1950 and has asked for present consideration of one of them, which the clerk will state by title. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, @ par- Namentary inquiry. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator will state it, Mr. WHERRY. Is the bill printed? Mr. TYDINGS. Yes, it is printed. Mr. WHERRY. Is it available for dis- tribution? Mr. TYDINGS. Yes; itisavailable. I do not know where copies of it are, but the bill has been printed, and we have had it in our committee for some time. Mr. WHERRY. I wonder if we can- not have a discussion of the bill until we find whether copies are available. Mr. TYDINGS. It is a short bill, and I can read {it in 2 minutes. Does the Senator want me to read it, or does he wish to have the clerk read it? The VICE PRESIDENT. The clerk says it is a short bill and that he can read it in 2 minutes. Mr. WHERRY. The Senator from Nebraska has no objection to the present consideration of the bill. If there are other Members on this side of the aisle who wish to object, I feel they should be given an opportunity to do so. Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. President, this is a measure with which I am fa- miliar—— Mr. MAGNUSON. No; I will say to the Senator that this is not our measure. Mr. CAPEHART. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, I wish to make one statement and then I shall be glad to yield. All the bill does is to extend the enlistment of men who are now in the Army, for 1 year, to prevent the loss of trained personnel, until we can supply the vacancies, 300,000 of which will be created, with men who in the meantime have been trained to take their places. Mr. CAPEHART. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. TYDINGS. I yield. Mr. CAPEHART. We did the same thing in World War II, did we not? Mr. TYDINGS. Yes; we did. Mr. WHERRY. Will the Senator yield? Mr. TYDINGS. I yield. Mr. WHERRY. I did not quite under- stand the Senator. As I understood, he said that the bill had been reported from the Armed Services Committee unani- mously. Mr. TYDINGS. That is correct. Mr. WHERRY. Was the minority represented with respect to the measure? Mr. TYDINGS. The minority mem- bers were all present except qne, as I recall; and we were unanimous, not only in reporting the measure, but in realizing the seriousness of the situation, and the need for quick action upon it. Mr. WHERRY. I should like to have the Senator explain the measure. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Secre- tary will state the bill by title for the in- formation of the Senate. The Leotstative Cierx. A bill (8, 8987) to authorize the President to ex- tend enlistments in the Armed Forces of the United States, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE The VICE PRESIDENT, The Sena- tor from Maryland asks unanimous con- sent that the unfinished business be tem- porartily laid aside, and that Senate bill 3937 be given present consideration. Is there objection? Mr. DONNELL. Mr, President, I shall not object, but could we have the bill read? The Senator said it would take only 2 minutes to read it. Mr. TYDINGS. That is correct. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Secre- tary will read the bill. The legislative clerk read the bill (8. 3937), as follows: Be it enacted, etc., That until July 9, 1961, the President shall be authorized to extend all enlistments in any component of the Army of the United States, the United States Navy, and the United States Marine Corps, including the Naval Reserve and the Marine Corps Reserve, and in any component of the Air Force of the United States for a period of not to exceed 12 months: Provided, That all persons whose terms of enlistments are ex- tended in accordance with the provisions of this act shall continue during such exten- sions to be subject in all respects to the lawe and regulations for the government of their respective service, Src. 2. Personnel of the uniformed serv- ices entitled to benefits under section 515 of the Career Compensation Act of 1949 (63 Stat. 831) shall not suffer any reduction In total compensation by reason of any extended service performed under the terms of this act. Bec 3. That portion of section 1422 of the Revised Statutes (18 Stat. 484) which reads as follows: “All persons who shall be so de- tained beyond their terms of enlistment or who shall, after the termination of their enlistment, voluntarily reenter to serve until the return to an Atlantic of Pacific port of the vessel to which they belong, and their regular discharge therefrom, shall receive for the time during which they are so detained, or shall so serve beyond their original terms of enlistment, an addition of one-fourth of their former pay:”, shall be suspended with respect to enlistments extended in accord- ance with this act. Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, I should like to say that all the bill does is what we have done heretofore in periods of imminent danger, such as that which confronts the Nation now. Just before World War II broke out, in 1941, we ex- tended the enlistments and made other provisions to take care of a similar emer- gency. Enactment of the bill is vitally needed to keep the defenses of our coun- try up to standard, until the intermedi- ate measures which will come along from now on will overtake this situation and make it no longer necessary. The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there ob- jection to the present consideration of the bill? Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me for a question? Mr, TYDINGS. I yield. Mr. LANGER. In World War I and in World War II was similar action taken before war was declared? Mr. TYDINGS. Yes; in World War IT at any rate. I do not know about World War I. Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. TYDINGS. I yield. Mr, AIKEN. Will the Senator ex- plain the last section? Does it provide 10793: for an increase of 25 percent tn pay if the men are kept beyond the period of enlistment? Mr. TYDINGS, I did not quite un- derstand the Senator. Mr. AIKEN. What is the meaning of the last provision of the bill? As it was read it would seem to me that there would be an increase of 25 percent in pay. Is that what it means, or what does it mean? Mr. TYDINGS. That section has been suspended, because it provides for keep. ing men on particular ships. We do not want to keep men on particular ships. That is a peacetime measure, Mr. AIKEN. I see. Mr. TYLINGS. And it was necessary to suspend that language along with the other provisions with respect to the Navy. Mr. AIKEN. Unfortunately the Sen- ator from Vermont did not hear the quotation marks in the reading. The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there ob- jection to the present consideration of the bill? Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, since the matter came up, two questions have arisen which a Senator who is not on the floor would like to ask. I wonder if the Senator from Maryland would with- hold his request for immediate consider- ation until the other bill is discussed, and by the time action is taken on that I think we will have the Senator in ques- tion present. Mr. TYDINGS. I shall be glad to withhold my request. I should like to add that I appreciate the courtesy of those in charge of the unfinished busi- ness for permitting it to be laid aside temporarily, The bill I have reported is an important piece of legislation, and I certainly trust that before we adjourn or recess today we may have the bill considered and enacted into law. Mr. MORSE. Myr. President, this bill was taken up in the Armed Services Committee this morning with the follow~ ing Republicans present: Bripers, Gur- NEY, SALTONSTALL, and Morse. As a re= sult of some suggestions made by Mem- bers on the Republican side of the aisle, particularly suggestions made by the able Senator from South Dakota [Mr, Gurney], the bill was modified in cers tain particulars, and comes to the Sen- ate with the unanimous recommenda- tion of the committee. Mr. WHERRY. What were the modi- fications? That is one of the things I want to know. Mr. TYDINGS. I believe the Senator from Oregon has the other bill in mind, if he will allow me to correct him. The bill we are now discussing is the one extending the period of enlistment. There was a companion bill discussed. Mr. MORSE, What the Senator from Oregon had in mind was not the modi- fication of the language of the bill, but the understanding we reached that if and when legislation was passed in re- gard to family allotments, they should automatically be extended to these men whose service would be extended under the bill now being discussed.
10794 Mr. TYDINGS. That is correct, al- though that does not appear in the bill. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, I withdraw any objection. Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, I ask for immediate consideration of the bill. The VICE PRESIDENT, The Senator from Maryland asks unanimous consent that the unfinished business be tempo- rarily laid aside and that Senate bill 3937 be immediately considered. Is there objection? There being no objection, the bill (8. 3937) to authorize the President to extend enlistments in the armed forces of the United States was considered, or- dered to be engrossed for a third reading, read the third time, and passed. CONTROL OF ANCHORAGE AND MOVE- MENT OF FOREICN-FLAG VESSELS IN WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, on behalf of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce I report Senate bill 3859, and I submit a report (No. 2118) thereon. I ask unanimous con- sent that the unfinished business be temporarily laid aside and that the Sen- ate proceed to the immediate considera- tion of the bill The VICE PRESIDENT. The bill will be stated by title for the information of the Senate The Lecistative CierK. A Dill (8S. 3859) to authorize the President to con- trol the anchorage and movement of foreign-flag vessels in waters of the United States when the national security of the United States is endangered, and for other purposes. The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there ob- jection to the request of the Senator from Washington [Mr. Macnuson]? Mr. KEM. Myr. President, reserving the right to object, I should like an op- portunity to address the Senate, The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair will say to the Senator from Missouri that he was advised there were certain matters which needed to be considered immediately. The Chair has the Sena- tor from Missouri in mind to be recog- nized in his own nmght as soon as it is proper to do so. Mr. KEM, That is entirely satisfac- tory. The VICE PRESIDENT, The Senator from Michigan is also anxious to be rec- ognized. The Chair will recognize Sen- ators as he can. Mr. KEM, Mr, President, I wish to say that I should like very much to be recognized when this bill is passed. I have a particular reason for wishing to be recognized, namely, I wish to make a statement in the nature of a reply to the attack made yesterday by the eminent Senator from Maryland on those who have voted for a reduction in funds for the Marshal! plan I should like to have an opportunity to say what I have to say while the distinguished Senator from Maryland is on the floor. I know he has manifold duties and many demands on his time and on his attention; but, as I have told him personally before this time, I should like very much to say what I have to say on this matter while he is present in the Senate Chamber, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr, TYDINGS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Washington has the floor. Does he yield to the Senator from Maryland? Mr, MAGNUSON. I yield. Mr. TYDINGS. Let me inquire for what purpose the Senator from Missouri wishes me to remain. Mr. KEM. So that the Senator from Maryland may be advised personally of what I have to say in reply to what I consider to have been an entirely un- warranted attack on Senators who in good faith have supported a reduction in Marshall plan aid. Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, I shall deny myself that pleasure, but perhaps I shall later reply to the Senator in my own time. However, I do not care to remain on the floor of the Senate to listen to speeches to which I do not care to listen, because I can tell what they will be with- out hearing them. Mr, MAGNUSON. Mr. President, I hope we shall act promptly on this bill. It is an emergency matter. Mr. KEM. Mr. President, I withdraw my objection, with the expression of the hope that I shall be recognized when the bill is passed. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, reserv- ing the right to object, let me say that I shall not object unless consideration of the bill takes an undue amount of time. If it does, then I shall have to ask unan- imous consent that the further consid- eration of the bill be suspended, if the Senator will cooperate in that respect. Mr. MAGNUSON. I shall be glad to cooperate. Mr. KEM. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, let me say that I shall not object if it is understood that when the bill is passed or otherwise dis- posed of I shall be recognized by the Chair. Otherwise, I shall object. The VICE PRESIDENT. Under the rules, the recognition of Senators is in the discretion of the Chair. Earlier today the Chair was handed by the Senator from Nebraska a list of Senators on the minority side who de- sired to speak. The Chair understands that all of them have spoken now except the Senator from Missouri and the Sen- ator from Michigan. It is immaterial to the Chair which of those two distinguished Senators is rec- ognized first. However, if it 1s agreeable to the Senator from Michigan, the Chair is willing to recognize the Senator from Missouri first, and is willing to make that statement now, so that the bill can be disposed of. Mr. McFARLAND. Mr. President, re- serving the right to object, I simply wish to say that I think a poor precedent would be established if any Senator were to demand that he be recognized as a condition of giving consent for the con- sideration by the Senate of an impor- tant measure. I am willing to have the distinguished Senator from Missouri have the floor fol- lowing the consideration of this bill; but I hope he wil] not make such a request. I hope he will be willing to trust to the good judgment of uhe President of the JULY 21 Senate, and will recognize that the re- quest he has made would, if granted, es- tablish a poor precedent for the Senate to follow. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, I un- derstood the distinguished occupant of the Chair to say that he would recognize the Senator from Missouri if there was no objection on the part of the Senator from Michigan. The VICE PRESIDENT. That is cor- rect, As Senators know, the Chair does not keep a list of Senators whom he has pri- vately agreed to recognize, The Chair has never thought such a practice was proper. However, the Chair has publicly stated that when this bill is out of the way, the Chair will recognize the Senator from Missouri, if that is agreeable to the Sen- ator from Michigan |Mr. Fercuson]. Mr. CORDON. Mr, President-—— Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, I hope the Senator from Oregon will per- mit me to explain the bill first. Mr. President, this is a bill of an emer- gency nature. The bill would authorize the President to control the anchorage and movements of foreign-flag vessels in waters of the United States when the national security of the United States is endangered. The bill would apply to all the harbors of the United States and its Territories Under the present situation, the Presi- dent would have to declare a complete emergency in order to be able to take care of this problem, which is vital to the security of the Nation. The enact- ment of this measure will allow the Presi- dent to declare a limited emergency, as applicable to the area around the water- fronts. There is now no existing law which would prohibit a foreign vessel, flying a foreign flag, from entering the harbors of our country, which usually are sur- rounded by great cities, even if such ves- sel were at the time carrying any type of weapon—whether an atomic bomb or bacteria or anything else—and thus could do a great deal of damage and harm in a sneak attack on our country. The purpose of the bill is to prevent such a thing happening. Furthermore, the bill will allow the President to invoke security measures on the waterfronts—that is to say, around the docks. In my opinion, the bill will have the dual effect of helping clean out whatever subversive influences may exist around the waterfronts and of protecting the country from sneak attacks of the sort I have mentioned. Some of the last strongholds of the Communists in this country exist in some of the water- front unions, despite the efforts of pa- triotic maritime labor leaders to clean out some of those unions. Under the provisions of this bill, the President could, and probably would, call on the Coast Guard, the FBI, or such other Government agencies as he might wish to use, to give us such waterfront security. So, Mr. President, the prompt enact- ment of this measure is vita:. Of course we know that if enemy air- planes were to fly over our country, they
1950 might do considerable harm to our coun- try or to some of our cities. However, at the present time there is no way to check on what might be shipped aboard a for- ign vessel entering a port of the United States. The customs officials are not particularly trained in regard to such matters, for they simply go to the skip- pers of incoming vessels and ask, “What do you have on board?” The reply perhaps would be, “10,000 bushels of wheat.” The inspector would look into the hold of the ship, but that is about as far as his inspection would go. Today we still trade with Russia; Rus- sian ships are entering our ports without any security investigation. This measure will give the President the authority to invoke the same kind of security measures which were invoked in World War I and in World War I. Mr. O'CONOR. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield to me, let me inquire whether it is a fact that all the defense authorities, including the Coast Guard, the Attorney General, the Army, and the Navy, ask for the enactment of this measure, Mr. MAGNUSON. Yes. I appreciate the suggestion the Senator has made. Mr. President, the Department of De- fense, the Attorney General, the Treas- ury Department—which at the present time is in charge of the Coast Guard— and the Department of Labor, are all in- terested in the matter of subversives around the waterfronts; and all those Government agencies not only have en- dorsed this measure, but they say it is important as it relates to a great emer- gency, and they say the bill should be enacted immediately. Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. MAGNUSON, I yield. Mr. BREWSTER. I wish to endorse most heartily what the Senator from Washington has said, and I do so in behalf of the minority members of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. This situation fllustrates the wisdom of the advice gtven by Bernard Baruch, namely, that we should have on the statute books, as statute Jaw, appropri- ate measures to enable the President, under direction of the Congress, to take proper action under such circumstances. So I hope this measure will be enacted promptly. Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- sent to have printed at this point in the Recorp the latest discussion of this matter by Mr. Bernard Baruch. I refer to excerpts from an address delivered by Mr. Baruch at Columbia University on May 18. There being no objection, the excerpts from the address were ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: [From the New York Herald Tribune of July 16, 1950} Mar. Bagucn on Toran Mosiuization—A Pao- GRAM ror AtL-Ovr DEFENSE or THE UniTED Stares Proraren Berore tHE Korean Crisis In World War I we satied an uncharted gen. We had to find our way by trial and error. When we were finished, we had wrung Hindenburg’s admission, “Her brilliant, if Pitiless, war industry had entered the serv~- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE ice of patriotism and had not fatled it. * * © They understood war.” But when World Wer II began, those in command threw away the charts we had left. Repeating the mis- takes of the past, they eventually drifted back to what had been recommended orig- inally, The war was won, but only after a terrible cost in the needless prolongation of the struggle and a needless toll of blood and treasure, T would not bring up this record of the past except for two reasons. First, one ob- ject of this seminar is to see that these mis- takes are not repeated again in event of another war—which all of us hope can be prevented. Then there is grave doubt whether the mobilization lessons of both world wars have actually been learned. Only recently, for example, it was pro- posed that a selective-service law be enacted on a stand-by basis, to go into effect on proclamation of the President and the Con- gress Nothing was said about putting other mobilization measures into law on a stand-by basis as well. The draft of our young men was to be put on the statute books by itself. Nowhere have I heard a voice raised in protest against the shocking immorality of this proposal. Our youth would be put on notice that they may be called into service, their education and careers interrupted, but none of the propertied interests would be put on call, Are profits, prices, wages, and other seg- ments of society more sacred? I cannot imagine that that is the feeling of Congress. I can only conclude that the les- son of the last two wars, which was 60 costly, has been forgotten. Were another war to come we would have to mobilize not only our young men but the entire Nation, our whole economic and industrial power—men, money, farms, factories, mines—all our resources, spiritual as well es material. I believe we need a stand-by selective-service law, to be ready for any emergency, but it must be part of a total program of mobilization readiness, It cannot stand alone. Without such a total mobilization program on the statute books, ready to be put into operation overnight, the risks and costs of war are greatly and needlessly increased What prevents the outbreak of another war? It is not primarily American posses- sion of atomic weapons, although that is im- portant. The greatest single deterrent to war is the memory of the crushing military might this country mobilized and transport- ed to every part of the world in the last war. At the height of that conflict we produced nearly as many tanks, airplanes, ships, and other munitions as the rest of the world combined. We can be sure that will not be forgotten by any potential enemy plotting aggression. But we can also be sUre no po~ tential warmaker will forget that it took roughly 244 years to convert our energies from peace to