. I have heretofore made my posi- tion on this matter clear so far as the medical-research grant and fellowship activities of the National Institutes of Health operated by the Public Health Service are concerned. I now ask the sponsors of the bill to explain what they had in mind when they proposed delet- ing this clause, and whether my interpre- tation of their action is a correct one. I also note on page 19 of the bill that provision is made for the transfer to the Foundation of funds to be expend- able by the Foundation for the purposes for which the transfer was made, and the paragraph ends with this language: “and until such time as an appropria- tion is made available directly to the Foundation for general administrative expenses of the Foundation without re- gard to limitations otherwise applicable to such funds.” This is a very broad, sweeping grant of authority and power to expend transferred funds. I would ask the committee to make it clear just why limitations on the expenditures of funds for administration written into appropriation bills by the Congress should be eliminated when funds are transferred to the Foundation. It will be noted that the appropriation author- 2439 ized under this bill is without limitation, and in my humble judgment it should clearly be shown to the Congress whet Savings, if any, can be anticipated in the event this legislation becomes law. I shall carefully listen to the argu- ments, and I trust that someone from the committee will be able to answer the questions which I have raised. My vote for or against the pending bill will be determined by the character of the an- swers which are received during debate to the questions which I have raised. Mr. HINSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the pro forma amend- ment, merely to state to the gentleman that if the amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Hese.ton] is to be placed in the bill, for the purpose of evaluating scientific research programs undertaken by the Federal Government, then if this language in subsection (h) remains in the bill it might possibly pre- vent the Foundation from making a proper evaluation of whether or not there was overlapping and duplication in the Federal Government as among its various agencies in conducting basic scientific research programs. There is every reason, I believe, why the gentle- man being a member of the Committee on Appropriations would want the Board to report on any such overlapping or du- plication in order that due economy might be had in the expenditure of the public funds. As a matter of fact, it is my opinion that the enactment of this bill and the establishment of the Foundation and its activities in cvaluating scientific re- search and correlating scientific research will provide a considerable saving over the amounts now being expended. That does not mean that the Foundation would have the power to strike any budgetary item from any budget, but they certainly should take a good long look at the multitude of different re- search projects that are being conducted now under the aegis of the Federal Gov- ernment. Mr. KEEFE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HINSHAW. I yield. Mr. KEEFE. The gentleman is ad- dressing himself now, as I understand it, to the proposed Heselton amendment, which has been referred to. Mr. HINSHAW. No. I am talking about the remarks of the gentleman op- posing striking out the language con- tained in subsection (h) on page 19, which I think it would be well to strike. Mr. KEEFE. Why should we not leave it in? Mr. HINSHAW. Ihope the committee will accept the amendment as it stands, which strikes out the language, because if you leave this language in the bill and say, “shall be construed as supplement- ing and not superseding, curtailing, or limiting any of the functions or activities of other Government agencies author- ized to engage in scientific research or development,” then you may rob this agency of any right to criticize or to point out that there is duplication going on in the various Government agencies. It seems to me that it isa matter of pro- tection for the Federal budget to take that language out.
2440 Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, will the genticman yield? Mr. HINSHAW. I yield. Mr. HARRIS. The gentleman’s statie-~ ment is very appropriate in response to the suggestion that was made by the gen- tleman from Wisconsin |Mr. KEEere} and the gentleman from Minnesota I[Mr. Jupp!. The real answer is in the next section, is it not, whereby authority is given and there may be cooperation be- tween agencies of the Government in carrying out the functions and purposes of scientific research. Mr. HINSHAW. That I think is very important. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Hin- SH\W! has exvired. Mr. PRIEST. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be con- sidered as read and printed in the Rec- ord at this point and be open for amend- ment at any point. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Tennessee? There was no objection. The bill is as follows: ESTACLISUMENT OF NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUN- DATION Sec 2 There is hereby established tn the executive branch of the Government an in- Gependent agency to be known as the Na- tional Sclence Foundrtion (hereinafter re- ferred to as the “Foundation”). The Foun- dation shal] consist of a National Science Board (hereinafter referred to as the “Board”) and a Director. FUNCTIONS OF THF FOUNDATION Sec 3. (a) The Foundation is authorized and directed-— (1) to develop and encourage the pursult of a national policy for the promotion of basic research and education 1n the sciences; (2) to initiate and support basic scientific research in the mathematical, physical, med- ical, biological, engineering, and other sci- ences, by making contracts or other arrange- ments (including grants, loans, and other forms of assistance) for the conduct of such basic sclentific research and to appraise the impact of research upon industrial develop- ment and upon the general welfare, (3) after consultation with the Secretary of Defense, to initiate and support scientific research in connection with matters relating to the national defense by making contracts or other arrangements (including grants, loans, and other forms of assistance) for the conduct of such sctentifie research; (4) to award, as provided in section 10, scholarships and graduate fellowships tin the mathematical, physical, medical, biological, engineering, and other eciences; (5) to foster the interchange of scientific information among scientists in the United States and foreign countries: (6) to correlate the Foundation’s scien- tific research programs with those under- taken by individuals and by public and pri- vate research groups; (7) to establish such special commissions as the Board may from time to time deem necessary for the purposes of this act; and (8) to maintain a register of scientific and technical personne] and in other ways pro- vide a central clearinghouse for information covering all scientific and technical person- nel in the United States, including its Ter- ritories and possessions, (b) In exercising the authority and dis- charging the functions referred to in sub- section (a) of this section, it shall be one of the objectives of the Foundation to strengthen basic research and education in the sciences, including independent research CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE by individuals, throughout the United States, including its Territorfes and posses- sions, and to avoid undue concentration of such research and education. (c) The Foundation shall render an an- nual repert to the President for submission on or before the 15th day of January of each year to the Congress, summarizing the activities of the Foundation and making such recommendations as it may deem ap- propriate. Such report shall include in full the report of the Executive Committee to the Board, provided for in eection 6 (e), and information as to the ecquisition and dis- position by the Foundation of any patents and patent rights. NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD Scc. 4 (a) The Board shall conalst of twenty-four members to be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and of the Director ex cfficlo, and shall, except as otherwisc pro- vided in this act, exercise the authority granted to the Foundation by this act. The persons nominated for eppointment as mem- bers (1) shall be eminent in the fields of the basic sciences, medical sclence, engi- neering, agriculture, education, or public affairs, (2) shall be selecved solely on the basis of established records of distinguished service; and (3) shall ke co selected as to provide representation of the views of scien- tific leaders tn all areas of the Nation. The President is requested, in the making of nominations of persous for appointment as members, to give due consideration to any recominendations for nomination which may be submivted to him by the National Acad- emy of Sciences, the Association of Land- Grant Colleges und Universities, the Na- tional Association of State Universities, the Association of American Colleges, or by other sclentific or educational organizations. (b) The term of office of exch voting mem- ber of the Board shall be 6 years, except that (1) any member appointed to fill a vacancy occurring prior to the expiration of the term for which his predecessor was uppointed shall be appointed for the remainder of such term; and (2) the terms of office of the members first taking office after the date of enaciment of this act shall expire, as des- ignuted by the President at the time of ap- pointment, elght at the end of 2 years, elght at the end of 4 years, and eight at the end of 6 years, after the date of enuct- ment of this act. Any person who has been a member of the Board for twelve consccu- tive years shall thereafter be ineligible for sppointment during the 2-year pericd fol- lowing the expiration of such twelfth year, (c) The President shall call the first meet- ing of the Board, at which the first order of business shall be the election of a Chair- man and a Vice Chairman. (a) The Board shall meet annually on the firet Monday 1n December and at such other times as the Chairman may determine, but he shall also call a meeting whenever one- third of the members so request in writing A majority of the voting members of the Board shall constitute a quorum. Lach member shall be given notice, by registered mail mailed to his last-known address of rec- ord not less than 15 days prior to any mect- ing, of the call of such meeting. (e) The first Chuirman and Vice Chair. man of the Board shall be elected by the Board to serve until the first Monday in December next succeeding the date of elec- tion at which time a Chairman and Vice Chairman shall be elected for a term of 2 years. Thereafter such election shall tako place at the annual meeting occurring at the end of each such term. The Vice Chairman shall perform the duties of the Chairman in his absence, In case a vacancy occurs in the chairmanship or vice chairmanship, the Board shall elect a member to fill such vacancy, FEBRUARY 27 DIRECTOR OF THE FOUNDATION Sec. 5. (a) There shall be a Director of the Foundation who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, after receiving recom- mendations from the Board. He shall serve as a nonvoting ex officio member of the Board and also as the nonvoting Chairman of the Evecutive Committee. In addition thereio he shall be the chief exccutive officer of the Foundation. The Director shall re- ceive compensation at the rate of 815,000 per annum and shall serve for a term of 6 years unless sooner removed by the Presi- dent. (b) In addition to the powers and duties specifically vested in him by this act, the Director shall, in accordance with the polis cles established by the Board, ervercise the Powers granted by sections 10 and 11 of this act, together with such other powers and duties as may be delegated to him by the Board; but the powers granted by sections 10 and 11 (c) shall be exercised only with the approval of the Board. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Sec. 6. (a) There is hereby established an Executive Committee of the Board which shall consist of the Director ex officio and nine other members elected by the mem- bers of the Board f10m among their number. The term of cflice of each member of the Executive Committee chall be 2 years ex- cept that (1) any member elected to fill a vacancy occurring prior to the expiration of the term for which his predecessor was elected shall be elected for the remainder of such term; and (2) the term of office of four of the members first elected after the date of enactment of this act shall be 1 year Any person who has been a member of the Executive Committee for six con- secutive years shall therevfter be ineligible for election during the 2-year period fol- lowing the expiration of such slxth year. The membership of the Executive Commit- tee shall, so far as practicable, be repre- sentative of diverse interests and shall be so chosen as to provide representation, so far a8 practicable, for all arcas of the Nation. (b) In addition to the powers and duties specifically vested in it by this act, the Ex- ecutive Committee shall exercise such pow- ers and duties as may bo delegated to it by the Board. (c) The Executive Committee shall meet at the call of its Chairman or at such times us may be fixed by itself, but not less than six times each year. (d) A majority of the voting members of tho Executive Committee shall constitute a@ quorum. (e) The Executive Committee shall render an annual report to the Board, and such other reports as it may deem necessary, sum- marizing the uctivities of the Executive Committee, making such recommendations as it may deem appropriate, and setting forth the recommendations of the divisional committees and special commissions. Mt- nority views and recommendations, if any, of members of the Executive Committee, the divisional committees, and special commis- sions shull be included in such reports, DIVISIONS WITHIN THE FOUNDATION Sec. 7, (a) Until otherwise provided by the Board there shall be within the Foun- dation the following divisions: (1) A Division of Medical Research: (2) A Division of Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences; (3) A Division of Biological Sciences; and (4) A Division of Scientific Personnel and Education, which shall be concerned with programs of the Foundation relating to the granting of scholarships and graduate fel- lowships in the mathematical, physical, med- ical, biological, engineering, and other sci- ences,
1950 (b) There shall also be within the Founda- tion such other divisions as the Board may, from time to time, deem necessary. DIVISIONAL COMMITTEES Suc. 8. (a) There shall be a committee for each division of the Foundation. (b) Each divisional committee shall be appointed by the Executive Committee and shall consist of not less than five persons who may be members or nonmembers of the Board. (c) The terms of members of each divi- sional committee shall be 2 years. Each divisional committee shall annually elect its own chairman from among its own members and shall prescribe its own rules of proced- ure subject to such restrictions as may be prescribed by the Executive Committee. (ad) Each divisional committee shall make recommendations to, and advise and consult with, the Executive Committee and the Di- rector with respect to matters relating to the program of its division. SPECIAL COMMISSIONS Sxc. 9. (a) Each special commission estab- lished pursuant to section 8 (a) (7) shall consist of 11 members appointed by the executive committee, six of whom shall be eminent scientists and five of whom shall be persons other than scientists. Each spe- cial commission shall choose its own chair- man and vice chairman. (b) It shall be the duty of each such spe- cial commission to make a comprehensive survey of research, both public and private, being carried on in Its field, and to formulate and recommend to the Foundation at the earliest practicable date an over-all research program in its field. SCHOLARSHIPS AND GRADUATE FELLOWSHIPS, Sec. 10 The Foundation is authorized to award, within the limits of funds made avail- able specifically for such purpose pursuant to section 15, scholarships and graduate fellow- ships for scientific study or scientific work in the mathematical, physical, medical, bio- logical, engineering, and other sciences at accredited nonprofit American or nonprofit foreign institutions of higher education, se- lected by the recipient of such aid, for stated periods of time. Persons shall be selected for such scholarships and fellowships from among citizens of the United States, and such selections shall be made solely on the basis of ability; but in any case in which two or more applicants for scholarships or fellow- ships, as the case may be, are deemed by the Foundation to be possessed of substantially equal ability, and there are not sufficient scholarships or fellowships, as the case may be, available to grant one to each of such applicants, the available scholarship or schol- arships or fellowship or fellowships shall be awarded to the applicants in such manner as will tend to result in a wide distribution of scholarships and fellowships among the States, Territories, possessions, amd the Dis- trict of Columbia. GENERAL AUTHORITY OF FOUNDATION Src. 11. The Foundation shall have the au- thority, within the limits of available appro- priations, to do all things necessary to carry out the provisions of this act, including, but without being limited thereto, the au- thority— (a) to prescribe such rules and regulations as it deems necessary governing the manner of its operations and its organization and personnel; (b) to make such expenditures as may be necessary for administering the provisions of this act; (c) to enter into contracts or other ar- rangements, or modifications thereof, for the carrying on, by organizations or individuals in the United States and foreign countries, including other government agencies of the United States and of foreign countries, of such basic scientific research activities and such scientific research activities in connec- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE tion with