2630 Mr. President, I reply that we are not insolvent now. This Nation is not now insolvent, despite all the propaganda and the cries and the charges of insolvency, regimentation, socialism, and collectiv- ism. This Nation today is further from being insolvent than it was 20 years ago— than it was 10 years ago. The state of the Union is good. Mr. President, the fiscal reports on small business and on corporate busi- ness—and I gather today we have in the Senate Senators who have been active in small business; and I am glad that I, too, represent small business—show that both big business and small business have been earning sizable profits. So, Mr. President, I submit that this country is not insolvent. Although the General Motors Corp. can yield a $600,- 000,000 net profit after taxes, and al- though other companies can yield cor- porate dividends of today, which are un- excelled, now I hear charges made on the floor of the Senate that deficit spending is threatening to result in the insolvency of the United States of America. This is rank propaganda with no basis of evi- dence or fact. Mr. President, I say this with a deep sense of humility, but the only time our country was ever threatened by insol- vency or socialism—the only time the Communist Party began growing and be- ing a real threat—was when there was some untimely budget balancing going on in Washington. Andrew Mellon and Ogden L. Mills balanced the budget, un- til the people had unbalanced lives and unfed stomachs. Economy in govern- ment was the word, spirit, and letter. But, the Nation suffered, the people were unemployed, business was prostrate. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. HUMPHREY. I yield. Mr. DOUGLAS. Of course, it is true that from 1930 to 1933 the budget was not balanced, in spite of all that. Mr. HUMPHREY. That is correct. Mr. DOUGLAS. So not even the budget was balanced during that period of time; but people’s lives, as the Senator properly says, were unbalanced. Mr. HUMPHREY. That is correct. Mr. President, lest my remarks be mis- interpreted, sometimes there is a tend- ency for some persons to misinterpret remarks, let me make it crystal clear that, over the long run, to be sure, sound fiscal policy demands that we have a bal- ance between expenditures anc revenues. That is the objective of the President. He has so stated again and again, and he has presented a plan which will make it possible. That is the objective, Mr. President, of this administration, and of those of us on this side of the aisle who are supporting the administration. But I submit for the Recorp, and I submit for myself and my family, that rather than talk about how we can bring about a little economy by firing a post-office clerk, I am a great deal more concerned about what is going to happen in this world, whether we are going to have a bomb dropped on our heads, whether we have got the defense establishment able to protect us, whether we have the right CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE foreign policy in Europe and Asia, whether we have a dynamic growing economy in America, which can sustain the kind of foreign policy we need, and the sort of domestic program we need. I have heard again and again charges against the administration. I repeat that the prophets of doom have been wrong every time. They were wrong in 1948, they were wrong in 1946, in 1947, and they were wrong in 1949. Every year the prophets of doom and despair have predicted that the Democratic ad- ministration of Mr. Truman is going to lead the country into insolvency, social- ism, and bankruptcy, and every year peo- ple seem to get along pretty well, and the people who do the most complaining are getting along the best. Those who are getting the big profits, those who are the big coupon clippers, they are the ones who are doing the greatest amount of crying. The little people who cannot get a decent pension because Congress did not elevate the social-security taxes when it should have been done, are the ones who are doing the least crying to- day. They are the faithful. They are the silent faithful partners in the great crusade of making this world a safe place in which to live. They are not going to make any money off of anything; all they are going to do is die; and yet they are willing to go along with their Govern- ment—to support it and their President. The Senator from Virginia said some- thing about the excess-profits tax. He criticized the President for removing the excess-profits tax. The other day I read an article which was written by a distin- guished reporter, the report of an inter- view with the President. There is one thing I like about our President—he is willing to admit some mistakes. What did he say? He said, in essence, “I made some mistakes—cutting off lend-lease too quickly, for instance. I did some things wrong in respect to the fiscal pol- icy, because, after all, how did we know what things were going to be like after the war?” So the President recom- mended, I think wrongly, the repeal of the excess-profits tax. But in the Eight- ieth Congress, in 1948, the Congress had a chance to put the excess-profits tax on the books again. I point out for the record that in 1948, during the life of the Eightieth Congress, corporate busi- ness made $20,800,000,000 net profit after taxes. That was $2,500,000,000 more than they made the year before, and $8,000,000,000 more than they made in 1946. There was an attempt on the floor, in the Eightieth Congress, to re- store the excess-profits tax. The senior Senator from Virginia voted against it, and yet today on the floor of the Senate he condemns the President for recom- mending its repeal. If it was wrong to repeal it in the first place, there is only one way to patch up the mistakes of the past, and that is to have a little searching of the soul and to start living a new life. The searching of the soul was offered, the new life was offered in terms of the excess-profits tax; but the critic of the President’s action voted ‘‘no.” Mr. President, there {s another matter which I do not want to forget. I call MARCH 2 the attention of the Senate to a bulletin entitled, “Reform of the Federal Budg- et,” Public Affairs Bulletin No. 80, for 1950, containing a statement by Dr. George B. Galloway, on page 110 of the bulletin. After having made an analysis, through some 15 pages, of the proposals for improving the fiscal policy of the United States, and for improving the budget, he adds the further comment: It is suggested that the Joint Committee on the Reduction of Nonessential Federal Expenditures (the Byrd committee) should be discontinued, because its function now falls within the jurisdiction of the stunding committee of the Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments. On behalf of the people who believe in good government in America, I offered the proposal—and what a storm it has stirred up, a storm of protest not in be- half of the people or good government, but a storm of protest over the fact that anyone should dare touch the vested in- stitutions of the vested coalition. I con- clude by thanking my colleagues for the attention they have given me, thanking them for the courteous manner in which they have received my talk this after- noon, and asking them to remember one thing—that while we are here together in a spirit of friendship in the Congress of the United States, and while it is a part of our code of ethics as gentlemen to be friendly and congenial one with an- other, our major responsibility is not the art of making friends—Dale Carnegie tells us how to do that—our major re- sponsibility is to legislate. Our major responsibility is to improve the machin- ery of government. To those who are the champions of the Hoover Commission report, a report which I support, to those who have been the champions of legisla. tive reorganization, to those who have talked incessantly about the need of Gov- ernmental economy and about efficiency in Government operations, and particu- larly to those who have been so active in the effort to bring about economy in gov- ernment, I commend my bill to abolish the Joint Committee on Reduction of Nonessential Federal Expenditures. I commend the bill, because I say the joint committee itself is nonessential. It has outlived its purposes and its usefulness. It is a committee that should have passed along—with great honor, with the testimonials we have had today, and with the showering of words of praise— at the time of the enactment of the Leg- islative Reorganization Act. As a new child was born, the old should have been put to sleep. But now we have to wait. It becomes uncomfortable and becomes disturbing; but, disturbing or uncom- fortable as it may be, the time to do it is now. THE NEW DEAL TRIES TO OLIP SOME WINGS—EDITORIAL FROM THE WASH- INGTON TIMES-HERALD Mr. BUTLER. Mr. President, I ask that an editorial entitled “The New Deal Tries To Clip Some Wings,” appearing in today’s issue of the Washington Times- Herald, be inserted at the conclusion of the debate on the bill introduced by the junior Senator from Minnesota [Mr. HuMmMPHREY].
1950 The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? There being no objection, the editorial Was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: THE NEw Dea Trizs To Cire SomE W1NGs The National Labor Relations Board has set out to trim the powers of its general counsel, Robert N. Denham. Under the Taft-Hartley Act Mr. Denham is permitted considerable latitude and has discharged his responsibili- ties with indcpendence and courage. He has done his best to apply the law as it stands on the books, notwithstanding the fact that the Truman administration and its allies, the professional union bosses, are extremely hos- tile to the act. DENHAM AT WORK This has won Mr. Denham the displeasure of Mr. Tiuman’s men on the NLRB. Mr. Denham, however, knew that he was not, as under the old Wagner Act, simply @ water boy for the Board, but that his office had been vested by Congress with broad powers. On January 12 Mr. Denham openly accused the Board members of being “saturated” with the philosophy of the Wagner Act and of being reluctant to conform to the spirit and letter of the Taft-Hartley law. There were, he said, “many decisions to which I have been unable to subscribe as be- ing consonant with the broad purposes and intent of the law.” He said that the Board had been “reversing” the courts in interpret- ing the law and stated that the reluctance of the members to enforce its provisions stemmed from an expectation that the law would be repealed and his own office abolished. In response, the Board has now instructed Mr. Denham that the position he must take in court is that which it has dictated, and it has informed him that it will have the last word on hiring or firing chiefs of NLRB re- gional and subregional offices—a function he has hitherto exercised. This attempt by the Truman administra- tion to debase the office of general counsel is consistent with Mr. Truman's declared hos- tility to the Taft-Hartley law. BYRD COMMITTEE ALSO ATTACKED The President, by delaying resort to the law in the coal strike until a calamity could not be averted, placed himself in the posi- tion of attempting to discredit the law. Un- able to prevail upon Congress to repeal it, he exposed the public to hardship in the hope of building up a showing that the law was without effect. Now his board has tak- en further steps to set the law at nought. There is a consistent pattern here which has again been manifested by the bill intro- duced by Senator HumpuHREY, the Minnesota Now Dealer, to cut off funds for the Joint Congressional Committee on Reduction of Nonessential Federal Expenditures, headed by Senator Byrp, of Virginia, and then to abolish the committee itself. The Byrd committee has been relenticss in exposing the waste incident to the swol- len Federal bureaucracy. The administra- tion’s response is to attempt to cut off the committee’s head. That is the process which the NLRB is following in its endeavor to undermine the Taft-Hartley Act. It cannot hope to get rid of the general counsel, but it can do its best to handcuff him. The political motive is shamelessly trans- parent. It is what the people can expect as long as Kansas City ward politics is tol- erated as a system of National Government. NOMINATIONS TO THE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD AND THE ARMED SERVICES Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, from the Committee on Armed Services I re- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE port favorably the nomination of Wil- liam Webster, of Massachusetts, to be Chairman of the Research and Develop- ment Board; of Rear Adm. John W. Roper, United States Navy, to have the grade, rank, pay, and allowances of a vice admiral while serving as Deputy Chief of Naval Operations (personnel) ; of Vice Adm. John D. Price, United States Navy, to have the grade, rank, pay, and allowances of a vice admiral while serving as Chief, Naval Air Train- ing; and Vice Adm. Donald B. Dun- can, United States Navy, to have the grade, rank, pay, and allowances of a vice admiral while serving as Deputy Chief of Naval Operations. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the nominations will be re- ceived. Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent, that, as in exec- utive session, these nominations be con- firmed, and that the President be notified. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Macnvson in the chair). Is there objec- tion? The Chair hears none, and, with- out objection, the nominations are con- firmed, and the President will be notified forthwith. MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE A message from the House of Repre- sentatives, by Mr. Maurer, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House had agreed to the concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 77) requesting the Presi- dent to return to the Senate the enrolled bill (S. 204) for the relief of Eugenio Maisterrena Barreneche, and authorizing its reenrollment. DOMESTIC PROBLEMS AND FOREIGN POLICY Mr. WILEY. Mr. President, there is a story told of a Member of Congress who likes to talk a great deal, who was speak- ing before a particular group, making a very fine impression. In the group to which he was speaking there happened to be a man who was in charge of an adjoining insane asylum. He asked the politician to come over and address his group. The politician accepted the in- vitation. He was wont to begin his speeches with the question, “What are we here for?” He would repeat it, accentuating it with each repetition— “What are we here for?” He would then pause. He followed his usual custom in addressing the inmates of the insane asylum. One of the inmates said, “Mister, I do not know why you are here, but we are here because we are not there.” [Laughter.] But that made no impression upon the speaker. He con- tinued, finally concluding his speech with the question, “Where do we go from here?” Again the inmate spoke up. He said, “I don’t know where you're going, but if you keep on talking the way you do you'll be one of us before long.” (Laughter.] Mr. President, I ask, What are we of the Senate here for? Iam sure someone would answer that we are here, not to be concerned with the smaller things, in this hour of crisis in the world. We should not have any bickerings between ourselves over minor matters. We have 2631 big problems which the people ask us to solve. I desire to speak about one of those problems; but let me say, first, that the other problems with which we might concern ourselves are how to improve our cold-war methods, how to improve the impact of world socialism and world communism upon this country, how to solve the serious coal situation. A man came to my office today and stated that in his little town of Westbend the schools and manufacturing plants had to close because of the lack of coal. Yes, Mr. President, we might concern ourselves with what has been mentioned today as the question of the national budget running into the red. We might concern ourselves with the tremendous unemployment problem which is facing America, with approxi- mately 5,000,000 persons idle. We might concern ourselves with the strike problem which js still a cancerous growth on the economy of America, We might concern ourselves with rackcteers. Who are the rackctccrs? They are the persons who want to make their own laws and who do not wish to obey the laws of the land. I care not whether they are in Government, or in management or labor, racketeers want to make their own rules, and they do not want to obey the rules of the Nation. We might concern ourselves, also, with the great crime wave which is depleting much of the treasure and the morality of the Nation. We might concern ourselves with see- ing to it that the American dollar does not depreciate any further, because, if it does, the money invested in insurance, in bonds, and in many of the things we have regarded as solid investments, will simply amount to nothing. We talk about providing adequate pensions. There will not be any ade- quate pensions or anything else if we permit our dollar to slide much more. The value of the dollar depends upon who values it. When I came to Wash- ington 11 years ago, I could have bought a house for approximately $15,000 which would sell now at from $50,000 to $60,000. That indicates that we now have approximately a 25-cent dollar. Mr. President, I wish to speak on an important subject on which a number of Senators have spoken. It relates to the foreign situation. There are pend- ing before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, of which Iam a mem- ber, numerous resolutions which relate to the ways and means of bringing about a peaceful world. One of the great dangers, as I see it, is that, because of the almost political disease of constantly resolving, our people may think we have found a panacea, a cure, a remedy. But resolutions will not do the job, Mr. President. Recently great speeches by Members of this body have been centered on the same subject. In the latest issue of the Reader's Digest there is a very thought- ful article by George F. Kennan, coun- selor of the State Department, who comes from my State of Wisconsin. 'The article is entitled “Is War With Russia Inevitable?”
2632 Mr. President, if there is one ques- tion about which the American people are concerned it is that. Lincoln said that God must have loved the common people, because he made so many of them The common people want peace Mr. Kennan suggests a vigorous and hopeful foreign policy which firmly re- jects defeatism about a future war, and aims at Keeping alive and pursuing vig- orously every possibility of solving in- ternational differences, and for bearing them when the solution is not yet pos- sible, without recourse to war. In his article Mr. Kennan does not particularize as to any plans. He rec- ognizes that “words would still mean different things to Russia than they mean to us,” and that any agreement which might be entcred into would be worth what the realities of world pow- ers meke it worth to any particular mevement. That is nothing new in the world. The Kaiscr said that a treaty was a scrap of paper. But we must bear in mind, when we talk about resolutions, that we should put first things first. Let us rec- ognize, I repcat, mere resolutions will not do the Job. Mr Kennan comes to the conclusion that until Russia recognizes that her ef- forts to maintain or to establish po- litical world power over other pcoples are detrimental to her own selfish inter- ests and that it is inadvisable for Russia to pursue her efforts further, the prob- lem cannot be solved. I do not fully accept that conclusion, but I state that that is the judgment not only of Mr. Kennan, because I heard substantially the same words last night from Mr. Hoffman. the head of the ECA. Mr. Kennan said that in his judgment mere oral persuasion will not do the job, but that we must create ‘“‘a situation of fact that brings this home to the Rus- sian leaders.” By “a situation of fact” he means to bring out the thought that our security consists in making aggres- sion improbable, if not impossible. He definitely says that we should not be di- verted from our task by a morbid pre- occupation with what could possibly happen’ TIrepeat those words, Mr Pres- ident. We should not be diverted from our task by a morbid preoccupation with what could possibly happen. He does not say that a conference should not be entered into, but he does say that mere oral persuasion will not do the job. I think that is very important. In this picture, which would create a factual situation, he makes it plain that it is important that our allies know where we stand and that we are solidly behind them. I am glad to note that, among other things, he mentions the need of a strong Amcrica at home, a productive America, a harmonious America. To me, that is very significant. He recog- nizes that we are seriously tackling the problem of whether our own political and economy system will stand. As I have stated, Mr. President, I am quoting Mr. George F. Kennan, who is a former resident of my State, and who at the present time is in South America. He is counselor of the State Department. He recognizes that we must seriously tackle the problems which confront us CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE at home. That is why I think we should not become engrossed in a lot of minor matters. Let us attend to first things first. Let us recognize, as he so dynami- cally states, that the economic and po- litical health of America is a great factor in determining whether there shall be peace on this globe. He impresses upon us that there is needed something more than matcrial prosperity. We must prove our ade- quacy. I say we do not prove our ade- quacy when we bicker over details which are picayunish in comparison with the scrious challengcs which confront Amcr- ica today. What is more, it affects the caliber of our own thinking. The time has come for straight thinking. We must not permit ourselves, as man- agement and labor sometimes permit themselves, to get all “het up,” as the saying is, over minor matters When they permit industries to close down and productivity of plants to stop, manage- ment and labor forget their obligations to the general welfare. We must not permit minor matters, small matters, and noncontroversial matters to interfere with our thinking. Are we keeping America really vital? Are we Keeping the American way of life dynamic? That is what I believe, in sub- stance, Mr. Kennan would ask if he could interrogate a Senator. Are we going, not on the beam, but off the beam? We know what happens when an airplane travel- ing through the air and unable to see ahead goes off the beam. The world 1s Jooking to us to see wheth- er we will keep alert—alert, with all that that word implics—and whether we will be adequate to meet any emergency— emergency, with all that that word im- phes There is included also the question of whether our approach to the problems of others will be adequate. We must manifest not only good will and coopera- tion, but the highest type of judgment, which does not come when we permit ourselves to be shoved off on a tangent. I like this paragraph of Mr. Kennan’s article: We should not lose ourselves in vain- glorious schemes for changing human nature all over the plunet Rather, we should learn to view ourselves with a sense of proportion and Christian humility before the enormous complexity of the world in which it has been given us to live. Mr. President, I believe this is the greatest period in the world’s history. I believe that the age of Columbus, with its geographic discovery, does not hold a candle to this age, with its discoveries in all fields. We have blown the atom to pieces so that we cannot find what matter is. We have reached into the heavens and have found a star so large that the sun is as small in comparison with the star as the earth is in comparison with the sun. The earth is only 10,000 miles in diameter, and the sun is nearly a mil- lion miles in diameter. Yes; we have gone into every field. We have engaged in things which the human mind in the days of Columbus never conceived of. We are engaged in trying to find out who we are. Whither are we bound? Mr. Kennan, in answering the question of whether the Russians are planning to make war on us, reaches the conclusion MARCH 2 that it is hardly likely that the Rus- sians are now charting an early military onlaught on the western world. I say “carly onslaught on the western world.” Last night Mr. Hoffman made the olear- cut statement that it was imperative we win the cold war; that otherwise the Rus- sians, not by an overt act of war, but by using the means they have been so suc- cessfully using, would take over Europe and Africa. What would be left for us then? We would face the world. That is the serious problem, Mr. President. Whether or not we abolish a $12,000 com- mittee is not of very great significance. Personally, I have always felt that one of the big things Congress should do for its own health is to create a committee, staffed with sufficient experts, so that it could operate as the Government was conceived of in the first place, as a gov- ernment of adequate checks and bal- ances. Whether this committee or that committee should do it, 1s unimportant. However, when the Federal budget mounts up to $42,000,000,0C0O—and there is a big difference between such a budgct and that of the days of George Washing- ton—a responsibility is presented to Con- gress to see to it that 1t has adequate machinery to check the budget submitted to Congress by the President. Mr. President, that is no reflection on the President. It merely means that the men who conceived this Government from their knowledge of the history of the ages and forecasting the future realized that the Government could re- main in existence only so long as there were adequate checks and balances, God knows there are not adequate checks and balances in the financial branches of our Government now: we accept what 1s given to us, in large measure. That we should not do. Mr. President, I say again, first things first, and the first things first here are charting our course so that America will remain safe, and performing our obli- gations in this age to the world into which we have been precipitated as leaders among the nations. Mr. Kennan’s reasons are cogent, and are worth considering. When it comes to the question as to whcther war is possible, he quotes Alexander Hamilton. How true are these words, Mr. President; listen to them: We cannot count upon moderation or hope to extinguish the ambition of others; and that war or peace will not always be left to our option. We all know, as has been stated, that wars can arise by accident, and that states like Russia, where a few men de- termine the course of war or peace, have in the past gone to war at the dictate of one or of a group, and they have been blind. We know, too, that sometimes wars have been occasioned by fear that an- other nation might attack, and at this time, from all the information we can obtain, it is clearly evident that the Rus- sian people are being fed the idea that the outside world is hostile and men- acing. That presents a terrific problem to us Americans. So we ask ourselves, what course, under all the circumstances, is open? In other words, where do we go from here?