all-out war production. There is only one war plan any aggressor can have—to seek to overwhelm us during that “too little and too late” period while our military power 1s still “on order.” The longer the time lag in our mobilization that the enemy can count on, the more invit- ing a target for attack we become—the great- er the danger that we may not reach our allies in time, should they be attacked. Of course, this time gap cannot be closed completely. Because of that we must main- tain a military force capable of instant re- taliation and of holding a safe line of de- fense until we have time to mobilize. To the degree that we narrow the time lag in our mobilization our military forces oan be safely reduced, At least a year could be cut off that time lag by enacting into law now a stand-by mobilization program. Were that done our security and that of all free peoples would be appreciably strengthened. Nor would this 10795 action require any additional defense ex- penditures. All that it requires is the cour- age to put into law now what we know would have to be done in event of war. Hitler gambled on our delay in mobilizga- tion and almost won. With ever-quickened weapong of destruction—airplanes of super- sonic speed, atomic weapons, rockets—a re- petition of the delays of the past could prove fatal, To wait until bombs aro falling he- fore we begin to legislate may cause the loss of the war. It tempts the aggressor into gambling on overwhelming us with some blitz attack before we are able to mobilize. As all.of you know, preparation for a modern War begins many years before the actual start of hostilities. The modern ag- gressor regiments his economy long before there is any actual shooting. He stockplles weapons, stores raw materials, converts his factorles—while there still is so-called peace. In the case of mobilization, our procrastl- nation is all the more tragic, since nothing ts to be gained by 4 failure to act. What should be done is a0 evident We do not have to wait for someone to devise a “perfect” plan, Let us write into law now, on a stand- by basis, all the measures which were proven necessary in the last war, That is the mini- roum we should get on the statute books at once. Then were war to come, we should start from where we left off, instead of re- peating the old mistakes. With this minimum in law, the National Security Resources Board could work stead- ily to improve the mobilization program. Studies to implement mobilization legisla- tion are fine. What I oppose is making s0- called studies merely to avoid action, as @ cover for a lack of political courage. Irespect the abilities and courage of Stuart Symington, the new Chairman of the Nae tional Security Resources Board. I hope he can at last take the Board off the “dead center” of inaction on which it has been for so long, 2 dead center so perilous to our secu- rity. The first necessity Is to get a sound mobilization program on tho law booka, That is the real test of how effective the Security Resources Board will be permitted to become. The issue is a simple one—are we going to stop talking and take action? Specifically a sound mobilization program requires, among other things. An impartial selective service law, with a work-or-fight clause; A readied civilian defense; The elimination of profiteering; An over-all ceiling on all prices, rents, Wages, and other costs to prevent the inflae tion that could wreck any mobilization; Higher taxee; Power to curtail less essential production to give priority to military and essential civilian needs; Organization of manpower to direct It where most needed, with an index of all ¢s- sential skilis and training facilities; Rationing of scarce essentials; A comprehensive system of economic de- fense controlling all imports and exports. This stand-by mobilization program would not specify the weapons to be produced nor the size of the armed forces to be raised, The objective would be to provide the organi- zation so that in case of emergency all our resources can be pooled and tapped with a minimum of delay, whatever the weapons to be manufactured, whatever the size Army, Navy, or Air Force. The military should be able to get what it needs, when needed, with the least dislocation to the civilian economy. And, as I have emphasized, all these meas~ ures must go together as part of one whole. One alibi often put forward for neglecting our mobilisation readiness is that it “‘will militarize the country.” This is like oppos- ing the Installation of a fire-alarm system on grounds that it will cause fire. The mo- bdilization program I have proposed is not in- tended to take effect tmmedistely. These
10796 Jaws would be placed on the statute books, ready to be put into operation in an emer- gency upon joint proclamation of the Presi- dent and Congress—not the President alone, but the President and Congress acting to- gether Like the fire department, these laws would be ready for action if the alarm went of There will always be some who counsel, “Jet's walt until war comes and see whether these controls are necessary.” There will always be some who try to weaken whatever mobilization controls are suggested to exempt their own interests, to leave profits un- touched, wages free, prices uncontrolled, taxes too low. The test of a soundenobiliza- tion progrom fs that it disciplines all pres- sure groups and all selfish interests for the sake of the national interest. To prevent war is our first objective. Our second objective must be to win any war forced upon us Both these objectives are served by enacting a standby mobilization law now. Both these objectives are need- lessly weakened by not doing 80. The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there ob- jection to the request that the unfinished business be temporarily laid aside and that the Senate proceed to the immedi- ate consideration of Senate bill 3859? The Chair hears none. There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill (S. 3859) to authorize the President to control the anchorage and movement of foreign-fiag vessels in waters of the United States when the national security of the United States 1s endangered, and for other pur- poses, which had been reported from the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce with amendments. The first amendment of the commit- tee will be stated. ' Mr MAGNUSON. Mr. President, first Jet me state that on page 2 there are two new committee amendments, strik- ing out certain words which the com- muttee has unanimously agreed should be stricken out Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, let me inquire whether the Senator polled the committee in regard to the bill? Mr MAGNUSON. Yes. Mr. WHERRY. Did the Senator also poll the committee in regard to the amendments? Mr. MAGNUSON. Yes. The Senator from Maine will agree with me as to that, I am. sure. Mr. BREWSTER. Yes. Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr, President, the first two committee arnendments are merely technical in character, The VICE PRESIDENT. The first committee amendment will be stated. The LecisuaTive CLERK. On page 2, in line 6, after the word “necessary”, it i3 proposed to strike out ‘in his opinion.” Mr. CORDON. Mr. President, reserv- ing the right to object—— The VICE PRESIDENT. At this time there is no right to object, for the bill is before the Senate, and the clerk has read the first committee amendment. Mr. CORDON. However, Mr. Presi- dent, some time ago I attempted to catch the eye and ear of the Vice President, in order to state that I reserved the right to object to the request to lay aside the unfinished business and proceed to con- sider this measure. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair did not hear or see the Senator do so. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE The Chair asked whether there was ob- jection to the request that the unfinished business be temporarily laid aside and that the Senate proceed to the immedi- ate consideration of this bill. The Chair heard no objection. Mr. CORDON. Mr. President, I spoke to the senior Senator from Washington in regard to an objection I had, and he requested me to withhold it until he could make a statement. I thought I had reserved the right to object or an opportunity to reserve that right and to object. Certainly I wish to reserve the right to object. The VICE PRESIDENT, The Chair did not hear the Senator, nor see him on his feet, but 1f he says he was trying to get recognition, the Chair will nullify what has happened, and give the Senator the right to be heard. Mr. MAGNUSON Mr. President, I shall be glad to yield to the Senator. Mr. CORDON. I want to know whether I have a right to object. I have not heard the ruling of the Chair. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator has been given the right to object. Mr. CORDON. Mr. President, I have just had an opportunity to glance over the proposed legislation. In my opin- jon, it should be corrected in one respect. It provides that whatever may be done in the way of security measures is to be done by regulation of the President or other agencies under his direction. The Jaw is merely notice to the people of the country that there is authority to do something, the people know not what; and they can only know what when the regulations are made. It is a legal maxim that everyone is presumed to know the law. That presumption has been held also to apply to regulations made pursuant to law. In this instance, then, there would be a presumption that everybody on the waterfront knew what these regulations were, and if anyone violated one of them, when in fact he did not even know there was such a regulation in existence, he would still be subject to the criminal penalty provided in the bill. If 1t stands as it is, I shall object to a consideration of the bill. I understand that the Senator from Washington is willing to accept an amendment to the bill to include the word “knowingly” with reference to any violation of an order. If that be the case, that would protect an innocent person who, wholly innocently and igno- rantly, may have committed a violation of some of the regulations. Mr. MAGNUSON, Mr. President I think the Senator from Oregon hes made a good suggestion. The Attorney Gen- eral drew this bill very hastily. If the Senator from Oregon will offer an amendment to include the word “know- ingly” at such places as he thinks proper, I shall be glad to accept the amendment, Mr. CORDON. Mr. President, in one moment I shall withdraw my objection, but before I do I should like to express the hope tHat those who have charge of legislation having to do with the emer- gency with which this Nation now finds itself faced will, as far as humanly pos- sible, not request unanimous-consent consideration of proposed legislation JULY 21 they bring to the floor which may often be well meant, but which may contain some defect or something vicious which was not intended and which a reason- ably careful inspection might avoid. There may be provisions in it which could be improved to the interest of the country. So I hope that Senators hav- ing charge of such measures will, so far as possible, allow them to remain on the desk at least for a day, until those who may be interested in sound legis- Jation have an opportunity at least to know what they are voting for. There will be some cases, I know, where that cannot be done. I hope that it will be done whenever possible. I withdraw my objection. The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there ob- jection to the present consideration of the bill? Mr. DONNELL Mr. President—— The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Oregon still wish the floor? Mr. CORDON. Mr. President, if it is in order, I wish to move an amendment. The VICE PRESIDENT. It is not in order until the bill is before the Senate. Is there objection to the present consid- eration of the bill? There being no objection, the Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (S. 3859) to authorize the President to control the anchorage and movement of foreign-flag vessels 1n waters of the United States when the national security of the United States is endangered, and for other purposes, which had been re- ported from the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce with amend- ments The VICE PRESIDENT. The clerk will state the first committee amend- ment. The first amendment was on page 2, line 6, after the word “necessary”, to strike out “in his opinion.” Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I desire to ask the reason for striking out those words. Let me state the point that occurs to me. If Iam in error, I am readily susceptible to correction; but I should like to state the pomt. As I see it, the effect of striking out the words “in his opinion” is to leave it as a question of fact as to whether it is in fact necessary, in order to secure the vessels, that the action may be taken; whereas, if the words ‘in his opinion” are retained, it leaves it to the President’s opinion to determine whether it is necessary. I am wonder- ing whether the committee thinks it ad- visable to make the amendment— whether the committee thinks it should be narrow, confined to the question of whether there is actual necessity, or whether the committee thinks it better to leave it to the President’s own opin- jon. That is the inquiry I should like to address to the Senator from Wash- ington. Mr. MAGNUSON. I may say to the Senator from Missouri that the Senator from Maine was somewhat concerned, not about giving the President the au- thority, but that a subversive might be picked up on the waterfront who might go into court and even subpena the President, for the purpose of determin- ing whether the facts supported his
1959 opinion that he should declare a water- front emergency. The Senator from Maine and I agree that the bill would not be damaged in any way by striking out those words, and that it might make clear what we really intended, Mr. BREWSTER, Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. MAGNUSON. I yield. Mr. BREWSTER. This _ restriction appears both in line 6 and in line 13, where it reads ‘‘not especially author- ized by him” I raised the question in both instances, because it is quite ob- vious that the President of the United States would be a little too busy to have an opinion about this ship or about pro- tecting people who go abroad. There- fore, it is another example of the tend- ency in recent years to repose all power in the President, understanding that he must necessarily delegate the authority. The tradition of America is to delegate it to the responsible authority, a Cabinet officer or some other official of the Gov- ernment, and it is contemplated that the President, in his rules and regulations, will determine who shall exercise the authority. I believe that when this bill foes to conference, appropriate language will then emerge which will be a provi- sion that it shall be determined by com- petent, recognized, or duly created au- thority; which is the way I think it should be. Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, I very much appreciate the explanation. I think it would be rather unfortunate to require as a condition precedent to the right of the President to take this action that there must be demonstrated and established as a matter of fact the ex- istence of the necessity. Mr. BREWSTER. I quite agree. Mr. DONNELL It seems to me it should be left, if not to the President, at Jeast to a responsible official to use his opinion in determining whether the ne- cessity exists I am reassured by the assurance by both Senators. The VICE PRESIDENT. Without ob- jection, the amendment is agreed to. The clerk will state the next amendment, The next amendment was, on page 2, in line 14, to strike out “by him.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, in line 18, after the word “States”, to strike out “and in Alaska, the Territory of Hawail, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands” and insert ‘‘the Canal Zone, and all territory and water, continental or insular, sub- ject to the jurisdiction of the United States,” The VICE PRESIDENT. Without ob- jection, the amendment is agreed to. The next amendment was, on page 3, in line 1, after the word “available”, to strike out “for the national defense” and insert “to the executive depart- ments ” The VICE PRESIDENT. Without ob- jection, the amendment is agreed to. The next amendment was, after line 3, to insert a new section: Sxc. 2. Section 4 of title IL of the act of June 15, 1917 (40 Stat. 220; U. 8. C., title 60, wec, 194), is amended to read as follows: “The President may employ such depart- ments, egencies, officers, or instrumentalitles XCVI- 680 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE of the United States as he may deem neces- sary to carry out the purpose of this title.” The VICE PRESIDENT. Without ob- jection, the amendment {fs agreed to. The next amendment was, on line 10, to insert a new section: Sec. 3. Section 2 of title II of the act of June 15, 1917 (40 Stat. 220; U § C, title 50, fec 192), as amended, is amended by adding at the end thereof the following subsection: “(a) If any other person fails to comply with any regulation of rule issued or order given under the provisions of this title, or obstructs or interferes with the exercise of any power conferred by this title, he shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than 10 years and may, at the discretion of the court, be fined not more than $10,000.” The VICE PRESIDENT. Without ob- jection, the amendment ts agreed to. Mr. CORDON. Mr. President, with reference to the amendment on line 10, Iam not certain as to whether the short- ened reading by the clerk included all of that section. If it did, then I want to offer an amendment. The VICE PRESIDENT. The clerk ad- vises the Chair that he read all of it. Is it an amendment to the committee amendment which the Senator wishes to offer? Mr. CORDON. I desire to offer an amendment to the committee amend- ment inserting a new section, No. 3. The VICE PRESIDENT. The commit- tee amendment having been agreed to, it will first be necessary to reconsider the vote by which the committee amend- ment was agreed to Without objection, that will be done, The Senator may now offer his amendment. Mr. CORDON. I desire to offer an amendment to section 3, on page 3, line 14, after the word “person”, to insert “knowingly”; and, in line 16, before the word “obstructs”, to insert “knowingly.” The VICE PRESIDENT. The clerk will state the amendment. The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. On page 3, line 14, after the word “person” insert “knowingly”; and in line 16, before the word “obstructs” insert the word ‘“know- ingly.” The VICE PRESIDENT. Without ob- jection, the amendment is agreed to. Without objection, the committee amendment, as amended, is agreed to. Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, if I may address an inquiry, by unanimous consent, to the distinguished Senator trom Washington, I desire to say first that I appreciate the fact that action was taken a moment ago on the amend- ment on page 3, line 1, I am asking, however, to revert to that for the pur- pose of my inquiry. It states, as amend- ed, “Any appropriation available to the executive departments shall be available to carry out the provisions of this para- graph.” It occurs to me, from a very hasty glance at it, that we may be mak- ing a mistake there. I do not know whether there is any appropriation that is available to all executive departments. Would it not be better if it should read “any appropriation available to any of the executive departments?” Mr. MAGNUSON. That would serve the same purpose. The Coast Guard, as the Senator knows, is under the Treas- ury Department, The main responsi- 10797 bility for inspection would be in the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard is not under the Department of National De- fense. I have always advocated that it should have ‘stayed there, but it went back to the Treasury Department. Mr. DONNELL. It might be that we would have to find an appropriation available to all executive departments, and there might be none such. Mr. President, I respectfully move that the Senate reconsider the action by which the amendment was agreed to, and that the amendment shall read “to any of the executive departments.” Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, TI shall be glad to accept that amendment. The VICE PRESIDENT. Without ob- jection, the action of the Senate in agreeing to the amendment will be re- considered. The clerk will state the amendment proposed by the Senator from Missouri. The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. On page 3, line 1, after the word “to”, it is pro- posed to insert ‘‘any of.” The VICE PRESIDENT. The ques- tion is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the Senator from Missouri to the committee amendment. The amendment to the amendment was agreed to The VICE PRESIDENT. The ques- tion is on agreeing to the committee amendment, as amended. The amendment as amended was agreed to The VICE PRESIDENT. The clerk will state the next amendment. The LEGISLATIVE CLERK On page 3, line 20, it is proposed to strike out the words “on or”, and in line 21, to strike out “earlier ” The amendment was agreed to. The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, read the third time, and passed, as follows: Be it enacted, eic, That section 1 of title II of the act of June 15, 1917 (40 Stat. 217; U.S C, title 50, section 191), is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new raragraph: “Whenever the President finds that the security of the United States is endangered by reason of actual or threatened war, or invasion, or of disturbances or threatened disturbances of the international relations of the United States, the President is au- thorized to institute such measures and issue such rules and revulations— “(a) to govern the anchorage and move- ment of any foreign-flag vessels in the terri- torial waters of the United States, to inspect euch vessels et any time, to place guards thereon, and, if necessary in order to secure such vessels from damage or injury, or to prevent damage or injury to any harbor or waters of the United &tates, or to secure the observance of rights and obligations to the United States, may take for such purposes full possession and control of such vessels and remove therefrom the officers and crew thereof, and all other persons not espectally authorized to go or remain on board thereof; “(9) to ecafeguard against destruction, loss, or injury from sabotage or other subversive acts, accidents, or other causes of similar nature, vessels, kerbors, ports, and water- front facilities in the United States, the Canal Zone, and all terr{tory and water, con- tinental or insular, subject to the jurlsdic- tion of the United States, Any appropriation available to any of the Executive Departments shall be available to carry out the provisions of this paragraph.”