matters relating to the national defense as the Foundation deems necessary to carry out the purposes of this act, and, when deemed appropriate by the Foundation, such contracts or other arrangements, or modifications thereof, may be entered into without legal consideration, without per- formance or other bonds, and without regard to section 3709 of the Revised Statutes; (dad) to make advance, progress, and other payments which relate to scientific research wthout regard to the provisions of section 3648 of the Revised Statutes (31 U 38. C., sec. 529); (e) to acquire by purchase, lease, loan, or gift, and to hold and dispose of by sale, lease, or loan, real and personal property of all kinds necessary for, or resulting from, the exercise of authority granted by this act; (f) to receive and use funds donated by others, if such funds are donated, without restriction, other than that they be used in furtherance of one or more of the general purposes of the Foundation; (g) to publish or arrange for the publica- tion of scientific and technical information so as to further the full dissemination of in- formation of scientific value consistent with the national interest, without regard to the provisions of section 87 of the act of Janu- ary 12, 1895 (28 Stat. 622), and section 11 of the act of March 1, 1919 (40 Stat 1270, 44 U.S C., sec 111); (h) to accept and utilize the services of voluntary and uncompensated personnel and to provide transportation and subsistence as authorized by section 5 of the act of August 2, 1946 (6 U.S. C. 73b-2) for persons serving without compensation; and (1) to prescribe, with the approval of the Comptroller General of the United States, the extent to which vouchers for funds ex- Pended under contracts for scientific re- search shall be subject to itemization or sub- stantiation prior to payment, without regard to the limitations of other laws relating to the expenditure of public funds and account- ing therefor. PATENT RIGHTS Sec. 12. (a) Each contract or other arrange- ment executed pursuant to this act which relates to scientific research shall contain provisions governing the disposition of in- ventions produced thereunder in a manner calculated to protect the public interest and the equities of the individual or organization with which the contract or other arrange- ment is executed: Provided, however, That nothing in this act shall be construed to authorize the Foundation to enter into any contractual or other arrangement incon- sistent with any provision of law affécting the issuance or use of patents. (b) No officer or employee of the Founda- tion shall acquire, retain, or transfer any rights, under the patent laws of the United States or otherwise, in any invention which he may make or produce in connection with performing his assigned activities and which 1s directly related to the subject matter thereof: Provided, however, That this sub- section shall not be construed to prevent any officer or employee of the Foundation from executing any application for patent on any such invention for the purpose of assigning the same to the Government or its nominee tn accordance with such rules and regulations as the Director may establish. INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION AND COORDINATION WITH FOREIGN POLICY Src. 13. (a) The Foundation is hereby au- thorized to cooperate in any international scientific research activities consistent with the purposes of this act and to expend for such international scientific research activi- ties such sums within the limit of appro- priated funds as the Foundation may deem desirable. The Director, with the approval of the Executive Committee, may defray the expenses of representatives of Government agencies and other oiganizations and of in- 2441 dividual scientists to accredited international acientific congresses and meetings whenever he deems it necessary in the promotion of the objectives of this act. (b) (1) The authority to enter into con- tracts or other arrangements with organiza- tions or individuals in foreign countries and with agencies of foreign countries, as pro- vided in section 11 (c), and the authority to cooperate in international scientific research activities as provided in subsection (a) of this section, shall be exercised only after con- sultation with the Secretary of State, to the end that such authority shall be exercised in such manner as is consistent with the foreign policy objectives of the United States. (2) If, in the exercise of the authority re- ferred to in paragraph (1) of this subsection, negotiation with foreign countries or agen- cies thereof becomes necessary, such nego=- tiation shall be carried on by the Secretary of State in consultation with the Director. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS Src. 14, (a) The Director shall, in accord- ance with such policies as the Executive Committee shall from time to time prescribe, appoint and fix the compensation of such personnel as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this act Such appoint- ments shall be made and such compensation shall be fixed in accordance with the pro- visions of the civil-service laws and regula- tions and the Classification Act of 1923, as amended: Provided, That the Director may, in acordance with such policies as the Execu- tive Committee shall from time to time pre- scribe, employ such technical and profes- sional personnel and fix their compensation, without regard to such laws, as he may deem necessary for the discharge of the responsi- bilities of the Foundation under this act. The Deputy Director hereinafter provided for, and the members of the divisional com- mittees and special commissions, shall be ap- pointed without regard to the civil-service laws or regulations. Neither the Director nor the Deputy Director shall engage in any other business, vocation, or employment than that of serving as such Director or Deputy Director, as the case may be; nor shall the Director or Deputy Director, except with the approval of the Executive Committee, hold any office in, or act: in any capacity for, any organization, agency, or institution with which the Foundation makes any contract or other arrangement under this act. (b) The Director may appoint, with the approval of the Executive Committee, a Deputy Director who shall perform such functions as the Directoy, with the approval of the Executive Committee, may prescribe and shall be Acting Director during the ab- sence or disability om™he Director or in the event of a vacancy in the Office of the Director. (c) The Foundation shall not, itself, op- erate any laboratories or pilot plants. (ad) The members of the Board, and the members of each divisional committee, or special commission, shall receive compensa- tion at the rate of $25 for each day engaged in the business of the Foundation pursuant to authorization of the Foundation, and shall be allowed travel expenses as authorized by section 5 of the act of August 2, 1946 (5 U, 8. C. 73b-2). (e) Persons holding other offices in the executive branch of the Federal Government may serve as members of the divistonal com- mittees and special commissions, but they shall not receive remuneration for their serv- ices as such membcrs during any period for which they recetve compensation for their services in such other Offices. (f) Service of an individual as a member of the Board, of a divisional committee, or of @ special commission shall not be considered as service bringing him within the pro- visions of section 281, 283, or 284 of title 18 of the United States Code or section 190 of the Revised Statutes (5 U. 8. C., sec. 99), unless the act of such individual, which by
2442 such section is made unlawful when per- formed by an individual referred to in such section, is with respect to any particular matter which directly involves the Founda- tion or in which the Foundation is directly interested (g) In making contracts or other arrange- ments for scientific research, the Foundation shall utilizo appropriations available there- for in such manner as will in its discretion best realize the objectives of (1) having the work performed by organizations, agencics, and institutions, or individuals in the United States or foreign countries, including Gov- ernment agencies of the United States and of foreign countries, qualified by training and experience to achieve the results de- sired, (2) strengthening the research staff of organizations, particularly nonprofit or- ganizations, in the States, Territorics, pos- sessions, and the District of Columbia, (3) aiding institutions, agencies, or organizu- tions which, if aided, will advance basic re- search, and (4) encouraging independent basic research by individuals. (h) The activities of the Foundation shall be construed as supplementing and not superseding, curtailing, or limiting any of the functions or activities of other Govern- ment agencies authorized to engage in scientific research or development. (1) Funds available to any department or agency of the Government for scientific or technical reseurch, or the provision of facilli- ties therefor, shall be available for transfer, with the approval of the head of the depart- ment or agency involved, in whole or in part, to the Foundation for such use as is con- sistent with the purposes for which such funds were provided, and funds so trans- ferred shall be expendable by the Foundation for the purposes for which the transfer was made, and, until such time us an appropria- tion is made available directly to the Foundation, for gencral administrative ex- penses of the Foundation without regard to Mmitations otherwise applicable to such funds. (J) The National Roster of Scientific and Specialized Personnel shall be transferred from the United States Employment Service to the Foundation, together with such records and property as have been utilized or are available for use in the administration of such roster as may be determined by the Director of the Bureau of the Budget. The transfer provided for in this subsection shall take effect at such time or times as the Director of the Bureau of the Budget shall direct. (K) The Foundation shall not support any research or development activity in the fleld of atomic energy, nor shall it exercise any authority pursuant to section 11 (e) in respect to that field, without first having obtained the concurrence of the Atomic Energy Commission that such activity will not adversely affect the common defense and security. Nothing in this act shall super- sede or modify any provision of the Atomic Energy Act of 1946. . (1) The executive committee, after consul- tation with the Secretary of Defense, shall establish regulations and procedures for the security classification of information § or property (having military significunce) in connection with scientific research under this act, and for the proper safeguarding of any iniormation or property so clussified. APPROPRIATIONS Sec. 15 (a) To enable the Foundation to carry out its powers and duties, there is hereby authorized to be appropriated an- nually to the Foundation, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise uppropriated, such sums as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this act. (b) Appropriations made pursuant to the authority provided in subsection (a) of this section shell remain available for obligation, for expenditure, or for obligation and ex- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE penditure, for such period or periods as may be specified in the acts making such appropriations, The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will re- port the first committee amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Committee amendment: On page 3, line 3, strike out lines 3 to 6, inclusive, and insert the following language: “(6) to evaluate scientific research pro- grams undertaken by individuals and by pub- lic and private research groups, including scientific research programs of agencies of the Federal Government, and to correlate the Foundation's scientific research programs with such programs.” Mr. HESELTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the committee amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr HESELTON to the committce amendment: Strike out paragraph 6 of section 3 (a) on page 3, line 6 through line 11, and insert in licu thereof the follow- ing: “(6) to evaluate scientific research pro- grams undertaken by agencies of the Federal Government and to correlate Foundation sci- entific research programs with those under- taken by individuals and by public and pri- vate research groups.” Mr. HESELTON. Mr. Chairman, I shall speak briefly on this, with apolo- gies to those who were here when I stated that I would offer this amendment at the proper time. In the interest of sav- ing time, I would like to read briefly from the last page of the Hoover report: This points to the need for a National Sci- ence Foundation. The major functions of such a Foundation should be (a) to examine the total scientific research effort of the Na- tion, (b) to assess the proper role of the Federal Government in this effort, (c) to evaluate the division of research effort among the scientific disciplines and among fields of applied research, and (d) to evalu- ate the key factors that impede the devel- opment of an effective national research effort. The second recommendation of the Hoover Commission is: (b) The Commission recommends that a National Science Foundation be established. I called attention previously to the re- port of the President’s Special Board ap- pointed in 1946, which is contained at the beginning of page 49 of the second annual report of the Secretary of De- fense. There are two paragraphs I would like to emphasize. The Army and Navy have vigorous re- search development programs which had grown up over a period of years. When the Air Force was constituted as a sep- arate branch of the armed services its research development efforts represented a third important program. The size, diversity, and complexity of the flelds covered by these programs make sound planning increasingly important. The coordinating activities of the Re- search and Development Board enable each department to become aware of what the other departments are doing in research and development. Unneces- sary duplication is thereby located and eliminated or prevented. More difficult, but probably of greater significance, is the Board’s continuing responsibility to shift emphasis and funds away from pro- grams of lesser military promise and into FEBRUARY 27 those of greater value. The existence of such a coordinating agency makes it pos- sible to stretch the research and devel- opment dollar and to cut costs. The President’s board in one of its re- ports has pointed out that what is needed is that each of these hundreds of agen- cies in our Government that are engaged in extensive research programs should review those programs, should evaluate them, should set up a long-range plan which should then be submitted to this Foundation so that we couid integrate them into a national program. Since the Second World War the mili- tary expenditures on research have aver- aged over half a billion dollars a year. Although this is but a small portion of the average total military budget, it is a large figure in comparison to the much smaller sums spent on military research and development before the war—in comparison, say, to the $13,000,000 obli- gated for military research and develop- ment in 1939, the year World War II began. The amount of money currently being spent for research and develop- ment is only slightly less than the entire military appropriation for 1924, and is almost 50 percent as much as the total military appropriation as late as 1937. In the National Defense Establishment this committee has been able to report that it has actually brought about sub- stantial savings through this coordina- tion. It makes the statement on page 61: Formally effected coordination is illus- trated by recent Board action on the 1ecum- mendation of the Committee on Guided Mis- Biles request that three existing projects be terminated and two others combined into one. Through this action an estimated $6,000,000 in plant obligations for the fiscal year 1950 was made available tor allocation to other guided missiles projects of high priority. Carrying that over into the other fields of major research we can confidently anticipate, I believe, a much better and well-rounded program. I call your attention finally to this: The proposed amendment places the em- phasis upon evaluation of scientific re- search programs undertaken by the Fed- eral Government, not by the universities, not by the industries, not by private re- search. We have no business going into that and telling them: ‘You shall do this; you shall not do that.” That is their business and they should be per- mitted to plan and conduct their own business. But this Foundation, if we adopt this amendment, would be under the obligation of correlating the Founda- tion’s program with those of individuals and of public and private research groups. Iam hopeful that my colleagues in the House will see it as do my col- leagues on the committee. Mr. SMITH of Wisconsin. Mr, Chair- man, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HESELTON. I yield. Mr. SMITH of Wisconsin. Does the gentleman agree that the Hoover recom- mendation refers to Government enter- prise? Mr. HESELTON. Absolutely and ex- clusively. Mr. SMITH of Wisconsin. What as- surance does private industry have that