1950 On February 17, 1950, I wrote a letter to the Secretary of State, Mr. Acheson, suggesting that he instruct the United States delegates to the United Nations to contact Trygve Lie, the Secretary General of the United Nations, and that Lie proceed to poll the member states to determine whether it would be both desirable and feasible for a new interno- tional conference to be called, in which the principal states represented on the highest possible level would discuss, first, proposals for the revision of the United Nations’ Charter, with a view to setting up some new form of international or- ganization; and, second, in connection therewith, to consider ways and means of iron-clad international inspection of atomic energy and other weapons, and possible disarmament, so as to halt the armament race now proceeding. In the letter I also suggested that the Secretary General contact the heads of the various governments, as well as their representatives at the United Nations. Up to date I have received no answer to that letter. Since that time a number of Senators have spoken very dramat- ically and clearly on the need for action which would result in a conference of some kind. Recently the senior Sena- tor from Maryland [Mr. Typrncs) spoke, making such a suggestion on the floor of the Senate, and it was my privilege to hear him. Mr. President, yesterday the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. McMagon! sug- gested that the Atlantic Council created by the North Atlantic Pact, seek the Kremlin’s hospitality and there discuss the issue. Iam fully in accord with the suggestion that something be done. There are in Russia some 200,000,000 human beings. One hundred and nine- ty-five million of them have nothing to say about their own government. If Russia should invite the Atlantic Coun- cil to hold sessions there and would open up the ether waves so that her people could become aware of the true situa- tion, it would, indeed, be a consumma- tion devoutly to be wished. We at least can try, Mr. President. Or why not let the Council of the United Nations meet in Moscow? I can hear someone say it would not be invited; but, again I say we have to try something. I may say parenthetically, Mr. Presi- dent, that I heard a representative of the United Nations say the other day that one of the foreign representatives while talking with him said, ‘‘Why does not the Voice of America give us her great wealth of ideas—give us Washington, give us Lincoln, instead of much _ worthless stuff?” One of the great Christian gen- tlemen who is a member of the United Nations made that statement to one of our representatives, I have quoted it in substance as it was given in my presence and in the presence of eight or nine other Members of this body. The people of the world are hungry for the true meaning of America; they are hungry for the meaning of the American way. They ask, “Why do you not give us Lincoln?” I thrilled when I heard this request. I thought I heard a voice in the wilderness calling to us. I hope the new head of the Voice of Amcrica will recognize that this is the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE hour of decision. I do not say it is later than we think. I am an optimist. I think it is much earlier than some people think. I think there is plenty of time ahead if we only do things, if we keep alert mentally, if we be adequate to fac- ing the demands of the hour. No, Mr. President, I am not a pessi- mist. There are many signs indicating that the right ferment is working. That is what is needed, as was so dynami- cally stated by the senior Senator from Maryland (Mr. Typrncs} in relation to the power of the right idea, when he spoke on the Senate floor the other day. The other evening I heard a French girl, one of the group of the MRA, a Catholic girl, say how sh’ 'earned to love her German brothers : 1 sisters, even though two of her ov : brothers were taken by the Nazis and never returned. I know the problem seems big, but as we read history, we know that men, ordinary men, when challenged with a great idea of service to humanity, have been filled with power and have changed the course of history. Was it not our own Emerson who said: Beware when a thinker is let loose He may turn the flank of any science or knowl- edge. Someone else has said: A man with an idea may change the course of history. Two thousand years ago, the ideas enunciated by the lowly Nazarene took hold of men and down through the cen- turies those ideas have not only changed men but changed the course of nations. John Wesley said: Give me 10 men who fear only God and hate only evil and we can change the world. What a faith. And Wesley changed the course of English history. There are many similar instances. The Japanese, Kagawa, recently said: The heart is an atomic bomb and uranium is repentance. Mr. President, there was sent to me by a young lady from San Francisco, whom I do not know, a little card with some verses by St. Francis of Assisi on it. She is a total stranger to me. She wrote: Dear SENATOR WILEY: This atomic bomb has shaken us, as we look into the future. Are we to be annihilated by this newly re- leased power or can we build together a new world based on justice and good will? Then she quotes that great prayer by St. Francis of Assisi: Lord, make me an instrument of Your Peacel Where there is hatred, let me sow love, Where there is injury, pardon; Where there is doubt, faith; Where there is despair, hope; Where there is darkness, light; Where there is sadness, joy. O Divine Master, grant that I may not so much seek To be consoled, as to console; To be understood, as to understand; To be loved, as to love. For it is in giving that we receive; Jt is in pardoning that we are pardoned; It is in dying unto ourselves that we are born to eternal life. Mr. President, I have no apology to make for quoting in this great Chamber the words of thinkzrs, men who sense 2633 that this little life does not hold every- thing. We have to give up our wishful think- ing, our inaction, yes, our fears and our doubts, and move forward. We know that mere conferences by themselves will not do the job unless as a result thereof there is complete understanding, to- gether with the will to keep faith. Talk is cheap. If we ourselves do not want to talk, we can buy phonograph records and hear plenty of talk or we can turn on the radio. Performance is what is needed. Easter is around the corner. It is symbolic of something dynamic in the world: of men filled with the holy spirit; of men who learn to live and work together for a noble purpose; of ordinary men who become great by virtue of service; of men who recognize that life is not simply a game for political preferment, for material accomplish- ment, but that each is accountable to his Moker and that the man lives most who builds best. Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, the able Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. WILEY] has again shown his common sense and judicial approach in comment- ing on the international situation. He desires America to be strong and steady, yet he, as I am, is not satisfied with de- featism, inaction, and negatism when all reasoning and informed people know that inertia increases hourly the dangers about us. I commend him for his schol- arly approach to this great enterprise— peace with honor and justice. DISPLACED PERSONS The Senate resumed the considera- tion of the bill (H. R. 4567) to amend the Displaced Persons Act of 1948. Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, in view of the tremendous work load of the Senate, it is exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, for every Senator to make an independent study of the facts and issues which are presented by the numer- ous complicated and controversial bills upon which the Senators are called to vote during any one session of the Con- gress, It is for this reason, Mr. Presi- dent, and also for the orderly conduct of the affairs of the Senate that the committees of the Senate have been in- stituted. As every Senator knows, the major portion of the work, the investiga- tion of the facts, and the preparation of legislation are all done by the commit- tees of the Senate with the assistance of their staffs. Over the course of the last 3 years, pursuant to a resolution of the Senate, a@ subcommittee of the Senate Commit- tee on the Judiciary has been conducting a comprehensive study and investiga- tion of our entire immigration and nat- uralization system. One facet of this study and investiga- tion concerning which thousands of pages of testimony have been taken and countless hours of diligent study have been made is the problem of displaced persons. As a member of this subcom- mittee, may I say that our study and in- vestigation has been objective. Mr. LONG. Mr. President, will the Benator yield? Mr. EASTLAND. I yield.
2634 Mr. LONG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the senior Sen- ator from Mississippi [Mr, EASTLAND] may yield to me for the purpose of sug- gesting the absence of a quorum, without prejudicing his rights to the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there Objection to the request of the Senator from Louisiana? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered. Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. yield for that purpose. Mr. LONG. I suggest the absence of a@ quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The Chief Clerk called the roll, and the following Senators answered to their names: President, I Alken Hendrickson Maybank Brewster Hill Millikin Bricker Hocy Morse Bridges Humphrey Mundt Butler Hunt Murray Byrd Ives Myers Cain Jenner Neely Capehart Johnson, Colo. O'Conor Chapman Johneon, Tex Robertson Chavez Johnston, S C, Russell Connally Kefauver Saltonstall Cordon Kerr Schoerpel Darby Kilgore Smith, Maine Donnell Knowland Smith, N J. Douglas Langer Sparkman Downey Leahy Stennis Dworshak Lehman Taft Eastland Lodge Taylor Ecton Long Thomas, Okla ENender Lucas Thomas, Utah Ferguson McCarran Tobey Flanders McCarthy Tydings Frear McClellan Watkins Fulbright McKellar Wherry George McMahon Wiley Green Magnuson Williams Gurney Malone Witheis Hayden Martin The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quo- rum is present. Mr. EASTLAND. We have under- taken to view the problem of displaced persons, not only from the standpoint of the broad humanitarian implications but also from the standpoint of the best in- terests of the United States of America. Mr. President, permit me to say at this point that the administration of the present displaced-persons law is shock- ing, and that in my judgment, after lis- tening to the testimony and after care- fully reviewing the record, certain of the officials in Europe who administer the program have manifested a wanton dis- regard of the welfare of the United States and are guilty of moral treason, because they have set up a system there, as a result of which they know that Commu- nist saboteurs and agents and officers of the Russian secret police have been fil- tered into the United States. That isa serious charge, and I am absolutely cer- tain that the record of the hearings will support the statement beyond any per- adventure of a doubt. It is also sup- ported by a high official in military in- telligence, who was stationed in Ger- many, who said that his organization caught officers of the Russian secret po- lice who were being slipped into this country, At the conclusion of the work of the subcommittee with reference to the dis- placed-persons problem and after con- sideration of some twenty-odd proposed amendments to the present displaced- persons law the subcommittee reported CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE to the Senate Committee on the Judici- ary its recommendations in the form of a bill. This bill was thoroughly discussed by the Senate Committee on the Judici- ary in many sessions and was, with slight modifications, favorably reported to the Senate and is now before this body for consideration. Mr. President, this bill which consists of many amendments to the present displaced-persons law was not hastily conceived. The amendments contained in the bill were prompted by the facts which had been developed in our study and investigation, and the re- marks which I shall make today which refer to the various amendments shall also be based exclusively on the facts. May I emphasize this because if the facts were as they have-been portrayed by the paid publicists of a lobby which has reg- istered with the Congress expenditures of approximately $1,000,000, then the bill which was reported would be an entirely different bill. But I am confident, Mr. President, that when the Senators are appr:s-d of the facts upon which this bill has been founded, as distinguished from the fiction and propaganda which has been disscminated over the length and breadth of this land, the Senate will manifest 1ts confidence in the committee headed by the able Senator from Nevada [Mr McCarran], and will support the committee bill Mr. President, for many months I have observed the conduct of the distinguished Senator from Nevada through the hear- ings, and I say he has gone into the sub- ject thoroughly, impartially, and un- selfishly, with the welfare and security of the United States as the paramount consideration. I seriously doubt that the welfare and security of the United States have been paramount in the minds of those who would villify and abuse him, those who have attempted to becloud the whole issue by means of propaganda, because they knew that if the facts were known, the people of the United States would demand that radical reforms be instituted in Europe in the conduct of the Displaced Persons Commission. Although I shall subsequently discuss in detail the principal provisions of the committee bill and the reason for their existence, may I say in a word, Mr. Pres- ident, that the committce bill has two principal objectives: First. The first objective is to broaden the base of our present law so as to encompass certain additional groups of displaced persons who are not embraced by the present law. Second. The second principal objective is to strengthen the administration of the law so that our displaced persons program will encompass only bona fide displaced persons and so that the secur- ity interest of the United States will be safeguarded. Now, Mr. President, may I invite the attention of the Senate to the scope of the problem of displaced persons: At the end of the war the Allied armies in central Europe became the guardians of approximately 8,000,000 persons who had been displaced during the war. Within a few months after the war ap- proximately 7,000,000 of these persons were repatriated to their native coun- MARCH 2 tries, leaving about 1,000,000 persons, who, because of fear of persecution, refused to return to their homelands. By the expiration date of our present displaced-persons law, June 30, 1950, there will remain only a few thousand such war-displaced persons in central Europe, other than the so-called hard core who because of social or physical disqualifications are ineligible for re- settlement. The constitution of the International Refugee Organization, however, em- braces not only displaced persons who were displaced by the war in central Europe, but, in addition, it embraces all persons in the entire world who are, or who may hereafter be out of their coun- try of nationality or former residence and who are unwilling to return. Some year or two after the war in central Eu- rope there began and continues until the present time, a general migration from eastern Europe into the occupied areas of western Europe of hundreds of thou- sands of persons, who, because of politi- cal and economic turmoil, have been leaving their homelands The potential number of persons embraced in this second category has been estimated to be in millions. Mr. Robert M. Hanes, Chief of the ECA mission to Germany, testified be- fore the Foreign Relations Committee on February 27, 1950, as follows: Mr. Hanes Unemployment has reached the level of 2,000,000 or approximately 10 per- cent of the labor force. The constant influx of refugees from the Soviet zone and the jron-curtain countries, about 20,000 per month, is a large contributing factor. While refugees constitute about 18 percent of the total western German population, they com- prise 35 percent of the unemployed. They increase the pressure on housing and jobs, and they are considered outsiders and in- truders by the local population. They bring resentment in their wake—a resentment which poses tremendous social as well as economic problems Question Of what? Of the German popu- lation? Mr. HANES They are resentful of people coming in and having to be taken care of by the German Government and people, and competing for their jobs. Question. They are the ones that have the resentment? Mr. HANES. No, sir; them Question. Yes; the German people resent the people coming in. I thought you had it the other way around. Mr. Hanes. No, sir; the German people themselves. Question. If you are speaking of refugees, the DP’s are 4 separate problem, are they not? Mr. HaNeEs. Well, expellees, refugees, DP's all flowing into the country, the whole lot of them coming in, over 20,000 a month com- ing into western Germany. Question. Are they not taken care of in DP camps? Mr. HANES. Yes, sir. Question. All in those camps? Mr. HANES. Yes, sir. Some of these people are coming in, and just working in anywhere they can, as best they can. Question. What percentage of them are going into the normal German economy and eompeting with labor and everything else? Mr. HANES. As many as possibly can. They are gradually, as I say, infiltrating into the whole economy, and where you have 20,0L0 the Germans resent
1950 @ month coming in, as fast as they get a few placed, there are more coming over the line, making the problem that much more acute. Question. Primarily from east Germany? Mr. HANES. From the whole eastern zone, all those eastern countries. Question. The Balkans and the rest of them? Mr. HANnes. Yes, sir. Question. Mr. Hanes, what have you to say about the situation, the one I am going to ask you about now: Is the Soviet zone inter- fering, or does it interfere, in any way, with western Germany, or are they sending over infiltration groups? What is the attitude, generally, toward us over there? They are discouraging, of course, the development of western Germany? Mr. HANES. Very definitely, and we don’t know, and I do not think there is any way of telling, Senator, the number of people sent over by the Russians in those groups of 20,000 a month that come in. Undoubtedly they are sending over some stooges, getting some information to the Comintern, and to do as much damage as they can in western Germany. Mr. President, in addition to the dis- placed persons who are embraced by the International Refugee Organization, there are between 15,000,000 and 20,000,- 000 persons who are de facto displaced, but who are not at present displaced by the International Refugee Organization. These persons include, first, the German expellees who were forcibly expelled from the countries of eastern Europe pursuant to the Potsdam Agrecment of August 1, 1945, and were driven into Germany and Austria. These German expellees number from 10,000,000 to 15,- 000,000. Under the constitution of the International Refugee Organization the German expellees are specifically ex- cluded from the concern of the Inter- national Refugee Organization—— Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. EASTLAND. I yield for a ques- tion. Mr. WHERRY. Why were they ex- cluded under the provisions of the IRO? Mr. EASTLAND. I shall explain that in a moment. The International Refu- gee Organization is not concerned with anyone through whose veins flows Ger- man blood, regardless of how innocent he might be, regardless of whether he bore arms for this Nation, regardless of whether he served this country. The charter of the IRO specifically excludes anyone through whose veins flows Ger- man blood. Mr. WHERRY. Is that specifically stated in the charter? Mr. EASTLAND. It is in the consti- tution of the International Refugee Or- ganization. Mr. WHERRY. Such persons do not come within the definition? Mr. EASTLAND. The constitution of the International Refugee Organization describes and defines who is a displaced person, and it further specifies what classes are not its concern. The Dis- placed Persons Act of 1948 adopts that definition of a displaced person, who is excluded from the care of the Interna- tional Refugee Organization, and who is excluded from the provisions of the act Mr. WHERRY. I understand they do not come within the definition, but I am CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE asking for the justification of such a definition. What is the argument for excluding that group of persons? Mr. EASTLAND. Does the Senator mean our argument, or the argument of the proponents of the Kilgore substi- tute? Mr. WHERRY. Why, when the char- ter was written, was that definition made? What were the reasons given for excluding persons of German ethnic origin? Mr, EASTLAND. They were excluded because of hatred of the German peo- ple. Let me tell the distinguished Scn- ator from Nebraska something which will shock him. The record will bear me out, without contradiction, that the International Refugee Organization, an international] organization whose policy- making employees are not citizens of this country and the rank and file of whose employees are displaced persons, selects the displaced persons who come to this country to become American citizens. According to the testimony of officials in the Immigration Service a condition prevails under which displaced persons are selecting displaced persons to come into this country. Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. EASTLAND. tion. Mr. LEHMAN. Ishould like to ask the Senator whether he is aware of the fact that before any displaced person can come to this country he must be screened, first, by the IRO, second, by the Dis- placed Persons Commission, third, by the Consular Service of the State Depart- ment of the United States, and, finally, by the Immigration and Naturalization Service Mr. EASTLAND. No. Mr. LEHMAN. I ask whether the Senator knows that. Mr. EASTLAND. No. I not only do not know that, but I know that the Sen- ator from New York is incorrect. I deny that that is happening, and I submit that the record will show, without con- tradiction, that the Senator from New York is mistaken in each of his assump- tions. The IRO compiles a file on Hans Schmidt. The facts regarding him are placed in the file. The IRO is not an American organization; it is an inter- national organization. Its employees are not Americans. No displaced person can come to the United States until this foreign organization sends that file to the Displaced Persons Commission. The Senator from New York says this man is screened by the Displaced Persons Commission. The testimony of officials of this Government shows that there is no adequate screening of the displaced persons by them and, furthermore, that they are sent to this country when an investigation has shown that they do not meet the qualifications of the act, or that they are criminals or are Commu- nists. The file goes to the Displaced Persons Commission. The Senator from New York says the persons are screened by the Displaced Persons Commission. The facts show that Hans Schmidt's name goes to the provost marshal’s I yield for a ques- 2635 office and to the Berlin document center. Senior officials of the Displaced Persons Commission stated that they do not wait for a report from the provost marshal’s office or from the Berlin document cen- ter. They have deliberately taken a cal- culated risk, because, to wait for the security report would require 2 or 3 weeks and would delay the program. That is the testimony of the officials of that Organization, and the testimony of the officials of the Immigration Service. Let me say that when an adverse report has been put in a man's file he is turned down. However, most of the cases have been overruled from above. The adverse report was taken out of the file by or- ders of the Displaced Persons Commis- sion when it got to the consular service. Mr. WHERRY and Mr. LEHMAN ad- dressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Mississippi yield; and if so, to whom? Mr. EASTLAND. I yield first to the Senator from New York. Mr. LEHMAN. I shall be glad to defer to the Senator from Nebraska. Mr. EASTLAND. I yield to the Sen- ator from Nebraska. Mr. WHERRY. I understood the dis- tinguished Senator to say that when a name is referred to the Displaced Persons Commission, the displaced person is cleared as a security risk. Is that cor- rect? Mr. EASTLAND. They do not wait for a report from the Berlin document center or from the provost marshal’s office, because it would delay the man’s entrance into the country. ‘‘Therefore,” they testified, “we take a calculated risk.” Mr. WHERRY. What happens to the displaced person? Is the displaced per- son sent right on without waiting for the report from the consular service? Mr. EASTLAND. That is the testi- mony. Mr. WHERRY. If there is an adverse report, what happens to the displaced person? Mr. EASTLAND. I have the testi- mony of Mr. Tripp. Mr. Tripp is in charge of the immigration detail of the United States which is stationed in Eu- rope. It is the office which passcs on the applicants. If the Senator wishes, I shall be glad to read Mr. Tripp’s testi- mony. However, before I do that, let us take the case of a man after he gets to the DP Commission. Mr. WHERRY. Very well. Mr. EASTLAND. I believe the Sena- tor from New York said that the man was screened there, and that he was fur- ther screened by the consular service and by the Immigration Service. Mr. LEHMAN. I said, and I repeat, that no man, whether he be a displaced person or an immigrant, can enter the United States without obtaining a visa from the consular service, and that the visa is issued only after careful investiga- tion, with the facilities which are pro- vided by our Government. Further than that—— Mr. EASTLAND _ Just a minute Mr. LEHMAN. May I complete the statement?