10798 &xc. 2. Bection 4 of title IZ of the act of June 15, 1917 (40 Stat, 220; U. 8, O., title 50, section 104), is amended to read as follows: “The President may employ such depart- ments, agencies, officers, or instrumentalities of the United States as he may deem neces- sary to carry out the purpose of this title.” Src. 8. Section 2 of title II of the act of June 15, 1917 (40 Btat. 220; U.S. C., title 50, sec. 102), as amended, is amended by adding at the end thereof the following subsection: “(a) If any other person knowingly falls to comply with any regulation or rule issued or order given under the provisions of this title, or knowingly obstructs or interferes with the exercise of any power conferred by this title, he shall be punished by imprison- ment for not more than 10 years and may, at the discretion of the court, be fined not more than 810,000.” Sec. 4. The provisions of this act shall ex- pire on such date as may be specified by concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress. GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS, 1951 The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (H. R. 7786) making appro- priations for the support of the Govern- ment for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1951, and for other purposes. Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, with reference to the appropriation bill, I have two amendments on the desk. If on Monday or Tuesday of next week the section of the bill to which my amend- ments relate should be agreed to, I hope I may be permitted to discuss them after that time. The VICE PRESIDENT. If the amend- ments are to the text of the bill, it would not be in order to consider them until all committee amendments are disposed of. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Benator yield? Mr. MAGNUSON. I yield. Mr. WHERRY. I am quite satisfied that the bill will not be passed before next Tuesday. I have no objection to the Senator's request. Mr. McFARLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. MAGNUSON. I yield. Mr. McFARLAND. I doubt that the bill will pass by that time, but I hope the Senator will help to expedite its passage. Mr. WHERRY. I am satisfied that if the Senator from Washington will with- draw his request there will not be any difficulty about it. Mr. MAGNUSON. I can ask unani. mous consent upon my return. Mr. President, I withdraw my request. STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION Mr. FLANDERS. Mr. President, I sub- mit the following resolution and ask that it be received and He on the table. Whereas Report No. 2108, entitled “State Department Employee Loyalty Investigation,” as printed and distributed on July 21 differs from the report submitted to the Senate on July 20 in certain important respects, par- ticularly in being called on the cover sheet a “Report of the Committee”; and Whereas it does not appear that the Foreigh Relations Committee has adopted the report; and Whereas a false impression of the status of this report will be spread abroad by the cover which has been substituted since it was received by this body: Therefore be it CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Resolved, That said Report No. 2108 be at once withdrawn from distribution until the cover be replaced to agree with that covering the report as submitted. The VICE PRESIDENT. Without ob- jection, the resolution will be recetved. The resolution (8. Res. 316) submitted by Mr. FLanpers, was received and or- dered to lie on the table. Mr. KEM. Mr. President, I am sorry that the distinguished Senator from Maryland [Mr. Typ1ncs] has seen fit to absent himself from the Chamber, I have always understood that the free State of Maryland prided itself on its tolerance. As I understand, tolerance means an attitude of forbearance to- ward the views, opinions, and actions of others, even though one finds one- self not entirely in accord with them. I am sorry, too, that the Senator from Maryland is not here because I wanted to pay my tribute to the magnificent histrionic performance which he afford- ed us yesterday afternoon. I have al- ways enjoyed the theater, Mr. President. I think I know a good show when I see one, and the Senator’s performance was good theater from beginning to end. The decision of the Senator from Maryland to enter the field of statecraft deprived the stage of a shining luminary. The Senator compared the work of his committee with the performance of Mac- beth. In my opinion, Mr. President, that part is not exactly suited to the Sena- tor’s superb talents. I should rather see him cast in the role of the melancholy Dane. I have, however, a further sug- gestion. I think the Senator from Mary- land would make one of the outstanding Simon Legrees of all times. I can see him now, with a handlebar mustache, high boots, black-snake whip in hand, crossing a river of artificial ice, pursu- ing with inexorable fury an Uncle Tom, a Little Eva, or perhaps a Joz Mc- CarTuy. George Bernard Shaw once said that it is an extremely difficult thing to put on the stage anything which runs con- trary to the opinions of a large body of persons. I think we should bear that in mind in judging the performance of the Senator from Maryland. I think he must have known, when he spoke, that the show he was putting on ran contrary to the opinions of a large body of the American people. I think we should judge his art and his high skill with that in mind. ‘When the Senator had completed his performance yesterday I think many of us left the Chamber uncertain whether we had seen a farce, a comedy, or a tragedy. For my part, at one point, at least, the Senator, in his performance, reached high tragedy. I was sorry to see the Senator, for whom I have always had and still have a high regard, stoop to an argument unworthy of him. I refer, of course, to the argument he made that all those who in this Chamber have sup- a reduction in Marshall-plan aid ‘unds were associates of Stalin and play- ing the Communist line. I want to be perfectly fair to the Sen. ator. I shall not give any opportunity for misquotation to arise. Therefore I shall read the exact language of the JULY 21 Senator with reference to the argument to which I have referred, I read as fol- lows: My. Typrnos. Mr. President, I have in my hand an editorial or statement by Mr. Wil- Ham Z. Poster, noted Communist, writing in Political Affairs. He advocates as the major point, it seems to me, reduction of the Mar- shall-plan aid, and the cutting of the arms budget for the Atlantic Pact countries, and so forth. These are issues around which the masses can be rallied. I find that when it comes to cutting the arms aid, and cutting the Marshall-plan aid, the Senator from Indiana has a wonderful record. He has voted against the Marshall-plan aid. He has voted against the North Atlantic Secu- rity Pact. He has voted against the arms implementation of it, the arms aid to the North Atlantic Pact countries, until the other day when Korea was invaded. Then he thought jt was a good idea to get a few guns over thtre. After an interruption by the Senator from Indiana [Mr. Jennzr] the Senator from Maryland continued, as follows: While Joe Stalin was hollering “this is warmongering” and so on, and the Daily Worker was holding forth, I looked up the Senator's votes, and here they are, one after the other, always, always, always, follow- ing the same thing that Stalin ts saying, that the Daily Worker is saying, and the juntor Senator from Indiana is saying. Mr. President, Senators will recall that earlier this year the authorization bill for Marshall-plan aid was before the Senate. Several amendments to reduce the amount of the bill were offered. One of them, the amendment offered by the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Brivcrs] and by other Senators, was adopted by the Senate. The vote on the amendment reducing Marshall-plan aid authorization was 47 Senators in favor of the reduction and 33 against a reduc- tion. Mr. President, I want to ask whether the time has arrived when in the opinion of the senior Senator from Maryland the Senate of the United States is dominated by associates of the Kremlin, Joe Stalin, and those who fol- low the Communist line? That is cer- tainly the only inference that can be drawn from what the Senator from Maryland has said. I hold in my hand the ConcresstonaL Recorp of May 5, 1950, which records the vote on the amendment for the reduc- tion of Marshall-plan aid. As I said, 47 Senators voted “yea,” 38 voted “nay,” and 16 Senators did not vote. I read: “Bo Mr. Bripees’ amendment was adopted.” Mr. President, I shall not take the time of the Senate to read the entire list of the Senators who on that occasion voted for a reduction in Marshall-plan aid. The list appears in the Recory of May 5, 1950, on page 6448, Among those who voted in favor of reduction of Marshall-plan aid appear the names of many venerable Senators who have grown gray in their Nation’s service, men whose names are known, and favorably known, in every State of the Union. On that list are the names of Senators who have been re- turned many times to the Senate by the people of their respective States. Not only that, Mr, President, but there ap- pears in that list of Senators who voted
1950 against the Marshall-plan aid the names of Senators who have been honored by their colleagues in this body, and who have been raised to places of highest confidence and trust within the gift of Members of the Senate. Therefore I am prone to press the question. I am sorry the Senator from Maryland is not present. I think he said he did not think he would like my speech. What I am about to say, Mr. President, I shall say with the utmost good nature, but I feel it must be said in order to keep the Recorp clear. The Senator from Maryland accused the Senator from In- diana [Mr. JENNER] of voting the Com- munist line. He said he was an associate of Joe Stalin. The first charge on that count that he made against him was that the Senator from Indiana had voted to reduce the Marshall-plan aid. The question therefore arises—and it must be answered, Mr. President—is whether the Senator from Maryland is charging these honored and distin- guished Senators who voted to reduce Marshall-plan aid with being associates of Joe Stalin and following the Com- munist line? I do not know why the Senator from Maryland saw fit to bring Marshall-plan aid into this debate on the question of Communists in the Government. Mar- shall-plan aid is before the Senate in the appropriation bill. It has already been discussed, and I am sure before the bill is passed it will be discussed at much greater length. I think the Senator from Maryland, must know that at the pres- ent moment Marshall-plan aid is a ten- der subject with millions of Americans, It is a tender subject with the mothers of America whose sons are going out and fighting in the rice paddies of Korea, some of whom never to return. Mr. PEPPER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. KEM. I yield to the Senator from Florida for a question. Mr. PEPPER. Does the Senator ques- tion the assertion that the western de- mocracies are stronger today to resist any kind of outside aggression because of the Marshall-plan aid they have en- joyed? Mr. KEM. Mr. President, I am glad that the Senator has raised that ques- tion. Of course, the Senator knows that it is said that shortly before his death Lenin said, “We must overcome the Americans by causing them to spend themselves to their destruction.” So each day, each month, and each year that have gone by since we have em- barked on these give-away schemes all over the world we have been getting nearer to the ultimate end that Lenin had in mind. There are two reasons, Mr. President, why Marshall-plan aid is a tender sub- ject with the American people today. First, American boys are now fighting in Korea with insufficient, inadequate, and inferior equipment. We do not need: to do anything but to read the daily newspapers to know the facts. We know that our boys have been required to meet 60-ton tanks, far su- perior to any issued by our Government. We know they have been required to CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE meet these tanks with antitank guns whose bullets have fallen from the front of them like paper pellets. We know that our boys have lain in the rice paddies of Korea with insufficient and inadequate air cover. We know all these things have happened to the soldiers of & great republic which has been sending untold sums to 16 countries of western Europe. Mr. President, the second reason why the Marshall-plan aid is a sore subject with the mothers of America today is the fact that large quantities of war ma- terial are being funneled through the Marshall-plan countries into Russia and the countries behind the iron curtain. I have always believed in a strong national defense. Since I have been a Member of this body I have voted with- out exception for every appropriation for the armed services. I think in all proba- bility I shall continue to do so as long as the people of Missouri see fit to keep mehere, But I have done that with one guiding purpose in mind. I wanted to see America build a national defense so strong that no nation in the world would have the slightest temptation to attack us. When the 70-group Air Force bill was before the Senate we put the cart before the horse. We have made these prodi- gious gifts for economic aid in the coun- tries of western Europe, and then we have considered what we may do to arm ourselves, Shortly after the Marshall-plan bill was first passed in the Senate, we had under consideration the 70-group Air Force bill. One question was whether we could afford it, and it is an interest- ing coincidence that only 5 days before President Truman gave the order to start shooting in Korea the President at a press conference at the White House said we could not pay for a 70-group Air Force. Mr. President, we need a 70-group Air Force. We need adequate air cover for the boys in Korea, and it seems to me unthinkable that we should be spending our money for economic assistance in 16 countries of western Europe, and at the same time send our boys into battle with inadequate arms, insufficient matériel, and inefficient equipment. Do we seek to justify it on the ground that we can- not pay for better? Mr. President, I said a few minutes ago that it is a tender subject to the mothers of America why the countries of western Europe should be furnishing war mate- rials to Russia, and the countries behind the iron curtain, at the same time our economic aid is going to these same countries. It may be asked how I know that is a tender subject with the mothers of America. I have received many let- ters from mothers of sons who have gone and have had to go, and they wonder how in the name of common sense this thing can be taking place—that our boys are being sent into battle inadequately prepared. Mr. President, I am not going to bur- den the Senate at this time with a dis- cussion of the details. Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? 10799 Mr. KEM. I yield to the distinguished Senator from North Dakota. Mr. LANGER. I might say that I have received petitions which corroborate the very statement the Senator has just made relative to receiving letters from women all over America, I have re- ceived them also from men and from entire families who signed the petitions. Mr. KEM. Mr. President, I am ready to believe, from conversations I have had with other Senators, that perhaps there are few Members of this body who have not received from their constituents sim-~ ilar communications. I made a speech in the Senate on this subject on July 17, 1950. If the state- ments had not been true we might ex- pect a denial from the administration, But from that day to this I have not heard or seen a single word by way of denial. Mr, WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. KEM. I yield to the distinguished minority leader. Mr. WHERRY. I recall that the dis- tinguished Senator from Missouri made the speech on July 17 to which he has referred, and he not only spoke about the dollars provided for ECA but he called attention to the fact that they could be spent in the purchase of mate- rials which were sent into Red Korea to be used against our soldiers. I do not know whether it is true or not, but I heard it said on the radio last night by a news commentator that the Department of Commerce was giving greater consideration to the issuing of export licenses because it did not want to grant licenses for the shipment of stra- tegic materials to the Red Communists in China. If that is to be the attitude of the administration, that is exactly what the Senator from Missouri is ask- ing, and certainly for Senators to stand on the floor of the Senate and criticize a Senator who has voted to cut the ECA appropriation, and against scattering around the world strategic materials which we now need, which I think is voting as an American should, and to state that one who follows that course is associated with Joe Stalin, is not only inept, but the statement is simply not the truth. Mr. KEM. I thank the Senator from Nebraska for his statement. The Sena- tor from Nebraska has directed the at- tention of the Senate particularly to the fact that large quantities of petroleum and petroleum products have been shipped by the United Kingdom to Red Communist China. It redounds to the credit of the distinguished Senator from Nebraska that he brought this to the attention of the administration and the Congress. I notice in the press that the British have announced that they are going to stop such shipments. What I am discussing now are shipments of oth- er war material that is just as impor- tant and just as necessary to our war effort as petroleum. On page 10366 of the Recorp of July 17 there is set out a partial list of exports from the United Kingdom, from Belgium, Luxemburg, and France to Russia and the satellite nations during the year 1949, I ask unanimous consent that
10800 those tables be incorporated in my re- marks at this point. The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there ob- jection? There being no objection, the tables were ordered to be printed in the Rac- orp, as follows: Partial list of exports from Belgium-Luzeme- burg during 1949 to Russia and satellite nations‘ Amount Item Amount in thou- | Metrie dollars ? sands of | tons! francs Arms (to Cvechoslo- vukia)......-.---- a $6, 040 802 |. eeene Tron, cast iron, and CL) 19, 782, 840 | 989,142 | 151,749 Copper. 11, 028, 820 | 551, 441 23, 523 + -| 1, 588, 160 70, 158 4, 830 Zinc......---- -| 3, 003, 780 { 150, 189 10, 413 Tin 2... tee 041, 060 47, 053 485 Other base metals and alloys 22 00. pees 1, 387, 300 69, 368 623 Boilers, machinery, inechanical  appara- tus, and appliances, and parts......-. ---- 7, 937, 880 | 306, 894 6, 273 Electrical machinery and sppsratus, and articles for electro- technical use, and parts......----------- 5, 840, 660 | 292, 083 j......... Railway and tramway roiing stock and material.......-..--.- 430,600} 21, 530 872 Optical, measuring, recision, and other instruments and ap- paraius peeeee er aceeee 2, 480 124 |....----- Chemica] products. ...- 1, 708, 540 85, 477 8, 573 Explosives, flreworkr, matches, and other inflammable mate- Tials.. 222-2. eee wee 1, 447, 960 72, 308 2,014 Rubber and manufac- SUPOS. 22 e ee een 942,600} 47, 130 1, 355 ee SEENON Ne ann 1 Complete list avaiighle in my office, including a breakdown of exports by importing country, Computation based on current exchange rate of 30 francs to the dollar. 21 metric tom {fs equal to 2,204.6 pounds. Parttal list of exports from Untted Kingdom during 1949 to Russia and satellite na- tions Amount | fn thot: moun Ny A Item indok | sands of Quan- jars''§ | pounds y alerling Ball and roller bearings and parts......... ..- $243, 600 * 2,000 Iron, steel, and manu- factures (total) . ....{12, 140, 800 5 88, 000 Steel bars and rods, notalloy .... ..] 1,736, 000 3 20, 000 Bars and rods of al- loy steel. ........- 804, 000 41,000 Hoop and stiip. -..} 422, $00 33, 000 Railway and tram- way construction material. .....-..- 708, 400 5 10,000 Barbed wire........ 420, 000 53,000 Cable and rope (ex- cept insulated tel- ephone and tel- egraph cable). ...f 425, 600 31,000 Nonferrous metals and manufactures (total)..| 4,062,800 | 1, 451 |... .--. Aluminum and al- jOyS..-..-.---. ..} 618, 800 421, 000 Brass and other al- loys of copper, other than nicke alloys....---..--- 1, on ion 4 63, 000 OPPer..-.-.------- 604, 31,000 Electrical goods and apparatus ....-...-.-- 6,806,800 | =, 431 |... ae Mao ery (total, €x- cluding ball and roller benrings and parts). ..{48, 172, 400 4 B67, 000 Electric generators..|11, 986, 800 41381, 000 Electrical machin- ory, other than motors and gen- Ce 2, 864, 400 4 46, 000 1 Computation based on present exchange rate of $2.30 to the pound sterling. 3 Hundredweight tise pounda). § Long tons. 4 THundredweight. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Partial list of exports from United Kingdom during 1949 to Russia and satellite na tions—Continued Amount | in thou- . Item indol- | sands of as lars | pounds sterling cen | nen | ey Machinery—Continued Machine tools (motal-working) other than port- able power tools_.{ 5, 138, 000 1, 835 | 4120, 000 Vehicles (including lo- comotives, ships, and aircraft) (total)_...... $13, 361, 600) 4772 | 2. -2ne o Rubber tires for motor vehicles, other than motor- . cycles and tricars. 229, 600) 82] $9,000 Chassis for motor vehicles, with en- ginos...---.------ 660, 400) 693 1,000 ieee av nance erat NReN attest or Partial list of exports from France during 1949 to Russic and satellite nations Amount Amount in thou- | Metric item in do}- sands of | tons france Chemicals: Inorganic. .......-.. $1, 546,759 | 533, 365 3, 425 Organie ...... --- 983, 283 | 339, 063 610 Rubber and rubber products. .........---.| 1,678, 616 | 578, 833 1, 426 Btee!-mill products, hot rolled, sheets and plates. ....... 222-22. 4, 198, 881 |1, 447,800 | 41, 606 Steel-mill products, cold rolled, tubular roducts, and wire. ..| 8, 087,703 |1, 064, 725 19, 288 Aluminum, crude, and semimanufactures....} 369, 245 | 127,326 815 Aluminum alloys..-.... 408, 648 | 140,927 833 Lead and Jead alloys...[ 316,349 ] 109, 066 1,115 Metal manufactures. -.. 2,046, 376 | 705, 647 3, 985 Machinery and appa- POLS. 2. one eee eee 10, 272, 288 {8, 542, 151 6,771 Machinery, electrical, and apparatus --..--- 2, 018, 289 | 694, 910 528 Transportation equip- MONt .---.- eee e eee rene 8, 261, 013 |2, 855, 521 7, 018 Optical, surgical, sci- entific, and photo- graphic instruments and apparatus.......- 1,118,145 | 383, 843 115 er eran rent 1 Computation based on current exchange rate of 350 francs to tho dollar. Mr. KEM. Mr. President, it may be asked, and I think it would be a fair question, since that was in the year 1949, what is going on now? I have tried to exhaust every avenue of information open to me to ascertain what is going on now. The Department of Commerce has been very cooperative. I wish to say to their credit that I have not seen the slightest indication that they wanted to conceal any information that was in their files. Two members of my staff went to the Department, and went over the records in the office of the Depart- ment of Commerce. Mr. President, as a result of that inspection of the records of the Department of Commerce some really surprising statistics developed. Here are some things they found. During the first 4 months of this year the United Kingdom exported more than $6,800,000 worth of electrical machinery to Russia. This represents nearly a 50- percent increase over British exports of electrical machinery to Russia during the first 4 months of 1949. I asked these men if they were able to find out what was being sent by the United Kingdom to Poland and to Czechoslovakia—to Czechoslovakia where the great Skoda Works are located—and they were not JULY 21. able to develop that information in the time available. So the figure I give to the Senate is the figure of exports from the United Kingdom to Russia alone for the first 4 months of this year. So much for electrical machinery. During the 4 nionths which ended April 30, 1950, the United Kingdom also sent to Russia more than $1,087,000 worth of machine tools. This is almost 10 times as many machine tools as were exported by the United Kingdom to Rus- sia during the first 4 months of the cor- responding year, 1949. In other words, in the first 4 months of this year the United Kingdom accelerated her ship- ments of machine tools to Russia 10 times over. That does not take into ac- count shipments of machine tools which were being made during that period to Czechoslovakia, to Bulgaria, to Ru- mania, or any other of the satellite coun- tries. That is to Russia alone. Mr. President, Belgium has made ship- ments of war materials to Russia. Dur- ing the period January through April sizable shipments of iron, steel, and tin plate have gone from Belgium to the U. S. 8. R. Italy is sending steel, iron, and machinery to the U. 5.8. R. Swe- den’s trade with Russia during January 1950 was nine times greater than it was in January 1949. And so it goes on. I regret, Mr. President, that the Sen- ator from Maryland [Mr. Typ1nes] saw fit in this time of crisis to cast doubt on the loyalty of any of his fellow Senators. Such suggestions do not enhance the prestige of the Senate. I have heard the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Lucas], the distinguished majority leader, say on the floor of the Senate more than once that it is time for all Americans to close ranks. I have felt that way about it. I have said so publicly. 5o, Mr. President, it comes as a distinct sur- prise to hear a man who has been hon- ored time and time again by the people of the Free State of Maryland, and by his colleagues in the Senate, charge that certain of his fellow Members of the Senate are following the Communist line and are associates of Joe Stalin. That surely does not enhance the prestige of our Nation abroad. Surely it must give aid and comfort to the Reds who are killing our boys in Korea to read reports that they have, according to the Senator from Maryland, associates in the United States Senate. Surely such reports must be distressing indeed to those in the front lines in Korea who have a right to expect, and, Mr. President, do expect, that they will receiye 100-percent backing from the Congress of the United States. Mr. President, there is just one more subject to which the Senator from Mary- land referred, to which I desire to make some reference. I shall address myself to that argument very briefly. That is the argument that since we have a De- partment of Justice and the FBI, no American need concern himself about Communists in the Government. The argument, as I understand it, is that since the Department of Justice and the ‘FBI are on the job, there is no need for concern, there is no need for any work or investigation on the part of the elect-