1950 the Government will not take it over? What is meant by the word “correlate”? Mr. HESELTON. The language has been submitted to draftsmen and to in- dustry, and it has been approved by industry specifically. It is to correlate the Foundation’s scientific research pro- gram, nothing else; correlate our Fed- eral program with what is being done in the country by universities, industries, and in other public-research programs. I can assure the gentleman that it has met with the approval of substantial business interests which are engaged in this field with very heavy investments. Mr. SMITH of Wisconsin. I have my doubts about that. Mr. PRIEST. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word merely to say that the committee accepts the amend- ment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Hrse,tron] to the committee amendment. Mr. JAVITS. Mr. Chairman, I favor this amendment and the bill. This amendment providing for corre- lation in the whole fleld of scientific re- search is extremely valuable for there is nothing exclusionist about such research, nor are any particular areas of research to be included or excluded because other agencies, public or private, are working on them. It is therefore most desirable that correlation be teamed with evalua- tion as is done by the pending amend- ment. This in the best interests of the most effective and complete scientific research. With respect to the general purposes of the bill itself it is indeed gratifying that it is now being considered and that the objections which caused the Presi- dent to veto a similar bill passed by the Eightieth Congress have apparently been overcome. In a day of A-bombs and H-bomb, an effort to restore the bal- ance between applied and pure science is entitled to our convinced support. It is gratifying to know too that, on the whole, although there is opposition to some features of this bill on the part of scientists and others who have studied the subject because of certain inade- quacies, notably those relating to the broadest distribution of research grants, and questions of patent rights and co- operation with international agencies, there appears to be strong support for the bill from scientists and educators every- where. My own wartime experience and that of many other Members of the House taught us the critical place in our social and economic development and in the development of our national security of fundamental research in the sciences. ‘We have made spectacular achievements in applied science, pure research, how- ever, is the base for all such achieve- ments, whether done here or elsewhere. The march of the world forward demands no less of the nation on earth with the best technical equipment, and which has done the most with it for the human well-being as well as for international peace and security, than that we under- take this additional measure to make more effective our great resources for scientific research. Mr.CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Waps- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE ‘worTH] has very well stated that most obvious objections to this bill as I see them. There are, however, certain ill- omened implications in the philosophy of science, or rather of many—too many—scientists, which deserve atten- tion from those who are to administer this act so as to remedy the tragic naiveté involved in such cases as those of Drs. May and Fuchs, and of Hiss and others in this country. It hardly seems that the infiltration of communism in world politics can be checked while we cling to a Socialist concept of political action and, accord- ingly, play me-too politics with the Gemagogues of the Kremlin. We can hardly hope to promote world peace while democratic statesmanship consists of trying to assure the material welfare of humanity, not by compelling respon- sible behavior—not by confining govern- ment to the functions which maintain law and order and so assure decent in- centives by the reward of economic security through private property—but by falsely guaranteeing that which can be available only through the industry, thrift, and intelligence of a responsible and abstentious citizenry. Science, or rather scientists, seem to be telling us that we can forget what the desire for welfare, when not impelling anarchy and pillage, has always dictated, namely, abstention. Not merely the in- telligent use of nature’s bounties, but also prevention of the plundering of the planet under excessive population pres- sure, is the only possible path to perma- nent peace and the control of the indus- trial Frankenstein which scientists, as technicians, are constructing. A government which is paternalistic, not by restraining, but by promoting, the expansion of population, cannot fail to become either a totalitarian aggressor bent on taking the earth’s resources from other races and nations, or else a deca- dent bureaucracy seeking in vain to guarantee full employment at high wages to everyone and to assure no hardship for anyone. It is not possible to tempo- rize with such policies—to steer a safe political course among the world’s races by promoting universal abundance with the hope of thus containing communism by allaying unrest. In this situation scientists are having a disturbing influ- ence because they are divorcing their calling from moral standards, just as are most other people, through the philos- ophy of materialism. Even biologists, who should know bet- ter, are preachinz that life itself is mech- anistic. By drawing the red herring of their doctrinal dispute with the Krem- lin’s Lysenko—as to whether the prom- ised land of milk and honey is to be reached by Mendelian or by Lamarckian theory—over the trail of their own mate- rialism, they are obscuring the very basis of moral restraints provided by the idea of a selective struggle for survival which was instilled into Darwin’s concept of evolution by Thomas Malthus, We may cite among those who are so engaged, Prof. Theodosius Dobzhansky of Colum- bia University who asserts, in a recent issue of Science, that competition and the struggle for life are misleading meta- 2443 phors which should be removed from the vocabulary of science. By no means all scientists are thus deluding themselves and their public. Dr. Warren Thompson, of Ohio, and other careful students of demography, that is, of human population problems, are no utopians nor do they consider that human populations tend to decline as their security advances. That the truth is exactly to the contrary should give pause in developing a foreign policy based on the idea that industrialization of backward areas will restrain popula- tion and make for peace on earth and good will among men. Permit a few observations quoted from Professor Thompson’s essay in the February Scien- tific American. After citing figures on Swedish experience indicating that lower birth rates and higher death rates were the result of poor harvests, he says: “In the long view, Malthus was funda- mentally correct when he said that man’s growth in numbers was largely depend- ent on the supply of subsistence.” Im- provements in agriculture have “had ex- actly the effects that Malthus had pre- dicted the provision of more ample sub- sistence would have on _ population growth. For a time it appeared that in the Western World we no longer needed to give serious attention to the ideas of Malthus, that we had learned how to produce at a rate in excess of any possi- ble rate of population growth, and that we could look forward to an easier life no matter how high our birth rate or how low our death rate.” Now, however, “experience in Japan gives tangible support to the belief of Gemographers that the tndustrially backward areas of the world are likely to grow rapidly in population during the next century as they industrialize.” In the “Malthusian countries” of the Orient, like India, “the population seems to grow whenever subsistence increases and to stop or even decline at times of scar~ city and great epidemics.” Professor Thompson believes that these problems have a very direct rela- tion to the maintenance of peace. In a world which 1s filling up as ours is, and which is one world whether we like it or not, the urgent question regarding the livelihood of a growing people soon be- comes a matter of concern to all nations. Hence there is a need to begin to plan for such changes in population growth ag will contribute best to human welfare. It seems far less clear to natural scientists that it should be that there never has been any time in which the extent of life on earth has been found to be cumulative. It has always de- pended upon the amount of solar energy which plant life could, currently, capture in its synthesis of organic compounds for the sake of the plant’s own offspring. Other species have intruded into a strug- gle over this tmited supply. The strug- gle has begotten a myriad of forms, many now extinct in addition to those whose strategies still suffice for survival. Man’s dominance is thus not a matter of being able to control the environment in any sense of mastering the physical limitations of the planet and going on to unprecedented miracles of expansion
2444 unrelated to other living things. The genus homo has developed a cultural, technological method of bypassing the limitations of anatomical form; this use of machinery and other techniques has produced a sudden dominance over other species. These others have become easy prey—so easy, indeed, that many species have succumbed and are extinct, which once afforded large supplies of food. Many a localized civilization has arisen and disappeared by such developments. But it will be a new and terrible experi- ence, indeed, that seems imminent today in the currently world-wide explosion of population to be followed by inevitable disaster, unless population can be con- trolled by a system of enterprises that js free for all—but not free from com- petitive restraints which compel those who are unable to make the grade to be eliminated, not by the fury of hydrogen bombs that science seems about to re- lease in a dysgenic holocaust, but by being good losers in a game that not every genetic element on earth can win. If this sort of peaceful genocide is not impressed upon the human race, so that the unfit in ideological or other groups are forced to quit by failure to repro- duce as fast as they die naturally, the kind of genocide which wars produce and which the United Nations Organ- ization is naively proposing to stop by a@ so-called convention, will surely take up the surplus sooner or later in a state of affairs where the horrors of peace are not exceeded by those of war. It seems to be, not venality, but rather a naive faith in materialism that is un- dermining the morale of our scientists and bringing about such cases as those of Dr. May and Dr. Fuchs, and, in our own midst, the academic apologies for such inane betrayals of America as we have seen among American scholars, such as Alger Hiss, who have had, personally, everything to lose and little to gain by their Communist sympathies. The Foundation for Promoting Basic Science which these same academic in- terests are urging before this body seems not to be in hands which have a clear understanding of the best interests of science apart from the welfare of sci- entists. Indeed, the most potent factor in the advance of science seems to me to have been crowded out in the four technical divisions provided for. I see little hope, in this specialization, for es- caping the Babylonian confusion which the Rockefeller Foundation has said exists in the ranks of science. The di- rector of that foundation not long ago allotted a fund to the effort at eliminat- ing these difficulties in the state of sci- entific thought. Basic science can cer- tainly be advanced less by technological developments by specialists than by basic philosophical considerations. This could be accomplished, moreover, without the tremendous expenditures which are in- dicated as too much for private funds to attain while already unbalanced Federal budgets are producing rising costs which dissipate endowments at an increasing pace. Finally, Mr. Chairman, in support of this suggestion for economy and accom- plishment, I present some _ pointed phrases taken from an essay on the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Scientist-—Technician or Moralist? which makes rather plain the relation of the academic scientist to the social ills that we are enduring. The author is Prof. George Simpson of the City College of New York, writing in the current issue of the magazine, Philosophy of Science, published under the editorship of Dr. Churchman of Wayne University in De- troit. I quote: When faced with moral problems, natural scientists have developed the habit of run- ning away from science itself. * * * As scientists they glory in being technicians; this eases their consciences by leaving ethics to moral philosophers or mystics. * * * Although he has handed over moral problems to the philosophers, the average natural scientist frowns upon philosophy as aimless speculation on the unsolvable problems which nobody but an impractical visionary would spend his timeon. * * * It would secm that the retreat fiom moral- ity by science is now full, for the dominant view in social science today is that soctal scientists might well learn from natural scientists how to achieve a new social status derivative from what can he subsidized rather than trom what requires investiga- tion. * “* * Moral retrogression and material progress are part and parcel of the bifweation ot science and morality. The insolubility of moral problems by science gains ever more credence as material problems become more and more soluble by “applied science”; that is, technology. As industry becomes more and more rationalized,” morality becomes less and less rational. * * * Truth which is arrived at socially is pro- ceduralized so that it loses its valuative as- pect and becomes sanctimonious. It be- comes a form of social worship, not a form of social understanding. * * * Nobody in this situation ls supposed to question the worth of science, for science does not ques- tion the worth of so-called moral behavior. By avoidance of moral issues science reigns supreme. * *% *& To engage in an attempt to help structure society so as to make possible the subservi- ence of emotion, interest, and desire, to ra- tionality, is to become a pariah, an outcast, a troublemaker, and, most unkindest cut of all, to be dumned as uncooperative by a non- cooperative society. It is small wonder, then, that the scientist is led to accept the social position he finds and to join in the mass chorus which sings his praises as a techni- clan who will help anybody discover anything as long as he does not have to tell them what to do about it. The tull cycle is completed when the social scientist joins in the chorus and asks that he, too, be permitted to join this gallant ship’s company sailing the seven seas on a social pleasure-pain cruise * * *, Truly, “Come All Ye Faithful" can be sung in praise of Mammon. Out in the cold, like the poor looking in on the banquet board, 1s a motley crew of philosophers who are paying the price for not devoting their lives to asking only the proper questions. Perhaps it is not too much to expect that soon philosophers too will find their way into the ranks of the technicians. * * * Scientists have been taken in by the soft words of praise for their devotion to the cause of humanity spoken even by those who may use scientific work to defeat the ends of reason. The severing of science from moral- ity is part of a more general process in mod- ern society whereby means have triumphed Over ends. . In the battle of pressure groups in modern society the scientist is considered as one among many, asking no quarter and seeking no quarter. The state becomes an umpire between truths, so-called; the victor need give no hostage to reason. Indeed, reason FEBRUARY 27 itself becomes an attribute of political vic- tory. The final, crowning triumph occurs when truth is what political power proclaims, Aryan races, the new mythos, an elite with- out natural talents other than administra- tive, a world made in the image of man’s irrationality—these are the ripe fruits of science in the service of politics which has no allegiance to social truth. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the substitute amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts. The substitute amendment was agreed to. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the committee amendment as amended by the substitute. The committee amendment, as amend- ed, was agreed to. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will re- port the next committee amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Committee amendment: Page 10, line 20, Insert “(a)” after the figure 10. The committee amendment was agreed to. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will re- port the next committee amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Page 11, line 16, insert the following: “(b) No part of any funds appropriated or otherwise made available for expenditure by the foundation under authority of this act shall be used to make payments under any scholarship or fellowship to any indi- vidual unless there ts on file with the founda- tion an affidavit executed by such individual that he does not believe in, and is not a member of and does not support any or- ganization that believes in or teaches, the overthrow of the United States Government by force or violence or by any illegal or un- constitutional methods. The provisions of section 1001 of title 18, United States Code, shall be applicable in respect of such af- fidavits.” Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Mr. Chair- man, I offer an amendment to the com- mittee amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. Rocers of Florida to the committee amendment: Page 11, line 19, after the word “unless” insert “(1)”, and on page 12, in line 1, strike out the period and insert in Meu thereof the following: ‘‘, (2) the affidavit is accompanted by such supporting evidence as the founda- tion may by regulations require, and (3) the director and at least five of the voting mem- bers of the exccutive committee are satis- fied that the statements made in the affidavit are truc.” Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Mr. Chair- man, the amendment offered by the com- mitee does not go quite far enough. That is the only objection Ihave. The amend- ment states that payments can be made if there is an affidavit executed by the individual to the effect he does not be- lieve in and is not a member of and does not support any organization that be- lieves in or teaches the overthrow o. the United States Government by force or violence or by any illegal or unconstitu- tional methods. The Foundation under this verbiage, therefore, would be authorized to make payments to a Communist who files such an affidavit. I add two propositions to this, first, that the affidavit must be accompanied by such supporting evidence as the Foundation may by regulation reauire.