2636 Mr. EASTLAND. That is true of an immigrant. Mr, LEHMAN. And it fs true of a dis- placed person. Mr. EASTLAND. No, it is not; be- cause the consular service is bound by the finding on his eligibility, which was made by the Displaced Persons Commis- sion. The consular service cannot go beyond that. The officials testified that men have come before them who they knew were guilty of fraud, and were bad security risks, but that they could not turn them down. The consular service came before the Senate committee and requested authority to veto selections made by the Displaced Persons Com- mission, in order to protect the United States. Accordingly, a provision to that effect was put in the bill at the request of the consular service. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. EASTLAND. I yield. Mr. WHERRY. Is that the testimony which was given before the committee? Mr.EASTLAND. The official came be- fore the committee. Mr. WHERRY. Is that in the report of the hearing? Mr. EASTLAND. Yes. That provi- sion is an innovation in the bill, and is not, as the Senator from New York said, a provision already in the law. The provision gives the consular service and the Immigration Service veto power for any cause. Today a person’s appli- cation may be vetoed solely under the immigration law. No finding of fact by the Displaced Persons Commission or by the IRO can be vetoed. The consular service is bound by the finding. Mr, LEHMAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. EASTLAND, Yes. Mr. LEHMAN. I should like to ask a question which may be a conclusive one. Does not the Senator from Mississippi know that the IRO’s function in selection of DP’s is simply to certify that the ap- plicant is a displaced person under the regulations and requirements of the IRO? Does not the Senator know that the Displaced Persons Commission then passes on the eligibility of such an ap- plicant under the standards laid down in the Displaced Persons Act, and that ap- proximately 30 percent of the applicants certified by the IRO have been turned down, in the first instance by the Dis- placed Persons Commission? Does the Senator not know that after that—— Mr. EASTLAND. Just a minute. The Senator is asking me a question and I should like to answer it. Mr. LEHMAN. I should like to ask two more questions. Mr. EASTLAND. I should like first to answer the questions which the Senator has asked me. When I have answered the Senator’s questions, he may ask me another question. I know that under the law the applica- tion of a displaced person is initiated by a foreign organization. I know that a man’s file is made up by other displaced persons. I know that the Displaced Per- sons Commission cannot go beyond a request initiated by IRO. That is the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE law. The bill reported by the Senate commitee provides that they can go be- yond that. We write out our own defini- tions, and we provide that only an agency of the United States, whose per- sonnel are American citizens, may select those who are to come to this country under the definition of a displaced per- son as prescribed by Congress. The Senator has put his hand on the issue. The great issue before the Senate now is, first, whether we will go on as the Senator from West Virginia, the Sen- ator from New York, and the Senator from Michigan desire, with a system in which the proof shows that displaced persons are selecting displaced persons to come to the United States, or whether we as a Congress will define by legisla- tion who are displaced persons, and set up an agency of the American Govern- ment to select them. The United States, Mr. President, is the only country in the world receiving displaced persons which does not select them by its own officials and employees. We are faced with a condition in Europe in which displaced persons are selecting displaced persons; and that is not contradicted on the record. I now yield to the Senator from New York. Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, does not the Senator know that the Displaced Persons Commission is composed exclu- sively of individuals who are American citizens? Mr. EASTLAND. Does the Senator mean the Displaced Persons Commis- sion? Mr, LEHMAN. Yes. Mr. EASTLAND. Of course the Com- mission is composed of United States citizens. Mr. LEHMAN, They are the responsi- ble officials. Mr. EASTLAND. Of course, they stay in Washington, but that is not true 3,500 miles away, across the Atlantic. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. EASTLAND. I am yielding to the Senator from New York. Mr. LEHMAN. I do not want to delay the debate. Mr. EASTLAND. The Chairman of the Displaced Persons Commission testi- fled that a goodly number of their em- ployees were aliens. Mr. LEHMAN. Will the Senator yield for a statement of not more than 20 sec- onds? Mr. EASTLAND. I yield for a ques- tion. That is all I can yield for. Mr. LEHMAN. I shall put it in the form of a question, although again it leads to a conclusion. Mr. EASTLAND. Very well. Mr. LEHMAN. I should like to ask the Senator if he does not think that it would serve a very good purpose for me to do as I intend to do tomorrow, to pre- sent to this honorable body, the Senate of the United States, a detailed state- ment of the steps which are involved in screening displaced persons who come in, or who propose to come in, under the Displaced Persons Act? That is my intention, MARCH 2 Mr. EASTLAND. I thank the Senator from New York. The Senator from Ne- vada put such a statement in the REc- ORD several days ago. But regardless of what the statement of the Senator from New York may show, the testimony from which I have quoted is by senior officers of the Displaced Persons Com- mission in Europe, by the head of the Immigration Service in Europe, who was asked to check this policy, and by rep- resentatives of the State Department, the head of the Visa Division of which appeared before the Committce on the Judiciary and stated that in order bet- ter to protect this country they wanted a veto. A representative of the consular service says, “A man sits before me; I know his papers are fraudulent; I know he is a bad security risk, but I cannot ex- clude him. I am bound by the findings of the Displaced Persons Commission.” There we have one of the great issues in this controversy, an issue which the Congress must decide. Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. EASTLAND. I yield to the Sen- ator from Minnesota. Mr. HUMPHREY. Did I understand the Senator correctly to say that the initiation for bringing a displaced per- son to the United States is with the IRO? Mr. EASTLAND. Exclusively. Mr. HUMPHREY. Is it not true that before a displaced person comes to this country a request must be made by someone, or some organization such as the Catholic Welfare or the Lutheran Welfare? Is not that the initiation? Mr. EASTLAND. That was the con- gressional intent, but as in every other matter we intended when we passed the present law it was circumvented, be- cause there are blanket assurances for hundreds of them from different organi- zations, and it does not amount to any- thing. Mr. HUMPHREY. Is it not true that groups such as the Catholic Welfare and the Lutheran Welfare have been able to take care of the displaced persons for whom they have asked? Mr. EASTLAND. What I am talking about is communistic agents, Russian agents, agents of the Russian secret serv- ice, and criminals getting into the United States. I am talking about the security angle, and provisions making it possible for us better to protect the United States of America. That is the reason, and the sole reason, why this bill has been amended as it is. About the same num- ber of people would be admitted under both bills. There is no controversy over the number. Mr. President, I have here the testi- mony of a colonel stationed in Berlin who was in charge of one phase of Army intelligence. Mr. LEHMAN. Would the Senator mind disclosing the colonel’s name? Mr. EASTLAND. No; I will not. The Senator can identify him himself. The witness appeared before the full commit. tee and testified in person. The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. KILcorr] was present and the Senator’s colleagues, who sponsor the substitute, were present.
1950 I will say that this distinguished man greatly impresscd the whole committee with his sincerity. I read the testimony as follows: Question. Colonel, do you know of cases in which there were adverse security reports on displaced persons but in which cases they were brought into this country notwith- standing the adverse security reports? The WITNESs. Yes, sir Question I do not understand whether the colonel thinks that investigation would dis- close that among the persons who have come over as displaced persons, are Communists? The WitTNEss. Why, I am sure of it, sir. Question. Are a considerable number of Communists included in the displaced per- sons that have come over, in your opinion? The WITNEss. Not a considerable number. It does not take a considerable number to be dangerous. The witness went on to explain that it was his experience that that organization in Berlin had captured agents of the Russian security police and, I believe, if I am not mistaken, but I will not make the statement as being accurate, officers of the Russian Army whom the Com- munists were attempting to infiltrate through the lines and get them into the United States under this program. When some of those agents, that is, Russian officers, were caught and arrested, Rus- sia retaliated by arresting two American Army officers in Germany. Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. EASTLAND. I yield for a ques- tion. Mr. HUMPHREY. As a member of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary does the Senator recall that any of the Catholic organizations or Lutheran or- ganizations, or Jewish organizations, which are definitely anti-Communist, testified that there were a large number of Communists coming into the coun- try? Mr. EASTLAND. A church organiza- tion would not have that information, and if it had it, a committee of Congress, with due regard to the safety of the United States, would not rely on what it said, but would rely on our own se- curity agency. When we have the con- sular service, the Immigration Service, and officers from the Intelligence Service of the Army which give us facts, we have relied on them. Mr. Tripp, who is Chief of Immigration Services’ detail in Europe, testified be- fore the committee, his organization can veto the entry of an ordinary emigrant for any purpose. But it cannot do so when it comes to a displaced person— oh no. We have drawn the line there. We are bound by the action of the Dis- placed Persons Commission. We cannot overrule that action at all. Mr. Tripp testified last month, Feb- ruary 1950, before the committee. I read from his testimony, as follows: Question. Now may I invite your atten- tion to the subject of the SS men. I ask you first of all, what was the SS organization? I hope the Senator from New York will listen. Iam going to show how Ger- man SS men have been slipped into this country. Mr. Trrpp. When you say SS, you must dif- ferentiate between the real SS, the German XCVI—-166 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 88, which was an elite group of the Nazi Party, and the so-called Waffen SS with whom we are mostly concerned. I believe the Waffen SS means the battle 8S. Early in the program it came to my attention that we were receiving a considerable number of applicants who had served in the Waffen SS units. Not only in the Waffen SS, but they had served in * * * the Hungarian Army * * *. My concern was that if we pass those people into the United States at some future time, my service might be criticized for doing that. Question. Right at that point may I ask this. Did the Displaced Persons Commission process or approve and pass to you the 8S men? Mr. Tripp. They did. But I think that in many cases they were unaware of the service. Mr. President, how could they have been aware of the service when they did not even wait for the report from the Berlin document center but stated, “We took a calculated risk.” Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. EASTLAND. I yield for a ques- tion. Mr. LEHMAN. May I ask the Senator to point out anything in that report or document to show—— Mr. EASTLAND. If the Senator will permit me to conclude reading from the testimony, I shall yield to him so he may ask his question. Mr. LEHMAN. I thought the Senator had concluded. Mr. EASTLAND. No; I have not. I continue to read: Question How many cases did you have vrior to the time that Senator McCarran got there, of SS men who had been processed by the Displaced Persons Commission and transmitted by way of the necessary routes to your office? Mr. Tripp. I would say that we had re- ceived cases involving approximately 202 SS men and their families. They were processed by the Displaced Persons Commission, Mr. President. Question. They had been processed by the Displaced Persons Commission, approved and transmitted to your office? Mr. Tripp That is right. But understand that that was done not always with a knowledge of the Service on the part of the displaced person Question 1 understand. But they pro- cessed them and they got to your office and you stopped them? Mr. Tripp. That is right. they had knowledge. Question. How did you get the knowledge if they did not get it? Mr. Trrpe. Well, usually when we got it and they did not have it we either got it as a result of interrogation or the Berlin docu- ment check results caught up with the agent—either one or the other. It was about evenly divided. Question. Then it would appear that if your investigation disclosed that as to about half of those that you caught, half of those 200, if the Displaced Persons Commission had made a similar careful and thorough investi- gation it would have detected them also. Is not that right? Mr. Tripp. Quite possibly. Question. But they did not make interro- gation. Do they make any interrogation? Mr. Tripp, Yes; I believe they do in usual cases. Question. But the general practice in the Displaced Persons Commission is not to in- terrogate and not even to see the applicant? Is that not true? In some cases 2637 Mr. President, note this. Here is the immigration man who testifies about the practice in the Displaced Persons Com- mission. I repeat it: Question. But the general practice in the Displaced Persons Commission is not to in- terrogate and not even see the applicant? Is that not true? Mr. Tripp. Yes, that is true. Mr. CONNALLY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me? I do not want to interrupt and bother the Senator, but I have a very short statement about a very urgent matter which will take only 2 or 3 minutes, I wonder i” the Senator will yield for that purpose? Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, I should like very much to yield for that Purpose to my good friend the Senator from Texas, whom I hold ir the highest regard, Mr. CONNALLY. I shall not insist upon my request. Mr. EASTLAND. I refused to yield to the Senator from Nebraska, and he served notice on me that if I yield to the Senator I will have to yield to him. Mr. WHERRY. I am perfectly will- ing that the Senator from Mississippi yield to the Senator from Texas, if he wishes to do so. Mr. EASTLAND. I had better not do so, because I refused to yield to the Senator from Michigan and other Sen- ators. Mr. CONNALLY. They have gone now. I do not see how they can object to the Senator yielding to me. Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. EASTLAND. I yield. Mr. LEHMAN. Does not the Senator realize that the very interesting docu- ment which he has just read fully bears out the statement I made 15 minutes ago, and which the Senator denied, that these men have to be passed on by the Immigration Service? Mr. EASTLAND. No. Mr. LEHMAN. The man from whose testimony the Senator read, has so tes- tified. Mr. EASTLAND. Authority did not reside in the immigration officials in Germany. That is exactly the reason why a provision to give them such au- thority is contained in the bill. The practice is that when the immigration officials detect something like that which has just been referred to they send the file back to the Displaced Persons Com- mission for consultation, but the author- ity resides in the Displaced Persons Com- mission. Mr. LEHMAN. This man. testified that he caught them; that he stopped them. Mr. EASTLAND. Yes. Mr. LEHMAN. That bears out what I said 15 minutes ago. Mr. EASTLAND. It certainly does not. The practice was that such persons were stopped, and the files were sent back to the Displaced Persons Commission. The authority resides in the Displaced Persons Commission. The authority is not in the consular service, nor in the Immigration Service. The authority and power are in the Displaced Persons Commission to overrule them, and that