1950 ed representatives of the people in the Congress of the United States. Mr. President, there are two comments I should like to make on that argument. First, under the law, United States Code, title 5, section 340, which establishes the FBI, the FBI is placed under the juris- diction and the control of the Depart- ment of Justice, which is, as the Sena- tor from Massachusetts {Mr. Lopcr] said earlier on the floor of the Senate, a political arm of the Government. The FBI cannot investigate any case the De- partment of Justice does not want in- vestigated. Let there be no mistake about that, Mr. President. The FBI cannot investigate any case the Depart- ment of Justice does not want investi- gated. Similarly, the Department of Justice cannot cause to be investigated by the FBI any case the President of the United States does not want investi- gated. Second, in order to remove what I have to say from the ficld of generali- ties, I want to give the Senator from Maryland a specific instance of what I mean and to what I refer. This case, M1. President, is not a hypothctical case. It is an actual case. In May 1947, some 71 citizens of Kan- sas City, Mo., were under indictment for one of the foulest of all crimes, the crime of depriving their fellow citizens of their right to vote, of the right to have their votes counted as cast. The evidence in those cases, then pending in the circuit court of Jackson County, Mo., consisted of the ballots in the pre- cincts in which the alleged fraud oc- curred. Those ballots were stored in the office of the Board of Election Commis- sioners of Jackson County, Mo., in Kan- sas City. In the nighttime on May 27, 1947, the courthouse was violently en- tered. The office of the board of elec- tion commissioners was violently en- tered. The safe in their office was vio- lently blown open and those ballots, con- sisting of the evidence in those cases— evidently the thieves knew exactly what they had come for—were carried away. They were so voluminous that it re- quired 9, truck or cart or some similar vehicle to carry it away. Mr. President, that occurred in the courthouse in Kan- sas City, Mo. In the same building is the office of the sheriff of Jackson County, Mo., which is open all night, with a deputy or depu- ties constantly in attendance. Across the street was the office of the police de- partment of Kansas City, Mo.—a com- pleie police department, similar to that maintained in other metropolitan cen- ters. Mr. President, the strangest coinci- dence of all—and it is just a coincidence; I do not want anyone to think that I am inferring otherwise—was that the President of the United States was sleep- ing in a hotel some five blocks away; and, as I understand, on such occasions the entire business district of the city which is temporarily housing the Presi- dent of the United States is under the surveillance of the Secret Service of the United States. It was under those cir- cumstances that the ballois containing the evidence in the cases in which 71 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE persons were under indictment were forcibly, feioniously carried away. The FBI was immediately called in. The Attorney General of the United States dramatically announced that there would be a complete and thorough- going investigation. However, from that day to this the theft of the evidence in the Kansas City vote-fraud cascs re- mains a perfect crime. No arrests have been made: apparently no clues have been established. As the record stands, the FBI has been completely baffled. Mr President, I should lixe to know and the people of the United States would like to know just what the FBI did discover, just what some of the hest agenis in the employ of the FBI, who were sent to Kansas City, were able to do. I wonder whether the Senator from Arizona [Mr. McFar.anp], the acting majority leader, will join me in an ef- fort to secure, so that they can be made public, the complete records of the FBI in regard to that case. I think the act- ing majority leader or the regular ma- jority leader would perform a distinct service if one or the other of them would do that. It seems to me that the people are entitled to know the facts in that case. So, Mr. President, when the argu- ment is made that we can sleep at nights, that we can rest assured that there are no political Communists or fellow travel- ers in the employ of the State Depart- ment or in the employ of other depart- ments of the Government of the United States, a lot of people will take that argument with a little grain of salt. Mr. McFARLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. KEM. I am glad to yield. Mr. McFARLAND. The Senator from Missouri would not want me to go there with him and try to steal the FBI files; would he? Mr. KEM. Of course not. Mr. McFARLAND. That is about what the Senator from Missouri is pro- posing. Mr. KEM. Of course, Mr. President, I would not want the Senator from Ari- zona to be guilty of a felony. However, if he would give me the political sup- port which comes to the majority leader in this battle, I think it is very likely that the people in my State and the people in my city, who have a very natural inter- est in what the FBI was able to do, would obtain the information. At any rate, it would be worth a trial. Mr. McFARLAND. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Missouri for the compliment he has paid me in regard to any influence which I might have. However, the present hour is too late for the junior Senator from Arizona to enter into a discussion relative to secur- ing the files from the FBI. That matter has been discussed many, many times; and the Senator from Missouri is well aware of what has been held in that regard. Mr. KEM. Mr. President, I have not been able to find out what has been held in that regard. If the Senator from Arizona knows the facts about that mat- ter, I am sure he will perform a very 10801 distinct service to the people of my Siate and to the people of the country generally if he will give us the benefit of that information. Yesterday the Senator from Maryland IMr. TypinGs] told us that he was able to obtain from the administration in- formation not available to other Sena- tors or to the public generally. Now I am asking whether the acting majority leader—if the distinguished Senator from Arizona continues to act in that capacity, of course I shall be glad to have him do so—or the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Lucas], the regular majority leader, will interest himself in this sub- ject. If he will do so, I believe we shall have some results, and without further delay. The tragedy of this matter is that un- der the circumstances the people of the United States are bound to have some reservations as to the political character of the Department of Justice—reserva- tions which ought to be cleared up, and the sooner the better. Mr. President, I wish to say in passing that most of these things occurred, not during the term of service of the present Attorney General, our honored former colleague from Rhode Island, former Senator McGrath, but during the incum- bency of his predecessor as Attorney General. However, I think it is also fair to say that during the incumbency of the present Attorney General the Fed- eral statute of limitations—a 3-year statute of limitations—ran on the prose- cution of the theft of the evidence in the Kansas City vote frauds. Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. KEM. Iam glad to yield to my distinguished colleague from Missouri. Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Arizona has assigned, as I understand, as his reason for not wishing to discuss this matter, the lateness of the hour, Let me ask the Senator if it is now as late as it generally has been in recent weeks when the Senate has ended its session for the day. In other words, it is now exactly 5:37 p. m., according to the clock in the Senate Chamber. Mr. KEM. Mr. President, if the Sena- tor from Arizona desires to discuss this matter, I shall be glad to stay here as long as he wishes, or if he will ask the Vice President to give me the privilege of the floor Monday, when the Senate convenes, I shall endeavor to answer any questions the Senator from Arizona may put tome. I would like to accommodate the Senator from Arizona if he is not prepared to discuss the matter at this time. I think the fucts should be fully dis- cussed, in the public interest. It has never been satisfactorily developed, why the theft of the evidence in the Kansas City vote fraud indictments is a per- fect crime. ORDER FOR RECESS UNTIL 11 A. M. ON MONDAY Mr. McFARLAND. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Michigan (Mr. Fercuson] previously stated that he wished to obtain the floor to address the
10802 Senate this afternoon. However, thus far, he has not been able to obtain rec- ognition. Therefore, because of the lateness of the hour, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate ends its session for to- day, it take a recess until Monday next, at 11 a. m,, and that the Senator from Michigan be given the right to speak at that time, without a quorum call. The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there ob- tion? aes KEM. Mr. President, will the re- quest please be repeated? The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Arizona has requested, first, that when the Senate concludes its session for today, it take a recess until Monday next, at 11 a. m.; and, second, that at that time the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Fercuson] be given the floor, with- out a quorum call. Is there objection to the request of the Senator from Arizona? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered. STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, I wish to make some observations for a few minutes, if that will be satisfactory to the Senator from Arizona. Mr. McFARLAND. Certainly. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, at the conclusion of his address yesterday, the distinguished Senator from Maryland {Mr. Typincs}] asked the question: ‘Where do we go from here?” Iam con- fident that anyone who heard his ad- dress and any of those who have had an opportunity to look even very casually over the report are convinced that the job of the committee of which he was chairman has not been completed. Iam just as sure of that as I am sure that I am now standing on the floor of the Senate; and I am also perfectly sure that the American people are not satis- fied ‘ith what has been done. In a spirit of constructive criticism and in all sincerity, Mr. President, I wish to offer an affirmative program. I should like to discuss it in some detail some time next week, when I have an oppor- tunity to do so. However, at this time, toward the close of the session for today, I should like to conclude my remarks with these con- structive suggestions: First. I think the time has come when the records of the committee, not only the records of its proceedings in open session but the records of its proceedings in executive session, should be made pub- lic. It has been given to the press here, there, and other places, and I think that Senators should have the transcript of all this evidence so they can make up their minds relative to what is in the re- port as bearing upon the work that has been done by the committee. Second. I think that the Senate should adopt the resolution, No. 312, which was offered, and which reads as follows: Resolved, That the report of the Committee on Foreign Relations made pursuant to Sen- ate Resolution 231 (relating to an investiga~ tion of disloyalty among employees of the Government) be recommitted to the Com- mittee on Foreign Relations, with the follow~- ing instructions: (1) The Committee on Foreign Relations shall conduct a full and complete investiga- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE ‘ souri that I explain why the FBI files con- tion in accordance with the provisions of Senate Resolution 231; or— And this is the important part of it— (2) In the event said committee decides by a majority vote that @ continuation by said committee of such investigation is not in the public interest, the committee shall recommend to the Senate the establishment of a trained bipartisan commission, wholly independent of the Executive, to conduct a full, complete, and relentless search into the whole subject of foreign penetration of the Department of State and other agencies of the Government in accordance with the pro- visions of said Senate Resolution 231. Mr. President, if that is done, I am satisfied that it will meet with the ap- proval of the American people. That resolution has been offered, and it is the responsibility of the majority of the Sen- ate to see that it is brought up for con- sideration. It is a constructive step which I am sure would meet with the approval of the people of the United States. Third. The time has come, and there can be no doubt about it, that the Congress should pass the Mundt-Fergu- son bill. The resolution I just quoted would take care of the difficulty within the Government. The Mundt-Ferguson bill would take care of the situation out- side the Government. ‘It is needed, and I think it is needed more than any other piece of legislation, outside the military requirements which will be presented to us by the military authorities and by the administration, with which we all agree, and which will be passed speedily after due consideration. That is my suggestion, Mr. President. That is my answer to the question, Where do we go from here on the do- mestic front? Where do we go from here on the for- eign front? Certainly the time has ar- rived when the administration should require the resignation of Dean Acheson. In order to achieve unity in the country and to restore confidence in the State Department policy, that time has ar- rived. He has been repudiated by the administration in his policy in Asia, and certainly we need to revamp our policy so far as western Europe is concerned, I do not say this with animosity or per- sonal feeling against Mr. Acheson, but if he were an official in any other coun- try of which I know of, and a vote of confidence were had, which would have been required, to my mind he would be out of office. Why wait any longer in the United States of America? Mr. President, if such action is taken I am satisfied it will meet with the ap- proval of the country. What we need now is unity. And, believe me, I am for unity to accomplish the task which is at hand. Mr. President, I should like to answer in some detail some of the observations which have been made, but I say in all sincerity, and with all respect to the Senator from Maryland, that that is the answer to his question, “Where do we go from here?” Let us clean up the situa- tion at home, and let us do the job over there, Mr. McFARLAND. Mr. President, I merely want to state in response to the suggestion of my good friend from Mis- JULY 21 not be made available, that my decision not to discuss that subject this evening is made for this reason, and for this reason alone: First, I think it has been discussed many, many times. I think I fairly understand how those files are secured, and the reasons why they can- not be made available to Members of Congress. At least, I understand the position of the Attorney General. But, Mr. President, I am of the opinion that there are more important matters be- fore the Congress today than a discus- sion of why the files of the FBI cannot be made available to Members of Con- gress. Mr. KEM. Mr. President, will the Sen- ator yield for a question? Mr.McFARLAND, Inamoment. One of those important measures is House bill 7786, which contains appropriations for the departments charged with the dcfense of the Nation. I think it is time that in the Senate of the United States we turn our minds to our duties in con- nection with providing the necessary funds for the defense of the country. For that reason, and because I do not want to provoke further discussion on a subject which has already been thor- oughly discussed, I feel that we could better devote ourselves to the discussion of the unfinished business. I now yield to the distinguished Senator from Mis- souri. Mr. KEM. I should like to ask the Senator from Arizona whether the dis- tinguished senior Senator from Mary- land did not occupy the floor of the Senate for several hours yesterday, dis- cussing the report of the Foreign Rela- tions Committee on the question of Communists in the Government. Mr. McFARLAND. I am not aiming my criticism at the Senator from Mis- souri or anyone else who has occupied the floor today, or the distinguished Senator from Maryland, who occupied the floor yesterday. All I am stating is that these matters have been discussed, and think the time has come for us to turn our attention to the consideration of H. R. 7786. Mr. KEM. Mr. President, will the Senator vield for a further question? The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Arizona yield further to the Senator from Missouri? Mr. McFARLAND. I yield. Mr, KEM. My good friend from Ari- zona is an eminently fair man. Mr. McFARLAND, I thank the Sen- ator for his compliment, Mr. KEM. The Senator is a former superior court judge, He knows what it is to hold the scales of justice. He has had the unpleasant duty of sending men to the penitentiary—perhaps to the gallows. I know my friend from Arizona is deeply imbued with and instilled in American principles of justice and fair play. I want to ask the Senator whether he thinks it is fair for the Senator from Maryland to make this dramatic and his- trionic speech in the Senate yesterday, drawing the attention of the Senate for several hours, and then to foreclose fur- ther discussion of this important ques- tion that is so near the hearts of all Americans? The question is whether
1950 there is infiltration of Communists and fellow travelers into the Government of the United States. Mr. McFARLAND. Mr. President, let me say to my good friend from Missouri that the question as to what any Sena- tor may think about the statement made by the distinguished Senator from Mary- land is up to the individual Senator, per- sonally, to answer for himself. Each Senator can answer that. Mr. KEM. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. McFARLAND. May I finish? I may say that as to whether the charges have been substantiated, it is up to the people of the United States to decide. No one on the floor of the Senate, so far as I have heard, has said that any of these charges were substantiated. I do not at this time want to get into a dis- cussion of what procedure we should fol- low or of what we should do. All I am saying—and I am making an honest ap- peal to the Senate—is that some time on Monday I hope we may resume consider- ation of H. R. 7786, which contains im- portant appropriations for the defense of the Nation. I have never tried to deprive any Sen- ator of the opportunity to discuss any subject he pleased, and I never shall. But I hope that we can make some progress with the appropriation bill I desire the Senator from Missouri dis- tinctly to understand that I am not in any way criticizing him for any remark he may have secn fit to make on the floor. That was his privilege as a United States Senator. I am, in the exercise of my prerogative as a Senator, only making an appeal for that which I think is for the good of the United States, namely, to proceed with the business of the Sen- ate, leaving it to the Senator from Mis- souri and any other Senator to discuss whatever they may desire to discuss, Mr. CONNALLY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. McFARLAND. I yield. Mr. CONNALLY. The Senator from Missouri made the statement a little while ago that he thought it was unfair for the Senator from Maryland [Mr. Typinos] to occupy the length of time he occupied yesterday, and then not to let anyone answer him. I suggest to the Senator from Missouri that we have listened for a long period today to the Senator from Indiana [Mr. JENNER] in @ very bitter and voluminous speech, mostly devoted to the Senator from Maryland and what the Senator from Maryland submitted in his speech on yesterday, So I cannot see how the Senator from Missouri can conclude that we heard the Senator from Maryland and then did not permit any other Sen- ator to discuss the question. Mr, KEM. Mr. President, the Senator from Texas—— Mr, CONNALLY. The Senator from Arizona yielded in order that I might ask a@ question. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Sena- tor from Arizona has the floor. Mr. KEM. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. McFARLAND. Yes;I yield. But I do not think we can gain anything by CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE the discussion. My only object was to invite the attention of the Senate and of the people of the United States to the importance of the Senate’s proceeding with the appropriation bill as rapidly as possible, It was not for the purpose of criticizing anyone. Mr. KEM. I agree entirely with the Senator. The Senator comes from the wide-open spaces of the West. Would he sit here in the Chamber of the Senate of the United States and hear his loyalty impugned by another Senator and not rise to his feet at the first opportunity to reply? Mr. McFARLAND. When that time comes, the Senator from Arizona will make his decision. Mr. KEM. I do not know how the Senator voted on the reduction of Mar- shall-plan-aid funds, but I know that many of his close friends and associates voted to reduce the amount. I should think the Senator from Arizona would resent an imputation on their loyalty. I should think that instead of attempt- ing to discourage the Senator from Mis- souri from pointing out facts in that con- nection, the Senator would rise to urge that that sort of thing be not repeated on the floor of the United States Senate. Mr. McFARLAND. Iam certain that the Senator from Missouri will be able to take care of himself cn any occasion. Mr. KEM, I think the Senator from Arizona has fallen into the same error into which several Senators who have spoken have fallen, namely, assuming that the responsibility and duty of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee un- der Senate Resolution 231 was to investi- gate the charges made by the Senator from Wisconsin {Mr. McCartiy]. As was pointed out today by the Senator from New York [Mr. Ives]—I do not sup- pose the Senator from Arizona heard his address, kecavse if he had I do not think he would have fallen into that error— the resolution as originally prepared by the Democratic policy committee pro- vided for an investigation of the charges of the Senator from Wisconsin, and that resolution was amended on the floor of the Senate, and as it was adopted by the Senate, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, or any duly author- ized subcommittee thereof, was author- ized and directed to conduct a full and complete study and investigation as to whether persons who are disloyal to the United States are or have been employed in the Department of State. So, Mr. President, it is no answer that the Senator from Wisconsin {Mr. Mc- Cartiy] has not produced any evidence, That is not ground upon which the Com- mittee on Foreign Relations can be ac- quitted of any further responsibility. The question is whether it has made a full and complete investigation of whether persons who are disloyal to the United St..tes are or have been employed by the Department of State. Let. me say, in passing, that I do not know much about the investigation. I did not attend any of the hearings, but I have read some of the subcommittee’s re-~ port to some extent, not all of it—I have been intrigued by one thing which stands out, namely, why there is no mention 10803 of the name of Alger Hiss. The com- mittee was directed to find out whether any disloyal person ever had been em- ployed in the Department of State. That question came up yesterday, but it was turned off by the Senator from Maryland with the facetious remark that the com- mittee had not thought it well to put Thomas Jefferson on the stand. I hope the implication was not that Thomas Jefferson was a disloyal person. As a devoted believer in the principles of Thomas Jefferson, I resent the remark. I do not see any reason whatever to have brought the name of that great Amcrican into a discussio.1 of disloyalty in the Gov- ernment cf the United States. EXECUTIVE SESSION Mr. McFARLAND. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of executive business. The motion was agreed to; and the Eenate proceeded to the consideration of executive business. EXECUTIVE MESSAGES REFERRED The VICE PRESIDENT laid before the Senate messages from the President of the United States submitting sundry nominations, which were referred to the Committee on Armed Services. (For nominations this day received, see the end of Senate proceedings.) EXECUTIVE REPORT OF A COMMITTEE The following favorable report of a nomination was submitted: By Mr. THOMAS of Oklahoma, from the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry: Clarence J. McCormick, of Indiana, to be Under Secretary of Agriculture. The VICE PRESIDENT. If there be no further reports of committees, the clerk will state the nomination on the executive calendar. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The legislative clerk read the nomina- tion of Maj. Gen. Philip B. Fleming, United States Army, retired, to be Under Secretary of Commerce for Transporta- tion. The VICE PRESIDENT. Without ob- jection, the nomination is confirmed. RECESS TO MONDAY Mr. McFARLAND. As in legislative session, I move that the Senate stand in recess until next Monday at 11 o'clock a.m. The motion was agreed to: and (at 5 o'clock and 57 minutes p. m.) the Senate took a recess, under the order previously entered, the recess being to Monday, July 24, 1850, at 11 o’clock a. m. NOMINATIONS Executive nominations received by the Senate July 21 (legislative day of July 20), 1950: In Tre Ain FoRcE PROMOTIONS The following-named officers for promotion in the United States Alr Force under the provisions of section 107 of the Army-Navy Nurses Act of 1947, as amended by Publ.c Law 614, Eighty-first Congress. Those officers whose names ars preceded by the symbol { x ) are subject to physical examination required by law, All others have been examined and found physically qualified for promotion.