1950 In other words, the Foundation can pass @ regulation as to what it requires in the affidavit to be filed. Everyone will know what that is by looking at the records, They can tell what those regulations are. My second addition is that the director and at least five of the voting members of the executive committee must be satis- fled that the statements made in the affidavit are true. That is a protection to the Foundation. Mr. COX. Mr, Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. ROGERS of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia. Mr. COX. The gentleman is simply undertaking to provide an additional precaution against taking into the organization people who are not loyal to the United States Government? Mr. ROGERS of Florida. That is all it is. I am glad the gentleman from Georgia asked that question. That is my only purpose. It throws some duty on the Foundation and the director to determine whether the affidavit is true or not. In the past few days Alger Hiss has been convicted of perjury. Another fellow down here, Christoffel, was con- victed the other day for perjury. Now, what difference does it make to a Com- munist who wants to secure an advan- tage, who wants to take our courses over here? He would sign an affidavit and the Foundation would be absolutely justified in admitting him if the affidavit was merely on file. They do not have to go into any details. They do not have to go into the truth or falsity of it. The simple fact it is filed would justify pay- ments of this scholarship or other fund. Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. ROGERS of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan. Mr. DINGELL. The gentleman refers to Communists. Let us take a look at other applicants. Whether they are un- der the cloud of suspicion of being a Communist or not, will they be allowed? Suppose it is a decent citizen and not a Communist, does he have to go through the swearing that he is not a communist or does he have to submit other evidence? Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Under the amendment offered by the committee you have to do that. But, this just puts a little more safeguard for them to justify his being made a payment. Mr. DINGELL. It does not cast any reflection on the character of a man who was not a Communist. Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Not at all. It casts no reflection on anybody. Mr. RICH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. ROGERS of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. Mr. RICH. I think the amendment offered by the gentleman is a good one. I think the committee ought to have no doubts at all about the sincerity of the gentleman in asking for this amendment, Anybody who is communistically inclined should not be on the commission or be employed by the commission. Mr. ROGERS of Florida. I thank the gentleman. You all know of an in- stance—I will not call his name—in North Carolina, having to do with the Atomic Energy Commission. Why, he XCVI-——154 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE was there taking advantage of the courts, taking our American money, and he was a Communist. They afterwards found it out and dismissed him. This only throws a safeguard around anybody be- fore they can take our money. As for me, I do not want a cent of American money to go to a Communist for any- thing; I do not care what it is. Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. ROGERS of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. HOLIFIELD. Of course, I under- stand the gentleman’s purpose, and we all have the same purpose in mind. But, when you require an affidavit from a person that he is not a Communist, ahd he subjects himself to the laws of perjury, how can you double protect such a thing as that? Mr. ROGERS of Florida. I want to say that the committee amendment provides that. Mr. HOLIFIELD. How can you strengthen that? Mr. ROGERS of Florida. He must have the supporting evidence. I hope we have enough good Americans here to adopt this amendment. Mr. HOLIFIELD. What kind of sup- porting evidence, beyond his affidavit? The CHAIRMAN, The time of the gentleman from Florida has expired. Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Mr. Chair- man, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for five additional minutes. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Florida? Mr, WIER. I object, Mr. Chairman. Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. PRIEST. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HARRIS. from Tennessee. Mr. PRIEST. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment close in 5 minutes. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Tennessee? Mr. WIER. I object, Mr. Chairman. Mr. PRIEST. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment close in 10 minutes. Mr. WIER. I desire 5 minutes, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Is that on the com- mittee amendment and all amendments thereto? Mr. PRIEST. On the committee amendment and all amendments thereto. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Tennessee? There was no objection. Mr. PRIEST. Mr. Chairman, I renew my request to make it 15 minutes. I sce a number of the subcommittee seeking recognition. I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 15 min- utes. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Tennessee? Mr. SHAFER. I object, Mr. Chair- man, I yield to the gentleman 2445 Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for a parlia- mentary inquiry? Mr. HARRIS, I yield. Mr. McCORMACK. As I understand, the 10-minute limitation has already been agreed to. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman ts correct. That was agreed to. Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, reluc- tantly I rise to oppose the amendment offered by my good friend and our es- . teemed colleague and member of the committee, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Rocers]. I know that deep in his heart he is sincere; he js honest and has every good intention as is utterly pos- sible by proposing the amendment. I respectfully submit to the committee, however, that it is certainly unnecessary to have an amendment such as my good friend proposes; in fact, it can do noth- ing except confuse the administration of the act as it applies to scholarships and fellowships. I am as vigorously opposed to any funds proposed by this act for scholar- ship or fellowship being made to anyone that does not hold sacred allegiance to the United States, as the gentleman from Florida, or any other Member of this Congress. I am just as anxious as he or anyone else that no Communist or fellow traveler be permitted to partici- pate in the program. I do not believe there should be any windfall or any op- portunity for such another experience as occurred in a university in connection with the atomic-energy program. The gentleman is a good lawyer. It is well known under our judicial proce- dure that there is a severe penalty for perjury. Therefore, we provided that none of these funds to be appropriated can be used by anyone unless there is an affidavit by such party that he does not believe in and is not a member of and does not support any organization that believes in or teaches the overthrow of the United States Government by force or violence or by any illegal or un- constitutional methods. And further, the committee amend- ment provides specifically that the pro- visions of section 1001 of title 18, United States Code, shall be applicable in re- spect of such affidavits. In other words, the penalty provisions of the law shall apply without any possible doubt when perjury is committed. Security, yes; we should have stringent security provisions but they should be workable. It would be wholly imprac- tical for the executive committee of the Foundation to have to go out and make an investigation to determine whether or not a man commits perjury. The gentleman knows that !t is not only ad- ministrative action but that the execu- tive committee would be required to do the work of the law-enforcement officers and the courts. There is no doubt in anyone’s mind but what this Congress adequately and appropriately dealt with this same ques- tion in connection with the Atomic Energy Commission. The committee amendment is identical with the provi- sion the Congress adopted as applies to the Atomic Energy Commission. There- fore, Mr. Chairman, the committee
2446 amendment included in the bill providing that before scholarship awards can be made there must be such affidavit on file to the effect that the party involved Is not a Communist and has no affiliation at all with any Communist organiza- tion or any other organization that would overthrow our form of government is the correct approach. Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HARRIS. I yield to the gentle- man from Georgia. Mr. COX. What is the affidavit worth when it comes to one who is disloyal to his country? Mr. HARRIS. It is worth just what perjury was worth in the Alger Hiss case. It is worth what any other affidavit re- quired under the laws of our country is worth, that if a man perjures himself he is subject to the penalty of the law. It is not a question for the Board or the Foundation to determine, it is a question for the institution to determine when these scholarships are awarded. The gentleman from New York [Mr. WapsworTH] a moment ago said that one of the grave fears he has in his mind about this legislation ts the inevitable control of the institution. Are you go- ing to set up this Foundation composed of six or more men who will tell any in- stitution in the United States who may have a scholarship award? That is ex- actly what you are doing here. Talk about the control of your educational in- stitutions. You would certainly author- ize the Foundation, without any question, to determine by your amendment who will receive scholarship awards. Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Mr. Chair- man, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HARRIS. I yield. Mr. ROGERS of Florida. I call the gentleman’s attention to the fact that irrespective of what the Foundation does the payments for these scholarships can- not be made until the director and a ma- jority of the executive committee are satisfied that the affidavit is true. Mr. HARRIS. The scholarship award is made through an institution who has the students. It is not altogether the de- termination of the Foundation on a par- ticular student. What you would pro- vide is for the Foundation to make any determination it wants to in any insti- tution tn the United States on any man or any student that might want a schol- arship or fellowship. I believe the gen- tleman has not sufficiently considered the amendment he has proposed. Mr. Chairman, I urge that the Com- mittee defeat the amendment. Mr. SHAFER. Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will count. {After counting.) One hundred and four Members are present, a quorum. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. W1sR]. (By unanimous consent, at the request of Mr. MarsHaAL_, the time allotted to him was granted to Mr. WIR.) Mr. WIER. Mr. Chairman, I believe that the time has arrived for educational institutions to assert their positions, and I personally believe that it is obvious that acceptance of the principle of CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE thought control, in any form or manner, will be fatal to American education, scholarship, and to democracy itself. If such regulations as those in force in Executive Order 98385 were made appli- cable to the student body and faculty of the University of Minnesota, there would be an instant change in the intel- lectual climate of the institution. Very few persons would dare discuss the mer- its or demerits of progressive legis- lation except in private with most trusted friends. The free play of ideas would be a thing of the past because no one could trust others not to be in the secret service of an organization whose duty it was to report on dangerous ideas. The university administration itself would lose authority to determine fitness for enrollment as a student or employment as a staff member. That authority would pass to a Federal board. I have ascertained that Federal em- ployees here in Washington have adopted the attitudes I outlined above, and I know for a fact that many competent persons have left Federal employment rather than be subject to the intellectual and emotional harassment of the loyalty order and associated investigations. Perhaps I should make my position clear. I favor every protection of Amer- ican democracy against any overt act perpetrated to overthrow it by any un- constitutional means. I would prose- cute to the full extent of the law any perpetrator of such an act. If member- ship in any organization can be estab- lished by due process of law to constitute such an overt act leading to clear and present danger to our democratic system by unconstitutional means, I would favor construing the act of joining such an or- ganization as a crime, and punishable, not, however, by any ex post facto law or rule. However, I believe with Ber- nard de Voto, who said in another con- nection—Harpers, July 1949, page 63— “that the right of free speech cannot be restricted unless a ‘clear and present danger’ to society exists—and exists with such immediate urgency that there is no time to answer idea with idea.” The road to totalitarianism is paved with bricks, each one of which exposes a face acceptable or even desirable to a majority. Totalitarianism itself is simply a system in which minorities have no rights or protection. The minority is itself a different group on every individ- ual issue. The genius of Anglo-Saxon common law and the virtue of the Amer- ican Constitution consisted first of all in the protection they afforded to minor- ities. If those qualities are lost, civiliza- tion is set back a thousand years. It is my opinion that although we should have governmental assistance for the support of scientific research in this country the public. interest would be badly served if such support were granted with the inclusion of a loyalty clause governing students and employ- ees in every institution in the country expecting to use such funds, I believe it will be obvious to you that. the inclusion of such a clause would change the intellectual environment of every institution covered by it just as it has already changed the intellectual plan for workers in the Government services. FEBRUARY 27 It is not unsafe to predict that frank and open discussion of political prob- lems will be very largely eliminated in American colleges and universities if Federal aid to education and science is coupled with Federal loyalty clearance. I have no doubt that the great pre- ponderance of persons to whom such rules might apply would be cleared with- out question. However, the very fact that secret derogatory information might mean the loss of one's job, will encourage most persons to keep all of their ideas to themselves. I feel sure that this is not what you and other Mem- bers of our Congress desire to have hap- pen to our academic institutions. It is, of course, incompatible with the prin- ciples of freedom for which we all stand. I intend to use my good office to prevent such a calamity from occurring in con- nection with Federal aid to science and education. We can better afford to go without the aid than to jeopardize our most cherished traditions which distin- guish us from the totalitarian states. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Krere] is recog- nized. Mr. KEEFE. Mr. Chairman, I take this time merely to call the attention of the distinguished gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Harris} to the fact that I think he was in error when he made the contention that the awards of scholarship provided for under this bill are made to educational institutions. I have some knowledge of the scholarship awards that are made under authority of the United States Public Health Serv- ice, and I find the situation here is ex- actly the same, and that the scholar- ships are directed to individuals. The National Science Foundation selects the individuals itself, as provided for in sec- tion 10, on pages 10 and 11 of this bill. Therefore, it is of extreme importance to see to it that the individuals who are selected are people that we can trust. The Commission itself is charged with that responsibility. So the arguments that are being made that there is inter- ference with academic freedom, and all that sort of thing, on the campuses of the universities, pales into insignificance in face of the fact that the Commission itself is charged with the responsibility of granting these scholarships and fel- lowships to individuals. In my humble opinion, we cannot be too safe. I think the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rocrrs] has a very decent perfecting amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Kgere] has expired. The Chair recognizes the gentleman f. 9m South Carolina [Mr. Bryson]. Mr. BRYSON. Mr. Chairman, I am strongly in favor of this bill and par- ticularly anxious to vote for the adop- tion of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida. Mr. Chairman, in the first session of the Eightieth Congress we passed S. 526, the National Science Foundation Act of 1947. This bill was vetoed by the Presi- dent, but he stated that he was in favor of the Science Foundation and only ob- jected to its administrative organization as unsound. It deprived the President