2638 is what was done. That is why the bill provides that the Immigration and Natu- ralization Service and the consular service shall also have veto power. Why there should be any argument, any con- troversy about giving the consular service and the Immigration Service, whose officers and employees are trained in immigration work, the veto power to protect the country, is beyond my com- prehension. Yet that is the second of two big issues in the bill. Mr. WITHERS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. EASTLAND. I yield. Mr. WITHERS. The power of the Immigration Service is limited to passing upon matters pertaining to the Immigra- tion Service and the immigration laws, is it not? Mr. EASTLAND. Yes. Mr. WITHERS. And not to pass upon displaced persons? Mr. EASTLAND. That is true, and all the testimony before the committee bore that out. I read the rule of the Displaced Per- sons Commission: The report shall be deemed to establish prima facie the applicant's character, history, and eligibiilty under the act, and shall be deemed to establish as conclusive the exist- ence of all factors relating to eligibility to enter the United States. Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. EASTLAND. I yield. Mr. LEHMAN. I wonder whether the Senator will not agree with me that it is a fact that while the Displaced Persons Commission makes the decision with re- gard to the applicant's eligibility under the displaced-persons law, no applicant can be admitted to this country except after a scrutiny from the Immigration and Naturalization Service and a visa from the United States consular service? Mr. EASTLAND. Yes; but the weak- ness there is that he gets his information from the file prepared by the IRO. Mr. JENNER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr, SmitH of New Jersey in the chair). Does the Senator from Mississippi yield to the Senator from Indiana? Mr. EASTLAND. I shall yield in a moment. Mr. President, he gets his information from a file prepared by the displaced per- sons working for the IRO. Mr. JENNER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield now? Mr. EASTLAND. I yield. Mr. JENNER. Is it not true that after the file is prepared by the IRO, it is processed by the Displaced Persons Com- mission, and that in many cases the testi- mony before the committee showed that no American ever consulted the appli- cant until he actually appeared at the consular office for a visa to come to this country? Mr. EASTLAND. That is exactly correct, and I thank the Senator for bringing my attention to tMat point. Mr. President, the testimony of the American officials was that an applicant did not see an American citizen until he got to the consular office. He went through the IRO and throush the Dis- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE placec. Persons Commission, and got to the consul for a visa before he looked into the face of a citizen of the United States. That is what we are trying to correct in this bill. Mr. JENNER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a further question? Mr. EASTLAND. I yield. Mr. JENNER. Is it not also true that when the American selector would see a flagrant case of fraud on the face of the papers and when he wished to correct it, the higher authorities of the Displaced Persons Commission actually refused to let the American investigator see the arplicant and talk to him? Mr. EASTLAND. That is absolutely true. . Mr. President, the IRO has a legal divi- sion set up to get paroles for criminals, so that they can come to the United States, to be citizens of the United States. Here we are at the mercy of the organ- ization which initiates every application, an organization with aliens working for it and on its staff; and that organization has set up a legal division to get paroles for criminals, so that they may come to the United States. Mr. JENNER. Have we not also caught persons setting up, even in dis- placed persons’ camps, printing presses with which to print fraudulent docu- ments by means of which fraudulent per- sons could come into this country as dis- placed persons? Mr. EASTLAND. What the Senator from Indiana says is absolutely true. The word of the Displaced Persons Commission, when it comes to fraudu- lent documents and to fraudulent prac- tices by which it determines and fixes the eligibility of an applicant, is final. That is where the trouble is. Any other false statement—for instance, in regard to communism—makes the application subject to veto by the other services; but the fault of the whole thing is that even though they can veto, they must get their information from the file that is compiled and approved by aliens. Mr. WITHERS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. EASTLAND. I yield. Mr. WITHERS. I wish to ask the Sen- ator whether the Immigration Service is sufficiently staffed to make the investiga- tions which now are required to be made by the Displaced Persons Commission. Mr. EASTLAND. Yes. Mr. WITHERS. Is it, without addi- tion of personnel? In other words, under present conditions, as it is presently constituted is it sufficiently staffed for that purpose? Mr. EASTLAND. No; but if it were given the authority, the testimony showed that it could handle that work, with additional personnel. Mr. WITHERS. But I mean to in- quire whether it has been sufficiently staffed for that purpose up to now? Mr. EASTLAND. No. Mr. WITHERS. S5o it would be neces- sary to add additional members to its staff; would it not? Mr. EASTLAND. Yes, a few; so as to permit the obtaining of sufficient in- formation for a veto, Mr. WITHERS, It has not attempted to exercise the power to investigate that MARCH 2 the Displaced Persons Commission has; has it? Mr. EASTLAND. That is true. The Senator will remember that at the hear- ings we had testimony showing what the people of the United States are up against, when I say that the best in- terests of the United States have not been protected and that no attempt has been made to protect them. The law written by Congress, as it appears in the act, says that the burden of proof is on the applicant. However, officials of the Immigration Service and officials of the Displaced Persons Commission in Europe testified that that was ignored, and that it is up to them to prove absolutely that aman is a Communist. The investiga- tor may be confronted with facts which would raise a reasonable doubt and facts which would make him believe that the person is a bad security risk, but even then he cannot veto the application, but he has to go further and has to prove that the applicant is a Communist. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr, EASTLAND. I yield. Mr. WHERRY. Who sets up that pro- cedure? Mr. EASTLAND. The Displaced Per- sons Commission does. Mr. WHERRY. Under what author- ity does it set it up? Mr. EASTLAND. On its own author- ity. Mr. WHERRY. Such authority was never given to it. Mr. EASTLAND. Of course not. The act says the burden of proof is on the applicant. The testimony shows that information derogatory to an applicant was deliberately taken from the files; and, in addition to that, under a direc- tive of Mr. Squadrilli and Mr. Kaplan, the two European managers, as was tes- tifled to by selectors who appeared be- fore our committee, when they found derogatory information in the file, they were ordered to ignore it and to write a report which would result in the ap- plicant’s admission to the United States. One man testified that in certain cases he had trouble distorting the facts suf- ficiently to get a favorable report. Mr. President, let me give an illustra- tion of that situation. I wish to call the attention of the distinguished Senator from Nebraska and the attention of the Senator from New York to this matter. Here is a copy of an order issued on April 1 of last year: UNITED STATES DISPLACED PERSONS COMMISSION HEADQUARTERS, Fiankjurt, April 1, 1949. To: All Staff. From: Elliott M. Shirk. Subject: False Statements and Falsification of Documents. 1. You will be interested to know that the consular service has for some time now liberalized its policy toward those persons who may have misrepresented facts prior to or in the course of making application for immigration to the United States. Con- sular officers have been instructed to advise each candidate as he appears for interview that should he wish to make any correction of previous statements or falstfications on documents, he may do so without necessarily Pprejudicing his case up to the time he gives sworn testimony which results in the issuing of the visa. This principle does not apply.
1950 of course, where the falsification involves perjury. The reasoning behind this posi- tion is well understood. Innumerable dis- placed persons once made misrepresentations in the sincere effort to protect themselves against retaliation from authorities repre- senting governments from which they had taken refuge 2. It is unlikely, however, in the tense moments which surround the consular interview, that a candidate would alter the position which he had previously taken and which is on record. It is stressed, conse- quently, that every effort should be made during the early period of documentation to encourage applicants to alter any falsely pre- sented facts in the registration forms or elsewhere and thus protect themsclves against confilcting evidence that may ad- verscly affect their later immigration status. It has been suggested in this connection that posters in appropriate languages be utilized throughout resident camps suggest- ing this as an advisable and authoritative course. The Senator from Nebraska can see that that speaks for itself. Mr. President, I cannot comprehend why there is opposition to the bill of the Senate committee. Both bills as report- ed by the committee and the substitute will admit practically the same number of persons. The first point is that the Senate bill changes the law, and says that the IRO is removed in that respect; under the bill we set up our own definition of a dis- placed person. That definition is as broad as the definition now in the exist- ing law. We say that the applicant’s file and his entire application must be han- dled by a citizen of the United States and by an American agency. Whether we believe that Americans should select the displaced persons who come to this coun- try or whether we believe they should be selected by aliens is the first big question. Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. EASTLAND. I shall yield to the Senator in a moment after I have yielded to the Senator from West Virginia {Mr. KILGORE], Mr. President, the second question is this: The consular service of the United States says: “We can better protect our country if we are given the veto power.” It says that the consular service and the Immigration Service have had authority to veto each other for years, and now they want to have the same power in the field in which the Displaced Persons Commission operates. Mr. President, what is wrong with that? That is the second question. There is a third question. The sub- stitute of the Senator from West Vir- ginia provides that if a displaced per- son has left Germany and has settled in another country he can return to Ger- many, and then can come to this country if he has been in Germany and subse- quently settled in some other country. Mr. KILGORE, Mr. LEHMAN, and Mr. WHERRY addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. LCoes the Senator yield, and if so to whom? Mr. EASTLAND. I called the name of the Senator from West Virginia, and I yield to him. Mr. LEHMAN. Imerely want to make one observation. Mr. EASTLAND. I first yield to the Senator from Wcst Virginia. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. KILGORE. I should like to have the exact language of the bill on which the Senator relies for his statement. The language is different. Mr. EASTLAND. I read: A person who, having resided in Germany or Austria, was a victim of persecution by the Nazi government and was detained in, or was obliged to ‘eave from such persecution, and was subsequently returned to one of these countries as a result of enemy action or of war circumstances, and on January 1, 1948, had not been firmly settled therein. That is the present law. The Senator from West Virginia, in his substitute, would eliminate this language: As a result of enemy action or of war circumstances and on January 1, 1948, had not been firmly resettled therein. In other words, the Senator’s amend- ment would mean that a person who, having resided in Germany or Austria, and who was persecuted by the Nazi government, even though he may have gone to Australia, north Africa, south Africa, or Englana, and had become firmly settled, or had not been firmly settled there—— Mr. WHERRY. That is “had not been firmly settled.” Mr. EASTLAND. Can go back to Germany or Austria and can come in under this bill. I submit the United States should not be made the dump- ing ground for all the persecutees in the world. Mr. KILGORE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further? Mr. EASTLAND. I yield for a ques- tion. Mr. KILGORE. I should like to find the differentiation between the two quotations. Mr. EASTLAND. Under the present law, included in a definition of a dis- placed person, is, “Or a person who, hav- ing resided in Germany or Austria, was a victim of persecution by the Nazi Gov- ernment, and was detained in or was obliged to flee from such persecution, and was subsequently returned to- one of these countries, as the result of enemy action or of war circumstances, and on January 1, 1948, had not been firmly re- settled therein. Mr. KILGORE. That is the present law, is it not? Mr. EASTLAND. That is the present law. The Kilgore substitute deletes the language “as a result of enemy action or of war circumstances, and on January 1, 1948." Therefore, under the language of the Kilgore substitute, the persons em- braced within this part of the definition of displaced persons can at any time re- turn to Germany or Austria, from any other place in the entire world, and can become eligible for immigration into the United States. Mr. KILGORE. Within the lmita- tion, however, may I say to the Senator from Mississippi, of the act. Mr. EASTLAND. But there is no cut- off date. Mr. KILGORE. There is no cut-off date? They must have returned before the date, January 1, 1948. Mr. EASTLAND. The Senator de- leted that. Mr. KILGORE. Oh, no, correct— 2639 Mr. EASTLAND. Oh, yes. Here 1s the Senator’s amendment in the nature of a substitute, intended to be proposed by the Senator, for himself and other Senators, referring to page 2, line 3: or who had temporarily absented himself therefrom for reasons which, in accordance with regulations to be promulgated by the Commission, show special circumstances Jus- tifying such absence, and who have not been firmly resettled— This is a category— or @ person who, having resided in Germany or Austria, was a victim of persecution by the Nazi Government and was detained in, or was obliged to flee from such persecution and subsequently returned to, one of these countries, and who has not been firmly re- settled—— Mr. KILGORE. Is that not limited by the date, January 1, 1948? Mr, EASTLAND. No; not those in this category. Mr. KILGORE. No one who is not in by January 1, 1948, can take advantage of the act. Is not that correct? I merely want to inquire of the Senator from Mississippi, without being insistent. Mr. EASTLAND. I have answered it a half a dozen times in the negative. The Senator has deleted the date. Why did the Senator delete it? Mr. KILGORE. The date is January 1, 1948. Mr. EASTLAND. It is in the present law, but not /n the substitute. Mr. KILGORE. There are any num- ber of dates specified in the bills, which are not indefinitely repeated, I may say, but the operability of the bill is confined to cut-off date, namely, January 1, 1948. Is that not correct? Mr. EASTLAND. No. There is no cut-cff date for the category of which the Senator now speaks. Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for another question? Mr. EASTLAND. I want first to finish with this question. Mr. LEHMAN. I beg the Senator’s pardon. Mr. EASTLAND. We do not get any- where by the Senator from West Vir- ginia saying there is and the Senator from Mississippi saying there is not. Any person can read the substitute and determine which of us is right. I now yield to the Senator from New York. Mr. LEHMAN. Does the Senator from Mississippi not know that every single displaced person must be interviewed by the Counter-Intelligence Corps of the United States Army before the Commis- sion ever reaches its decision on eligibil- ity, and that further—— Mr. EASTLAND. Wait. Mr. LEHMAN. Does the Senator not know further—— Mr. EASTLAND. That is another question. Mr. LEHMAN. No; it is the same question. Mr. EASTLAND. Very well. Mr. LEHMAN. Does not the Senator know further that the Counter-Intelli- gence Corps interview includes (a) se- curity, (b) test of authenticity of docu- ments, and (c) test of eligibility factors? Does the Senator not know that that is the rule followed in every case?