10804 To ve captains, Air Force nurses  Askegaard, Elizabeth Ann, AN1436. Bernard, Erin Langford, AN768. Deegan, Florence Irene, AN769. Deege, Floise Ruth, AN1119. Lott, Inez T., AN1686. MoCally, Mary Jane, AN770. McLaughlin, Margaret F., AN766, Murphy, Anne Martha, AN1594. Nigro, Elaine M, AN1121. Roche, Florence T., AN1120. Staudt, Veleska Barbara, AN1599. {Norz,—The officers nominated for promo- tion to captain have completed and will complete the required 7 years’ service for pro- motion purposes between May and August. Dates of rank will be determined by the Sec- retary of the Air Force.) APPOINTMENTS The following-named persons for appoint- ment in the United States Air Force, in the grades indicated, with dates of rank to be determined by the Secretary of the Air Force, under the provisions of section 506, Public Law 381, Eightieth Congress (Officer Person- nel Act of 1947), and title II, Public Law 365, Eightieth Congress (Army-Navy-Public Health Service Medical Officer Procurement Act of 1947): To be lieutenant colonel, USAF (medical) Paul A. Campbell, AO256795. To be majors, USAF (medical) John E Alexander, 0489762. William T. Kelley, AO482037. Ralph M. Lechausse, AO374203. Joseph L Mann, AQ464256. Frank M. Townsend, AO378111, To be captains, USAF (medical) Verne H Alder, AO366552. Stanley H. Bear, AO1726938. William 8. Davis, AO1757131. Walter H Goggans, AO1736789. Richard K Miller, AO1764827, Oakley K Park, 0346607. Edward P. Smith, Jr., AO1726879. George 8. Tootle, AO1736203. Joseph B, Wildhaber, AO1767505. To be captains, USAF (dental) Robert H. Jakob, AQ516752 Howard H. Morgan, AO1746837. Charles C. Morris, AO1745055. Robert L. Reilly, Jr , AO0937383. To be first Heutenants, USAF (medical) Roger C. Arnold, AO975903. Glenn D Baird, AO975364. David H. Beyer, 488008USNR. James G. Borman, AQ058449. Harry C Green, Jr, AO421575. Louis E. Harrington, AO975755. Nestor M. Hensler, 0975712. Peter D Hogan, A0962921. Frederick R, Hook, Jr , AO975700. Jack B. Jay, AO976691. William Krivit. John T, Logue. Jack M. McKay. Charles C. Sorensen, 40341478. To be first Heutenant, USAF (dental) Hiram M. Jackson, AO1906234, To de first lieutenants, USAF (chaplain) John D. Barringer, A0498619. Vernon Bordelon, AO963531. Arthur BE. K Brenner, 40581519, Michael J. Finneran, 40965452, Charles H. Glaize, 40519453. Raymond T. Mattheson, AO548733, Earl W. Minor, AOQ932134. Edward B, Mulligan, AO066884. Ivan L, Paulk, AO500965. Grover E. Stillwagon, AO478834, Charles W. Wakefield, AO526233. The following-named distinguished avia- tion cadets for appointment in the United Btates Air Force in the grade indicated with dates of rank to be determined by the Secre- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE tary of the Air Force, under the provisions of section 606, Public Law 381, Eightieth Con- gress (Officer Personnel Act of 1947); To ve second lieutenants Sabin L. Anderson Arthur L. Keyes Ray E. Badertscher, Claude C. Mitson A02074625 Paul G. Mulhern Thomas R Bean James L, Mulligan Garold R Beck Earl G. Peck Warren R. Carter, Jr. Walter H. Schmits James W Chilton Robert W. Smith Charles B. Christison Richard W. Whincup Harry V De Hosse George 8S. White . Harry Falls, Jr. Robert F Wilke Orgle D Godwin Elvin O. Wyatt George H. Helbing Subject to physical qualification and sub- ject to designation as distinguished military graduates, the following-named distin- guished military students of the Bentor Di- vision, Reserve Officer’s Training Corps, for appointment in the United States Air Force in the grade of second Heutenant, with dates of rank to be determined by the Secretary of the Alr Force, under the provisions of section 506, Public Law 381, Hightieth Con- gress (Officer Personnel Act of 1947): Francis J Cunnion Joseph H Piper, Jr. Charles A. James Raymond Smith The following-named graduated cadet, United States Military Academy, class of 1950, for appointment in the United States Air Force, in the grade of second lieutenant, with dute of rank June 2, 1950, under the provisions of section 506, Public Law 381, Eightieth Congress (Officer Personnel Act of 1947); Joseph Frederick Green In THE MARINE CORPS The following-named midshipmen (Naval Reserve Officer’s Training Corps) for perma- nent appointment to the grade of second lieutenant in the Marine Corps David I. Carter. George T. Sargent, Jr. Leo J Fitzpatrick, Jr. Cornelius F. Savage, Heman J Redfleld III dr. Bruce L. Rehn The following-named civilian college grad- uates for permanent appointment to the grade of second lieutenant in the Marine Corps: Frank F Alagia Norman B McCrary Alvin R Bourgeois Anthony G. Morrison, George E Bowker, Jr. dr. Clement C. Buckley Anthony C. Naeger Jr. Claude L. Reynolds John R. Cowan William R&R. Riddell, John K. Davis dr. Rex D. Ellison Bryar. M Rust Eugene D. Foxworth James T. Shafter Jr, Warren A. Stark Wijliam J. Galyon Lawrence A Hall Winans D Holliday Elmer Jenner Holcombe H. Thomas William V. H. White Allan Wilson Henry EF. Wold Ralph C Joynes James W. Wood Don L. Keller CONFIRMATIONS Executive nominations confirmed by the Senate July 21 (legislative day of July 20), 1950: DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Maj. Gen. Philip B. Fleming, United States Army, retired, to be Under Secretary of Com- merce for Transportation In THE ARMY The nominations of James Harold Banville, et al. for promotion in the Regular Army of the United States, which were confirmed today, were received by the Senate on July 14, 1950, and appear in full in the Senate proceedings of the Conerrsstonat Recorp for that date, under the caption “Nomina- tions,” beginning with the name of James JULY 24 Harold Banville, which appears on page 10177, and ending with the name of Mary Willia Stephenson, which appears on page 10178. In THE Arr Corrs The nominations of Park Holland, et al., for promotion in the United States Air Force, which were confirmed today, were re- ceived by the Senate on July 10, 1950, and appear in full in the Senate proceedings of the CoNnGRrssionaL Recorp for that date, under the caption “Nominations,” beginning with the name of Park Holland, which ap- pears on page 9798, and ending with the name of John James Wood, which appears on page 9799. In tHe Navy The nominations of Raymond OC. Allen, et al, for appointment in the Navy, which were confirmed today, were received by the Senate on July 10, 1950, and appear in full in the Senate proceedings of the CoNGREs- SIONAL Recorp for that date, under the cap- tion “Nominations,” beginning with the name of Raymond C. Allen, which appears on page 9799, and ending with the name of Waunie L. Shelton, which appears on page 9800. SENATE Monnay, Jury 24, 1950 (Legislative day of Thursday, July 20, 1950) The Senate met at 11 o’clock a. m., on the expiration of the recess. Rev. Frank F. Drowota, Woodmont Christian Church, Nashville, Tenn., offered the following prayer: Let us pray. We confess, in the words of the Psalmist, our faith in Thee O God. O Lord, our Lord, how excellent is Thy name in all the earth. Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever Thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlast- ing to everlasting, Thou art God. But dear unto us is the knowledge that Thou art our Father, and we are Thy children. We come to Thee to ask Thy blessing upon these Thy children in this grave hour. We ask that Thou wilt give them the assurance that as their days, so shall their strength be. Watch over them and keep their loved ones, Father. We offer to Thee a special prayer for those men who have put their lives be- tween the enemy and all the things we hold dear. Wilt Thou keep them in Thy love. We ask, Father, that the spirit of sacrifice they show may be shown in our lives, and that self-interest may be slain in us; that the ugly stains of sin, the ugly stains of selfishness may be wiped away; that in a common unity we may stand together to walk the freedom road, the road of sacrifice, the road of self-den-al, even as our Lord walked it before us. This we ask in His name and for His sake. Amen. THE JOURNAL On request of Mr. McFarzanp, and by unanimous consent, the reading of the Journal of the proceedings of Friday, July 21, 1950, was dispensed with. LEAVE OF ABSENCE On his own request, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Miuuixmy was excused from
1950 attendance on the session of the Senate today until 4 p. m. COMMITTEE MEETINGS DURING SENATE SESSION On request of Mr. McFartanp, and by unanimous consent, the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on In- terior and Insular Affairs were author- ized to meet during the session of the Senate today. ° On request of Mr. McFaruanp, and by unanimous consent, the Committee on Foreign Relations was authorized to sit this afternoon during the session of the Senate. ORDER OF BUSINESS The VICE PRESIDENT. Under the unanimous-consent agreement entered into on Friday, the Senator from Michi- gan (Mr. Feravson] is entitled to the floor without the calling of a quorum. Mr. KNOWLAND and Mr. FLANDERS addressed the Chair. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair would suggest to Senators who wish to present routine matters that at the end oi the address by the Senator from Michigan opportunity will be given all Senators to transact routine business. Mr. KNOWLAND. If the Senator from Michigan does not object, I should like to make an insertion in the Recorp et this point. Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the two Sena- tors who have addressed the Chair may proceed with their routine matters, with the understanding that I do not lose the floor. The VICE PRESIDENT. Without ob- jection, it is so ordered, SUCGESTED APPOINTMENT OF AMBAS- SADOR TO REPUBLIC OF CHINA Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the body of the REcorp a letter which I addressed to the President of the United States dated July 13, 1950, and a copy of the President's reply dated July 14. There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: JuLy 18, 1950. The PRESIDENT, The White House. De.r MR Presipent The time has come, I believe, when the seriousness and importance of the situation in the Far East warrants the appointment of an Ambassador to the Government of the Republic of China, now temporarily located on the island of Taiwan (Formosa) with its capital at Taipei, Since Ambassador Stuart returned last year our representative has been a consul general. Both in Congress and throughout the ccuntry there is a growing realization that without the affirmative vote of the repre- sentative of the Republic of China the three resolutions passed by the United Nations Se- curity Council would not have been adopted and in the case of the second resolution which India finally approved there would have been a delay of at least 24 hours when time was of the essence. Since seven votes are required for the adoption of a resolu- tion in the Security Council and on the June 27 and July 7 resolutions there were only seven affirmative votes, it is apparent that had the Republic of China not been a member netther resolution would have been adopted. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE It is also significant that of all of the mem- bers of the United Nations the only coun- try which to date has offered ground troops in support of the United Nations’ effort to stem lawless aggression and support a sys- tem of international law and order has been the Republic of China, which promptly of- fered three divisions amounting to approxi- mately 30,000 men together with 20 C~46 planes, The fact that neither the United Na- tions nor this Government has yet seen fit to accept this offer does not lessen the im- portance of this wholehearted support of the Government of the Republic of China by and on behalf of the people of free China It 4s refreshingly in contrast to the inaction of certain other member nations What more fitting move could now be made than for the Government of the United States to announce that it was sending an Ambassador to the Republic of China? For that position may I respectfully suggest the name of Angus Ward Mr. Ward has had a long career in the Foreign Service of the United States both in the Soviet Union and in China. His detention and later arrest by the Chinese Communists during the period when he was consul general at Mukden helped to acquaint the American people with the realities of the situation that Chinese ccmmunism {is the blood brother of Soviet imperialism Such an appointment would not only be fitting recognition to a man who has had a long and honorable career in the service of his country, but would also be a fitting reward for the hardships he suf- fered at the hands of the Chinese Commu- nists It would also clearly demonstrate to the people of the Republic of China and to the whole free world that we had no intention of yielding to Soviet pressure relative to rec- ognition of the Communist regime or the seating of that Soviet satellite in the Secu- rity Council of the United Nations With best personal regards, I remain, Respectfully, Wr11am F. KNOWLAND, THE WHITE Hovuss, Washington, July 14, 1950, Hon Wiit1am F KNOWLAND, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. Dear Senator’ Thanks very much for yours of the 13th. I am glad to have your views on the Nationalist China. It was kind and thoughtful of you to write me as you did. Sincerely yours, Harry TRUMAN. TEMPORARY WITHDRAWAL OF REPORT ON LOYALTY INVESTIGATION Mr. FERGUSON. I yield to the Sen- ator from Vermont under the same con- ditions. Mr. FLANDERS. Myr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending business be temporarily laid aside and that the Senate proceed to the consid- eration of Senate Resolution 316. It is the resolution which I submitted last Friday. Mr. McFARLAND. Mr. President, I object. It is not in order, The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Arizona objects. Mr. WHERRY. A parliamentary in- quiry, The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator will state it. Mr. WHERRY. The motion would be in order, would it not, if unanimous con- sent were obtained? The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair is not passing on the question of its being in order. 10805 Mr. WHERRY. The distinguished acting majority leader made the obser- vation as to its not being in order. The VICE PRESIDENT. Under the unanimous-consent agreement the Sen- ator from Michigan has the floor. He has been yielding to Senators to insert routine matters in the Recorp. Mr. WHERRY. I understood the dis- tinguished Senator from Michigan to ask unanimous consent that he might yield to the Senator from California and the Senator from Vermont, without his losing the floor. I should like to reserve my right to object long enough to say that—— The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair understood the Senator from Michigan to yield to the two Senators to insert matters in the Recorp. Mr. FERGUSON. I asked unanimous consent that I may be permitted to yield to the Senator from California and the Senator from Vermont without my los- ing the floor. Mr. FLANDERS. Mr. President, the request I made is likewise made with the understanding that the Senator from Michigan would rtot lose the floor if we io up the consideration of the resolu- . on, Mr. McFARLAND. I object. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair would say to the Senator from Michigan that to yield to a Senator to take up a legislative matter which may involve considerable debate may deprive him of his advantage of having the floor at this time. Mr. FERGUSON. Very well. I un- derstand that objection has been made to the unanimous-consent request of the Senator from Vermont. The VICE PRESIDENT. Objection has been made. STATE DEPARTMENT LOYALTY INVESTIGATION Mr. FERGUSON Mr. President, there has been filed in the Senate a report of the subcommittee of the Committee on Foreign Relations pursuant to Senate Resolution 231, Last Thursday, after the report was filed, the Senator from Mich- igan attempted to ask the distinguished Senator from Maryland some questions which he believed were pertinent to the issue before the Senate. The Senator from Maryland declined to yield at that time, and the Senator from Michigan feels that there are things in the report which should be called to the attention of the Senate, At the time of the filing of the report motions were made to table certain points presented to the Senatc, in order that debate could not be had upon the filing of the report or matters contained in the report. Mr. President, there are several sub- jects covered in the report on which I desire to speak today. One cannot help noticing on page 9 of the report the matter in italics, and the italics were used by the subcommittee, I assume, in order that it would be emphasized to all who might pick up the report that that was probably the most important part of the report. I desire to read that part
10806 to the Senate at this time, and then make some comments upon it: We were thus confronted with the amazing spectacle of four different committees of the Eightieth Congress, which was controlled by Senator McCartuy’s own party, having con- sidered the very same files and information which provided the predicate for the Mc- Carthy charges—with none of these com- mittees so much as regarding the situation as one meriting a report or citing a single State Department employee as disloyal. Mr. President, I wish to emphasize the words “citing a single State Department employee as disloyal.” The Senator from Maryland also said something about that, and I shall refer to his remarks in the Recorp of last Thursday, July 20, 1950, page 10715. The Senator from Mary- land said; We found the same thing that the four separate committees of the Republican-con- trolled Eightieth Congress found. It is very significant that the Genator from Maryland used the word “Repub- lican.” On the same page appears this lan- guage used by the Senator from Mary- Then I found (nat four separate commit- tees of the Republican-controlled Eightieth Congress—and I say that without any re- flection on them, but simply in order to show that those committees were not of the game political complexion as is the present majority of tas subcommittee—had exam- ined every one of those cases, and had not found any Communists or subversives in any of them. It is very significant that he said that the Bightieth Congress committees, in- cluding the Senate Committee on Ap- propriations, about which he was talk- ing, had not found any Communists or subversives “in any of them.” On page 10717 the Senator again re- ferred to a “file which was examined by Republican Members in control of the Eightieth Congress and they did not say the case was proved ” In all, the Senator from Maryland referred six times in his speech to the alleged fact that four com- mittees of the Eightieth Congress had investigated these files and given clear- ance to them. Mr. THYE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. FERGUSON, I would rather not yield until I get through with my re- marks; then I will yield to any Senator for any question. Mr. THYE. I thank the Senator. Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, the Senate Committee on Appropriations, whose responsibility it was to do some investigating inte this matter—although it was not named by the Senate to make 2 full and complete investigation—did look into this subject back in 1947 and a part of 1948 and even in 1946. As a result, on June 10, 1947, the then Secre- tary of State was called before a sub- committee of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, and he was given a Memorandum. I am surprised that the Senator from Maryland and his inves- tigators did not find that memorandum in the files of the State Department, be- cause they say that no report was made, that nothing was done, in other words, that the Senate Committee on Appro- priations found nothing wrong. and gave CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE @ clean bill of health. I wish to read to the Senate that memorandum of June 10, 1947. Mr, THYE. Will the Senator yield? Mr. FERGUSON. I yield to the Sen- ator from Minnesota. Mr. THYE, It was in reference to the matter the very able Senator from Mich- igan has just mentioned that I wanted to comment, for the reason that I served as a member of the investigating sub- committee on the Committee on Expend- itures, of which the Senator from Michi- gan, who now has the floor, was chair- man, and I know our concern when we were denied the right to see the files on Mr. Remington and others. I do know about the committee report which had been filed in that particular investiga- tion, and I wanted to comment about that, I am very happy that the Scnator from Michigan yielded that I might make this very brief reference to the investigation made during the Eightieth Congress. Mr. FERGUSON. I thank the Senator for his comments. As I have said, on June 10 General Marshall was called before a subcom- mittee of the Senate Committee on Ap- propriations, and the subcommittee presented a memorandum to him. I have asked the distinguished Senator from Tennessee {Mr. McKuuiar], the chairman of the Committee on Appro- priations, this having been done in exe- cutive session, if I might use the execu- tive session records on the floor of the Senate, and he has granted permission. I shall now read the memorandum, be- cause I believe it will be very enlighten- ing to the Senate and to the people of the United States in view of the state- ment of the Senator from Maryland that the Committee on Appropriations found no subversives and no Communists, and did not make a report as to what it found on this particular occasion. I quote from the memorandum. JUNE 10, 1047. It becomes necessary due to the gravity of the situation to call your attention to a condition that developed and still flour- ishes in the State Department under the administration of Dean Acheson. It is evident that there ts a deliberate, calculated program being carried out not only to protect Communist personnel in high places, but to reduce security and in- telligence protection to a nullity. Regarding the much-publicized Marzant case, the evidence brough out at his trial was well known to State Department officers, who tgnored it and refused to act for a full year, Marzani and several other Department of- fcials, with full knowledge of the State De- partment, and with Government time and money, promoted a scheme called Presenta- tions, Inc, which contracted with a Com-< munist dominated organization to dissem- inate propaganda, Security objections to these and other even more dangerous developments were rebuffed by high administrative officials: and there followed the substitution of unqualified men for these competent, highly respected per- sonnel who theretofore held the intelligence and security assignments in the Department. The new chief of controls ts a man utterly devoid of background and experience for the job, who is and at the time of his appoint- ment was known to those who appointed him to be, a cousin and close associate of a sus- pected Soviet espionage agent. The next de- velopment was the refusal of the FBI, G-2, ONT, and other Federal investigative agencies JULY 24 to continue the wholehearted cooperation they had for years extended to the State Department. I continue the quotation: On the file tn the Department fs a copy of ® preliminary report of the FBI on Soviet espionage activities in the United States, which involves a large number of State De- partment employees, some in high official po- sittons. This report has been challenged and ignored by those charged with the responsi- bility of administering the Department with the apparent tacit approval of Mr Acheson, Should this case break before the State De- partment acta, it will be a national disgrace. The memorandum continued: Voluminous files are on hand in the De- partment proving the connection of the State Department employees and officials with this Soviet espionage ring Despite this, only two persons, one of whom is Marzani— Tam naming him because he has been already convicted. I now return to the quotation— were released under the McCarran rider be- cause of their subversive activity— I now leave out of the memorandum nine names mentioned in it, of persons who were at that time employees of the State Department I am leaving them out, but later I shall read a letter from Mr. Peurifoy calling attention to what was done about some of those who were named, indicating the validity of the information contained in the memo- randum. Mr. MCCARTHY, Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. FERGUSON. No; I cannot yield at this time. Mr. McCARTHY. I should like to suggest the absence of a quorum. Mr. FERGUSON. I cannot yield for that purpose. I desire to continue read- ing from the memorandum. After the Jast name this appears: are only a few of the hundreds now em- ployed in varying capacities who are pro- tected and allowed to remain despite the fact that their presence is an obvious hazard to national security. There is also the ex- tensive employment in highly classified poste tions, of admitted homosexuals, who are his- torically known to be security risks, I continue the quotation: The War and Navy Departments have been thwarted for a year in their efforts to carry out the German scientist program. They are blocked by one man in the State Department, @ protege of Acheson named— T leave that name out— who is also the chief instrument in the sub- verting of the over-all security program, I continue the quotation: This deplorable condition runs all the way up and down the line. Assistant Secre- tary Braden also surrounded himself with men like— I leave out a name there— and with— And I leave out another name— who has a notorious international reputa- tion. The network also extends into the office of Assistant Secretary Benton. Mr. President, that memorandum was given to the Secretary of State. That being true, how could it be said, as an- pears in italics in this report, that the Tydings subcommittee was confronted