1950 of the control of an agency which clearly fell in the executive branch of the Gov- ernment. Such an administrative struc- ture could have developed into an au- tonomous agency controlled by private research institutes and universities. There is no doubt a strong popular interest among the public, and with sci- entists in particular, for Federal sup- port of scientific research. The discov- ery of spectacular weapons of war such as the atomic bomb, hydrogen bomb, and radar has forced us to recognize that the national security, the general welfare, health, and prosperity of our people are dependent upon our main- taining strong scientific resources. The miracle of production of airplanes, tanks, and other weapons of war was brought about by the cooperation of Govern- ment, industry, workers, scientists, and engineers. This could not have been accomplished without the men of science who had the, know-how and who de- signed the machines and taught the workers how to use them, After the battle of Britain Churchill remarked, with regard to heroic work by the RAF’s fighter pilots, that scarcely in the his- tory of the nation “had so many been so dependent upon so few.” Likewise, our technicians, engineers, and scientists played a similar role in this country's war effort. Fundamental scientific research in the past has known no national boundaries. Scientists could draw upon the wealth of scientific discovery throughout the world. But with the prostration of Europe, the source of many basic discoveries in the past, it is now imperative that the United States increase greatly fundamental re- search in science. Some may ask, why spend the taxpayers’ money for basic research which may not have any im- mediate application? When Faraday, the famous English physicist, made his great discoveries in electricity, which were the forerunner of the whole mod- ern electrical industry, he was asked by Gladstone about the use of his discov- eries. He replied that it was like a new- born baby and how it developed only the future could say, but if the Government would keep an eye on it, no doubt they would find something in the future which they could tax. How true this statement was. Since we considered { , bill in the last session of Congress, there has ap- peared the valuable report by the Presi- dent’s Scientific Research Board, under the chairmanship of Dr. John R. Steel- man. This Board consisted. of repre- sentatives of the various agencies and included many of the ablest men in the executive branch of the Government. The report in five volumes made a thor- ough survey of scientific resources in the United States. No doubt the Mem- bers of this House are familiar with the Board’s findings and recommendations. This Board considered the future needs for scientific men in government, indus- try and in colleges and universities. For example, it is estimated that in 1957 the Nation would need 270,000 scientists, while today we have about 137,000 scien- tific workers. Industry must recruit more research sctentists if they are to CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE continue to produce new and better products in the next few years. In fact, the full employment of our workers and the high level of our national income are greatly dependent upon the appli- cations of the basic laws of science de- veloped in the research and university laboratories. At present in some of the newly or- ganized Government laboratories there are many scientists who have had only partial training and are not fully equipped to carry out high caliber re- search work. As more well-trained sci- entists are available this condition will be remedied. As more and _ better trained men are produced by the unl- versities the level of scientific institu- tions will be improved. Thus our uni- versities now face a double problem, namely, of producing enough scientists to meet the present shortage and also to train men for future scientific expansion. In order that our universities may ex- pand their scientific programs it is essen- tial that the Federal Government provide assistance. When the Government em- barks upon a new program, it should be comprehensive and reach into every State of the Union. Financial assistance for expansion should be granted to both colleges and universities. Sometimes the importance of the Hberal arts col- leges in educating future scientists and inspiring them to enter the fleld of sci- ence is overlooked. According to the Steelman report, of the 44 institutions which rank in the highest group, in the number of graduates who have taken the doctorate in science for each 1,000 stu- dents, 39 of these institutions are liberal arts colleges, rather than universities. The following statement is taken from the Steelman report: During the years 1936 to 1945, Furman University— My own alma mater— Oberlin College, Reed College, and Miamt University (Ohio) together graduated more students who later completed doctoral work in physics than did Ohio State University, Yale University, Stanford University, and Princeton University combined. I am proud that my alma mater, Fur- man, is in such distinguished company and has rendered such excellent service to science. This record is, indeed, remarkable when the total number of students in the two groups of institutions is taken into consideration. However, it should be added that not all small colleges make such an unusual record. It is well known to graduatc-school faculties that our small colleges arc the source of many graduate students in our universities. To raise the scientific standards of these colleges, improve their equipment and faculties will materially raise the level of graduate work in the universities. More- over, this policy will greatly increase the sum total of the Nation’s scientific re- sources. At present the most important scien- tific centers of graduate work are almost entirely confined to three regions; name- ly, the northeastern part of the United States, the Great Lakes region, and Cali- fornia. The institutions in these three areas granted about 85 percent of the 2447 Ph. D.’s in science during the 10-year period 1936-45. In regions where scien- tific research has been developed to a high level the attracting of competent young people may already be approach- ing the saturation point. Moreover, the Situation of a single science department with several hundred graduate students is not very conducive for the highest type of graduate training. As a national pol- icy, it would be highly desirable to have a series of strong graduate schools throughout the Nation. In the social security grants and the proposed program of Federal aid for the public schools included in S. 472 it is recognized that the States with lower economic levels are in need of greater Federal assistance. In the States of Jow- er economic ability the colleges and unit- versities have not yet been able to im- prove their educational standards because of lack of funds. The Federal- aid program for scientific research should help to bring the institutions of these regions up to the national level. In some of the smaller institutions the scientific equipment is quite meager, and the only way that their students learn about the common instruments for scientific meas- urements is by reading about them and from illustrations in textbooks. To give students the proper background for sci- entific careers they should learn the use of these instruments as undergraduates. The direct attention to the nature of scientific research in the South, with especial interest to scientific men them- selves, two important studies have been made. Dr. Wilson Gee of the Uni- versity of Virginia, published in 1932 his book entitled ‘‘Research Barriers in the South,” in which he analyzed and pre- sented significant data concerning what he called the drag out of the South. In his analysis of the 1927 edition of American Men of Science, a blographical dictionary of approximately 14,000 emi- nent American scientists, he found that 1,094 of them had been born in the South. Of this group of southern-born scien- tists, only 154 or one-sixth had received their graduate training in southern unt- versities, while the balance had been traincd in universities outside of the South. What is the situation today? Fortu- nately we now have a comparable study through the courtesy of Dr. M. H. Tryt- ten, of the National Research Council, whose generous cooperation recently made available the results of his work. This study is concerned with the train- ing and careers of 389 younger scientists from the four Southern States of Ala- bama, Florida, Georgia, and my native State of South Carolina, who took their Ph. D.’s in the 10-year period, 1936-45 Of this group of budding scientists, 95 individuals or 24 percent of the group, received their doctorates from 11 of our southern universities, although 78 of them took their degrees from the four following southern institutions, Duke, Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia. However, there were no doctorates in science conferred by institutions in the three States of Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina, The balance of this group, 215 or three-quarters of these southern-born
2448 scientists, earned their Ph. D.’s from 39 universities outside the South. The four universities, Chicago, Cornell, Iowa, and Wisconsin conferred doctorates upon 87 men in this group, which fs only slightly less than the total number of 95 individuals who took their degrees from our southern universities. It is thus ap- parent that in terms of advanced scien- tific training the South is only slightly less dependent upon outside universities for the training of its scientific leaders than it was 20 years ago. For the 112 Ph. D.'s recipients from my own State of South Carolina, the story is substantially the same. Of this group of young scien- tists, only 35, or less than one-third were trained in southern universities; while the balance, almost 70 percent of the group, left the South for their graduate training. Not only are our southern-born scien- tists trained in large numbers in institu- tions outside the South, but unfortu- nately, a substantial number of them find it mecessary or choose to carry on their scientific careers in other sections of the country. The Gee study of 20 years ago, indicated that only 40 percent of the southern-born scientists listed in Ameri- can Men of Science served in educational institutions, research agencies, govern- ment, and industry in the section of the country in which they were born and raised. In contrast, the Trytten study indicated that of the group of younger scientists, 207, or 53 percent, are now working in the Southern States. In the case of the 112 scientists from South Carolina, 57, or about one-half, are work- ing in the South. We are glad that our southern scientists are in demand for scientific positions over the entire Na- tion. However, we are anxious to de- velop strong research centers to hold more of our promising young men and to attract superior scientists from other sec- tions of the Nation in exchange for our southern-born scientists. Despite this increase in the number of southern-born scientists who con- tinue to work in the South, Dr. Gee’s optimistic forecast in 1932, that “a simi- lar analysis made 10 or 20 years from now will likely show a substantially dif- ferent result due to the marked develop- ment of graduate opportunities in several leading universities” has not yet been realized. We continue to suffer from what he termed the “drag out of the South,” and still export a considerable portion of that rare and much-needed commodity, trained scientific manpower, to other regions. However, this situa- tion is not confined to the South. There is reason to believe that the training and location of scientists is not markedly dif- ferent for the Rocky Mountain and Southwestern States. It is largely by reason of data of this character and similar data that our southern educational and scientific lead- ers are very much interested in this legis- lation. They are anxious, however, that it will be so administered, particularly the scholarship and fellowship provi- sions, as to permit the development of a stronger group of institutions through- out the South for the better training of more scientists. We are anxious to en- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE courage the training of a larger group of scientific leaders who will assist the South to staff properly its colleges, uni- versities, and research agencies so as to provide a more effective basis for the development of our resources and for the training of better scientists. We do not object to the migration of our men in science or our leaders in other flelds, but we want it to be more than a one-way traffic out of the South. From the statistics made available by Dr. Trytten it is seen that the South is now producing about one-third of the scientists compared to the national aver- age. Better and more scientific equip- ment and better trained professors are urgently needed, Moreover, first-rate laboratories will enable us to hold our first-rate men. If there are scientific centers in a State, the people are more conscious of science and are more willing to support it. Also in terms of the general cultural value and the general diffusion of knowl- edge, a scientific center in a region is important. Therefore it would be for the advantage of the entire Nation to secure a better distribution of scientific research. More equitable distribution should apply not only to the South, but to the Southwest and the Rocky Moun- tain region which are lower than the national average in science training. According to the Steelman Report, in- stitutions in 14 States granted no Ph. D.’s in science in the period 1936- 45. Three of the States were in New England, 5 were in the South and 6 were in the Rocky Mountain region, and dur- ing the same period the universities in 26 States granted fewer than 4 percent of the total Ph. D.’s in science. On the other hand, the universities in 11 States granted 80 percent of the doctorates in science. By increasing the number of scientific centers there is no desire to curb or handicap our great universities, of which we are all proud. They should be equally included in this program but should not make up most of the expan- sion of training facilities under Federal aid. It should be remembered that northern and particularly eastern pri- vate universities have consistently been the recipients of large grants for re- search from foundations. It might be argued that more research would be obtained by granting the funds to a few superior institutions. This would probably be true for the first few years. However, over a decade the gen- eral distribution of research centers would accomplish much more, and from the point of view of national security and welfare on which we are now spend- ing large funds, the distribution of re- search centers over a wide area would be distinctly advantageous. During World War II a small number of the well- developed laboratories were used on re- search projects, since. they were ready to expand and could produce results in a short time. However, the aims of a science foundation in peacetime are dif- ferent and require a much more gen- eral expansion. In case of another na-’ tional emergency we would have many high-grade laboratories on which to call for assistance, FEBRUARY 27 The importance of this point of view was clearly recognized by the Bush re- port, Science, the Endless Frontier, pub- lished in July 1945, which made the fol- lowing unequivocal recommendation: It is, in fact, easential to the healthy growth of science that the Foundation should help to spread the research spirit as widely as possible throughout the United States. If the recruitment of future scientific per- sonnel is to proceed from a sufficiently broad base, it ia important that as large a num- ber of students as possible be made aware of the research point of view. Many of our colleges and engineering schools are not now able to support a significant amount of research. CONCLUSION In conclusion I want to endorse the objectives and organization of the Na- tional Science Foundation. I also should like to emphasize several items in order that the Science Foundation will be of the greatest value to science and the Nation. First, it should: be adminis- tered by a board with a chairman and should be a part of the executive branch of the Government with the same gen- eral controls which regulate other agen- cies. Second, because of the lower eco- nomic level of the Southern States and because their training facilities, univer- sities, and laboratories, are not yet as well developed as the institutions of the North, Middle West, and the West the Federal funds should be granted more generously, at least for a few years, to the institutions of the South and the Rocky Mountain States. This would en- able the institutions of these areas to overcome their present handicaps and achieve the level of scientific training of other sections of the Nation. To follow the practice I advocate would merely use Federal funds to bring about a badiy needed balance. Third, the Foundation’s board should be em- powered to grant research funds only to institutions which meet certain mini- mum standards which it would establish to carry out the aims of the Science Foundation. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Javits] is recog- nized. Mr. JAVITS. Mr. Chairman, I take this time to ask the chairman of the sub- committee handling this bill whether he believes, in view of the extensive hearings held by the subcommittee, that this amendment is necessary, or whether he agrees with our colleague from Arkansas [Mr. Harris] that the amendment is not necessary. Scientists and scholars from Columbia University and other great in- stitutions of higher learning which are located in the district of New York which I have the honor to represent have told me that many excellent men in the fleld of scientific research, with excellent backgrounds and records, are quite res- tive over being picked out as special ob- jects of investigation when they are try- ing to cooperate in connection with the scientific effort of the Government. That is particularly true of the younger men, who feel keenly on the subject. Mr. PRIEST. While I want to safe- guard any measure of this sort, I share the opinion of the gentleman from Ar- kansas [ Mr. Harris], after having looked
1950 into this subject rather extensively dur- ing the public hearings, that the amend- ment proposed by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. RocErs] is not necessary for the legislation, Mr. JAVITS. I believe that the Com- mittee of the Whole certainly ought to be guided by the view of the subcommit- tee, which has examined the matter so extensively, and which I am sure shares the solicitude for the Nation’s security, which prompted the gentleman's amend- ment. We certainly want those who do the research to proceed with full confi- dence and enthusiasm and a conviction of the fairness of the rules in effect. Mr. HARRIS. It is my understanding that Janguage contained in this bill which was reported by the committee, this amendment requiring the affidavit, is the identical language that is con- tained in the bill providing for the Atomic Energy Commission. Mr. JAVITS. That ought to be suffi- cient to satisfy the Members. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York has expired. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. H1nsHaw]. Mr. HINSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I think the position taken by the gentle- man from Tennessee [Mr. Priest] and the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Har- RIS] should be concurred in by the House. As & member of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, I can say to you that the amendment offered by my beloved friend from Florida | Mr. Rocers! would require an FBI investigation of everyone who is to come under this act, as none of this work can be conclusive. Let me point out to you that the really dangerous people in the United States are not these young students. They are people like this man Fuchs, who can fool everyone, because no one can find out what their connections are. They are the really dangerous people in the United States. I hope that the House will not accept this amendment, as it would place un- due restrictions, not upon the candidates for fcllowships, if you please, but upon the members of the Scientific Board set up under this bill. At least five mem- bers would have to be satisfled that the affidavits were reasonably true, That is beyond the capabilities of the members of the Board. Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HINSHAW. I yield. Mr. HARRIS. Is it not a fact that this bill proposes that the Board shall consist of 24 members? The amend- ment proposed by the gentleman from Florida confines the decision to five members. Mr. HINSHAW. Any five. Mr. HARRIS. Any 5 out of the 24, Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Let me call attention to the fact that an executive board is set. up of nine members. Five must be satisfied as to the truth of the affidavits. They have not got to get all of the members to agree; only five, a quorum, have to be satisfied. Mr. HINSHAW. They cannot possi- bly be satisfied except upon an FBI in- vestigation, They are not investigators. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California has expired. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Mr. PRIEST. Mr. Chairman, I be- Neve this amendment has been ade- quately discussed. I appreciate the sincerity of my col- league from Florida with whom I have worked on the committee. I merely feel that the amendment in this respect is not necessary and is unworkable. Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. PRIEST. I yield. Mr. BROWN of Ohio. The gentleman states that in his opinion the Rogers amendment is unnecessary. The adop- tion of the Rogers amendment, however, would not hurt anything, would it? It would simply be another safeguard; and, as the gentleman has explained, only a majority of the executive board of nine would have to be satisfied as to the truth of the affidavit. Mr. PRIEST. I think it might hurt something in this connection, that 1f you take the time of a majority of this board to establish questions of the truth or falsity of affidavits it might become an endless sort of trial and investigation. That, I think, does not belong in legisla- tion of this sort. Iam just as anxious as is the gentleman from Florida or any other Member of this House to see that we do not give any aid to Communists, but I do believe that it might impose on five members of the executive committee rather serious responsibilities that would require a procedure that would be pretty well endless insofar as satisfying them- selves that an affidavit was true. They might have a chain of affidavits. That could be an almost endless investigation in connection with one affidavit. The language here used is identical with the provision of the AEC Act, and in the opinion of the committee, it is the best solution of this problem. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida !Mr. Rocers] to the committee amend- ment. The question was taken; and on a divi- sion (demanded by Mr. Rocers of Flor- ida) there were—ayes 49, noes 70. Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Mr. Chair- man, I demand tellers. Tellers were ordered, and the Chair- man appointed as tellers Mr. Priest and Mr. Rocers of Florida. The Committce again divided; and the tellers reported that there were—ayes 63, noes 73. So the amendment to the committee amendment was rejected. The CHAIRMAN. The question {fs on the committee amendment. The committce amendment was agreed to. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will re- port the following committee amend- ments. The Clerk read as follows: Committee amendments: Page 19, strike out lines 6 to 10, inclusive, Page 19, line 11, strike out “(i)” and ine sert ‘‘(h).” Page 19, line 23, strike out “(J)” and insert #qd).” Page 20, line 7, strike out “(kK)” and insert “(sy Page 20, line 15, strike out “(1)” and in- sert “(K).” 2449 Mr. JUDD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the committee amend- ment. Mr. Chairman, this matter has been discussed at considerable length earlier in the debate this afternoon. The com- mittee amendment would strike out the language on page 19 from line 6 to line 10, inclusive. It seems to me that this amendment ought to be kept in the bill. It merely makes sure that this Founda- tion cannot supersede, curtail, or limit any of the functions or activities of other government agencies, Public Health Serv- ice or Agricultural Department or D2- fense Department or other agencies which are carrying on scientific research and development. The gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Harris], a while ago said he thought !t was covered in the next subsection, be- ginning with line 11. I do not see how the two either overlap or are in conflict. The subsection, lines 11 to line 22, says that the funds available to any depart- ment or agency of the Government for scientific or technical research can be transferred, if the head of the Depart- ment or agency so wishes, to this Foun- dation. I think that is good. But, to keep the preceding language in that the committee is moving to strike out would not interfere with any Government agen- cies making their funds available to the Foundation if they thought that was the best way to carry on the particular func- tions. I do not want to belabor the point. It just seems to me we ought to make sure that this new Foundation is not going to have authority to interfere with or im- pede or curtail or Iimit or take over any functions that are now being carried on by various research agencies or other de- partments of Government, unless the lat- ter so desire. Mr. HESELTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. JUDD. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. HESELTON. I thoroughly under- stand the gentleman's concern with the elimination of that language. May I suggest to him that if you put that lan- guage back in again you will nullify the effect of the amendment I offered. I call your attention to the fifth re- port of the President’s Scientific Re~ search Board, and its recommendations on policies, I think this is exactly the sort of procedure that should be con- ducted. It is entitled “Balancing Re- search.” It calls attention to the fact that one-fourth of all medical research projects in all agencies are in determin- ing etiology. It then goes on further to discuss every specific research program. Then it makes this recommendation: To the extent permitted by law, the agen- cles of the Government should move prompt- ly to correct this imbalance. Because the research work of the Public Health Service is not directed to the medical problems of special population groups and because that agency has been charged by the Congress with responsibility for the health of the whole population, it should direct increased re- search effort to those diseases and impair- ments which are now receiving insufficient attention but which are major causes of death and disability,
2450 I submit to the gentleman that with that type of a policy, knowing that we are ranging all over this ficld and per- haps placing too much emphasis on one thing and too little on another, we should give this Foundation power to examine the programs that they are undertaking, these people who are working in that ficld, and then tell us where the better emphasis could be made, and where we will get a sounder program. But, I think if you put that Janguage back in you would, in effect, say, “Don’t you even look at another agency’s program.” Mr. JUDD. I do not see where the gentleman can find that meaning in the language. Rather, it says that the Foundation shall supplement, in full ac- cordance with the gentleman’s own quo- tation from the Hoover Commission re- port, where there is need or imbalance. It should determine and correct the im- balance by putting in additional research activities where they ought to be, if pres- ent agencies are not carrying them on adequately. But I do not want it to take over and operate programs that other agencies are now carrying on. It ought to supplement them, and there is nothing in the language to prevent its making recommendations for changes. That is good. But I have more confidence in the agencies that are already work:ng in many fields and which have carried on the activities for a long time. They have invaluable experience. I want them to be left where they are, with this Foundation studying them and evaluat- ing them, and then supplementing their work where there is any imbalance. Mr. WADSWORTH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. JUDD. I yield to the gentleman from New York. Mr. WADSWORTH. The gentleman has referred to the paragraph com- mencing in line 11 on page 19 in his discussion of the inadvisability of ac- cepting the committee amendment which strikes out lines 6 to 10. I call the attention of the gentleman from Minnesota to the fact that in line 12 the phrase “scientific or technical re- search” is used, which has nothing to do with basic research. This is another instance of this Foundation going far beyond basic research. It can go into technical research. Mr. JUDD. I thank the gentleman for his contribution. I am as concerned as he about language in the bill in sev- eral places which could be construed to include functions far beyond those its sponsors have described to us. But returning to the committee amendment, I cannot see how Keeping those five lines in the bill can do any damage. It seems to me they constitute a@ necessary safeguard particularly dur- ing the first year or two when this new Foundation is getting under way. If ex- perience demonstrates that its proper work is impeded under this language, and it cannot move to correct any im- balances that may exist, then we can take a second bite and strike it out later. But when this new Foundation is being set up, we ought to make clear just what we want it to do and not to do. 7 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Mr. Chairman, I hope the amendment will be defeated. Mr. HINSHAW. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the committee I desire to sup- port the committee amendment. Let me call attention to the fact that the committee amendment strikes out the language contained in subsection (h) on page 19. There jis a very good reason for striking out that langage. That language says that the activities of the Founda- tion shall be construed as supplementing and not superseding, curtailing, or lim- iting any of the functions or activities of other Government agencies. It is not in- tended by the Foundation that it will supersede. Of course, it is supplement- ing, but in order for the foundation to take any action to correct overlapping and duplication of scientific research in the many agencies of Government that are now engaged in scicntific research it certainly should have the opportunity of making any devices to the Bureau of the Budget or the President or even to an agency itself if that agency can be per- suaded that it is overlapping or dupli- cating the work of some other agency. If this language is left in, it is quite pos- sible that they will have no authority to make any such recommendation. I have discussed the matter with the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. WIGGLEs- wortH! and I think he will agree that the language should go out of the bill. Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. I agree with the statement the gentleman has made, and I think the language should go out. Mr, JUDD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HINSHAW. I yield to the gentle- man from Minnesota. Mr. JUDD. DolIcorrectly understand that with this language out of the bill the gentleman believes the Foundation could curtail the activities of other agen- cies, and could supersede or Hmit or otherwise interfere with their activities? Mr. HINSHAW With the language out I think it is perfectly clear that the Heselton amendment, which pro- vides that the Board shall evaluate scientific and research programs under- taken by agencics of the Federal Gov- ernment, can be effective; that is, in the matter of evaluation. I do not see in any way that taking the language out would permit them to supersede. The language simply would not be in the act, and no questions could be raised as to whether or not they were superseding any functions of any other agency. Mr. JUDD. If this language is re- moved from the bill, then the National Foundation, as the gentleman says, will not have the authority to supersede, but there would be nothing to prevent them from doing it. Mr. HINSHAW. I know that the gen- tleman seeks every efficiency and econ- omy in government. If he leaves this language contained in subsection (h) in the bill there will be no possibility of the Board’s making any savings to the Fed- eral Government by evaluating the over- lapping and duplicating work that is now being done by the various agencies. Mr. JUDD. But even with this lan- guage in the bill, the Foundation could still evaluate the activities being carried FEBRUARY 27 on by other agencies and could make recommendations regarding overlapping. Mr. HINSHAW. I think it would im- pair the value of the work of the Board in doing that evaluating. Now I should like to address my re- marks to the gentleman from New York, who criticized the language in line 12, to the effect that funds available to any department or agency of the Govern- ment for scientific or technical research shall be available for transfer with the approval of the agency. Sometimes there are funds for tech- nical research or development which cannot go forward until certain basic or scientific research has been done. If an agency of the Government wants to do certain technical work, they must have the basic scientific knowledge. If, in order to obtain that scientific knowl- edge, they desire to transfer any tech- nical research funds to the Board for the purpose of doing basic research, then they should be permitted to do so. I think the gentleman from New York is incorrect in his assumption. I hope the amendment of the committee leaving subsection (h) out of the bill will be approved by the House. Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairnan, I rise in opposition to the pro forma amendment. Mr. Chairman, I have asked for this time in order to propound an inquiry to the distinguished gentleman from Mas- sachusetts, the majority floor leader. It is my understand that within a few mo- ments a motion will be made for the Committee to rise. I wonder if the gen- tleman could inform us as to what the program will be, so far as the remainder of this bill is concerned, and on to- morrow? Mr. McCORMACK. I am glad that my friend made that inquiry so that I can advise the membership. It is true that after the disposition of this com- mittee amendment the gentleman from Tennessee will move that the committee rise. The consideration of the remain- der of the bill will go over to tomorrow. The first order of business tomorrow will be a motion to take from the Speaker’s desk and send to conference the basing- point bill. Probably an hour will be taken on that particular question. Following that, the continuation of the consideration of this bill will be the order of business and after that the rural rehabilitation trust funds bill will come up. How far we will go on that tomor- row I am unable to state, except that that will be the order of business. To return to the program, it will be as printed—statehood for Alaska and then statehood for Hawaii. Mr. BROWN of Ohio. gentleman very much. Mr. PRIEST. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on the committee amendment close in 5 min- utes. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Tennessee? There was no objection. Mr. CHRISTOPHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word. I thank the
1950 Mr. Chairman, I have listened very attentively to the discussion of this measure this evening. I intend to vote for it. I am heartily in accord with the objects of this legislation. I did not in- tend to seek the floor or take any time until I saw that apparently something has happened that I never have known to happen before, and never expect to see happen again. You know usually when the lamb and the lion lay down together, the lamb is inside the lion before they lay down. That does not seem to be the case here. The Congress of Industrial Organizations, the Ameri- can Federation of Labor and, believe it or not, the National Association of Man- ufacturers are recommending the pas- sage of this legislation. Who could ob- ject if none of them object? The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the committee amendment. The committee amendment was agreed to. Mr. PRIEST. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise. The motion was agreed to. Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed the chair, Mr, THompson, Chairman of the Com- mittee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that Com- mittee, having had under consideration the bill (H. R. 4846) to promote the prog- ress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense; and for other pur- poses, had come to no resolution thereon. EXTENSION OF REMARKS Mr. CRAWFORD (at the request of Mr. HINSHAW) was granted permission to extend the remarks he made in the Committee of the Whole and include cer- tain cxtraneous quotations. Mr. FORAND (at the request of Mr. Harris) was granted permission to cx- tend his remarks in the Appendix of the REcoRD. Mr. TACKETT asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the RecorD 1n five instances and 1n each to include an editorial. Mr. MANSFIELD asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the REcorp and include an article from the Missoulan, of Missoula, Mont. Mr HOLIFIELD asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the Appendix of the REcorRD. Mr. SMITH of Virginia asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the Recorp and include an address prepared for delivery by the late Hon- orable S.O Bland. Mr. CLEMENTE asked and was given permission to cxtend his remarks in the Appendix of the Recorp and include an article on conditions in Spain. Mr. PRICE asked and was given per- mission to extend his remarks in the Record in three instances and include extraneous matter. Mr. SABATH asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the Recorp and include an article and an editorial. Mr. RODINO asked and was given per- mission to extend his remarks in the Recorp and include a resolution. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Mr. TAURIELLO asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the ReEcorp and include an article from the Buffalo Courier. Mr. BUCHANAN asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the Recorp and include the lobbying report for 1949, notwithstanding the fact that the estimated cost will be $881.50. Mr, GREEN asked and was given per- mission to extend his remarks in the Recorp and insert an article from the American Magazine. Mr. THOMPSON asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the REeEcorp and inchide an editorial. Mr. STEED asked and was given per. mission to extend his remarks in the REc- orp and include an editorial. Mr. FUGATE asked and was given per- mission to extend his remarks in the Recorp and include extraneous material, GENERAL LEAVE TO EXTEND REMARKS Mr. PRIEST. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have five legislative days in which to extend their remarks on the bill H. R. 4846. The SPEAKER, Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Ten- nessce? There was no objection. EXTENSION OF REMARKS Mr. KEATING asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the Recorp and to include extraneous ma- terial, Mr. HESELTON (at the request of Mr. KEATING) was granted permission to ex- tend the remarks that he made in Com- mittee of the Whole and include certain statistical data. Mr. FORD asked and was given per- mission to extend his remarks in the ReEcorp and include a speech made by the former Governor of Minnesota, My. Har- old Stassen, at a Lincoln Day dinner, THE COAL SITUATION Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unan- imous consent to address the House for 1 minute. The Speaker. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Michigan? There was no objection. Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, the 8- month-old coal dispute has precipitated this Nation to the brink of disaster. The situation is beyond the critical stage. Domestic coal users in western Michigan are without fuel; municipal power plants and schools have insufficient supplies and manufacturing concerns where thousands are employed now have nearly empty coal bins. The President should have forescen this impending disaster months ago. In- stead he has played politics in refusing to make use of the national emergency provisions of the Taft-Hartley Act until it is almost too late. The American public is fed up with Mr. Truman’s shabby lack of concern over the public welfare. Today I re- ceived a letter from a union man who is fed up with the Democratic administra- tion. The letter concludes by saying, “I have one-half ton of coal and no work.” 2451 The President's last minute and half- hearted use of the Taft-Hartley Act re- minds me of a football game where the obviously better team is Josing 7 to 6 in the last quarter. The better team, cocky and self-confident, has one sure-fire touchdown play which it wants to save for the final and winning play of the game, In the last second of the game the quarterback calls the winning play but it does not work for someone missed a crucial block. The game is lost for there is no time or chance for a second try. Mr. Truman in the coal strike, by his eleventh-hour use of the Taft-Hartley Act, pulled the same type of a boner. The loss of a football game is relatively unimportant, but the loss of a nation, our Nation, vitally concerns us all. I wonder how long the American people will continue to put up with purely politi- cal strategists who worry about votes rather than the public welfare. PAN-AMERICAN DAY Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of House Resolution 496, which I sent to the desk. The Clerk read as follows: Resolved, That the House of Representa- tives hereby designates Thursday, April 6, 1950, for the celebration of Pan-American Day, on which day remarks appropriate to such occasion may cccur. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Mon- tana? There was no objection. The resolution was agreed to. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. LAWS RELATING TO UNITED STATES MILITARY ACADEMY AND UNITED STATES NAVAL ACADEMY Mr. LYLE, from the Committee on Rules, presented the following privileged resolution (H. Res. 497), which was re- ferred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed: Resolved, that immediately upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H_ R. 7058) to amend laws re- lating to the United States Military Acad- emy and the United States Naval Acudeiny, and for other purposes. That after general debate which shall be confined to the bill and continue not to exceed 1 hour, to be equally divided and controlled by the chair- man and ranking minority member of the Commiitee on Armed Services, the bill shall be read for amendment under the 56-minute rule. At the conclusion of the considcra- tion of the bill for amendment, the com- mittee shall rise and report the bill to the Tlouse with such amendments as may have been adopted and the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one moiion to re- commit, SPECIAL ORDER GRANTED Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to address the House for 20 minutes on tomorrow, fol- lowing the legislative business of the day and any special orders heretofore entered.