2640 Mr. EASTLAND. No, it is not the rule. I know where it came from. I am abso- lutely certain that that question was written by some members of the Dis- placed Persons Commission who are in the galleries. It is not correct. That is not the policy followed. Representatives of the Counter-Intelligence Corps testi- fied they did not have time to make secu- rity checks, that the whole thing was a matter of rush, There was testimony of one man who gave an adverse report on an applicant seeking to come into this country. Employees of the Displaced Persons Commission put the heat on him, and got him fired. Mr. JENNER and Mr. KILGORE ad- dressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Mississippi yield, and if so to whom? Mr. EASTLAND. I yield first to the Senator from Indiana. Mr. JENNER. Is it not true that there was evidence before our committee, the great weight of which was to the effect that the CIC was told that speed, not security, was of the essence; that they had to meet the quota and get these people over here, and did not care about security; is not that correct? Mr. EASTLAND. That is absolutely correct. The men in charge of finger- printing in Berlin testified that finger- prints were sent, having been made usu- ally by a displaced person, accompanied by illegible writing of broken English, that could not be read, and that the prints were smeared, they did not get enough of the finger in the print to en- able them to identify a man as to whether he was a subversive, a criminal, or one who had been connected with the Nazis during the war. That is what happened as a matter of practice. It all sounds good when the Displaced Persons Com- mission sends notes to the Senate floor, but when we get the testimony of men who administer it in Europe, I say it stinks to the heavens. Mr. JENNER. Is it not true that in one particular case in which the security investigation was being made, the Dis- placed Persons Commission, knowing that the applicant was being investi- gated for possible criminality, ignored the report of the security investigator, had the displaced person sent to America, and that he is today in America—a man who had stolen 30,000 sheets from the American Government? The Displaced Persons Commission had knowledge of it. Officials were sent from Europe to interview that man. They were denied the opportunity even of interviewing him. He was a displaced person who had stolen 30,000 sheets. Mr. EASTLAND. If the Senator will exclude the 30,000-sheet man——. Mr. JENNER. I exclude him. Mr. EASTLAND. He is but one man. Exclude him, and what the Senator says is true in hundreds of cases, as shown by the evidence. Mr. MAYBANK and Mr. KILGORE addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Mississippi yield? If so, to whom? CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr, EASTLAND. I promised to yield to the Senator from South Carolina, After that, I will yield again to the Sen- ator from West Virginia. Mr. MAYBANK. Is there anything in the substitute which would make it pos- sible to deport a displaced person guilty of violating the law of this country? Mr. EASTLAND. No. Mr. KILGORE and Mr. JENNER ad- dressed the Chair. Mr. EASTLAND. I yield first to the Senator from West Virginia. Mr. KILGORE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to enable me to answer the question? Mr. EASTLAND. I yield. Mr. KILGORE. I may say to the Sen- ator from South Carolina the same rules apply to the question of deportation un- der the substitute that apply with re- spect to any immigrant coming into the United States under the law. Mr. MAYBANK. I had understood a while ago that the substitute represented a different interpretation of the law. Mr. KILGORE. No. May I say—— Mr. EASTLAND. Wait. Mr. Presi- dent, I have the floor. Mr. KILGORE. Very well. May I in- quire, since I am limited to less than 30,000 sheets—rather, since I am between 30,000 sheets—when I have been privi- leged even to be present at the subcom- mittee—— Mr. JENNER. The Senator was present. Mr. KILGORE. Was any other mem- ber of the Judiciary Committee——_ Mr. JENNER. Mr. President, may I ask the Senator from Mississippi a ques- tion? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will suspend. Let there be order. Mr, KILGORE. Mr. President, may I ask the Senator from Mississippi a question? The PRESIDING OFFICER. To whom does the Senator from Mississippi yield? Senators -will please address the Chair. Mr. EASTLAND. I have yielded to the Senator from West Virginia. Mr. KILGORE. The Senator has said there is no limitation with respect to people returning to Germany or Austria. Upon very reliable advice, I ask the Sen- ator how he gets around subsection (c) of section 2 of the substitute bill, read- ing as follows: “Bligible displaced person” means a dis- placed person as defined in subsection (b) above, (1) who on or after September 1, 1939, and on or before January 1, 1949, entered Germany, Austria, or Italy, and who on Jan- uary 1, 1949, was in Italy or the American sector, the British sector, or the French sec- tor of either Berlin or Vienna, or in the American gone, the British zone, or the French zone of either Germany or Austria, or who had temporarily absented himself therefrom for reasons which, in accordance with regulations to be promulgated by the Commission, show special circumstances justifying such absence, and who has not een firmly resettled—— Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, we have gone all over that. The Senator has the dates he read in the first cate- gory of subsection (c). The date Janu- MARCH 2 ary 1, 1948, is in category 2. It is some- thing entirely different. The Senator took those dates out of his substitute. We are not gaining anything by disput- ing it. Mr. KILGORE. Iam asking the Sena- tor to what particular group he is re- ferring? : Mr. EASTLAND. I shall answer the Senator’s question. It begins at line 7, on page 2, of the Senator's substitute and includes line 11, which is the second cate- gory. The date was deleted. The Sen- ator says that is not true. That is a matter which can be determined by the Senator when he reads the substitute. Mr. President, I was discussing the categories of displaced persons—— Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? . Mr. EASTLAND, I yield for a ques- tion. Mr. WHERRY. The Senator continu- ally refers to some of the cases which are in evidence. I should like to ask the Senator—— Mr.EASTLAND. The Senator has the hearings before him. Mr. WHERRY. Are hearings still be- ing held on this proposed legislation? Mr. KILGORE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. EASTLAND. No. floor. Of course, the hearings have been closed. Tomorrow there will come be- fore the subcommittee Mr. Squadrilli, who is the head, in Europe, of the Dis- placed Persons Commission. As I re- member, since the hearings closed, there have been several Government officials from Europe who have testified. Before the debate is concluded, I shall place that testimony in the Recorp. It is startling. Mr. WHERRY. I thank the Senator. Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, I stated earlier today that I thought offi: cilals of the Displaced Persons Commis- sion in Europe were guilty of moral, not legal, treason. I stand by that state- ment, Mr. President. It is certainly based upon a fair interpretation of the evidence of officials of the United States Government. I certainly would not impute moral treason to members of the Displaced Per- sons Commission in Washington. They are 3,500 miles from where the events happened. But I say that the welfare, the security, and the best interests of the United States are not being protected. That is what the committee bill attempts to correct. There is no difference as to the numbers; the controversy is merely over provisions for better screening and the promotion of the security of the United States. Mr. KILGORE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? tt Mr. EASTLAND. I yield for a ques- on, Mr. KILGORE. To what extent have the hearings, both executive and public, been printed for the information of Benators? I should like to see some of the executive hearings. In committee meetings there were certain excerpts read. We did not see the complete hearings, I have the
1950 Mr. EASTLAND. I do not know what hearings have been printed. I have not examined that question. But I was pres- ent at the hearings, and everything I have quoted today was testified to and is a part of the record. I have the testi- mony and shall read it. APPLICATIONS FOR VISAS BY DELEGATES OF WORLD CONGRESS OF PARTISANS OF PEACE Mr. CONNALLY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield me 3 minutes on a very important matter? Mr, EASTLAND. I shall be glad to yield, provided I do not lose the floor. Mr.CONNALLY. The Senator will not lose the floor. It will be given back to him. Mr. President, there are in the State Department applications for visas from a group of so-called delegates from “The World Congress of Partisans of Peace,” the leading over-all Communist-front or- ganization in the world, which has an- nounced that it is sending a delegation of 12 Furopeans to the United States on March 3. The announced purpose of the delegation’s visit is to present a petition to the Congress of the United States, not through the State Department, not through diplomatic channels, but to the Congress of the United States. Members of the delegation have applied for visas to come to the United States. The 12 delegates, on the basis of avail- able information, are either known Communists or fellow travelers. Be- cause certain of the individuals are clear- ly inadmissible under United States immigration laws, due to their open membership in various foreign Com- munist Parties, and others are probably inadmissible under law, the Department of State has delayed the issuance of the requested visas, and has not yet issued them. Mr. President, this movement was ini- tiated in the first public announcement of the membership of the delegation to the United States, contained in the Feb- ruary 18, 1950, issue of the Paris Com- munist newspaper Humanité. The same source, on February 10, had reported on the movement at a February 9 meeting of the Paris Secretariat, at which the decision was made to send delegations to various countries, including the United States. Mr. President, among other things, this delegation advocates approval, generally, of the Russian foreign policy and of the Cominform. The Cominform states that the tasks of the Partisans of Peace in- clude a campaign to secure refusal by the workers to produce weapons of death, a campaign among western Euro- pean transport workers to induce them to refuse to handle Amcrican arms, agi- tation for the withdrawal of French troops in French Indochina, the replace- ment of the “present reactionary gov- ernments” in France and Italy in order that their parliaments will stop the arms race and annul the North Atlantic Pact, and so forth. American arms are being sent to Europe under the North Atlantic Pact. Among other things, this organ- ization is in opposition to the govern- ments of France and Italy, and is advo- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE cating the restoration of Communist rule. So, Mr. President, I very much hope that the State Department will not grant the visas which are requested. Many of the members of the delegation are inadmissible under the law and have no right to come to the United States. They are intending to come here to sow dis- sension. They are planning to come here to infiltrate, to propagandize, to harass, and to annoy the Congress of the United States. We do not receive delegations of this kind or in this form. They must come through their own governments, through diplomatic channels, Among other items, it is noted that the “red dean,” the Dean of Canter- bury will accompany the party and de- mand the right to address the Congress of the United States. With all the ma- terial we have here to address the Con- gress of the United States, we do not have to be addressed by the “red dean.” I very much hope, Mr. President, that the State Department will see fit to re- fuse these visas and will keep these Com- munists, agitators, enemies of the United tates, enemies of our institutions, out of this country. I thank the Senator from Mississippi very much for yielding to me. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Humpurey in the chair). According to the standing rules of the Senate, “no petition or memorial or other paper signed by citizens or subjects of a foreign power shall be received, unless the same be transmitted to the Senate by the President.” If, by chauce, they arrive here, they must certainly have the proper clearance. Mr. LUCAS subsequently said: Mr. President, I should like to associate my- self with the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations in what he said with respect to the request of the delegation from the World Con- gress of Partisans of Peace for permis- sion to come to this country to advise the American people on what should be done with respect to peace. The truth of the matter is that such an attempt would be nothing more than propaganda, in my opinion, for world communism. Furthermore, if so-called Communists from various countries are so eager to inform the United States about peace proposals, I suggest to this self-ap- pointed group that they try to arrange with Mr. Stalin in Moscow for permis- sion to go behind the iron curtain to see what they can do with him with respect to world peace, rather than come to a peaceful country which really be- lieves in peace. DISPLACED PERSONS The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (H. R. 4567) to amend the Dis- placed Persons Act of 1948. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi has the floor. Mr. KILGORE and Mr. KNOWLAND addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Mississippi yield; and if so, to whom? Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, I understand from the majority leader 2641 that I shall get the floor at 12 o’clock to- morrow, and that the Senator from Call- fornia |Mr. KNnowLanp], the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. WHERRY], the Sena- tor from Oregon (Mr. Morse], and the Senator from Michigan [Mr. Fercuson], will speak this afternoon. I understand that after the Senators have addressed the Senate, a recess will be taken. I therefore ask unanimous consent that I be accorded the floor at 12 o'clock to- morrow morning to finish my address. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Mr. KILGORE. Reserving the right to object, I ask the Senator from Mis- sissippi if he will permit me to have in- corporated in his remarks section (c), beginning with line 4 on page 1, to and including line 2 on page 3 of the sub- stitute, to be printed as part of his re- marks at this point. There being no objection, the section of the proposed substitute was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: (c) “Eligible displaced person” means & displaced person as defined in subsection (b) above, (1) who on or after September 1, 1939, and on or before January 1, 1949, en- tered Germany, Austria, or Italy, and who on January 1, 1949, was in Italy or the American sector, the British sector, or the French sector of either Berlin or Vienna, or in the Ameri- can zone, the British zone, or the French zone of either Germany or Austria, or who had temporarily absented himself therefrom for reasons which, in accordance with regu- lations to be promulgated by the Commission, show special circumstances justifying such absence, and who has not been firmly re- settled; or a person who, having resided in Germany or Austria, was a victim of persecu- tion by the Nazi government and was de- tained in, or was obliged to flee from such persecution and subsequently returned to, one of these countries, and who has not been firmly resettled; and (2) who is qualified under the immigration laws of the United States for admission into the United States for permanent residence; and (3) for whom assurances in accordance with the regula- tions of the Commission have been given that such person, if admitted into the United States, will be suitably employed without displacing some other person from employ- ment and that such person, and the members of such person's family who shall accompany such person and who propose to live with such person, shall not become public charges and will have housing without displacing some other person from such housing. The spouse and unmarried dependent child or children under 21 years of age, including adopted children and stepchildren of such an eligible displaced person, shall, if otherwise qualified for admission into the United States for permanent residence, also be deemed eligible displaced persons. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the Senator from Mississippi? Mr. WHERRY. Do I understand cor- rectly that Senators will be recognized in the order stated by the Senator from Mississippi in his unanimous-consent re- quest? The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is not the understanding of the Chair. The Chair will recognize Senators as he sees them rise. Is there objection to the request of the Senator from Mississippi? Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, a parlia- mentary inquiry.
2642 The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- ator will state it. Mr. MORSE. I am sorry I was not on the floor when the request was made. Will the Chair explain the unanimous- consent request of the Senator from Mis- sissippi? Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, I have made no unanimous-consent re- quest, except that I be accorded the floor at 12 o’clock tomorrow morning. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair understands the request of the Senator from Mississippi to be that he be accorded the privilege of the floor at noon tomorrow. Mr. MORSE. I heartily endorse the requost. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. SECURITY RISKS IN GOVERNMENT SERVICE Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I should like to read to the Senate a para- graph from a letter which I received from Mr. J. E. Peurifoy, Deputy Under Sccre- tary of State, in answer to an inquiry which I had addressed to him under date of February 20, 1950. In my letter, in paragraph 3, I said: Of the 326 cases which are receiving active attention, will you please break them down to show how many of them have been pend- ing for 1 month, 2 months, 3 months, etc., up to 1 year, and how many of them have been pending for over 1 year's time. This relates to the security cases under review by the Department. In reply to paragraph 3 of my letter, Mr. Peurifoy writes as follows: With reference to point 3 of your letter, our records indicate the following break- down of the 326 cases which are still in proc- ess. Since this information applies to per- sons who were employed by the Department prior to July 1949, they have all been pending at least 8 months: Twenty-one pending for 8 months. Ten pending for 9 morths. Eighteen pending for 10 months. Ten pending for 11 months. Ten pending for 12 months. Two hundred fifty-seven pending for a period of more than 1 year. I submit that there is no justification in my judgment, for any security case to be pending for more than a year. After all, we have air transportation to almost every corner of the globe. I have per- sonally flown into many remote areas of the world. Ihave been to Iran, and other countries which one can reach in a mat- ter of daysoreven hours. Itseems tome that security cases of the State Depart- ment should be given the highest type of priority. If the FBI says they would like to have additional information, whether it be fingerprints or other information which they are seeking, the request should be sent in regular courier pouches by air, and the information should be returned immediately. On the basis of the letter written to me by the State De- partment, I submit there is no justifica- tion for any extended period of time such as is indicated. THE AMERICAN RED CROSS—STATEMENT BY SENATOR CONNALLY Mr. CONNALLY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be printed CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE in the body of the Rrcorp, as a part of my remarks, a statement on the Red Cross prepared by me. There being no objection, the state- ment was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: The month of March has become the tradi- tional period during which the American Red Cross makes its annual appeal to the American people for funds to support its noble work—locally, nationally, and inter- nationally. During the last decade the American people have responded generously. This year I feel sure the response, under the distinguished leadership of General Mar- shall, again will be generous and immediate. It is perhaps not unfitting that I should refer to the Red Cross in this Chamber. In this arena where many debates are translated Into the laws of the land, we may well pause from time to time to consider matters upon which all of us here, representing the Ameri- can people, can fully agree. The American Red Cross symbol stands for service to humanity, all over our own coun- try, and throughout the world. It has 8,746 local chapters, established and working for good in almost every city and hamlet in these United States. It was in this Chamber, in 1947, by unan- ‘iImous vote of the Senate, that a revised Federal charter for the Red Cross was ap- proved. This charter is completely demo- cratic in concept. It affords far greater rep- resentation to all the units of the organiza- tion. With its governmental endorsement, and its essentially voluntecr basis of opera- tion, 1t seems to me to represent to a sig- nificant degree democracy in action. In its great work for our servicemen and their families, for veterans, for the victims of disaster, in its promotion of the gencral health and welfare through its new national blood program, its nursing services and its splendid work for safety of life and limb, and in its far-reaching mobilization of the youth of the Nation through the Junior Red Cross, it is recognized by men and women of good will everywhere as one of the most in- telligent and effective humanitarian move- ments ever put forth by the people of any nation. In these days of uncertainty aad of ten- sion in wide arens of the civilized world, we have reason to rejoice because there exists in our country this great force for good, upon whose aims and purposes we can all agree, and whose achievement we can view with a full measure of pride and of gratitude. CONDITIONS IN THE FAR EAST Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, it is time that the American public was fully informed of the significance of events that have taken place and that are now taking place in the Far East. Unless we are prepared to help stabilize the military situation we might as well save the funds for economic assistance because economic aid alone will not save southeast Asia from being taken behind the iron curtain and it is naive to be- lieve that it will. In Europe we found out that ECA aid alone was not sufficient for economic recovery if the people were living under constant threat of invasion. The administration found it necessary to recommend the ratification of the North Atlantic Pact and to bolster that with the arms implementation bill. Since international communism is glo- bal in character we need to know just what is planned for the Far East before final legislative action is taken by the Congress on authorization legislation or MarcH 2 the appropriations for ECA or arms im- plementation during the next fiscal year. The Congress and the Nation are en- titled to the whole foreign aid budget and not a piecemeal approach to the problem. One individual who has played a con- siderable part in our policy toward China, which resulted in the debacle now confronting the world in that area and who accompanied Henry Wallace on his visit to that nation was Mr, Owen Lattimore. In the January 19, 1950, issue of the Atlantic Mr. Lattimore has published a news article entitled, “Rebuilding Our Policy in Asia.” I believe that it is well for the Congress and the country to know what he is now advocating. In- sofar as Japan is concerned he has this to say: Japan, though docile in defeat, cannot be made a satisfactory instrument of American policy. There are only two alternatives in Japan. The first is for the United States to keep Japan alive by “blood transfusions” of raw materials and credits, Under heavy enough subsidy—the cost is currently esti- mate at $500,000,000 a year—Japan can be given the surface appearance of a willing ally; but the reality will be overcommitment of American resources to a distant and vul- nerable region. Under the second alternative, Japan can keep itself alive by coming to terms. eco- nomically and politically, with its neighbors in Asia, and especially with Communist- controlled China, which is Japan's natural supplier of fron ore and coking coal. Under this alternative, Japan cannot become a trusted American ally. Its own interest will compel it to balance and bargain between what it can get out of Asia and what it can get out of America. The best that Japan can hope for in the way of true independence js independence of maneuver; and it is the honestly patriotic Japanese who will insist on @ national policy of maneuver. In this he seems to indicate the point of view that Japan must ultimately tie itself in to the Communist orbit on the continent of Asia. Insofar as the Philippines and Korea are concerned, Mr. Lattimore in the same article has this to say: Such minor countries as the Philippines and Korea cannot be made major bases of American action. South Korea, especially, is an American Nability. It is doubtful how long the present regime in South Korea can be kept alive. The mere effort to keep it alive is a bad advertisement which continually draws attention to a band of little and in- ferior Chiang Kai-sheks who as a barrier against the Communists have the backing of the hated, Japanese-trained police but not the people and have lost the respect of groups and movements throughout Asia which would like, with American backing, to move toward a future democracy. Insofar as the recognition of the Com- munist regime in China and its member- ship in the United Nations is concerned he comes up with this suggestion: For the problem of the recognition of the new government of China, the United Na- tions offers the ideal avenue to a solution. If, with no pressure against China from the United States, a majority of non-Communist countries in Europe, Latin America, and Asia should vote to seat new Chinese rep- resentatives to the United Nations, the United States should not vote against that verdict. Deferment to the majority among