1950 with the spectacle of the four commit- tees failing to regard the situation as be- ing of sufficient importance to merit a report, and failing to cite a single de- partment employee as being disloyal? The Appropriations Committee cited no less than nine of them. It called attention to an espionage report of the FBI itself which was in State Depart~ ment files. It called attention to Mr. Marzani. It called attention to the fact that Marzan:, with others, was doing private work on the time and with the money of the United States Government in Presentations, Inc., and he and those associated with him were using it to dis- seminate Communist propaganda. Next I wish to read to the Senate Mr. Peurifoy's letter 1n reply to this investi- gation, to show whether or not the com- mittee was doing anything. Mr. Peuri- foy was Assistant Secretary of State. On June 24, 1947, Mr. Peurifoy in reply wrote to Senator Ball. Mr. President, one of the reasons why I took the floor today is that the former Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Ball, is not in the Senate now and cannot speak on the floor. He was the Senator in charge of the sub- committee of the Committee on Appro- priations handling the State Depart- ment appropriation. It was that sub- committee which was looking into this matter. This is Mr. Peurifoy’s reply: My Dear Senator BALL: Knowing your keen interest in this problem, and as part of my undertaking to keep you and your com- mittee posted as to our progress on the per- sonnel security program, I believe you will be interested to know that I have taken ac~ tion under the McCarran rider to terminate the employment of the following employees of the Department concerning whom derog- atory information of a security character or suitability nature has been obtained by investigation. Then Mr. Peurifoy names 10 persons he is putting out of the Department. I want to call the attention of the Senate to the fact that out of those 10, 5 were named in the report which was given to General Marshall, Secretary of State, on June 10, 1947, and which I have just read to the Senate. Then Mr. Peurifoy’s letter continues: In addition I expect to take action on two more cases within the next few days. Of the 1emaining 55 cases of individuals employed in the Department concerning whom derogatory allegations have been made, 3 are either resigning from the Department or are being terminated by a reduction in force, and recommendations for security clearances have been made in 8 cases, which are still being considered. The remaining 44 cases will be investigated fur- ther I have directed that such further in- vestigation be expedited and be given priority over all other investigations in order that a determination may be made in those cases at the oarliest possible date. When action has been taken on the cases now up for deci- sion, I will communicate with you further, and I will also keep you informed from time to time of the progress being made and the decisions reached in respect to the remain- ing cases of employees of the Department undergoing further investigation. Sincerely yours, Joun E, Pevriroy, Assistant Secretary. In handwriting under his signature is: Will you be good enough to inform your enmmittee, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Then on July 1, 1947, Mr. Peurifoy wrote Senator Ball this letter: \ a have discharged under the McCarran rider He uses the name which I leave blank in the Rrcorp— effective at the close of business June 30. Sincerely yours, Joun E. Peuriroy. On August 6, 1947, we received a report or statement from Mr. Stanley Goodrich that of the 65 cases in which there was question of disloyalty involved,10 indi- viduals were dismissed under the McCarran rider oh July 25, 1947, Mr KNOWLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield* Mr. FERGUSON. I yield. Mr. KNOWLAND. The Senator men- tions Mr, Stanley Goodrich. Will he identify him? Mr. FERGUSON Yes, I will get the identification for the Recorp He was an employee in the State Department en- gaged in this particular work as deputy in the Office of Controls. He was work- ing on security matters. Apparently Mr. Goodrich is referring to the letter of the 24th, because he said, “dismissed under the McCarran rider on July 27, 1947.” Iread from the file on Mr. Stanley Goodrich’s report: Seven individuals were dropped from the rolls through a reduction in force Three individuals resigned. One individual was removed as the result of charges preferred against him. One individual is on leave without pay for the period of 1 year. Fifteen individuals were given security approval, and 28 persons are still under investigation. Mr. President, that indicates that the State Department officials were in touch with the committee and they were re- porting that they were proceeding to allow some of these persons to leave. But this also indicates that they had several ways of getting rid of, let us call them, security risks. They had the method of allowing them to resign. They had the method of removing them for some cause. They had the method of removing them under the McCarran rider, as well as under the disloyalty program. At this time I wish to speak of another case because it demonstrates how the officials had been working in the depart- ment to get rid of these individuals. I quote language which was used by Mr. J. Anthony Panuch, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, who was the security officer in charge of security asked Mr. Marzani to resign. Mr. Mar- zani has beeninthe OSS He had been transferred to the State Department about November 1945. In 1946, as early as April, Mr. Panuch discovered that Mr. Marzani had been a Communist, and the question arose as to how they were going to get him out of the State Depart- ment. This is Mr, Panuch's language: Could I talk Marzant into resigning? Mr. President, Marzani had been a Communist, and later he was convicted as having been a Communist; but in the meantime he lied to the State De- partment about it. Panuch continues: Suppose I could not? On the state of the available evidence, we would be in a box, 10807 for if Marzani was in fact a subversive, he would be alerted, and further development of the evidence with respect to his activities would be dificult, if not tmpossible. He could and would immediately and effectively cover up They required clear and substan. tlal evidence. To make the situation worse, more complicated, there seemed to bs no other grounds on which to get rid of Mar- zani. In other words, Marzani was compe- tent in his work, so far as that was con- cerned; and therefore he could not be gotten rid of on the ground of ineffici- ency, That shows what difficulty they had encountered in getting a Communist out of the State Department. Then Panuch said: I could imagine the cries of double jeop- ardy * * © if we had attempted to fire Marzani in 1946 on the very same disloyalty charges which the Civil Service Commission had Cismissed in 1943. Marzani had been in the OSS. A com- plaint came in, and he was charged with being a Communist. The Civil Service Commission gave him a trial on that charge. As Mr, Panuch says, the Civil Service Commission produced no wit- nesses against Marzani; the only wit- nesses who were produced were char- acter witnesses for him, and then there was also his own testimony. The Civil Service Commission found that he was @ loyal, patriotic citizen. Panuch was worried about the spectacle of having in the State Department, Marzani, a Com- munist, 8 man who had had a trial be- fore the Civil Service Commission, even though no witnesses against him were produced at that time. The officials knew he was guilty of the charge of be- ing a Communist; but the question was, What could they do about i.? Then the McCarran rider was made available. Mr. President, at this time I wish to explain something about the McCarran rider, because 1t was put in an appropria. tion bill for the express purpose of tak- ing care of a similar situation, so as at least to allow a Communist to be re- moved from the State Department. So for a moment let me refer to the time when the McCarran rider was added to the appropriation bill. I shall never forget, and I know the other members of the Appropriations Committee will not forget, the time when, prior to July 1, 1946, question arose in the Appropriations Committee in regard to Communists or, at least, subversives or security risks in the State Department. Mr Byrnes, who formerly had been a Member of the Senate and formerly had been a member of the Su- preme Court, was then Secretary of State and he recognized what was oc- curring in the State Department. He knew, as he told our committee, that if he took the cases before the Civil Serv- ice Commission, the result would be the same as that in regard to Marzani while with the OSS—without calling any wit- nesses, without prosecuting the cases be- fore thc Commission, but with the Com. mission acting in a timid, frightened manner. Frightened of whom, Mr. President? Of Communists or of sub- versives or of securivy risks?
10808 68o Mr. Byrnes said, “I cannot get rid of these people under the present civil- service rules. There is no way to do so. Sometimes we know the existence ofa certain situation, but are unable to prove it.” Therefore, the distinguished Senator from Nevada |Mr. McCarran] and the other members of the Appropriations Committee proposed to the appropria- tions bill—and the Senate added the proposal to the bill—a rider giving the right to discharge such persons without having to go before the Civil Service Commission and without having to have a trial. That was a necessary pro- vision. Mr. MCKELLAR. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. FERGUSON. I yield for a ques- tion. Mr. McKELLAR. Where is Marzani now? Mr. FERGUSON. He is in prison in Connecticut. Mr. McKELLAR. He is not in the State Department now: is he? Mr. FERGUSON. No. Mr. McKELLAR. He has not been in the State Department since 1947, has he? Mr, FERGUSON. Not since December 20, 1947. Mr. McKELLAR. Complaint was made by the Senator from Michigan and others, and the State Department fired him. After that, he was arrested on some other charge or charges, was he not? Mr. FERGUSON. He was arrested on the same charges. Mr. McKELLAR. And he is now in prison. What else could have been done by the State Department? Has not it done everything it could to get rid of that man—the only Communist or alleged Communist or subversive or security risk the Senator has mentioned. It is ad- mitted that Marzani was duly fired for being a Communist, and is now in prison in Connecticut. What else would the Senator from Michigan have had the State Department do? Icannot imagine what else the State Department could have done. I never heard of Marzani until this morning—although I suppose I heard of him at the time, or read of him in the newspapers. However, someone reported him to the State Department, and the State De- partment fired him. What else would the Senator from Michigan have had the State Department do? Mr, FERGUSON. Mr. President, I was glad to yield to the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Com- mittee, because I know he is vitally in- terested in these questions, I am dis- cussing the Marzani case because I think it is vital in connection with the consideration of Senate Resolution 231, which required the distinguished For- eign Relations Committee to make an investigation not only of Communists or subversives or had security risks now in the State Department, but also of all those who have been in the State De- partment. Further, the Marzani case illustrated the need for the so-called McCarran rider, Also, Marsani was CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE fined under that provision. And it was the operation of the McCarran rider that took our appropriations subcommittee into this fleld in 1947, with the results I have described. I well remember that on the night of February 27, 1950, as I recall the date, when Senate Resolution 231 was before the Senate, the Senator from Michigan proposed an amendment to have the in- vestigation include not only those in the State Department but also those who had been in the State Department, be- cause we believed it was essential once and for all to have an investigation to disclose to the public what had occurred in the State Department up to that time; and we realized that if a strict or narrow interpretation of the resoluion were to be followed, as some Senators wished to have done, it would be possible that any Communists who might have been in the State Department at that time could have gotten out the day before the reso- lution was adopted by the Senate, or even on the day the resolution was adopted, and then there would be noth- ing for the committee to investigate. However, the Senate avoided that situ- ation by making the resolution more in- clusive; the Senate unanimously decided to have the investigation include not only what was happening in the State Department, but also what had hap- pened. I cite the Marzani case and the problems it presented to Mr. Panuch as a security officer because it is essen- tial that we know what was going on back in 1946 and 1947 as a backdrop for what may still be going on. Mr. KENOWLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. FERGUSON. I yield for a ques- tion. Mr. ENOWLAND. Does not the Sen- ator from Michigan also believe that at this time, when American soldiers are dying in the foxholes in Korea, if any Communists or subversives or security risks have left the State Department and are now in other branches of the Gov- ernment, it is important to ascertain that fact, because they could do great damage in other departments, as well as in the State Department. In many branches of the Government, such per- sons could do almost equal damage to the security of the United States; or if they moved into the United Nations, they could do damage to international law and order. Therefore, does not the Sen- ator from Michigan believe that it is im- portant for the Senate to know of all such matters? That is the precise rea- son why the Senate in its judgment said the investigation under Senate Resolu- tion 231 should include not only those connected with the State Department but also those who formerly had been connected with the State Department. Mr, FERGUSON. Yes, Mr. President: it is most vital. I think the one harm which this report on Senate Resolution 231 can do is to lull the State Depart- ment into a false sense of security. When our boys are dying, we should realize how much harm can be done by a slip of the tongue. Later I shall refer JULY 24 to statements in the report which in- clude the expressions “We are con- strained to hold’—imagine that, Mr. President—or ‘We cannot condone,” and similar expressions. They are not responsive to the questions that lay be- hind adoption of Senate Resolution 231, and all our people today want those questions answered fully and fairly. Mr. President, the Appropriations Committee did try to obtain the evidence. On the 10th of December 1947, former Senator Ball wrote the following letter to J. Edgar Hoover, Director of the Fed- eral Bureau of Investigation, in Wash- ington: DrecemBer 10, 1947. Mr J. Encar Hoover, Director, Federal Bureau of Investiga- tion, Washington, D. C. My Dear Mr. Hoover: This letter will in- troduce Mr. H. Maurice Joyce, of the profes- s‘onal staff, of the Senate Committee on Ap- propriations. In connection with my work as chairman of the Subcommittee for State Department Appropriations, I have been very much in- terested in the use made of the McCarran rider. As ‘you know, 11 persons were re- moved from the State Department, under the provisions of the rider, this past summer, only to be allowed the privilege of resigna- tion without prejudice a short time ago. Acting under my instructions and with the full approval of the committee chairman, STYLES BRiIncks, committee investigators have gathered all of the pertinent information from the State Department files on these particular individuals. In the very near future I intend to hold open hearings on this particular matter and it is my thought that you may be inclined to lend your support by furnishing any addi- tional material concerning the activities of the 11 individuals which is on file in your Department, Sincerely, Josrpm H. Bau. The distinguished Director of the Bureau had to decline to take such action, Under the rules of the then At- torney General, the department head was not allowed to give that information, Mr. McMAHON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Michigan yield to the Sen- ator from Connecticut? ti Mr. FERGUSON. I yield for a ques- on. Mr. McMAHON. Is it not true that that is the same type of information as that regarding which Mr. Hoover, in ap- pearing before the committee, testified it would be prejudicial to the internal security of the United States to hand it ou Mr, FERGUSON. I assume it is the same information, and I assume the rule ra the same today as it was back in that vy. Mr. McMAHON, It was the hearing at which Mr. Hoover appeared and testi- fed: the Senator realizes that, does he not? Mr, FERGUSON. Yes. Mr. MCMAHON, I think the Senator was there when Mr. Hoover testified, if Tam not mistaken, and heard Mr. Hoover and also the Attorney General testify. Mr. FERGUSON. No; the Senator from Michigan did not hear the testi- mony of those two witnesses,
1950 Mr. McMAHON. But the Senator is familiar, is he not, with the testimony of Mr. Hoover, in which he stated that he believed it would be prejudicial to the best interests of the security of the United States to open up the raw files of the Federal Burcau of Investigation? I am sure the Senator is familiar with Mr. Hoover’s views on that matter. Mr. FERGUSON. I am advised that thore are his views on the matter. Mr.McMAHON. Iam sure the Senator agrecs with those views, docs he not? Mr. FERGUSON. No; I do not agree with that. Mr. McMAHON. The Senator does not agree with that view? Mr. FERGUSON. No. Mr. President, I thought we were going to be given a full report from the com. mittee conducting an investigation pur- suant to Senate Resolution 231. But speaking of Mr. Hoover, I wonder why we do not have this information in the re- port. This committee has put some of the things in the report, but I want to read an article by Mr. Bert Andrews, of the New York Herald Tribune. It is under the byline of Mr, Andrews in the Herald Tribune for Tuesday, April 4, 1950. I wonder why the committee did not report the name of the man and the evidence discussed here by Mr. Andrews, I have every reason to believe that the events took place as reported. The ar- ticle is by Bert Andrews and is headed “J. Edgar Hoover refused to clear one man accused by McCartHy—a security risk found by FBI head among those on list submitted at secret session.” The article by Bert Andrews reads: WasHincton, April 3.—This reporter learned today from sources on Capitol Hill that J. Edgar Hoover, Director of the Fed- eral Bureau of Investigation, told a group of Senators— I take it that that is the subcommittee, which is shown to be true later— that he has certain reservations about one of the men accused by Senator Josgrn R. McCartHyY, Republican, of Wisconsin, in the McCarthy-State Department feud. The article continues, on page 16— and this is the important part—— Mr. McKELLAR. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Michigan yield to the Sen- ator from Tennessee? Mr. FERGUSON. I yield. Mr, McKELLAR. What is the date of the newspaper from which the Senator is reading? Mr. FERGUSON. I am reading from the New York Herald Tribune of April 4, 1950. Beginning with the last para- graph of the article on page 1, and con- tinuing on page 16, the article reads: Actually, from what the Capitol Hill sources disclose, Mr. Hoover, at a secret session, gave far less than exoneration to one individual. It is understood that one Senator asked Mr. Hoover facetiously if he would hire tne individual in question as an FBI agent and that Mr, Hoover snapped back @ sharp “no.” It is understood that another question was whether Mr. Hoover regarded .he man as a security risk and that he said he did. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE It is understood that a third question was whether Mr. Hoover would approve the man as loyal, and that he replicd that if he were on the man’s loyalty review board the man would have many things to explain before Mr. Hoover would approve him. There were other questions in the same vein, It could not be learned whether the line of questioning was applied to addi- tional individuals. The best information is that it was used concerning only one. The FBI was asked tonight to comment on the information obtained by this reporter. The answer wa:; “No comment.” That would indicate, Mr. President, that what the Senate now needs is a copy of the transcript of all the evidence taken in executive session and all the facts obtained in executive sessions, so that we may ascertain an answer to the question, Whom did this Senator ask about? What is said in the report about that? Mr. McKELLAR. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Michigan yield to the Sen- ator from Tennessee? Mr, FERGUSON. I yield. Mr. McKELLAR. Was the one man of whom Mr. Hoover spoke Marzani? Mr. FERGUSON. No. Ihave no idea now who it was. I am not saying who it was. Mr. McKELLAR. Does the Senator know that it was not Marzani? Mr. FERGUSON. Oh, I am sure it was not Marzani, because he is not now in the State Department; he is in prison. Mr. McKELLAR. I know. But he might have been the man referred to. This was some time ago. The Senator is telling us about something which hap- pened some time ago. Mr. FERGUSON, It was only in April of this year. Mr. McKELLAR. It might have been in the testimony. Has the Senator the name of any other man to whom Mr, Hoover referred? Mr. FERGUSON. No, I have not. I am merely reading from Mr. Andrews’ article, which is a report of what hap- pened. I have looked in the report for that information. Iam unable to ascer- tain the names referred to in the report. Mr. McKELLAR. The Senator then does not have the evidence, is that cor- rect? Mr. FERGUSON. No, and I think we should have a full and complete file on that. Mr. McMAHON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question at that point? The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Michigan yield to the Sen- ator from Connecticut? Mr. FERGUSON. I yield. Mr. McMAHON. Is the Senator fa- miliar with the section of the report, on page 16, referring to the McCarran com- mittee, which he has been discussing, beginning at the end of line 3, in the second full paragraph of the report on that page? It reads as follows: The unique powers conferred on the De- partment as a result of continuous @eenact- ment of the McCarran rider led the Depart- ment to promulgate regulations which would 10869 encompass its duties and powers both under the Executive order and under the McCarran rider. ment— And this is what I should particularly like to call to the Senator's attention: Despite the concern of the Department for effective screenirg, thorough investigation and adequate procedures under the McCar- ran rider, public criticism developed largely as a result of a newspaper series known as the Andrews articlos— The reference is to Bert Andrews, from whose article the Senator has been quot- ing, is it now? Mr. FERGUSON, Yes. Mr. McMAHON. Continuing— which resulted in the award of the Pulitzer prize to its author. These articles attempted to demonstrate that despite the Depart- ment’ precautions, fair play in the tradle tional American sense was not afforded dis- charged employees. I wanted to invite the Senator's atten- tion to Mr. Andrews’ views, which won him a Pubtzer prize, as to the unwonted vigor, perhaps the too great vigor, with which the Department pursued the ap- plication of the McCarran rider. Mr. FERGUSON, Iam well aware of Mr. Andrews’ views and I am well aware that he won a Pulitzer prize, but I am also well aware that the United States Government must use a fair interpreta- tion of the law and must be able to cope with the situation, within the constitu- tional limitations, based on the facts as they are found to be. As indicated by the letter of December 10, 1947, from Senator Ball to Mr. J. Edgar Hoover, which I have placed in the Recorp, we were at that time interested not only in the 11 dismissals under the McCarran rider which were the subject of the Pulit- zer prize articles by Mr. Andrews, but in the rehiring of those people. We were thwarted in that inquiry by the fact that in 1948 loyalty and personnel files of Government employees were closed to congressional committees by Presiden- tial order. Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. FERGUSON, I prefer to proceed and to yield at the conclusion of my re- marks. . Mr. President, on page 2 of the testi- mony which was taken by the Appro- priations Subcommittee on June 13, 1947, former Senator Ball asked this question of Mr. Peurifoy: Would you say that in our present situas tion, internationally, particularly in a De« partment like the State Department, dealing with foreign questions, it is essential that there be absolutely no question as to the loy~ alty of its employees? Mr. Pevriroy. Absolutely, air. Scnator Baty, So that any doubt as to an individual's loyalty should be resolved in favor of the Government? Mr. Feurisoy. Any reasonable doubt should be resolved in favor of the Government. I believe it 1s a privilege to work for this Government, and not a right. That testimony recalls the fact that Mr. Peurifoy himself was shocked at the testimony brought out, and that he rec- ognized the need to give the benefit of doubt to the Government in such cases, Despite the concern of the Depart-
10810 In connection with the hearings from which I have just quoted I can cite one particular case in which the file was ex- amined and the evidence given in the presence of Mr, Peurifoy and the security officers, which was to the effect that a girl secretary to one of the Assistant Sec- retaries of State had been employed, prior to her employment in the State Department, in the Russtan Embassy. She had worked in the Washington Book Shop. We know what the Attorney Gen- eral's office has said about that shop be- fore it closed. I take it that the evi- dence was considered by the State De- partment itself as being so strong in showing a security risk that they put in the file an order that she could not see top-secret information. I shall never forget that the distinguished senior Sen- ator from New Hampshire [Mr. Brincgs], who is now on the floor, and the junior Senator from Michigan called the As- sistant Secretary of State concerned, to advise what the evidence showed con- cerning this particular girl who was a secretary in his office. He was told that she, under the order in the file, could not see top-secret information. He said “Senator, I never heard of that order in the file. Nobody told me about that order in the file. I know she is not a Communist.” We asked him how he knew she was not a Communist, and he said: T looked her straight in the eye and asked her, “Are you a Communist?” and she said “No.” Mr. President, when we know the tech- niques of communism, when we know how Communists are taught to lie and to deceive, that is an astonishing state- ment. If we should bring a maid in from a@ farm and ask her some question, she would probably tell the truth. But we should not expect that to apply to any- one who has been listed as not entitled to get top-secret information. The Senator from New Hampshire well remembers that conversation. Later, this person left the Department. We asked in Senate Resolution 231 that the committee make public the facts so we would know what took place. It is for that reason that I feel it is my solemn duty to repeat now these things and to give this information to the United States Senate. We must be alerted. We are now at war with communism. It is not a cold war; it is a hot war with communism. If the American people are not alerted, what will happen? I read from page 13 of the committee report. Here is what the committee had to say about it: At the end of the war, and indeed some months before, it became increasingly ap- parent that the Soviet Union did not con- template a cooperative and friendly rela- tion with democratic peoples and that the American Communist Party was resorting to its traditional obsatructionist tactics and sub- servience to Soviet Russia, Those employees whose loyalty was subject to question had to be removed from the Federal service, So, a few months prior to the end of the war, America was just awakening from her slecp. Every member of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE committee knew that a few months prior to the war we were being penetrated by these very people; and then, Mr. Presi- dent, we are told they were looked right in the eye and asked, “Are you a Com- munist?” Do Senators remember what was asked Mr. Hiss when he was examined, and how he and Mr. Remington were examined? Mr. Remington is under in- dictment for lying to a grand jury in New York as to whether he ever was a Communist. No, Mr. President; we must alert all our public officials to this thing which is happening in America for its bearing on what is now happening in Korea, as the distinguished Senator from California (Mr. KNow.anp] has said. Mr. President, there is another matter which I want to bring to the attention of the Senate, which was brought out by the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. LoncE! in his individual views. He asked & question which I think is very perti- nent. He wants to know who brought Mr. Hiss into the State Department. He wants to know who brought Mr. Wad- leigh into the Department. Here is his question, on page 339 of the report: What State Department officials were re- sponsible for placing Hiss and Wadleigh in the State Department? That raises the whole question of Mr. Hiss and his activities in the State De- partment, as also the question of the activities of Mr. Wadleigh. The Senate has never been told the facts of the Hiss case. The Senator from Connecticut {Mr. McMahon] can laugh about that if he wishes, but we know only what was brought out to prove that Mr. Hiss was guilty of perjury. That is all we know about. The committee was designated to tell us all about the activities of all these people in the State Department. Mr. President, this is no laughing matter, I say to the Senator from Connecticut. Mr. McMAHON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. FERGUSON. Not to a man who will laugh when the question is asked whether or not the Senate of the United States has been fully advised as to Mr. Hiss. Mr. McMAHON. Mr. President, will the Senator reconsider his refusal to yield, in view of his personal attack on the Senator from Connecticut? Mr. FERGUSON. No; I shall not yield now. Mr. McMAHON. Does the Senator refuse to yield? Mr. FERGUSON. At this moment. The Senate has a right to know. I am surprised, in fact I am disap- pointed, that the memorandum I am about to read is not incorporated in the report of the subcommittee. It is signed by Mr. J. Anthony Panuch. Mr. Panuch was the head of the Security Division of the State Department at the time the memorandum was written on March 7, 1946. is a confidential memorandum for Mr. Russell, who was then Under Sec- retary of State in charge of administra- tion under Secretary of State Byrnes. JULY 24 It is in reply to a proposal of March §, 1946, which is referred to: MarcH 7, 1946, Confidential. Memorandum for Mr. Russell. Subject: Hiss plan for reorganization of the State Department. 1. I have read with mingled feelings of admiration and horror the outline of the above as revealed in— I leave out the name of the writer— memorandum to the Secretary of State March 5, 1946. The plan's simplicity of de- sign is admirable; its concept is grandiose. If accomplished, it will make Colonel Mc- Cormick’'s plans for the reorganization of the Department under the cloak of organizing “intelligence” appear provincial and myopic by comparison. 2. In examining the plan and assessing its implications in terms of control, it should be remembered that Dr. Hiss exercises Svengali- like influence over the mental process of — I leave out the name— the United States delegate Through— I leave out the name— his designee for the post of Secretary General of the United States delegation to UNO Dr. Hiss will enjoy “working control” over the flow of papers in and out of the Secretariat of the United States group. The proposed plan would establish a similar con- trol set-up within the State Department, where Dr. Hiss already wields considerable influence with the counselor on UNO mat- ters. This would be effected by the simple device of establishing a new Office for the United Nations Affairs, which would report directly to the Under Secretary. Under the plan the Director of this new Office (Dr. Hiss) would be the Under Secretary's Deputy for United Nations Affairs, 3. If this ambitious project should be ap- proved, it is obvious that the operations of the new office, as the “Initiating and coordi- nating center within the Department” for UNO affairs will, for all practical purposes, supplant and supersede the functions of the geographic and economic offices of the De- partment. In such event, the question arises to what extent the de jure policy out- put of the Department will be diluted by the day-to-day de facto policy proiuct as estab- lished by-—— I leave out the name— Counterpart of the State Department, functioning within the UNO orbit of influ- ence In New York. If Dr. Hiss should suc- ceed in causing— T leave out the name— to be designated as the UNO Assistant Secretary General for Administration, the Hiss group will have achieved infiltration in, or control of, four critically strategic points, lie, (a) UNO itself— I leave out the name— (b) The United States delegation— I leave out two names— (c) State Department— I leave out the name— and (da) Bureau of the Budget— I leave out the name— 4. This power mechanism could be utilised &s an effective instrumentality within UNO of our foreign policy as determined by the Secretary and the President. But if it is not so utilized, or, if 1t becomes susceptible to other influences, the resulia may be em- to UNO.
1950 barrassing to the Secretary, to say the least. The security hazard of such a set-up, if eventually accomplished, would seem to war- rant the continuing interest of the FBI and other security intelligence agencies, RECOMMENDATIONS (a) The Cffice of United Nations Affairs, if established, has two main functions; (1) to transmit departmental policy, coordinated in the geographic and economic offices, when approved by the Secretary, to the United States delegation to UNO, and (2) to provide “headquarters services’ to the delegation. (b) The OUNA is, in essence, a political office which should be under the jurisdiction of the Assistant Secretary for Political Affairs. (c) It seems almost self-evident that a strong Assistant Secretary for Political Af- fairs should be promptly designated to re- lieve the Secretary of some of his present tremendous burden. Gencral Wedemyer, if available, would seem to be an outstanding Possibility for this portfolio. He is an ex- pert on Germany and related geopolitical problems. He was undoubtedly the ‘‘ace” planner of the General Staff during the war, and as such, was held in uncommon regard by Generals Marshall and Eisenhower. He is a highly civilized person possessed of con- summiate skill in matters of politico-mili- tary diplomacy—qualities which he demon- trated in China under trying circumstances. Because of the fear and respect in which the British hold him, his appointment could not roasonably be construed as a threatening gesture to the U.S.S R. Such an appoint- ment would be gratifying to the President and would not be subject to attack by Con- stantine Brown. I think even Drew Pearson would approve, Incidentally, the general would make on ideal United States member of the Far Eastern Commission in the event that this burden should eventually become too great for General McCoy. J. ANTHONY PanucH. Mr. President, I think it is very impor- tant that comment be made on the evi- dence before us. Did the State Depart- ment know whai Mr. Hiss was doing in the Department? If not, why did the security officer write this memorandum? I ask these questions: Why is there not something about this business in the re- port? Was and is there a cell in the De- partment? Was what Mr. Hiss was do- ing known to the Department? What was he doing? Why is that not in the report, if the members of the committee were to tell us what had gone on as well as what was going on at the present time? I read this sentence: Dr. Hiss will enjoy working control over the flow of papeis in and out of the Secre- tarlat of the United States group. Mr. President, Mr. Panuch said that if the plan were to go through, Mr. Hiss would enjoy working control over the flow of pape.s in and out of the Secre- tariat of the United States group. What could America have expected, Mr. Presi- dent, if Mr. Hiss had working control over all the papers that went in and out of the Secretariat of the United States group? Then Mr. Panuch in a further sentence says: The Hiss group will have achieved infiltra- tion— What kind of infiltration? What was Mr. Panuch talking about? He must have known what was being done in the Department by some of the employees, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Why has that not been investigated and brought to our attention? Then he said: The security hazard of such a set-up if eventually accomplished would seem to war- rant the continuing irterest of the FBI and other security intelligence agencies. In other words, he is so frightened about it that he believes that if it is ac- complished the FBI will constantly have to be employed, and the other security agencies constantly be in the State De- partment. Mr. President, I cite this matter be- cause I believe it essential that we should have been given all the facts under Sen- ate Resolution 231, and I think we have not been given all the facts. Mr. President, so far as the Sonate Committee on Appropriations was able to do so, it investigated and reported, contrary to what the Senator from Maryland, or his subcommittee’s report state. I have no knowledge that it ever had the 108 files referred to. It did have access to some of the State Department files. Whether they included any of the 108 I have no way of telling. I have now examined the 1cport of the House Ap- propriations Committee and find they have listed information on some 108 files. But I am sure that was published some time after the Senate committee had gone into the matter; it was published in January 1948. As I have stated, our committee did not consider the situa- tion as one which did not merit a report, because we did report to the Secretary of State, and we cited names. We gave no clearances, as the subcommittee re- port and the Senator from Maryland {Mr. Typrnes] inferred we did. As I have said before, we were confronted in March 1948 with the closing of all the files, and therefore it was impossible for us to look into the files any further, or continue the examination of them. Mr. LODGE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. FERGUSON. I yield for a ques- tion. Mr. LODGE. Or would the Senator rather wait until later? Mr. FERGUSON. I would rather wait until later. Mr. LODGE. Very well; I shall wait. Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, as I indicated, the public will never be satis- fied with this investigation unless all the evidence is printed. That is why I read the Bert Andrews’ story. The ques- tion was, Did that happen? Who is the person they are talking about? He may even have been one of those who have been cleared in this report of the Foreign Relations subcommittee. I am just informed on the Senate floor that what is ostensibly the testi- mony before the subcommittee has been printed. But the distinguished Sena- tor from Massachusetts had asked cer- tain questions, and some 4) pages of his questions and the answers have been left out of the printed record of the hear- ings. Why was that testimony left out? I say, Mr. President, that if a report quotes part of the testimony, then the public is entitled to all the testimony. * 40811 I realize that this report was given to the press before it was even delivered to the committee. The press had a day or two to read it over. The Senate had no such opportunity. It was summa- rized so that the committee could high- light those things they thought should be emphasized. The committee used italics in the report so that facts could be picked out, and that emphasis indi- cated that the Committee on Appropria- tion had gone over these cases, but had done nothing about them. I have indi- cated this not to be the fact. Mr. President, the Senator from Mary.- land [Mr, Typ1ncs] is an honest, patri- otic citizen, He stated on the floor of the Senate that he had found in the report; for instance, allegations against the Senator from Massachusetts which should be withdrawn. The Senator from Maryland apparently did not write the report. He is chairman of the Com- mittee on Armed Services, and he had duties and tasks in connection with that committee. I am wondering then, who did write this report. Who is the actual author of the words of the report? I think it would be well for the Senate of the United States to know. It was handed a report, without the right of debate at the time it was submitted. But there is one thing about the Senate, there always comes a time when Sena- tors can debate a matter. It may not be at the particular moment when the matter is first brought up, because a motion to table can keep any Sena- tor from using his voice at that moment, but there comes a time in the Senate when a Senator can raise his voice on the floor and state what he believes to be the facts; and we should thank our God that that is true. If the time ever comes when a minority cannot rise in the Senate and speak, then America will no longer be America. Mr. President, who drew the conclu- sions of this report? That is a question about which we want information. Who helped to write it? Who read it before it was actually put before the Senate? I shall refer to just a few pages of the report. 1 take first page 159, and I want to make observations on certain language, there in line with my inquiry as to who wrote it. It does not appear to me to be the forthright language of the Senator from Maryland. I now read: In consideration of the charges made against * * * this subcommittee ts con- strained— I underscore the word “constrained’— to obcerve that it is regrettahle so many who profess to be informed about communism fail to understand or, when it serves them, deliberately ignore the true nature of the Communist-front movement, It continues: This movement is a tactic devised by Communist strategists to bring, through de- ception, all liberal-minded persons into touch with Communists and ultimately under their leadership, and expresses itself either through Communist infiltration of organizations of good repute or the comert establishment of front organizations, under disguised Com- munist contre], appealiny on the basis of