2452 WHITE HOUSE PHOTOGRAPHERS’ ASSO- CIATION EXHIBIT Mr. PRIEST. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 1 minute. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Ten- nessee? There was no objection. Mr. PRIEST. Mr. Speaker, I take this time to call to the attention of the Mem- bers an opportunity to witness a rather unusual collection of photographs now on exhibit at the Statler Hotel. It is the seventh annual exhibit of the White House Photographers’ Association. It will remain on display through Friday of this week. EXTENSION OF REMARKS Mr. WEICHEL asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the Appendix of the REcorp and include an editorial. Mr. HARVEY asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the Appendix of the Recorp and include a speech by the junior Senator from In- diana. Mr. JAVITS asked and was given per- mission to revise and extend the re- marks he made in the Committee of the Whole and include extraneous matter; also to extend his remarks in the Ap- pendix of the Recorp in four separate in- stances and in each to include extrane- ous material. Mr. VAN ZANDT asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the Appendix of the Recorp and include a resolution passed by the Clearfield, Pa., Chamber of Commerce. Mr, MILLER of Maryland asked and was given permission to extend his re- marks in the Appendix of the Recorp and include an editorial. Mr. WOLVERTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend the remarks he made in the Committee of the Whole this afternoon and include extraneous matter. Mr. TOWE asked and was given per- mission to extend his remarks in the Ap- pendix of the Rrcorp. Mrs. HARDEN asked and was given permission to extend her remarks in the Appendix of the Recorp and include an editorial written by Wheeler McMillen. Mr. LEFEVRE asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the Appendix of the Recorp and include a newspaper article. Mr. DAVENPORT asked and was given Permission to extend his remarks in the Appendix of the Rrcorp and include an editorial from the Pittsburgh Post- Gizette. Mr. JUDD asked and was given per- mission to extend his remarks in the Ap- Fendix of the Record in two instances and in each to include extraneous ma- terial, Mr. McCORMACK asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the Appendix of the Recorp and in- clude a radio address recently made by Hon. Maurice J. Tobin, Secretary of La- ker, on the subject of justice for Poland. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE EXCISE TAX ON MOVIE TICKETS Mr. O’HARA of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 15 minutes. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Tli- nois? There was no objection. Mr. O’HARA of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I have received from over 25,000 of my constituents, the good men and women of the Second Congressional District of Mli- nois, expression of their growing impa- tience with the unfair tax which the Eightieth Congress voted as a permanent and wholly unjustified burden upon their backs. The tax upon tickets to the movie houses, where people of modest incomes find relaxation from the daily grind of work, was never intended to continue after the period of war necessity. It was adopted by a Democratic Congress strictly as a war measure, with the dis- tinct understanding that when the war ended the tax would come off. While the war was on, our people were only too happy to pay this tax. Certainly when our soldiers were in the fox holes, no one in all America, fortunate enough to have movies to go to, complained about the hardship of paying a tax. But the Republican Eightieth Congress voted to make this war-emergency tax a permanent peacetime tax. The Eighti- eth Congress did this in order to do a favor to the men and corporations in the high-income brackets. The Repub- lican Eightieth Congress voted to make permanent the tax on the little people who attend movies so that it could get the moncy to pay off its debt to the big people to whom it was beholden. The tax on tickets to the movie houses was imposed by a Democratic Congress strictly as a wartime measure. It defi- nitely provided that the tax should end 6 months after the close of hostilities. I quote the exact words—‘“and ending on the first day of the first month which begins 6 months or more after the date of the termination of hostilities in the present war.” Then came the Eightieth Congress which the elections of 1946 had thrown into Republican hands. The Republican leadership of the House was under heavy obligations to certain large corporations and individuals in the highest income bracket. These corporations and rich individuals insisted upon heavy cuts in their income tax rate. So in order to give these large corporations and rich individuals what they wanted and were demanding, and at the same time to have the money with which to run the Gov- ernment, H. R. 1030 was introduced by Mr. Grant, Republican from the Third district of Indiana, now represented in the Eighty-first Congress by Mr. Croox, Democrat. This bill was referred to the Republican-dominated Ways and Means Committee and on January 29, 1947, was brought to the floor of the House under what Mr. McGrecor, an inde- pendent Republican from Ohio, called & gag-rule procedure—see page 666 of FEBRUARY 27 the ConcressIonaAL Recorp of January 29, 1947, Nevertheless, the rule was adopted, H. R. 1030 was passed and eventually became Public Law 17 of the Republican Eightieth Congress. Of the eight members from Cook County, Ill, in the Eightieth Congress now living not one Democratic Member voted for H. R. 1030, the effect of which legislation was to saddle upon men and women, and even children, who find their relaxation from toil and worry in movie attendance, the payment of taxes which by right and reason were the obligation of the big corporations and rich indi- viduals most able to afford it. In short, the Republican Eightieth Congress gave a break to the big corpo- rations and rich individuals at the ex- pense even of school children who in peacetimes had to go on paying out their pennies when they went to the movies. You will find the roll call on the pas- sage of this bill on pages 692-693 of the CONGRESSIONAL Record of January 29, 1947 This is the way eight Members from Cook County, Il., now living—two Members having since died—voted: For the bill making permanent in peacetime the war-emergency tax on movie attendance: Vail, Busbey, Twy- man, Church—all Republicans. Against the bill permanently putting a tax on school children and their parents to help out the rich, high-bracket indi- viduals and corporations: Dawson, Gor- DON, O'Brren—all Democrats. Not voting: SapaTH, Democrat-——-Sa- BATH was absent but was recorded as paired with Cote of Kansas. His position therefore was established in opposition to the bill. Mr. MADDEN was one of two Deinocrats from Indiana in the Eightieth Congress. There are seven Democratic Members in the Eighty-first Congress; and perhaps that roll-call vote on January 29, 1947, which gave everything to the rich at the expense of the poor and those in moder- ate circumstances was a factor in the change of the political complexion of the Indiana delegation. Mr. MAppENn voted against the bill. Due to sickness, the other Democrat was absent. He has since retired after long years of faith- ful service. Eight Republican Members from Indiana voted for the biil. Now, let us examine H. R. 1030, au- thored by a Republican and forced through a Republican Congress under what even an indignant independent Re- publican cried out was gag-rule proce- dure. I quote the exact language of H. R. 1030: Section 1650 of the Internal Revenue Code (war tax rates of certain miscellaneous taxes) is hereby amended by striking out “and ending on the first day of the first month which begins 6 months or more after the date of the termination of hostilities in the present war.” What the bill did was to make wartime taxes permanent taxes by striking out the date for their expiration. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. McCormack], Democratic minority leader said—page 671 of the ConGrEs-
1950 SIONAL Record of January 29, 1947— that— The fact remains that the bill, now before the House, calls for the fixing of these war- time exciso taxes permanently. * * * De- spite all the efforts— Republican— to camouflage, “indefinite” and “permanent” in the sense of legislation are synony- mous. * * ® Any time we pass a law with- out a termination date it is permanent legis- lation. So by passing H. R. 1030 the Republi- can Eightieth Congress made permanent a tax which Democratic Congresses had restricted to the period of hostilities. Now, let us get the entire picture per- fectly clear. In 1947 it was pretty gen- erally agreed that it was prudent and necessary to continue certain excise taxes that covered luxuries and fell upon people well able to pay. The country thought this was wise; the President said so. But the average person using his own common sense and wanting to do the right thing, did not think that among the excise taxes to be fixed upon our people permanently, when the war necessity was over, were those that forced a tribute from a mother buying baby oil for her infant or a family in modest circumstances going for a bit of relaxa- tion to a neighborhood movie. Such taxes never could have been made a permanent part of our lives if the Republican-dominated Rules Com- mittee of the Eightieth Congress had per- mitted the membership of the House to vote on such items specifically, and, if the Republican Party did not pass the bill. What it did was to give to the House a bill, which included both the luxury and the necessity items, under a rule which prohibited amendments. It was a case of forcing the House to take the whole dose. This was what Mr. McGrecor called “gag-rule procedure.” Mr. KeLiey, Democrat from Pennsyl- vania, who voted against the bull, said, as reported on page 692 of the ConcRES- SIONAL RECORD of January 29, 1947: While I recognize the necessity for con- tinuing taxes In order to reduce the national dobt and to balance the budget, I do not think there is a necessity for making a tax bill inequitable. The committee brought this bill before the House with a rule which prevented any Mem- ber of Congress from offering amendments. * * * Many of the necessities of fe are still burdened with wartime taxes. If they were luxuries, one could have no objections; put here is a bill that does not discriminate. Moreover, this bill continues these taxes in- definitely. To my mind that means perma- nent. * * * I could not in consclence support such a measure without an oppor- tuaity to umend it in order to correct the inequities which exist in it. All this talk by the majority party— Republican— about reducing taxes—it would be well for them to practice a little justice in the tax bills they do draw up. This is the story of the way the Repub- lican Eightieth Congress, which cut to the bone the income taxes of those in the highest brackets, made indefinite and permanent the tax on a mother buying CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE baby oil for her infant and a family go- ing out to the neighborhood movie. The people of Chicago showed how they felt about it in November of 1948 when the Democrats—O’BrIEn, GORDON, Dawson, and SaBaTtH—who fought the battle for the little people, all were re- elected by landslide majorities and three of the four Republicans who voted for H. R. 1030—Vail, Busbey, and Twyman— were defeated. I can assure my constituents in the Second District of Illinois that their voice in 1948 being the mandate to my vote in 1950, I shall do all in my power and to the extent of my vote and in- fluence to put an end for all time to this tax on mothers and movie-attending families that the Eightieth Congress in its passion to give aid and succor to its high-income-bracket friends made in- definite and permanent. I think that I am safe in saying that the pattern set by the Democratic dele- gation from Cook County in the Eighti- eth Congress in opposing this law will be the pattern followed by the entire Democratic delegation from Cook County in the Eighty-first Congress in support- ing the repeal of such taxes, LEAVE OF ABSENCE By uanimous consent, leave of ab- sence was granted, as follows: To Mr. Horrman of Illinois (at the request of Mr. Jonas), for 15 days, on ac- count of illness in hospital. To Mr. SHELLEY (at the request of Mr. Havenner), for an indefinite period, on account of illness in family. To Mr. Yates, for Monday and Tues- day, February 27 and 28, 1950, on ac- count of official business. To Mr. Roosreve.t, for Monday and Tuesday, February 27 and 28, 1950, on account of illness. ENROLLED BILL SIGNED Mrs. NORTON, from the Committee on House Administration, reported that that committee had examined and found truly enrolled a bill of the House of the following title, which was thereupon signed by the Speaker. H.R 7220 An act to expedite the rehabill- tation of Federal reclamation projects in certain cases. The SPEAKER announced his signa- ture to an enrolled bill of the Senate of the following title: 8, 2328 An act to amend section 482 of the Revised Statutes relating to the Board of Appeals in the United States Patent Office. ADJOURNMENT Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn. The motion was agreed top accordingly (at 5 o'clock and 23 minutes p. m.) the House adjourned until tomorrow, Tues- day, February 28, 1950, at 12 o’clock noon. EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC. Under clause 2 of rule XXIV, executive communications were taken from the Speaker's table and referred as follows: 1262. A letter from the Comptroller Gene eral of the United States, transmitting a report on the audit of Federal Crop Insur- 2453 ance Corporation for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1949 (H. Doc. No. 483); to the Com- mittee on Expenditures in the Executive De- partments and ordered to be printed. 1263. A letter from the Acting Archivist of the United States, transmitting a report on records proposed for disposal and lists or schedules covering records proposed for Qisposal by certain Government agencies; to the Committee on House Administration. 1264. A communication from the President of the United States, transmitting a supple- mental estimate of appropriation for the fiscal year 1951 in the amount of 100,000,000 in the form of an amendment to the budget for said fiscal year for assistance to the Republic of Korea (H. Doc. No. 481); to the Committee on Appropriations and ordered to be printed. 1265. A communication from the President of the United States, transmitting an esti- mate of appropriation for the fiscal year 1951 in the amount of $2,950,000,000 in the form of an amendment to the budget for said fiscal year for expenses of the European recovery program (H. Doc. No. 479); to the Committee on Appropriations and ordered to be printed. 1266. A communication from the President of the United States, transmitting a supple- mental estimate of appropriation for the fiscal year 1950 in the amount of $60,000,000 for assistance to the Republic of Korea (H. Doc. No, 480); to the Committee on Appropriations and ordered to be printed. 1267. A communication from the President of the United States, transmitting revised estimates of appropriation, involving an in- crease of $6,140, for the fiscal year 1951 for the legislative branch, House of Representa- tives, in the form of amendments to the budget for said fiscal year (H. Doc. No. 484); to the Committee on Appropriations and ordered to be printed. 1268. A letter from the assistant to the Attorney General, transmitting a draft of a bill entitled “A bill to provide for payment of an annuity to widows of judges”, to the Committee on the Judiciary, 1269. A letter from the Secretary of the Army, transmitting a draft of a proposed bill entitled “A bill for the relief of Mrs, Honora Redman"; to the Committee on the Judiciary. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ON PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as follows: Mr. WALTER: Committee on the Judiciary. Report pursuant to House Resolution 238. Resolution to authorize the Committee on the Judiciary to undertake a study of im- migration and nationality problems (Rept. No. 1687). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, Myr. WHITE of Idaho: Committee on Pub- Nc Lands. H.R 7302. A bill to amend the act of July 14, 1943, relating to the establish- ment of the George Washington Carver Na- tional Monument, and for other purposes; without amendment (Rept No. 1688). Re- ferred to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union. Mr. MURDOCK: Committee on Public Lands. H.R.7351, A bill to amend the Rec- lamation Project Act of 1939, and for other purposes; without amendment (Rept. No. 1689). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union. Mr, LYLE: Committee on Rules. House Resolution 497. Resolution for considera- tion of H. R. 7058, a bill to amend laws relate ing to the United States Military Academy and the United States Naval Academy, and