1950 the non-Communist nations would come gracefully from the United States, and would be a blow to the Russian propaganda that the United States seeks to dictate to the bloc that it leads. Mr. President, I submit this is a line that other groups and publications in this country are following. I believe that is a policy of appeasement and one that if followed will ultimately result in the domination not only of the entire Asiatic land mass by communism but will lead to all of the island nations going into the Communist orbit as well. In that event the western defenses of the free world will be on the shores of our own Pacific coast. Much has happened in the Far East since debate opened in the Senate on January 5 relative to our far eastern policy. Since that time the following events of importance have taken place: First. Mao Tse-tung and his associates have been to Moscow and have agreed upon a 20-year pact with the Soviet Union which may properly be called an alliance. The full provisions of this al- liance will be disclosed in due time. It is well to recall that the 1939 Nazi Ger- many-Soviet Russia treaty of friendship had secret provisions that were not ulti- mately made public until after the fall of Hitler and the capture of the German archives. However, the full significance of the agreement was recognized at a much earlier date when the Soviet Union invaded Poland from the rear while the Polish Army was engaged in the west against the Nazi invasion. Second. The Communist rebel leader, Ho Chi-minh, has been recognized by the Soviet Union and some of her satel- lites, including Red China, as the legal government of Viet Nam in opposition to Bao Dai who heads the legal govern- ment of that country and is recognized as such by France, Great Britain, and the United States. Third. Our roving Ambassador, Mr. Jessup, has met in Siam with American diplomats of the Far East and with the Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs, Mr. Butterworth. Just what decisions were made, if any, have not been disclosed to the people of this country as yet. The strong impression exists that this meeting was one for the exchange of information rather than for the making of decisions. Fourth. In Hong Kong a British court awarded 71 planes formerly belonging to an air line owned by the Republic of China and disposed of by that air line to a@ company headed by Ciaire Chennault and Whiting Willauer, both citizens of the United States, at a time when the national government of China was rec- orgnized by both Great Britain and the United States. These 71 planes, if they finally get into Communist hands, will not only furnish the government of Mao Tze-tung with a commercial air trans- port system but will be of tremendous military value to them in any future operations against southeast Asia, For- mosa, and Hainan Islands and other places to which they and their Soviet allies may desire to direct their attention. Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. KNOWLAND. I yield. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. MORSE. I am very glad the Senator from California has brought this point out in his remarks. The Senator will perhaps recall that yesterday, as I recall, the junior Senator from Oregon placed in the Recorp some material deal- ing with the allegations, at least, that an attempt is now going to be made by the Communist government of China to secure American airplane parts for the airplanes which the Chinese Communist government has received through the Hong Kong decision, and that the parts would be obtained through Great Britain, with the use of ECA funds by Great Britain for their purchase in this coun- try. That is the allegation. The proba- bility of it, I think, is also great. Does the Senator from California, who is a colleague of mine from the west coast, agree with me that there is a great deal of concern up and down the west coast as to developments in Asia in respect to the security of the west coast itself? Mr. KNOWLAND. I will say to my able colleague from Oregon that I be- lieve there is great concern along the entire Pacific coast because of the de- velopments which have taken place in the Far East, and there has been a gen- eral realization that while we have helped to close the door to Communists in Eu- rope, we have left the door wide open to communistic Asia. Mr. MORSE. Does the Senator from California agree with the junior Senator from Oregon that in the event the pres- ent cold war in Asia should turn into a hot war, with Russia involved, we might be confronted with the reality of these particular airplanes, which are worth, I understand, a great many millions of dollars, being used against our own forces when they should seek to defend and protect the United States in that hot war? Mr. KNOWLAND. I will say to the Senator from Oregon that, as I have pointed out in the remarks I have made, not only can the airplanes in question be used to transport troops against southeast Asia, against the islands of Formosa and Hinan, but if they were needed they could be used after the initial attack to transport air-borne troops to Alaska, if that became a part of an over-all plan? Mr. MORSE. As a colleague of the junior Scnator from Oregon on the Armed Services Committee of the Sen- ate, does the Senator from California agree that it is of vital importance that the Congress of the United States, and the administration on the executive level, proceed to take immediate steps to make certain that the west coast, including Alaska, are made much more secure than they appear to be at the present time? Mr. KNOWLAND. I agree with the Senator, and I speak not only as a mem- ber of the Armed Services Committee, of which the junior Senator from Oregon and I are colleagues together, but also as a member of the Senate Appropria- tions Committee, and as a member of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy. I will say, however, to the Senator from Oregon, that in this day and age of the airplane and the atom I do not believe we can rely on having our first line of 2643 defense in the Pacifice coast States of California, Oregon, and Washington, without it being most detrimental to the peace and security of the country as a whole. Mr. MORSE. I completely agree with the Senator from California. If he will permit one more interruption, does the Senator from California agree with the junior Senator from Oregon that one of the defense needs of the United States at the present time is a clear statement on the part of the State Department as to what its foreign policy in all Asia is at the present time? Mr. KNOWLAND. I completely agree with the Senator. And if he will have a bit of patience, I am going to touch on that subject very shortly. It seems to me that while we have had a foreign policy in Europe which the Congress and the American people understand, in the Far East we have had no foreign policy that either the Congress, the American people, or our diplomats in that part of the world can understand. Mr. MORSE. We simply have not been informed as to what it is, if it exists today. Mr. KNOWLAND. I am convinced, from having been in that area of the world, the last time in November and December of 1949, that we do not have up to the present time any over-all for- eign policy in the Far East. It is true we have a policy, of course, dealing with Japan, where General MacArthur has done a very outstanding job in his par- ticular sphere. It is true we have to an extent a policy in Korea, in that partic- ular area. But we do not have any over- all foreign policy in Asia such as we have in Europe whereby under the Mar- shall plan, and the ECA, we were trying to coordinate the effort to maintain a free world of free men, which was followed by the North Atlantic Pact, and in turn by the arms implementation legislation, so people who believe in human freedom might join together and know what the general policy is. There has been no such policy in the Far East. Mr. MORSE. I agree with the Sen- ator from California. If the Senator will permit me, I should like to say that at least so far as our policy in Europe is concerned the world knows pretty well what is going to happen if the Com- munist aggression gets over a certain line, but we do not know, and the people of Asia do not know what is going to happen if communism continues its creeping paralysis over all of Asia, be- cause we have not served clear notice, as we have in Europe, as to what our position is going to be in Asia in case the Russians continue their infiltration tactics of aggression. Mr. KNOWLAND. The Senator is correct. As I pointed out earlier, and as I am going to stress a little further along in my remarks, I do not think it is fair either to the American Con- gress or to the American people, because without such notice I do not see how we can possibly know as to whether the budget is too large or whether it is too small, and whether the urgent need of the hour is greatly to increase our mili- tary strength in order to prevent aggres- sion from running rampant over a large
2644 part of the world. ‘I know the able Sen- ator from Oregon has, just as consist- ently as I have tried to do, objected to this constant lowering of an iron cur- tain between the executive branch of the Government and the Congress of the United States, which also has some re- sponsibility. For instance, in the ques- tion of the armed services we have a constitutional responsibility which we cennot abdicate to the executive branch of the Government. The Constitution itself says that the Congress is respon- sible for the raising and supporting of armies and navies. How are we to know just what size the Defense Establishment should be unless we have a foreign policy and know whether a line is going to be drawn at some point in that area of the world. Mr. President, while the record in- dicates that the State Department did make representations to the British Gov- ernment, the strong impression exists that those representations were not as strong as the conditions warranted. Certainly this act on the part of the British Government will receive full at- tention by the Congress in the months ahead. Fifth. As of March 1 Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek became President of the Republic of China after 13 months of retirement. On January 5 I discussed some of the policies followed by this Government which led up to the debacle which has taken place on the continent of Asia and the development of the situation with which we and the non-Communist world are now faced. Today I desire to outline the basis upon which a policy might be developed that would warrant support in and out of Congress. In Secretary Acheson’s speech before the National Press Club on January 12, with relation to our defense perimeter in the Pacific, he stated the following: First of all, let’s deal with the question of military security. I deal with it first be- caure it Is important and because having stated our policy in that regard, we must clearly understand that the military menace is not the most immediate. What is the situation in regard to the military security of the Pacific area, and what is our policy in regard to it? In the first place the defeat and the dis- armament of Japan have placed upon the United States the necessity of assuming the military defense of Japan so long as that is required, both in interest of our security and in the interests of the security of the entire Pacific area and, in all honor, in the interest of Japanese security, We have American and there are Australian troops in Japan Iam not in a position to speak for the Australians, but I can assure you that there is no intention of any sort of abandoning or weakening the defense of Japan, and that whatever arrangements are to be made either through permanent settlement or otherwise—that defense must and shall be maintained. This defensive perimeter runs along the Aleutians to Japan and then goes to the Ryukyus. We hold important defense posi- tions in the Ryukyu Islands, and those we will continue to hold. In the interest of the population of the Ryukyu Isiands we will, at an appropriate time, offer to hold these ts- lands under trusteeship of the United Na~ tions. But they are essential parts of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE defensive perimeter of the Pacific, and they must and will be held. The defensive perimeter runs from the Ryukyus to the Philippine Islands. Our re- lations, our defensive relations with the Philippines, are contained in agreements be- tween us. Those agreements are being loyal- ly carried out and will be loyally carried out. Both peoples have learned by bitter experi- ence the vital connections between our mu- tual defense requirements We are in no doubt about that and it is hardly necessary for me to say an attack on the Philippines could not and would not be tolerated by the United States But I hasten to add that no one perceives the imminence of any such attack. Mr. President, if the English language means anything, it means that the Sec- retary of State on January 12 was an- nouncing that this country was prepared to fight if an invasion should take place against Japan, Okinawa, or the Philip- Pine Islands. Outside of that defense line, were left the Republic of Korea, the non-Communist Republic of China, now primarily occupying the islands of For- mosa and Hainan, the Indonesian Re- public, and the nutions of southeast Asia. Insofar as these countries are con- cerned, they were presumably, accord- ing to Sccretary Acheson's speech, to re- ly on the United Nations Charter. With- out disrespect to the Secretary, this is rather a weak reed to lean on, since the Soviet Union is now in a position to exer- cise a veto to block any effective United Nations action. Should Communist Chi- na succeed the Republic of China in the United Nations, a double veto against effective action would be available to the Communist world. However, Secretary Acheson’s statements from his January 12 speech are worth reviewing at this time. He said: So far as the military security of other areas in the Pacific is concerned, it must be clear that no person can guarantee these areas against military attack. But it must also be clear that such a guarantee is hard- ly sensible or necessary within tho realm of practical relationship Should an attack occur—one hesitates to say where such an armed attack could come from—the initial relinnce must be on the people attacked to resist it, and then upon the commitments of the entire civilized world, under the chartcr of the United Na- tions, which so far has not proved a weak reed to lean on by any people who are deter- rained to protect their independence against outside aggression. But it is a mistake, I think, in considering Pacific and far-eastern problems to become obsessed with military considerations Im- portant as they are, there are other problems that press, and these other problems are not capable of solution through military means. These other problems arise out of the sus- ceptibility of many areas and many coun- tries in the Pacific area to subversion and penetration. That cannot be stopped by military means. Mr. President, there has been much discussion in the State Department and elsewhere that point 4 or other eco- nomic aid will solve to a considerable ex- tent the problem of Communist en- croachment. It must be obvious that economic assistance alone will do no auch thing, for there can be no real eco- nomic recovery while that area of the world is in imminent danger of overt in- vasion from the outside or Communist- inspired rebellion from within, MARCH 2 A look at the map and a study of con- ditions in the Far East clearly indicate that, as against invasion by Communist China, the island nations are better able to defend themselves or to be defended than are the nations on the Asiatic land mass. This is particularly true as long as the potential aggressor is without na- val or air power. If these deficiencies should be supplied indirectly by the So- viet Union or directly with the Soviet Union as an active belligerent, the situa- tion would, of course, change. Therefore, it seems to me that the first step in developing a far-eastern policy should be to unite the Pacific island na- tions and the United States in a Pacific pact in conformity with the United Na- tions charter. These nations would in- clude Australia, New Zealand, the Philip- pine Republic, the United States of Indo- china, Japan—as soon as a peace treaty has been completed—and the non-Com- munist Republic of China, now centered on Formosa and Hainan Islands. In addition to these island nations, the problem of defense of the nations on the Asiatic continental land mass is more difficult. We have obligations to the Re- public of Korea that exceed, in my judg- ment, any obligations that we have to Viet Nam, Siam, or Burma. While an attack upon the Pacific pact island na- tions would, as in the case of the Atlantic community, be considered as “an attack against one as an attack against all,” our policy in Korea and in southeast Asia would vary in the event they were not included in the first instance in such a Pacific pact. We should continue to give economic aid and supervised military assistance to the Republic of Korea and should pre- pare to give similar supervised aid to the southeast Asian non-Communist nations that requested it. At the same time, we should msk> it clear that we are not disinterested in those nations in the event they are faced with an overt invasion. Our position should be that in that event and at that time, we and the nations associated with us, will take such action as our national intercst and the maintenance of inter- national law and order require. In no event should they be written off nor should we indicate that their future is of no concern to us, Communism is no less destructive to human freedom in Asia than it is in eastern Europe. Mr. President, my chief criticism of the statement of the President of the United States on January 5 was not, at the particular time, that he was unwilling to send a mission to Formosa, in the same way that we had sent a mission to Greece and a mission to Korea; but my criticism arose from the fact that in the statement he made, he seemed to indicate that the frec people of non-Communist China were being written off, and that the 1s- land of Formosa and its people were out- side the defense perimeter. It was more or less of an open invitation to the Com- munist world to come and get them. Mr. President, I submit that the Pres- ident need not have gone that far. He could have said that at this particular time we are not prepared to decide whether we shall send a mission, as we did in the case of Korea and in the case
1959 of Greece when they were faced with the problem of a Communist overturn of their governments, but that in the event of an overt invasion, we will take such steps as our national interest may re- quire. That at least might have kept the people on the other side of the iron curtain guessing as to what our position would be, and it would also have left us a flexibility of action which, it seems to me the President did not allow, as a re- sult of his speech. Mr. President, I think the same state- ment applies to the Republic of Korea. When the Secretary of State in his speech before the National Press Club drew his line, and left the Republic of Korea on the outside, that was more or less of an open invitation to the Com- munists in North Korea to come down from the north and absorb the people of the Republic of Korea. I most vigorously disagree with the analysis made by Mr. Lattimore, who in- dicated in his speech that the people of the Republic of Korea are not worthy of support. I personally went there, I saw the very high caliber of the public offi- cials there, I saw the caliber of the men in their armed services, I talked with our own representatives in that country. I was told by the American commander, the head of the mission in Korea, that in his judgment there have never been a finer group of soldiers than those who constitute the army of the Republic of Korea; and he was convinced that, as against an indigenous invasion from north Korea, the soldiers of the Republic of Korea would be able to defend their independence. Inasmuch as we are responsible, in part at least, for the setting up of this republic, I do not believe that they should be left behind the iron curtain, because, if we really mean to have a free world of free men, we cannot draw a color line, Mr. President. Human free- dom, as I have previously pointed out, is no less dear to the people of Asia than it is to the people of Europe, and it is of just as much concern to the people of the United States in the long run that we maintain a free and independent Repub- lic of China and a free and independent Republic of Korea, as it is that we main- tain a free and independent Greece, Aus- tria, or any other country in the world. Certainly, Mr. President, in line with the statement made by the Senator from Oregon, I think the time has come when, in the interests of the American pco- ple, the administration should set forth clearly just what our policy is to be in the Far East. WORLD CONGRESS OF PARTISANS OF PEACE—THE ROAD TO PEACE Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, the World Congress of Partisans of Peace, described by the State Department as the leading Communist-front organiza- tion in the world today, has announced, as has already been said by the Senator from Texas [Mr. Connat.y], that it is sending a delegation of Europeans to the United States on March 3. This has been stated in the press. The stated purpose of the delegation’s visit is to present a petition to Congress CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE to end the armament race and to pro- hibit atomic weapons. Members of the delegation have ap- plied to the State Department for visas to come to the United States. The State Department has advised me that some of the delegates are Communists and that the others are fellow travelers, Mr. President, inasmuch as statements made relative to who is or who is not a Communist, and as to what is a Com- munist organization, have been chal- lenged on the Senate floor, I asked the State Department, when I found out about this, to send me the personnel of the delegation, and to advise we whether they had a record of them, and if, as they say, they are Communists or fellow trav- elers, whether that record could not be placed in the Recorp at the time I made this observation. I have received from the State Depart- ment a list of 12 names, and also the information which was furnished to the State Department by the delegates rela- tive to their interest, not only in the Communist Party, but also in front or- ganizations. The information is clas- sified. I ask unanimous consent that at this point in my remarks the infor- mation given me by the State Depart- ment relative to these so-called Com- munists or fellow travelers be made a part of my remarks, because from these records it is the State Department that is making the challenge that they are Communists or fellow travelers. There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the RrEcorp, as follows: MEMBERSHIP OF THE DELEGATION TO THE UNITED STATES Pablo Picasso: World-famous Spanish painter. A member of the French Commu- nist Party since 1914, he has been a leading figure in various Communist front organiza- tions, including the International Commit- tee of the World Partisans of Peace. Rev. Hewlett Johnson: Dean of Canterbury, Member of the editorial board of the Dally Worker. Delegate to several conferences of the Partisans of Peace and British member of the World Peace Committee. Ivor Montagu: British film producer, di- rector and scenarist, and active in many phases of motion-picture production. He has been a Communist Party member since 1932 and 1s a member of the Daily Worker editorial staff. Dr. Max Cosyns: Belgium's foremost atomic scientist and associate of Professor Piccard since 1932. An avowed Communist sympa- thizer, Cosyns has been playing a vigorous role in various front organizations, Eugene Aubel: Professor of chemistry and biology, University of Paris. A member of the French Communist Party. Active in Communist front organizations. Delegate, World Congress of Intellectuals, Wroclaw, Poland, 1948, and a member, National Coun- cil Combattants de la Liberte et de la Paix (Fighters for Liberty and Peace). Hans Erni: Well-known Swiss modernist painter. An ardent fellow traveler, he is a leader of the Swiss-Soviet Friendship Asso- ciation. Jean Lurcat: Artist, reportedly a member of the French Communist Party and an active member in numerous Communist front or- ganizations. Luigi Cacciatore: A parliamentary deputy, Cacciatore is an active leader of the Italian Socialist Party which cooperates with the Italian Communist Party. He was Minister of Posts and Telecommunications in the De Gasperi cabinet in 1947, 2645 Dr. Mario Montes!: Communal councilor of Rome e'nce the liberation. He was at one time active in the Christian Democratic Party but later joined the pro-Communist Christian Movement for Peace. Gluesppina Palumbo: A Socialist senator and former social worker, she was the first woman given a post in the Italian Govern- ment after liberation. She is now active in leftist women's groups. Prof, Oliviero Mario Olivo: Highly regarded Italian specialist in anatomy and histology and one time Rockefeller fellow in the United States. He took part in the leftist-sponsored Congress of Italian Culture in 1948. Furio Diaz: Communist mayor of Leg- horn since the liberation. Thirty-three years old law graduate; formerly taught at Uni- versity of Pisa Very popular locally, Meme ber of the Italian Communist Party and its organ, the Friends of Unita. Mr. WHERRY. The State Depart- ment also informs me that the Partisans of Peace movement was organized at Communist-line meetings held in Paris and Prague in April 1949, and that it is the outgrowth of earlier meetings held at Wroclaw, Poland, held in August 1948, The so-called peace congresses held in various countries under the auspices of this organization have uniformly fole lowed a Communist line. They spend much of their time attack- ing the United States with charges of warmongering and imperialism, but they are always very sympathetic to the U.S. S. R. and Soviet foreign policy. This organization is considered to be a major Soviet instrumentality for prop- aganda and political pressure. I am also advised that the Partisans of Teace participate in the campaigns that are conducted by the Cominform. The Secretary of State would be dere= lict in his duty if he permitted an invae sion of the United States by this group representing the so-called World Con- gress of Partisans of Peace. The State Department asserts that some of the members of the delegation are avowed Communists, as I have al- ready mentioned, and that others are active in following the Communist line. No question of freedom of speech or of tolerance for the other fellow’s view is involved in this issue, in the opinion of the junior Senator from Nebraska. The United States would not want to open its ports to the bubonic plague; and to allow these revolutionaries to come into this country to spread their doc- trine against our Government would be equally dangerous. The American taxpayers are paying dearly to maintain American principles in the cold war with Russia. The State Department says it has abundant evidence that the World Con- gress of Partisans of Peace is active throughout western Europe, and other parts of the free world, in trying to ob- struct the efforts of the United States, to help freedom-loving people establish themselves firmly in prosperity and peace with freedom. To the junior Senator from Nebraska, it simply does not make sense to spend billions upon billions of dollars to combat communism, while at the same time opening our doors to leaders of Com- munist forces.