10812 ostensibly worthy purposes to liberal-minded individuals. Then they proceed to say: To condemn indiscriminately those who are deceived by such fronts is to play di- rectly into the hands of the Communists, On the other hand, we cannot condone the practice of permitting the indiscriminate use of one's name by organizations the nature of which is not known or investigated, Whose language is this, Mr. President? Who is “constrained to observe”? Who is “constrained to observe that it is re- grettable so many who profess to be in- formed about communism fail to under- stand or, when it serves them, delib- erately ignore the true nature of the Communist-front movement.” Why such weasel words as “we are con- strained’? The next sentence is correct, but, Mr. President, whose words are these? — To condemn indiscriminately those who are deceived by such fronts is to play directly into the hands of the Communists. If they are honestly deceived, it is said we cannot then condemn them. But I say, Mr. President, that they should have had knowledge or should have known. For centuries the law has been that a man is held to be responsible for his knowledge or for what he should have known. Then they say, “On the other hand we cannot condone the practice.” They do not condemn the practice; they only say ‘“‘We cannot condone the practice of per- mitting the indiscriminate use of one’s name.” Those are contradictory state- ments. Then I turn to page 73, where another individual is being discussed, and we find this language: Perhaps-— Only “perhaps”—~ in many of his contacts, (he) has not exer- cised the discretion— The “discretion,” Mr. President; I em- phasize the word “discretion’-— he has not exercised the discretion which our knowledge of communism in 1950 indicates would have been wise, but we are impelled to comment that in no instance has Mr. Blank on the evidence before us been shown to have knowingly associated with Communists. The convenient theory suggested to us that he must have known has not yet become the criterion for judging a private citizen in this country. In other words, they are going to for- give everyone for everything he has done in connection with communism if he did it prior to 1950. 1950 is going to be the dividing line. If one was tied in in any way with communism prior to 1950, oh, that is all right. Is it all right even under their own report, as I read before from page 13: At the end of the war, and indeed some months before, it became increasingly ap- parent that the Soviet Union did not con- template a cooperative and friendly relation with democratic peoples and that the Amer- ican Communist Party was resorting to its traditional obstructiontat tactics and sub- servience to Soviet Russia. Those employees whose loyalty was subject to question had to be removed from the Federal service, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Imagine using the word “perhaps” and the words “exercise of discretion” and “the evidence before us.” For what was the committee appointed if it was not to secure all the evidence? The Sen- ator from Massachusetts (Mr. Lopce] was absolutely correct in the statement he made on the floor of the Senate. I am glad he came to the floor and demon- strated the trouble he was up against when he wanted people to help him ferret out the evidence, I am informed by one of the counsel of the committee, and I think it was even stated on the floor of the Senate, that they had numerous wit- nesses to produce, but those witnesses were not brought before the committee. They were not allowed to be heard. And then the committee used the words in the report, ‘on the evidence.” They say “on the evidence.” Mr. President, again I want to show what kind of language they are using. We should be very particular to note the language uscd in this report. In talk- ing about security risks and disloyalty they use the word “indiscretion.” They speak of persons who are said to be secu- rity risks, who are said to be disloyal, as being indiscreet. What is a security risk, if indiscretion is no criterion? I will give an example from page 93 of the report: We muct conclude that Blank was extreme- ly indiscreet in his dealings with Gayn and Jaffe, a fact which he himeelf readily admits, “Indiscreet.” Let us read what they were talking about. This is what they were talking about: It 1s not logical that he should take official copies of his reports, that had become Gov-~ ernment property, to give Jaffe when he had carbon copies that he could freely lend with. out violating any law. The idea, Mr. President. They are saying in this report about people high in the Department of State, “If you make a confidential memorandum, no matter what it is, you can keep a copy of that and you can give it to anyone, and you are not guilty of anything. But if you take the original and give it to anyone then you are guilty of a crime.” That is what they are talking about when they use the word “indiscretion”; that he gave only a copy of the secret report to Mr. Jaffe. Whoever heard of any such lan- guage to advise the Secretary of State that if his employees keep copies of any reports of any secret matters they make up, they are entitled to give them to the enemy or anyone else and then they will be charged only by the people of the United States with—what? With ex- tremely indiscreet action. Then on the next page of the report they use this language: Perhaps the State Department's admin- istration process was at fault in failing to brief its employees coming into Washington on short consultations on how they should treat the press during their stay. But we cannot and do not conclude that his indis- cretion in the Amerasia matter is sufficient to brand an otherwise competent and loyal em. ployee of 17 years’ service ag disloyal, pro- Communist, or a security risk, Mr. President, this “indiscretion” was in connection with 1,700—I have seen the figure as being as high as 1,800—copies JULY 24 of reports. Their contents were mat- ters, we were told, that were “teacup gos- sip.” I am glad the Senator from Mas- sachusetts (Mr. LopcE} listed the char- acter of some of these reports, 1,700 of which did not appear in the offices of the great newspapers of the United States, but in a magazine whose circulation was around 2,000 copies. They were not “teacup gossip.” And now we are told that it was only an indiscretion to have given any such reports, and that pos- sibly the State Department did not prop- erly advise its foreign agents when they returned to Washington as to how they should conduct their press relations. The Senator from Massachusetts has given a brief discription of the reports. I ask that that discription be inserted at this point in the Recorp as a part of my remarks, as taken from pages 317 and 318 of the subcommittee report, The VICE PRESIDENT. Without ob- jection, it is so ordered. The matter referred to is as follows: That many of these documents were of great importance is shown by the following brief descriptions of some of the documents: A top secret document dealing with targets in Japan; a top secret document on the Japa- nese Air Force; a top secret report on Japa- nese resources; a top secrot document which revealed the United States breakdown and mastery of Japanese codes; a confidential Office of Naval Intelligence report on the or- ganization of Japanese naval forces; a strict- ly confidential communication from Ambas- sador Gauss on the roorganization of the Chinese Air Force; a classified report on air- plane and seaplane anchorages in Japan, Formosa, and Korea prepared by Military In- telligence; an Office of N«val Intelligence confidential report on China coast physical geography and conastwise shipping routes, bearing the penciled notation “war plans, coastal areas, inner passage, mined areas”; a very secret document containing a memo- randum to the joint chiefs of staff, Wash- ington; two secret documents of the Military Intelligence Division entitled “Changes to Order of Battle of Chinese Army”; a docu- nent marked top secret for eyes only, the very highest classification given; a confiden- tial forecast of the Pacific war by Secretary Grew, which indicated the location of Amer- ican submarines; together with other classi- fied documents dealing with such subjects as the composition of United States forces in Manila and an operations plan for Naval In- telligence for their entire counterintelligence organization in the United States. Mr. FERGUSON, Mr. President, there is another thing which was not in- vestigated, as the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts has pointed out. It was the basis of a chart reported to have been prepared by the FBI. I have no way of telling whether that is the same report which I have mentioned in con- nection with the memorandum handed General Marshall June 10, 1947, but mention of it has been made on the floor, as the Senator from Massachusetts has said. He has pointed out that the re- ported FBI chart shows the number of agents, Communists, suspects, and sym- pathizers in the State Department as of May 15, 1947, The tabulation shows 20 agents, 13 Communists, 14 sympathizers, and 77 suspects. It is further stated that by July 12 the number had been reduced to the follow- ing: 11 agents, 10 Communists, 11 sym- pathizers, and 74 suspects,
1950 T-:e Senator from Massachusetts asked this question: Who are these Communists and agents and sympathisers and suspects? What are their names? Why are they there? He further said: In the Lattimore case, there are a number of questions to which the answers were not obtained. Then he asked very important ques- tions dealing with the Lattimore case Mr. LODGE. Mr, President, will the Senator yield? Mr. FERGUSON, I yield. Mr. LODGE. Is the Senator from Michigan aware of the fact that in the printed copy of the hearings of the sub- committee on disloyalty, there are omit- ted, beginning at page 1488, about 35 typewritten pages of the transcript of the subcommittee meeting on June 28? Mr. FERGUSON. I have referred to it in my remarks on, the floor; I just learned of it this morning. Mr. LODGE. Is the Senator from Michigan aware of the fact that the part which was omitted includes a long list of questions which I thought the subcom- mittee should ask, but which the sub- committee did not ask? Mr. FERGUSON Yes; I am informed of that. I am glad the Senator from Massachusetts has brought that matter to the attention of the Senate at this time Mr. LODGE. Mr. President, will the Senator permit me to say that I shall not attempt to characterize those methods and the tactics of leaving out of the printed text parts of the testimony and proceedings? I shall not characterize such methods, because I think they speak for themselves. However, I should like to ask the Sena- tor whether he would object to having printed at this point in the ConGcRESssION- au Recorp, as a part of his remarks, the portions of the subcommittee transcript which have been omitted from the print- ed text of the hearings. Would the Sen- ator object to that? Mr. FERGUSON. No, Mr. President; I shall not object. I ask unanimous con- sent that the portion to which the Sena- tor has referred may be printed at the conclusion of my remarks, . The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there ob- jection? Mr. McMAHON. Mr. President, ob- jJecting just for the present, in order to make an observation, if the Senator will permit me, let me say that I am very happy that the Senator 1s going to per- mit the printing of those pages of the testimony at this point in the ConcGrEs- SIONAL Recorp, because in my opinion all the testimony which was taken either in executive session or in open session should be fully printed. I say to the Sen- ator that apparently he holds in his hand or has available to him the com- plete record of every word of testimony which the subcommittee received. Mr, LODGE. It is supposed to be com- plete, but I have just called attention to the fact that it has been very carefully edited. Mr. McMAHON. No; I mean I under- stand that the Senator has in his hand =CVI———681 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE or has available to him the complete stenographic record. So far as I know, I thought the entire stenographic record was contained in the green volume of printed hearings which the Senator has on his desk. If the printed volume does not contain all the Stenographic record, I think the part the Senator mentions should not only be printed in the CONGRESSIONAL Recorp but perhaps should also be printed as a rec- ord of the hearings; perhaps we could well think about having it printed as the record of the committee hearings before a large number of copies of that record are printed. Mr. LODGE. Having had this experi- ence with the record, I would rather not take a chance. I would prefer to have the portion to which I have referred printed in the CONGRESSIONAL REcorD, The VICE PRESIDENT Is there ob- jection? Without objection, it is 50 ordered. (The testimony referred to appears at the conclusion of Mr. Ferguson's speech ) Mr. McMAHON. Mr. President, per- haps the Senator misunderstood me. I not only want the portion to which reference has been made printed at this point in the Conerrssionat Recorp, but I think it would be well to have it printed in the committee record, also. Mr. LODGE. I think so, too, How- ever, I do not want to let this copy out of my possession, except to the official re- porters for the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Michigan for his cooperation in this matter. Mr. FERGUSON. I thank the Sena- tor from Massachusetts for calling it to my attention. Mr. President, that matter raises the question, How could that portion of the testimony be omitted from the printed hearings? Who is responsible for that omission? What kind of methods have been followed in making to the United States Senate a report from which very vital and important matters are omitted? This matter is the reason why, when I commenced my remarks, I said, “until all the records are printed.” Mr. President, I hope what I may say here today will indicate strongly that I believe there must be a new investiga- tion of this entire matter, Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr, FERGUSON. I yield. Mr. KNOWLAND. Since the Senator has brought up the question of the com- pleteness of the record, let me say that as soon as I learned that the record had been printed, and because of necessity I was away for several days last week, when I returned I sent one of the page boys to the Foreign Relations Commit- tee to request a copy of this printed rec- ord for me. He was informed, and in turn he informed me, that the copy would not be available. I sent him back again, and told him that I knew the record had been printed and that I wanted a copy. Again he returned, and reported to me that they would have to be person- ally released by the Senator from Mary- 10813 land, the chairman of the subcom- mittee, I then went to the cloakroom and put in a personal request to the Senator from Maryland. There was momentary hesi- tation; but I said that as a Member of the Senate of the United States, I de- sired to have a copy, and I felt that a copy should be made available to me, because I think it is a matter of current importance, and some of us might want to discuss the situation, and we wanted to have a copy while the matter was current. The Senator said he would look into the matter and would see if I could be supplied with a copy here on the floor of the Senate. I merely want the Recorp to be com- plete, because this matter is of such im- portance that I do not think there should be a moment's hesitation in supplying each Member of the Senate with a copy of this very important document. Mr. LODGE, Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. FERGUSON, I am glad to yield. Mr. LODGE. I have this one copy, which I obtained after some difficulty. I shall be glad to let the Senator from California have it, but I hope he does not let it out of his sight, because I under- stand that if he does, we may never see it again Mr HICKENLOOPER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Mr, !"ERGUSON. I yield for a ques- tion. Mr. HICKENLOOPER. So as to keep the Recorp straight, let me say that I was a member of the subcommittee, as was also the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr Lopce!, who succeeded in obtaining a copy of the hearing, after some diffi- culty. By what method he obtained it, I do not know. However, as a member of the subcom- mittee and also as a Member of the Sen- ate, I have had the same difficulty that the Senator from California has experi- enced. Thus far, I have been unable to get a copy of the hearing. Iam still at- tempting to obtain one. Before the day is over, I hope I can obtain one. In order that the Senator from California may not feel alone in this matter, I mere- ly wish to point out that I, too, have thus far been unable to obtain a copy of the hearing. Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, per- haps I was more fortunate. I saw one of the copies on Friday, for a few minutes. However, what I wanted was not in it. I was informed that the second section was not printed as yet. At any rate, I could not find what I wanted to find, Mr. LODGE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr, FERGUSON. I yield. Mr. LODGE. Iunderstand that part 1 is supposed to be complete, insofar as the hearings before the committee are concerned. Mr, FERGUSON. Yes. Mr, LODGE. The second part deals only with the appendix, Mr, FERGUSON, ‘Yes, Mr. LODGE. So part 1, at which the Senator is now looking, purports to con- tain the full text of all the proceedings
10814 on June 28. However, as I have just stated, it does no such thing, because approximately 35 pages of the type- written testimony have been omitted, and those portions deal with some very important matters, Mr. TAFT. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr, FERGUSON, I yield. Mr, TAFT, Is it not also true that after those pages are omitted from the printed hearing, the printed hearing then resumes the typewritten transcript at the point where the statement is made that the hearings were concluded for that day, including the statement that the committee adjourned—and thus seems to indicate that that was all of the hearings, although actually a great many pages of the testimony were omitted? Mr. LODGE. That is true. The omission of the portions to which I have referred could not have been a mistake, in the sense that by mistake the entire latter part of the proceedings was omit- ted, because after the omission of the large number of pages to which I have referred, in the printed copy of the hear- ing appear the last several sentences shown in the typewritten transcript, in- cluding the statement about the ad- journment. However, the printed copy omits all the questions which I have asked to have printed in the CONGRES- SIONAL Recor» for today. Mr, President, I have just received an- other copy of part 1 of the hearings; they seem to be coming now. Mr, HICKENLOOPER. Mr. dent, will the Senator yield? The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Michigan yield to the Sen- ator from Iowa? Mr. FERGUSON. I yield for a ques- tion. Mr HICKENLOOPER. I desire to state that I now have a copy of volume 1, which has just been delivered to me. Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, I should state that when I saw the record of the hearings I was looking for one par- ticular matter, namely, whether the ap- pendix contained the hearings of the Senate Appropriations Committee. As I suggested in the beginning, the entire record should be printed. That is why I read from the article by Mr, Andrews, published in the New York Herald Trib- une. That was part of the proceedings of the committee. Mr President, Iam sorry the subcom- mittee has been discharged, I really feel that the subcommittee, knowing what has taken place, should resume its work and undertake an investigation of its own staff, an investigation of those who prepared this volume, to determine who is responsible for omitting from the record these vital pages; to ascertain who is responsible for the wording of this report and for the portion which I cited on Friday. On page 210, in ex- planation of a certain individual's rela- tions with the State Department, there is reference to a so-called round-table discussion, and it is stated that the per- son referred to was one of the people who came into that discussion. Contrary to that description of the affair, in the Presi- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE justification for that particular money for the use of the State Department, representatives of the Department ap- peared before the Senate Appropriations Committee, and testified that the occa- sion was a vital thing to the Department, that it must have certain people come in, to whom they not only pay a per diem but also expense money. The Senate appropriated money for this purpose, yet the report would indicate that these were nothing but round-table discussions, with a banquet in the evening, in order that certain matters might be casually discussed, Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Michigan yield to the Sen- ator from South Dakota? Mr. FERGUSON. I yield for a ques- tion. Mr. MUNDT. In view of the very ex- traordinary manner in which the so- called committee report has been given to the Senate, by virtue of the fact that in the original instance it was labeled a “subcommittee report” and that, after the Committee on Foreign Relations had disavowed paternity of the report, 1t was finally printed, and, in the process of printing, the Jacket was changed from “subcommittee report” to indicate that il was 2 report of the full committee; further, in view of the fact that what purports to be the complete hearings of the committee has been deleted, cen- sored, and chopped up, in conformity with the evidence presented by the Sen- ator from Massachusetts; and in view of the further fact that the chairman of the committee, himself, has spoken on the floor of the Senate, saying he did not know there were in the report some of the things which actually were found in the report, I wonder whether the Sen- ator from Michigan will agree with the Senator from South Dakota that this whole business of a report and a cen- sored set of hearings comes very close to being a hoax and a fraud, to use the words of the original report. Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, I may answer that by saying that the hoax and fraud could have been perpetrated on the subcommittee by those who drafted the report and by those who prepared the record. I am not saying that that is the case. I know the dis- tinguished members of the committee. The Senator from Maryland stood upon this floor and was rather shocked to think that the report criticized the dis- tinguished Senator from Massachusetts for attending only nine meetings, or some such number—indicating to the Senate that he was not responsible for that part of the report. Who put it in? Why was it put in? I want to make a few remarks upon that question. Mr. MUNDT. Myr. President, will the Senator yield further? The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Michigan yield further to the Senator from South Dakota? ti Mr. FERGUSON, JI yield for a ques- on. Mr. MUNDT. The _— distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, the Sen- JULY 24 ator from Maryland [Mr. Typ1nes], also manifested considerable surprise to have found in the report language condemn- ing the minority leader of the Senate. He said he was surprised to find it there, that he had not had time to discover it before. It would seem that the least the members of the majority party, as mem- bers of the subcommittee, could have done, was to exercise diligence enough to read the report, even though they did not prepare it themselves. Mr. FERGUSON. I quite agree. Mr. McMAHON. Mr. President, will the Senator from Michigan yield, that I may ask a question of the Senator from South Dakota? Mr. FERGUSON. I ask unanimous consent that, without prejudice to my rights on the floor, I may yield to the Senator from Connecticut for a question to be addressed by him to the Senator from South Dakota. The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there ob- jection? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered. Mr. McMAHON. Do I correctly un- derstand that the Senator from South Dakota is indicating that the Members who signed the report did not read it? The Senator is not making that implica- tion, is he? Is the Senator making that statement? Mr. MUNDT. The Senator from South Dakota is profoundly confused by the fact that the chairman of the com- mittee, if he read the report, should say on the floor of the Senate that he did not know what was in the report. Mr. McMAHON. I cannot entirely follow the Senator But Isimply do not want him to be all-encompassing, so far as the Senator from Connecticut is con- cerned, Mr. MUNDT. I ask the Senator from Connecticut whether he was aware of that, Mr. McMAHON. I may say to the Senator that the Senator from Connecti- cut not only read the report but he worked on it and knows what is in it. Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, it is unusual; at least, I am sure it is not the common practice of the Senate to have the majority members of a committee write reports and not show them to the minority members, in order that the reports may be discussed before being signed and printed. The Senator from Michigan has had some experience with investigating committees, as a member of the former Truman committee, and as a member of the Senate Committee on Expenditures in the Executive De- partments, and he knows with what care the reports of those committees were prepared. They were read, they were ex- amined, views were interchanged, and every member of the committees was given a copy of each report for discus- sion, so that there was no question about the rights of minorities and the rights of majorities. If the Senate is to func- tion as a legislative body, under the two- party system, the rights of minorities must be recognized. This brings me to the question, Why is this report so intemperate as to cer- tain persons? Why does it go to ex-