2454 for other purposes; without amendment (Rept. No. 1692). Referred to the House Calendar. Mr. KEE: Committee of conference. H.R. 4406. A bill to provide for the settlement of certain claims of the Government of the United States on its own behalf and on bee half of American nationals against foreign governments (Rept. No. 1693). Ordered to be printed. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ON PRIVATE BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS Under clause 2 of rule XII, reports of committees were delivered to the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as follows: Mr. GOSSETT: Committee on the Judi- ciary. H.R. 6462. A bill for the relief of Sachiko Iwai; with an amendment (Rept. No, 1690). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House. Mr, FEIGHAN: Committee on the Judi- clary. H.R. 6490. A bill for the relief of Margarita Funakura; with an amendment (Rept. No, 1691). Referred to the Commit- tee of the Whole House. PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS Under clause 3 of rule XXII, public bills and resolutions were introduced and severally referred as follows: By Mr. HOLIFIELD: H.R 7429. A bill to amend the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, to clarify certain authority of the Ad- ministrator of General Services with respect to transportation and trafic management, to provide for an adequate traffic-management service in the Federal Government, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Ex- penditures in the Executive Departments. H.R. 7430. A bill to amend the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, by creating a new title to provide for an adequate traffic-management service in the Federal Government, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments. By Mr. MARSHALL: H.R 7431. A bill for expenditure of funds for cooperating with the public school board at Walker, Minn., for the extension of pub- lic-school facilities to be available to all In- dian children in the district, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Public Lands. By Mr. BOLLING: H.R 7432. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Navy to grant to Jackson County pub- lic water supply district No. 1, Jackson County, Mo., an easement for pumping sta- tion and water pipe lines on lands of the United States at the naval] industrial reserve plant, Kansas City, Mo.; to the Committee on Armed Services. By Mr. CASE of South Dakota: H.R. 7433. A bill to direct the prompt dis- tribution of the appropriation for the settle- ment of Sioux pony claims made by the act of December 31, 1945, Public Law 97, Seventy- ninth Congress; to the Committee on Publio Lands. By Mr. FORAND: H. R. 7434. A bill to provide for designation of the United States Veterans’ Administra- tion hospital at Providence, R. I, as “The Capt. Elwood J. Euart Veterans’ Memorial Hospital’; to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs. By Mr. GRANAHAN: H.R. 7435. A bill relating to the income re- atrictions placed upon the payment of cer- tain pensions to the widows and children of veterans of World Wars I and II; to the Com- mittee on Veterans’ Affairs. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE By Mr. HOLMES: H.R. 7486. A bill to supplement the Fed- eral-Aid Road Act of July 11, 1916, as amend- ed and supplemented, to authorize the expenditure of funds for the construction, reconstruction, or improvement of roads cer- tifled as necessary in connection with the national defense, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Public Works. By Mr. MILLER of California: H. R. 7437. A bill to amend and clarify the District of Columbia Teachers’ Leave Act of 1949, and for other purposes; to the Com- mittee on the District of Columbia. By Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee: #H R. 7438. A bill relating to the forwarding and return of second-, third-, and fourth- class mail, the collection of postage due at the time of delivery, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service. H.R. 7439. A bill to protect the national security of the United States by permitting the summary suspension of employment of civilian officers and employees of various de- partments and agencies of the Government, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service. By Mr. STAGGERS: H.R. 7440. A bill to amend veterans regu- lations to establish for persons who served in the armed forces during World War II a fur- ther presumption of service connection for active pulmonary tuberculosis; to the Com- mittee on Veterans’ Affairs. By Mr. THOMPSON: H.R. 7441. A bill to promote development and improvement of standards for frozen fishery products and to provide for voluntary grading, inspection, and certification of such products, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fish- eries. By Mr. VINSON: H.R. 7442. A bill to provide for the com- mon defense through the registration and Classification of certain male persons, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Armed Services. By Mr. BENTSEN: H R. 7443. A bill authorizing the United States Commissioner, International Boun- dary and Water Commission, United States and Mexico, to acquire and improve a town site in Zapata County, Tex., for the relocation of communities in satd county to be inun- dated by the waters of the Falcon Dam and Reservoir, being constructed in cooperation with Mexico under the water treaty of Febru- ary 3, 1944; providing for the construction of & water and sewer system tor such town site, for the relocation and construction of certain public buildings, and for the relocation of cemeteries; and providing for the exchange and conveyance of such properties in full or part payment for property to be acquired in connection with such reservoir; authorizing appropriations therefor; and for other pur- poses; to the Committee on Public Works. By Mrs. DOUGLAS: H.R. 7444, A bill to deal with areas of seri- ous unemployment, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Public Works. By Mr. HAGEN: H R. 7445. A bill authorizing the village of Baudette, State of Minnesota, its public suc- cessors or public assigns, to construct, main- tain, and operate a toll bridge across the Rainy River at or near Baudette, Minn,; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. By Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts: H.R. 7446. A bill to authorize payments by the Administrator of Veterans’ Affairs on the purchase of automobiles or other convey- ances by certain disabled veterans, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Veter- ans’ Affairs. By Mr. KING: H.R. 7447. A bill to amend the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, with respect to sound- FEBRUARY 27 recording materials for use in connection with moving-picture exhibits and news reelsg to the Committee on Ways and Means. By Mr. JAVITS: H.R. 7448. A bill to provide an additional income-tax exemption to certain handi- capped individuals; to the Committee on Ways and Means. By Mr. SANBORN: H.R. 7449. A bill to authorize appropria- tions for the eradication and control of halo- geton on public lands; to the Committee on Public Lands. By Mr. PRICE: H. J. Res. 424. Joint resolution granting consent of Congress to an agreement or com- pact entered into between the State of Mis- souri and the State of Illinois for the creation of the Bi-State Metropolitan Development District and the establishment of the Bi- State Development Agency for the compre- hensive development of the metropolitan St. Louis area; to the Committee on the Ju- dictary. By Mrs. DOUGLAS: H. J. Res. 425. Joint resolution to establish a National Children’s Day, to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. FERNOS-ISERN: H. J. Res. 426, Joint resolution to amend the Sugar Act of 1948 to increase the sugar quota for Puerto Rico from 910,000 short tons, raw value, to 1,150,000 short tons, raw value; to the Committee on Agriculture. By Mr. KARSTEN: H J. Res. 427, Joint resolution consenting to the agreement or compact entered into between the State of Missourl and the State of Illionis for the comprehensive develop- ment of the St. Louis metropolitan area; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. CELLER: H. Res. 489. Resolution authorizing an in- quiry into the progress of the denazification program in the American zone in Germany; to the Committee on Rules. By Mr. EDWIN ARTHUR HALL: H. Res. 490. Resolution to take off all taxes on bread and milk; to the Committee on Rules. By Mr. NOLAND: H. Res. 491. Resolution relating to the in« stallation of mechanism for visual recording and automatic counting of yeas and nays and of answers to quorum calls in the House of Representatives; to the Committee on House Administration. By Mrs. NORTON: H. Res. 492. Resolution providing for the employment of 10 additional telephone oper- ators, Office of the Clerk; to the Committee on House Administration, H. Res. 493. Resolution providing for the employment of a foreman of laborers, Door- keeper's department; to the Committee on House Administration. H. Res. 494. Resolution providing for the employment of a secretary to the Seigeant at Arms; to the Committee on House Admin- istration, By Mr. DAVIS of Georgia: H. Res 495. Resolution providing for ex- penses of conducting an investigation by the Committee on the District of Columbia pur- suant to House Resolution 340, Eighty-first Congress; to the Committee on House Ad- ministration. MEMORIALS Under clause 8 of rule XXII, me- morials were presented and referred as follows: By the SPEAKER: Memorial of the Legis- Jature of the State of Massachusetts, rela- tive to lowering the high cost of food; to the Committee on Agriculture. Also, memorial of the Legislature of the State of Massachusetts, relative to the pass-
1950 ing of anti-poll-tax legislation; to the Com- mittee on House Administration. Also, memorial of the Legislature of the Btate of Massachusetts, relative to the pass- ing of antilynching legislation; to the Com- mittee on the Judiciary. Also, memorial of the Legislature of the State of Texas, urging that the attempt to eliminate or reduce the depletion allowance on nutural resources be defeated; to the Committee on Ways and Means. PRIVATE BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS Under clause 1 of rule XXII, private bills and resolutions were introduced and severally referred as follows: By Mr. CAVALCANTE: H R. 7450. A bill to record the lawful ad- mission to the United States for permanent residence of Malvina Davoli, nee Passini; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. FARRINGTON: H R. 7461. A bill for the relief of Sumiko Fujita; to the Committee on the Judiciary. H.R 7452. A bill for the relief of Alice Mortyoshi; to the Committee on the Ju- diciary. By Mr. GORE: H R 7453. A bill for the relief of the Farmers Mutual Fire Insurance Co. of Sum- ner County, Tenn; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. HOBBS: H.R. 7464 A bill for the rellef of the es- tate of Robert Preston Watters, the estate of Mrs. Jessie Nivens Watters, and the es- tate of J. W. Gillum; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. KILDAY: H R 7455. A bill for the relief of Edward C Brunett, to the Committee on the Judi- clary By Mr. KING: H R 7456 A bill for the rellef of Daniel H Dullty; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. McDONOUGH. H R 7457. A bill for the relief of Frank Lindsen, to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. MILLER of California: H R 7458 A bill tor the relief of Jonna Maric Rasmussen; to the Committee on the Judiclary By Mr. O’HARA of Illinois’ H R 7459 A bill for the relief of Dr. John M Maniatis; to the Committee on the Ju- diciary By Mr. TOLLEFSON: H R.7460 A bill to exempt certain real property in the District of Columbia from taxation in the District of Columbia, and for other purposes, to the Committee on the District of Columbla. By Mr. WHITE of Idaho: H R 7461, A bill for the relief of Edward Pittwcod; to the Committee on the Judiciary. PETITIONS, ETC Under clause 1 of rule XXII, petitions and papers were laid on the Clerk’s desk and referred as follows: 1959 By Mr. CUNNINGHAM: Petition of approximately 1,200 railway employees, re- questing that the railway pension Jaw be amended to read that it will be optional for railway employees to receive their annuity on reaching the age of 60 and having 20 years of railroad service or 30 years of service regardless of age; to the Committee on In- terstate and Forelgn Commerce. 1910. By Mr. GRAHAM: Petition of 95 resi- dents of Ellwood City, Lawrence County, Pa., in opposition to the Fogarty bill, H.R. 1570; to the Committee on Education and Labor. 1911. By Mr. HAGEN: Resolutions adopted by the board of directors of the Federal Re- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE serve Bank of Minneapolis on February 9, 1950, petitioning the Congress to review the question of salaries for members of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and to establish their annual salaries at levels commensurate with the responsi- bilities of their positions, with a view to achieving the highest type of public service in the fleld of monetary and banking policy; to the Committee on Banking and Currency. 1912. By Mr. HESELTON: Resolutions of the General Court of Massachusetts, mem- orializing the Congress of the United States to lower the high cost of food; to the Com- mittee on Agriculture. 1913. Also, resolutions of the General Court of Massachusetts, memorializing the Congress of the United States to pass anti- poll-tax legislation; to the Committee on House Administration. 1914. Also, resolutions of the General Court of Massachusetts, memortalizing the Congress of the United States to pass anti- lynching legislation; to the Committee on the Judiciary. 1915. By Mr. HOEVEN: Petition request- ing passage of legislation that would prohibit alcoholic-beverage advertising in interstate commerce; to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce 10916. By Mr MILLER of California: Peti- tion of the commissioners of the Housing Authority of the City of Alameda, Calif., re= questing passage of 8 2246, a bill to amend the National Housing Act, as amended, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking and Currency. 1917. By Mr. SHORT: Petitions of Mrs. James Mason, Dr. Kenneth Glover, Abb Hulen, Virgil Walker, and many others, of Mount Vernon and Lawrence County, urging the passage of the Langer bill, S 1847, and the Bryson bill, H R. 2428; to the Committee on Interstate und Foreign Commerce. 1918 Also, petition of the Joplin unit of Missour! Cosmetologists Association, urging the Congress to repeal the wartime excise tax on all cosmetics; to the Committee on Ways and Means. 1919 By Mr SMITH of Wisconsin: Reso- lution of Walworth County Petroleum In- dustries Committee, Walworth County, Wis., urging immediate and outright repeal of the Federal gasoline and lubricating-oil taxes and the Federal automotive excise taxes; to the Committee on Ways and Means 1920. Also, resolutions adopted at a mass meeting of Lithuanian-Americans held un- de: the auspices of the local branch of Lithuanian-American Council, Inc, favor- ing mmediate ratification of the convention outlawing genocide by the United States Senate; denouncing the Soviet policy of de- struction of native population and take effective steps to make Russia respect the principles of the declaration of human rights; urging the Goveinment to use its power and influence to help Lithuania and other Baltic States to regain their freedom and sovereign rights in accordance with the principles of the Atlantic Charter und Char- ter of the United Nations, and not to make peace settlement with Soviet Russla until this has been achieved, to the Committee on Forcign Affairs 1921. By Mr. WALTER’ Petition of Penn- sylvania Cooperative Potato Growers, Inc., Allentown, Pa., opposing the continued price- support program of the Federal Government on potatoes in any form, to the Committee on Agriculture. 1922. By the SPEAKER: Petition of O. A. Richardson, president St. Joseph County In» dustrial Union Council, South Bend, Ind., supporting the enactment of §. 110 and H. R. 1380, Labor Extension Service bills; to the Committee on Education and Labor. 1923. Also, petition of J. E. Batten, Jr,, president, McDowell County Education Asso- 2455 ciation, Welch, W. Va., reaffirming its stand in favor of Federal aid to education; to the Committee on Education and Labor, 1924. Also, petition of Mrs, Clair J, Butter- field, president, Edinboro State Teachers College, Edinboro, Pa., requesting that full support be given Senate bill 246 with cer- tain provisions; to the Committee on Edu- cation and Labor. SENATE TvESbDAY, Fesruary 28, 1950 (Legislative day of Wednesday, February 22, 1950) The Senate met at 12 o'clock meridian, on the expiration of the recess. The Chaplain, Rev. Frederick Brown Harris, D. D., offered the following prayer: Our gracious Father, as our thoughts are hushed to silence may we find Thee moving upon our minds, higher than our highest thought yet nearer to us than our very selves. Before the toil of a new day opens before us we lay before Thee the meditations of our hearts: May they be acceptable in Thy sight. Prepare us for the solemn role com- mitted to our fallible hands in this ap- palling day, with its vast issues that con- cern not only our own dear land, but all the continents and the islands of the sea. Make us ministers of that love which will not halt its growing sway until it joins all nations and kindreds and tongues and peoples into one great fraternity. We ask 1t in the dear Redeemer's name, Amen. THE JOURNAL On request of Mr. Lucas, and by unani- mous consent, reading of the Journal of the proceedings of Monday, February 27, 1950, was dispensed with. MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT Messages in writing from the Presi- dent of the United States were com- municated to the Senate by Mr. Miller, one of his secretaries. COMMITTEE MEETINGS DURING SENATE SESSIONS On request of Mr. Murray, and by unanimous consent, the Subcommittee on Labor-Management Relations of the Committee on Labor and Public Wel- fare was authorized to sit during the session of the Senate today. On request of Mr. Murray, and by unanimous consent, the Committee on Foreign Relations was authorized to mect during the sessions of the Scnate today and the remainder of the week. On request of Mr. NeEELy, and by unanimous consent, the Committee on the District of Columbia was authorized to meet bricfly at 3 o’clock this after- noon during the session of the Senate, CALL OF THE ROLL Mr. LUCAS. I suggest the absence of a quorum. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Secre-, tary will call the roll.