2646 Purthermore, the American people need no instruction from these Com- munists, and their fellow travelers, of the World Congress of Partisans of Peace, on the way to peace. The American people have fought two World Wars in order to maintain peace with honor on the earth. The United States has given abundant evidence of its pure motives, by not ask- ing a cent in reparations, or an inch of territory in payment for its loss in lives and its deep cost in money. The delegation of Communists, and fellow travelers who seek to enter our gates to spread their propaganda against our republican procedures, would sim- ply add to our difficulties in stamping out revolutionary communism among our own people. And FBI Director J, Edgar Hoover re- cently stated that there are more than a half million Communists and fellow travelers already in the United States. It is said that the delegation of the World Congress of Partisans of Peace want to come here to advocate peace. The United States is not blocking peace. Peace is being blocked by Solvet Rus- sia and her agents around the world. If the delegation has any sincerity of purpose let it go to Moscow and publicly proclaim its demand for peace and an end to the cold war. I should like to restate that sentence, because I had this speech ready at 4 o’clock this afternoon for release on de- livery in the Senate. If the delegation has any sincerity of purpose, let it go to Moscow and publicly proclaim its demand for peace and an end to the cold war. Let it carry its message into the walls of the Kremlin and to the throne of Dictator Stalin. Let it propagandize among the Rus- sian people; hold mass meetings; con- duct parades; and flaunt placards before Joseph Stalin wherever he moves. I am sure the majority leader, who is now presiding over the Senate, will agree with me on that proposition. Let the delegation go to Moscow. Let it propa- fandize the Russian people. Let it hold mass meetings over there, conduct parades, and flaunt placards before Joseph Stalin, wherever he moves. Let these delegates picket the Kremlin. Mr. President, this delegation has no useful purpose to serve. It is a trouble-making group. Must we suffer the indignity of having these Communists come to the United States to shout from the steps of the United States Capitol that we are war- mongers? The junior Senator from Nebraska be- lieves it is very doubtful that the dcle- gation would seek admission to the United States unless it had approval of the Russian Government. In veto after veto, the Sovict Union has thwaited efforts of the United Na- tions for peace. And while the agents of Moscow in foreign lands cry for peace, the rulers of Moscow plot new expansions of their empire. Obviously this dclegation from the World Congress of Fartisans of Peace CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE seek only to lull our people into a false sense of security, and to spread con- fusion in order that they may better serve their masters in the Kremlin. If Dictator Stalin and his group in the Kremlin sincerely want peace and want to halt the cold war, there are recog- nized avenues for presenting their views. The United States, in its desire to establish durable peace on earth, would gladly open its doors to an official dele- gation from Soviet Russia bringing pro- Pposals to terminate the cold war. Such a delegation would be welcome. Indeed, our people pray for adjust- ments that will end the terrible night- mare of uncertainty over what the mor- row will bring. The junior Senator from Nebraska be- Heves that our own President could be more diligent in exploring possible roads to peace. The junior Senator from Nebraska be- lieves that all the facts have not been given to the American people, that there is much misunderstanding among them, and that many of them are asking why the diplomats are failing. It seems to the junior Senator from Nebraska that the cause of peace would be served if the President of the United States were to direct a note to Premier Stalin detailing America’s position on the issues in conflict. The note could be two or three thousand words in length. It should present the issues and our position clearly, so that all the world could see and understand. Then, let Premier Stalin answer, and let his state- ment be open to the world. We have had enough of secret meetings and secret agreements. There must be no more Yaltas, no more Potsdams. The junior Senator from Nebraska has little faith in secret meetings. He believes in what Woodrow Wilson called ‘open covenants, openly arrived at.” Time and again we are told by persons highly placed in our Administration that it would be futile to have another con- ference with Soviet Russia. Argument is made that the United States should build bigger and better weapons of war and strive to win the armament race. The argument is made that we should approach Russia only from strength and not from weakness. It all sounds good, but time is passing— and peace continues to hang in the balance. It is suggested that the whole matter be referred to the United Nations. We all know that although the United Na- tions has accomplished some good, and is groping toward adoption of better machinery for the expression of its views, the process through the United Nations woud be, at best, very long drawn out. There is nothing in the United Nations charter which direct negotiations be- tween the United States and Russia would violate. In fact, all efforts toward the amicable settlement of disputes, are wholly within the purpose of the United Nations. So the junior Senator from Nebraska now suggests that the President of the United States get off dead center—get off his treadmill—and make a, forthright ef- fort toward resolving the issues between the United States and Soviet Russia. MARCH 2 Certainly nothing would be lost by the President’s addressing an open letter to Premier Stalin stating the American position. And if there should be an ex- change of two, three, four, or even ten letters, the people all over the world then would have an official record. The junior Senator from Nebraska be- lieves there is no power on earth that can withstand the pressure of public opinion. Out of the present confusion and all the milling about, ultimately there must come the voice of public opinion. THE COAL DISPUTE Mr. MORSE. Mr. Fresident, the jun- jor Senator from Oregon has deferred all afternoon making this specch on the pending coal case and the introduction of a bill which, in the opinion of the junior Senator from Oregon, would be very helpful in settling the pending coal case. Today the United States District Court for the District of Columbia handed down a decision holding that the United Mine Workers’ Union is not in criminal or civil contempt of an existing tempo- rary restraining order which the same court on February 11 issued in connec- tion with the pending suit. I accept the finding of the court, Mr. President, as I would have accepted the finding of the court had it been opposite to that which the court reached, because I believe in government by law in Amer- ica. I believe that when there 1s a law on the statute books, that law must be enforced and must be administered and interpreted in conformity with impar- tiality by the great American court system. Thus, Mr. President, the junior Sena- tor from Orezon made clear many times on the floor of the Senate, while the Taft- Hartley bill was still under debate and before the final vote was taken thereon, that it would always be his position that once a law was passed, even though he voted against the bill when it was pend- ing before the Senate, he would insist that the law be enforced so long as it remained on the statute books. I have always taken the position in regard to the Taft-Hartley law that I would in- sist that all the force of government necessary to enforce it be used. I say that by way of preface to my remarks tonight, Mr. President, because Iam well aware of the fact that the sub- ject matter of my remarks may be mis- interpreted and that a deliberate attempt may be made by my political opponents to misrepresent them. I believe that a Member of the Senate must always be willing to rise above political expediency, and although po- litical expediency might dictate silence on the part of the junior Senator from Oregon on this subject, nevertheless I consider it my duty as a Member of the United States Senate to make an effort to bring to an end the suffering and the hardship which the pending coal dis- pute is causing the American people. I feel so deeply about the subject matter, Mr. President, that I believe the Senate of the United States and the House of Representatives cannot tarry longer, now that a court decision has been handed down, in doing whatever can be done
1950 within the legislative powers of our Gov- ernment to come to the relief of the American people in respect to the coal dispute. While the case was pending before the Federal court, Mr. President, I, along with many of my colleagues in the Sen- ate—and there have been many discus- sions of the subject matter in the cloak- rooms—felt we should await the decision of the court. But that decision having been handed down today, Mr. President, the American people undoubtedly are asking tomight the question, “Now, what?” I think the Congress of the United States has the obligation of trying to find the answer to the question, “Now, what?” I wish to offer a suggestion tonight, Mr. President, in the form of a bill which, if it is passed, will, I think, result in a resumption of coal production. The im- mediate and the emergency problem con- fronting us in this matter is to get coal, to end the suffering, the misery, and the hardship, to say nothing about the great economic losses that are sweeping this country. It is true that as we discuss this mat- ter tonight, schools in America are be- ing closed for lack of coal. It is true that as we discuss this subject matter tonight, Mr. President, there is a great shortage of coal in many of the cities of the Nation. So great 1s that shortage that mayors of those cities all over the country are communicating with the Senators from their States, asking the question, “What does the Congress or the Government of the United States propose to do to get coal to end the great suffering which 1s gripping the country?” Mr. President, it has always been the position of the junior Senator from Ore- gon that whenever a great emergency arises in America which endangers the public welfare and the public interest, or Jeopardizes the health or safety of the American people, the Government has the duty—and I emphasize the word “duty’—to take whatever action lies within the power of government to pro- tect the people from the danger which confronts them. We cannot have gov- ernment, Mr. President, if we do not carry out that principle. We shall have anarchy. We cannot have government by law if our Government ever fails to take every step within 1ts power to pro- tect the health and the safety of the people. That is a very elementary principle of political philosophy. Some- times I think that even in the Congress we overlook the very simple, elementary principles of government which should be observed if we would keep faith with the great political philosophy which characterizes our constitutional system of government by law. So I say, as I have said in two or three decisions which I have handed down in my lifetime in the field of labor relations, that no group of employers or no group of workers, under our free sys- tem of democratic government, has the license to place their selfish economic interests above the welfare of the Amer- ican people, to the point that the selfish CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE interests of any group in this country jeopardize the health and the safety of the American people. That applies in this instance, Mr, President, to the coal operators and to the members of the United Mine Workers of America. If this Government ever fails to recognize that principle of government by law, Mr. President, we shall have a break- down in our democratic system. I want to say that no group—and that includes the coal operators and the mem- bers of the United Mine Workers of America—has any right, if it is to ful- fill its patriotic obligations under our system of government by law, to take the position that it can continue to fail to negotiate an agreement for the opcra- tion of the coal mines, or that the Gov- ernment can do nothing while the parties to the dispute fail to negotiate an agreement to provide the coal neces- sary to protect the health and the safety of our people. Mr. President, that is one of my major premises. Of course, if I am wrong on that major premise, my bill 1s unsound. If I am right on my major premise, namely, that it is the duty of our Govern- ment, in maintaining a system of gov- ernment by law, to take whatever action within its power to protect the people against any group or combination of groups which seek to jeopardize the health or safety of the people, simply be- cause they are unable to reach an agree- ment between themselves over a labor contract, then the Senate should give serious consideration to the proposal which I offer tonight. It is a seizure proposal, Mr. President. Let me make clear that I do not like seizure. I think it is most unfortunate, in facing the problem of giving serious consideration to the question “What now?” in the coal dispute that we must even turn our attention to seizure. Ev- ery employer, Including every coal oper- ator, and every labor leader, including the leaders of the United Mine Workers of America, ought to see that they should be willing to make such compromises and concessions as are necessary 1n their collective-bargaining negotiations to avoid the necessity of Congress even dis- cussing the question of seizure, to say nothing of putting scizure into practice. Oh, I know, when it goes across the news wires of America that the junior Senator from Oregon has introduced a bill which proposes seizure it is likely to be misunderstood, because someone may ect the idea that the junior Senator from Oregon hkes the idea of seizure. I do not. I do not like it at all, Mr. President. But I prefer seizure to the suffering which is being imposed upon the Ameri- can people by the apparent breakdown in coal negotiations and by the fact that we are not gctting out of the coal mines the coal needed in these critical hours to prevent the American people from suf- fering from a lack of coal. The people are entitled to coal so that they will not continue to be subjected to the great hardships from which they are suffering at this hour. It is only because I believe we are being forced into a position where we have no alternative that I offer for discussion and suggest for passage, if necessary, @ seizure bill. 2647 I dislike seizure so much, Mr. Presi- dent, that as a member of the War Labor Board duzing the war I did everything I could in each specific case to avoid sei- zure. We seized some plants during the war. In fact, we raised the American flag over the mines of America during the war. Why? Because we were in a war emergency, a life and death struggle for the preservation of freedom itself here and in the world. Had we lost the war, we would not be in the Senate today as representatives of a free people-in a representative form of government. So there, too, I was confronted with the very simple and elementary principle of sup- porting a government by law. The War Labor Board took the position that when- ever any group threatens the security of the pcople as a whole it is the duty of government to use all its force to protect the people. So, reluctantly, after we had tried every other effort and means to settle some of the major wartime labor cases without seizure, we agreed to seizure. It happened that I had the solemn obli- gation of being the compliance officer, or enforcement officer of the War Labor Board during the war. Believe me, once the decision to seize had been affirmed by the President of the United States, we used all the forces of Government neces- sary to enforce a given decision. We succeeded, Mr. President, but it was not a pleasant task, Certainly it is an un- desirable pattern to establish for fre- quent use. Of that Iam very well aware. That 1s why my seizure bill, which in principle is identical with the seizure bill I introduced in the first session of the Eighty-first Congress, is surrounded with every safeguard I can conceive. In fact, I have surrounded it with the safe- guard of a clear check by Congress. That is how important I think it is to protect us from a hasty or ill-advised or unnecessary use of scizure in any emergency case. Let the record be per- fectly clear that the junior Senator from Oregon believes that seizure should never be used in this country except as a mat- ter of last resort; and I mean last resort. My. President, it appears that we have reached that point today in the coal case. We are confronted with the fact that great suffering exists in America tonight as a result of the coal dispute. We are confronted with the fact that workers are saying they will not mine coal in the absence of an agreement. We are confronted with the fact that the court, on the basis of the record, has found that as of this hour there is no contempt of its restraining order. As I said in the beginning, I accept that decision, because I know something about the judicial process. I know the sense of responsibility and the solemn- ness of the obligation which men who wear the robes of American judgeships carry on their shoulders when they sit in judgement on a judicial record. We must preserve our policy of accepting, until reversed by a higher court, the de- cisions of American judges, because un- less we maintain an unquestioned re- spect for and loyalty to this great system of justice, we will lose our freedom. Mr. President, that is why the junior Senator from Oregon has not been heard
2648 at any time, once a court has spoken or a jury has handed down its verdict, cast- ing reflection on the court or the jury. I may disagree with the legal theory ap- plied by a court or I may express the view that a decision probably will be re- versed, but I will insist that it be obeyed until reversed. I recognize they can make their mistakes, but we have an appeal procedure for correcting judicial mistakes. It is of the utmost impor- tance that we not negative our system of government by law through our court system of justice, by taking the position that a decision of a court should not be binding upon us and accepted by us un- til approved, reversed, or modified by a higher appeal tribunal. Mr. President, I have the same feeling in regard to carrying out the Taft- Hartley law in all its provisions, now that it is the law of the land. I do not like the Taft-Hartley law. I voted against the bill. I am satisfled I cast the right vote when I voted against it, because our experience under the law has proven what quite a few of us said on the floor of the Senate during the de- bate about the undesirable features of the bill. I recall so clearly the last after- noon of the debate, when many of us opposed to the bill said it would not ac- complish the objectives its supporters had in mind. I was in favor of a labor law that embodied the objectives of the Ives-Morse bill, which was the committee bill of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare of 1947. But those objectives were undermined by the Taft- Hartley law. The Morse-Ives bill was based upon one major premise, namely, that the Wagner Act needed to be modi- fled because it put the Government on labor's side of the table, and discrimi- nated unfairly against the employers. I favored the modification of the Wag- ner Act because serious labor abuses did develop under the Wagner Act. But I was opposed, Mr. President, to putting the Government on the employers’ side of the table, as the Taft-Hartley law does in many particulars. I took the position then, which I repeat tonight, that there is only one place for the Government in a labor dispute, and that is at the head of the table, sitting in judgment of both sides whenever the dispute gets to the point that it becomes necessary for the Government to intervene in that dispute in order to protect the public interest. That is why I want the Taft-Hartley law modified. Another reason why I want it modified is because I think it is important that we get into the law an emergency dis- pute procedure that will work, in fairness to employers and to labor. The emer- gency dispute sections of the Taft-Hart- ley law are a grand flop. Those sections of the law have a record of dismal failure ever since it was passed. I do not wish to be interpreted as tak- ing the attitude of “I told you s0,” be- cause this is so important to the welfare of our people that it does not make any difference now whether some of us failed to convince the Senate in our argument in 1947 when we warned the Senate not to take the stcps it took in passing the Taft-Hartley law. What I want to do now :s to suggest a constructive and af- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE firmative procedure in respect to emer- gency disputes, a procedure that will work and that will be fair to all sides. I want to say one other thing, Mr. President, before I discuss the terms of the bill I seek to offer. I believe the coal dispute has awakened, to a remark- able degree, an understanding among the American people that the coal in- dustry is economically sick, As the dis- tinguished Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Houmpurey], now presiding, pointed out in the Senate yesterday when he introduced his joint resolution for the creation of a temporary coal commis- sion, about which I shall have some- thing to say in a moment, the labor dis- pute in the coal industry is but a symp- tom of that economic illness. To press my figure of speech a bit further, Mr. President, we can take judicial notice that a disease is not cured by treating a symptom. All the symptom does is give warning as to what the basic cause of the illness may be. That is all it does. We must find the causes of the economic illness that characterizes the coal in- dustry today. I do not claim to know a great deal about the economic problems of the coal industry. I suspect, so far as labor disputes in coal are concerned, that I have as broad a background as anyone in the Congress in regard to the symp- tom of economic illness in the coal] in- dustry, as manifested through labor dis- putes in the industry. But that does not make me an authority at all on what needs to be done to bring about eco- nomic stability in the coal industry. I do not know the answers to that ques- tion. But I want to say that by intro- ducing the joint resolution yesterday the Senator from Minnesota per- formed a& great public service. It is important that we set up a commission of experts to tell us, the Members of the Congress and the American people, what the facts are about the economic illness of the coal industry, and what needs to be done in order to bring sta- bility to the industry. I happen to be one who constantly asks himself the question when a con- troversial issue is before him: What are the facts? Once I am satisfied I have been fully informed on the facts then I am in a position to weigh and evalu- ate the suggestions and recommenda- tions made by experts for remedying the situation that is characterized by unde- sirable facts. The joint resolution in- troduced by the Senator from Minne- sota as to future problems in the coal industry will do just that. But, as the Senator pointed out yesterday when he introduced his joint resolution, it will not be helpful in the immediate pend- ing coal dispute. We must deal with that now. One more word respecting the joint resolution which the Senator from Min- nesota introduced yesterday. We have been advised, as Members of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Wel- fare, and through other channels in our official work as Members of the Senate, that one of the economic problems in the coal industry that is causing it to be a sick industry is that in much less than @ year more coal can be produced than MARcH 2 can be consumed in that year. I do not know what the exact time is. We hear from 7 to 8 months; but let us assume for the sake of the argument—and it may be more or it may be less—that what we are advised is true, namely, that be- cause of great technological changes in the mining of coal, because of labor- saving devices developed in recent years, because of conversion from coal to oil, we now can produce in from 7 to 8 months more coal than the economy can use in 12 months. If it is true, Mr. President, that we can produce more coal in 7 to 8 months than we can consume in 12 months, we have a little better under- standing of the causes of labor unrest among the miners. The American people have been told in most of the news which they read about the coal dispute that the miners receive in wages some $14 or between $14 and $15 a day. What is the reac- tion of the average American when he reads that? He says, “Why, that is a pretty good wage. What right have they to be tying up the economy of the coun- try when they receive a wage of from $14 to $15 a day?” Of course, Mr. President, I do not think that when we come to an emer- gency situation which involves the health and the safety of the people of the United States the miners have the right, any more than I think the employers have the right, to take any action which might be found to be bad-faith action so far as negotiating an agreement that would save the American people from suffering for want of coal. But let us pass over that, Mr. Presi- dent, and go to the more basic question. Is it not perfectly obvious that if the coal industry can overproduce in 7 or 8 months of operation, the daily wage of the miners then ceases to have any great significance? We have to find an- swers to some basic questions. I think the commission called for by the joint resolution introduced by the Senator from Minnesota will find for us factual answers to the basic questions which deal with the economic illness of the coal industry. For example, what is the answer to these questions: How many days a year are the miners laid off because individual mines X, Y, and Z have produced more coal than their sales departments have been able to sell at a profit? How frequently do coal operators issue orders to shut down some mines until the overproduced stock piles are disposed of on the market at a profit? I want the coal operators to make a profit, and I want them to make a fair profit, Mr. President. Do not let anyone get the idea that the position of the junior Senator from Oregon is one which would seek to discriminate against the legitimate economic rights and in- terests of the coal operators. It is not that at all. The coal operators are en- titled to a fair profit in the operation of their mines. I think the coal miners, too, are entitled to a good annual wage income. I do not know, Mr. President, whether part of the answer to this problem is to try to work out some arrangement in coal whereby the miners will be assured
1950 of at least a decent minimum annual wage. Iam not prepared to say whether that 1s part of the solution. One reason why we should adopt the resolution sub- mitted by the Senator from Minnesota is that the economic experts should be able to tell us whether that is part of the solution, after they have made the type of factual study called for by the Senator’s resolution. Mr. President, I know that coal miners are human beings, I know they are work- ing in the most hazardous occupation in all America; I do not know of any occu- pation which employs anywhere near the number of men the coal industry employs, in which the risk to life and limb is as great as it is in the coal mines. We, the people, had better take that into consideration when we adjudge the merits of the coal dispute, because the coal miners are working in an industry stamped with a public interest. Let me put that point in a little different way, because I think it is a rather funda- mental point in my entire approach to the remedies which should be applied in the coal industry. We are dealing with an industry that is charged with a public interest; and I use that phrase in its technical, legal sense. I take the posi- tion that the coal industry of the United States has become, in our modern, eco- nomic life, an industry as much charged with the public interest as are the rail- roads, the public utilities, or the aviation lines. I believe the coal industry should be so treated by the Government of the United States. That is a fundamental point in the approach which I make to our coal problem. If I am wrong in that premise—the second major premise I have laid down in my address this even- ing—then, again, much of my argument will fall. But I think I am correct, be- cause the stability of the coal industry at any given time in the United States bears a direct relationship to the stability of the American economy as a whole. Mr, President, let me put that thought in this way: As the economy of the coal industry goes, so goes the economy of the United States. What better exhibit need I offer to prove my point than the present coal dispute and the effects of it on the total economy of the United States? It may be thought that that is a very obvious observation to make; but it secms to me that many Americans have not yet made it. So many people in this country apparently have not yet recog- nized the fact that the coal industry is so stamped with a public interest that the status of its stability at any given time has a direct relationship with the stability and the level of prosperity of all the rest of the United States. Oh, yes; in some industries there have been a great many conversions from coal to oil or to other coal substitutes; but coal is still the primary fuel of America. Coal is still the great ener- gizing force which makes this free econ- omy of ours work. Coal still happens to be the determiner of whether or not the economic wheels of America revolve. Shut down the supply of coal, and this great industrial cconomy of ours gradu- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE ally comes to a dead stop, and all the social and economic implications of a break-down in the operation of our econ- omy flow from that stoppage. We are beginning to see some of those implica- tions developing this very night in America, Mr. President. Whenever any industry bears such a direct relationship to the health and safety and economic welfare of all of us, then all the American people have a direct interest in that industry. They have a right to say to the lawmakers of America, “It is your duty to exercise over that industry the minimum regulations and controls necessary to protect a free economy.” . Mr. President, that is what we did in the case of the railroads. That is what we have done in connection with public utilities generally. Our air lines operate under that legal theory. So, Mr. Presi- dent, I am arguing this evening for the application of a legal theory well known in the law of our country; I am arguing for its application to an industry which in recent years has been subjected to such economic changes within its own operations that now it is legally sound to argue that it should be treated by the Government of the United States as an industry that is stamped with a public interest, Mr. President, in making an approach to the regulation of the coal industry by the Government, even in the application of the so-called public-interest theory, we need to watch out that we do not play into the hands of those who would nationalize the coal industry. When one talks about any bill, such as the one I am introducing tonight, which even has the word “seizure” connected with it, many persons may get the false idea that the proponents of that bill favor the nationalization of the coal mines of America, But, Mr. President, let us nail that one to the mast right now, so there can be no doubt 1m the record about the position of the junior Senator from Orc- gon on that matter: I am unalterably opposed not only to the nationalization of the coal mines but to the nationaliza- tion of any basic industry in America. I am opposed to nationalization of indus- try, because we cannot. have a free econ- omy through nationalization. The road to nationalization leads to socialization of our economy, and socialization of our economy leads to the loss of the political and the economic freedoms of cvery American. If nationalization and social- ization of basic industry in this country ever come to pass, then we, the people, will become the servants, not the masters, of our Government. I am introducing a seizure bill tonight, Mr. President, be- cause I think it will act as a backfire, a check, against proposals for nationaliza- tion. I happen to be one who believes that if these economic emergencies con- tinue to arise periodically in the coal in- dustry, the Communists and the leftists and the radical agitators in this country will seek to take advantage of that situa- tion to spread their propaganda for the nationalization and socialization of basic industry in this country. I do not want to play into their hands. I want the Congress of the United States to take some steps which I think 2649 will check them in their propaganda, by bringing the coal industry under the same legal theory tha: we apply to other public utilities in this country. So, Mr. President, at this time I intro- duce, and ask to have referred to the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, a bill providing a procedure for seizure of the coal mines. I ask to have the bill printed at this point in the Recorp, as a part of my remarks. There being no objection, the bill (8. 3169) to amend the Labor-Management Relations Act, 1947, so as to provide a more effective method of dealing with labor disputes in vital industries which affect the public interest, introduced by Mr. Morse, was received, read twice by its title, referred to the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, and ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Be it enacted, etc., That sections 206 and 207 of the Labor Management Rokations Act, 1947, are amended to read as follows: “Sec. 206. Whenever the President finds that a national emergency is threatened or exists because a stoppage of work has re- sulted or threatens to result from a labor dispute (including the expiration of a cullece tive-bargaining agreement) in a vital indus- try which affects the public interest, he shall issue a proclamation to that effect and call upon the parties to the dispute to refrain from a stoppage of work, or if such stoppage has occurred, to resume work and operations in the public interest. “EMERGENCY BOARDS “Sec. 207. (a) After issuing such a procla- mation the President shall promptly appoint a board to be known as an ‘emergency board.’ “(b) Any emergency board appointed un- der this section shall promptly investigate the dispute, shall seek to induce the parties to reach a settlement of the dispute, and in any event shall, within a period of time to be determined by the President but not more than 30 days after the appointment of the board, make a report to the President, unless the time 1s extended by agreement of the parties, with the approval of the board. Such report shall include the find- ings and recommendations of the board and shall be transmitted to the parties and be made public. The Director of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service shall provide for the board such stenographic, clerical, and other assistance and such facili- ties and services as may be necessary for the discharge of its functions. “(c) An emergency board shall be com-~ posed of a chairman and such other members as the President shall determine, and shall have power to sit and act in any place within the United States and to conduct such hear- ings elther in public or in private, as it may deem necessary or proper, to ascertain the facts with respect to the causes and circum- stances of the dispute. “(d) Members of an emergency board shall receive compensation at the rate of $75 for each day actually spent by them in the work of the board, together with necessary travel and subsistence expenses. “(e) For the purpose of any hearing or in- quiry conducted by any board appointed un- der this title, the provisions of sections 9 and 10 (relating to the attendance of wit- nesses and the production of books, papers, and documents) of the Federal Trade Com- mission Act of September 16, 1914, as amended (U. 8. C. 19, title 15, secs, 49 and 50, as amended), are hereby made applicable to the powers and duties of suck. board. “(f) Each emergency board shall continue in existence after maling its report for such time as the national emergency continues for the purpose of mediating the dispute, should the parties requcst its cervices. When a
2650 board appointed under this section has been dissolved, its records shall be transferred to the Dircctor of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. “(g) A separate emergency board shall bo appointed “or each dispute. No member of an emerrency board shall be pecuntarily or otherwise interested in any organization of employees or in any employer involved in the dispute ” Src 2 Sections 208, 209, and 210 of such act are amended to reac as follows. “PROCEDURE FOLLOWING PROCLAMATION “Sec. 208 (a) At any time after issuing a proclamation pursuant to section 208 the President inay submit to the Congress for consideration and appropriate action a full statement of the case together with such recommendations as he may see fit to make. “(b) In any case in which a strike or lock- out occurs or continues after the issuance of the proclamation pursuant to section 206 the President shall submit immediately to the Congress for consideration and appro- priate action a full statement of the case, including the report of the emergency board if such report has been made, and such rec- ommendations as he may sce fit to make, including a recommendation that the United States take possession of and operate the businessenterprise or enterprises in- volved in the dispute If the President rec- ommends that the United States shall take possession of and operate such enterprise or enterprises, the President shall have author- ity to take such action unless the Congress by concurrent resolution within 5 days after the eubmission of such recommendation to the Congiess determines that such action should not be taken or enacts legislation de- signed to resolve the dispute and terminate the national emergency if Congress finds such an emergency exists: Provided, That during the period in which the United Stutes shall have taken possession, the Fedcral Me- diation and Conciliation Service and the emergency board shall continuc to encourage the settlement of the dispute by the par- ties concerned, and the egency or depart- ment of the United States designated to operate such enterprise or enterprises shall have no authority to enter into negotiations with the employer or with any labor organt- zation for a collective-bargaining contract or to alter the wages, hours, or the conditions of employment existing In such industry prior to the dispute, except in conformity with the :ecommendations of the emergency board or a concurrent resolution of the Congress If the Congress or either House thereof shall have adjourned sine die or for a period longer than 3 days, the Presi- dent shall convene the Congress, or such House for the purpose of consideration of an appropriate action pursuant to such state- ment and recommendations Provided fur- ther, That the act entitled ‘An act to amend the Judicial Code and to define and limit the jurisdiction of courts sitting in equity, and for other purposes’ (Norris-LaGuardia Act), approved March 24, 1932 (U 8 C.,, title 29, secs 101-115), shall be applicable to the United States acting under the provisions of this title unless Congress by concurrent resolution provides otherwise in the particu- lar case. “Src. 209 (a) In the event that the Gov- ernment chall take possession of and operate any business enterprise or enterprises in- volved in a given dispute, the President shall designate the agency or department of Gov- ernment which shall take possession of any business enterprise or enterprises including the properties thereof involved in the dispute and all other asscts of the enterprise or cnter- prises necessary to such continued operation thercof as will protect tho national health or safety. “(b) Any enterprise or properties of which possession has been taken under this title shall be returned to the owners thereof 4s CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE soon as (1) sch owners have reached an agrecment with the representatives of the employees in such enterprise settling the issues in dispute between them, or (2) the President finds that the continued posses- sion and operation of such enterprise by the United States is no longer necessary under the terms of the proclamation provided for in section 206: Provided, That possession by the United States shall be terminated not later than 60 days after the issuance of the report of the emergency board unless the period of possession is extended by con- current resolution of the Congress “(c) During the period in which posses- sion of any enterprise has been taken un- der this title, the United States shall hold all income received from the operation there- of in trust for the payment of general oper- ating expenses, just compensation to the Owners as hereinafter provided in this sub- section, and reimbursement to the United States for expenses incurred by the United States in the operation of the enterprise. Any income remaining shall be covered into the Treasury of the United States as miscel- laneous reccipts. In determining just com- pensation to the owners oi the enterprise, due consideration shall be given to the fact that the United States took possession of such enterprise when its operation had been interrupted by a work stoppage or that a work stoppage was imminent, to the fact that the owners or the labor organization. as the case may be, have failed or refused to comply with the recommendations oi the emergency board or the conditions deter- mincd by the Congress to constitute a just settlement of the dispute; to the fact that the United States would have returned such enterprise to its owners at any time when an agreement was reached settling the is- sues involved in such work stoppage, and to the value the use of such enterplise would have had to its owners in the light of the labor dispute prevailing, had they remained in possession during the period of Govern- ment operation “(d) Whenever any enterprise is in tho poesession of the United States under this section, it shall be the duty of any labor organization of which any employees who have been employed in the cperation of such enterprise are members, and ol the officers of such labor organization, to seek in good faith to induce such employees to refrain from a stoppage of work and not to engage in any strike, slow-down, or other concerted refusal to work, or stoppage of work, and if such stoppage of work has occurred, to seek in good faith to induce such employces to return to work and not to engage in any strike, slow-down, or other concerted refusal to work or stoppage of work while sucn en- terprise is in the possession of the United States. “(e) During the period in which posscs- sion of any enterprise has been taken by the United States under this section, the em- ployer or employers or their duly designated representatives and the representatives of the employees in such enterprise shall be obligated to continue collective bargaining for the purpose of settling the issues in the dispute between thein. “(f) (1) The President may appoint a compensation board to determine the amount to be paid as just compensation under this section to the owner of any enter- prise of which possession is taken. [Yor the purpose of any hearing or inquiry conducted by any such board the provisions relating to the conduct of hearings or inquiries by emergency boards as provided in section 207 of this title are hereby made applicable to any such hearing or inquiry. The members of compensation boards shall be appointed and compensated in accordance with the Provisions of section 207 of this title. “(2) Upon appointing such compensation board the President shall make provision as MarcH 2 may be necessary for stenographic, clericas, and other assistance and such facilities, serv- ices, and supplies as may be necessary to enable the compensation board to perform its functions. “(3) The award of the compensation board shall be final and binding upon the parties, unleas within 80 days after the issuance of said award, either party moves to have the said award set aside or modified in the United States Court of Claims in accordance with the rules of said court. “Sec. 210. When a dispute arleing under this title has been finally settled, the Presti- dent shall submit to the Congress a fu!! and comprehensive report of all the proceedings, together with such recommendations as he may sec fit to make.” Src 8 (a) The amendment made by the first section of this act shall not apply with respect to any dispute existing on the date of enactment of this act. (b) The amendment meade by section 2 of this act shall apply with respect to any dis- pute existing on the date of enactment of thie act, and for such purposes (1) any reference in such amendment to an emer- gency board shall be deemed to refer to any existing board of inquiry appointed pursuant to section 206 of the Labor Management Re- lations Act, 1947, and (2) a proclamation au- thorized to be issued pursuant to section 206 of such act, as amended by this act, shall be deemed to have been issued in any case in which any such board of inquiry has been appointed. Sec 4 The provisions of this act shall not be applicable with respect to any matter which is subject to the provisions of the Ratlway Labor Act, as amended from time to time Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, Ict me enumerate briefly the salient poinis of the bill: First, the bill provides for the appoint- ment by the President of an emergency board whenever he finds, and issues a proclamation to that effect, that a dis- pute exists or threatens in a vita! indus- try affecting the public interes’. Mr. President, you will notice as I read an outline of the major points of the bill, that the principles of the bill are 1d nti- cal in nature with the principles of the amendment I offered in the first session of the Eighty-fiist Congress for the handling of emergency disputes. We did not adopt the amendment, as the Presiding Officer well knows, but I am Satisfied that had we passed it, and if it were the law on the books today, we would not be confronted with the coal crisis which America faces tonight. “Well,” someone may say, “what makes you think, if the miners, as individual workers, refuse to work in the mines under an injunction handed down in accordance with the provisions of the Tait-Hartley law, that they would work under your bill, if the Government seized the coal mines, in accordance with the procedures of your bill? It is a fair ques- tion, but my answer is this: I have no question about the patriotism of the mine workers of America. As I have said be- fore, it is quite a different thing to ask free Americans to go into the mines and mine coal for the Government of the United States, with the American flag flying over the mines, from giving them a choice of either mining coal under an injunction in accordance with the in- structions and orders of a private em- ployer, on the basis of the wages and hours and conditions of employment that