1950 stitute—will result in the admission of approximately the same number of dis- placed persons. The controversy, as be- tween the committee bill and the sub- stitute sponsored by the Senator from West Virginia, the Senator from Michi- gan, the Senator from New York, and other Senators, is not on the question of the admission of displaced persons. It solely and exclusively is on the question of screening, the question of better ad- ministration, the question of better pro- tecting the United States. The Senate bill is anchored on the rock of the testimony of officials of the United S:ates Government who have to do with the matter involved. The Senate bill is not based on hearsay or rumor or misin- formation, but it is based on the testi- mony of officials of the Displaced Persons Commission, on the testimony of officials of the Immigration Service, and on the direct request of the consular officials of the United States, who say they must have authority, from the Congress, to veto the applications of displaced per- sons on the ground that they do not qualify, because they are being selected, in the first place, by displaced persons themselves, by aliens in an alien organi- zation; and because, as one Official of the Displaced Persons Commission says, the documents of the IRO are a scandal, the whole thing is a racket, and they are not worthy of belief. Mr. President, that report went to the head of the Dis- placed Persons Commission in Washing- ton. Yet to this day no effort has been made to correct the situation. So I say that the issue here is not whether displaced persons will be ad- mitted to the United States. The issue here is solely what is best for the pro- tection of the United States. which is the best method for the admission of 320,000 displaced persons to the United States. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield, or does the Senator care to yield before he concludes his speech? Mr. EASTLAND. I yield. Mr. WHERRY. In a colloquy yester- day afternoon in which several Sena- tors, including the Senator from Missis- sippi, engaged, the statement which has just been made by the distinguished Senator from Mississippi was made rel- ative to the work of the IRO and the evidence which was submitted by offi- cials of the Displaced Persons Commis- sion and by the immigration authorities as to the actual practice of the IRO organization. It seems to me that in determining a definition, which I understand is now the burden of the committee, Senators must resolve that issue on the basis of whether the definition in the present law permits the IRO to do what the Senator from Mississippi says it is doing in actual practice, and whether it is necessary for us to adopt a new definition which will prescribe standards under which the IRO, the Displaced Persons Commission, and the immigration authorities will act in this matter by authorization of Con- gress. Am I correct in that? Mr. EASTLAND. Of course. It is simply a question of whether the IRO is going to exercise executive and legis- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE lative authority in the United States, or whether the Congress will exercise its authority in the premises. Mr. WHERRY. That is the issue, is it not? Mr. EASTLAND. Yes; that is the issue. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, if the Senator from Mississippi will permit, I should like to ask five or six questions, because I wish to clear up this matter in my own mind. Mr. EASTLAND. I shall be glad to have the Senator ask his questions, and I shall be glad to answer them; but if the Senator will permit, first I should like to read the testimony of an official of the Displaced Persons Commission. Then, in the light of that testimony, I shall welcome questions from the Sena- tor from Nebraska, I think he will like to have that information before him. Mr. WHERRY. First I was going to ask what the Senator meant by his ob- servations. Then I was going to ask for supporting testimony. Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. EASTLAND. tion. Mr. LEHMAN. This is the question: Will the Senator from Mississippi yield for a short statement clarifying this en- tire situation with regard to the unques- tioned authority of the State Deparment, through its consular service, and of the Immigration and Naturalization Serv- ice? Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, of course I have the floor. The Senator from New York can take the floor in his own time and can speak and can pre- sent his own memorandum and can speak in his own time. That is the usual parliamentary procedure. But I say to the Senator from New York that, so far as the consular serv- ice is concerned, the Senate Judiciary Committee simply carried out the request of the consular service of the United States, the head of which appeared be- fore the entire Judiciary Committee on two occasions. So I say to the Senator from New York that I will yield for a question, but I will not yield for him to make a speech in my time. Mr, LEHMAN. Of course I shall not attempt to make a speech in the Senator’s time, without the Senator’s consent. I thought the short clarifying statement I desired to make possibly would obviate the necessity for the five or six questions the Senator from Nebraska has indicated he is about to ask. The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Mississippi yield for a ques- tion? Mr. EASTLAND. That is all I have the right to yield for, under the rules of the Senate. Mr. LEHMAN. I have asked whether the Senator does not think it would save time if I were to read this clarifying statement? Mr. EASTLAND. I have the clarify- ing statement here, Mr. President, and as I told the Senator, the Senate Commit- tee on the Judiciary, in the bill itself, carried out solely and exclusively the re- I yield for a ques- 2713 quest of the head of the consular service. I now read-—— Mr. KILGORE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Mississippi yleld to the Senator from West Virginia? Mr. EASTLAND. I yield for a ques- tion. Mr. KILGORE. The Senator has stated, has he not, it was a specific re- quest of the consular service? Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, the Senator from West Virginia was pres- ent at the committee meetings when the head of the consular service, Mr. L’Heureux, came before the committee and made the request. He told the com- mittee of conditions in Germany, and made the request, which is carried for- ward in the committee bill. Mr. KILGORE. Then the Senator from Mississippi is stating to the Sen- ate that the head of the consular serv- ice is requesting the right to pass upon the eligibility of people, to determine whether they are displaced persons. Is that correct? Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, the Senator knows—— Mr. KILGORE. May I say to the Sen- ator from Mississippi-—— Mr. EASTLAND. I am answering a question. Mr. KILGORE. It is not a question of whether I was present; it is a ques- tion of the Senator’s—— Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, I can answer a question in any way I desire. The Senator from West Virginia cer- tainly cannot ask me a question and then put the words in my mouth and dictate the form in which I shall answer it. I stated that Mr. L’Heureux—and I am now informed he is not the head of the consular service, but head of the Visa Division in the State Department— who had been in Europe, appeared be- fore the committee. I was present and other committee members were present. As I remember, my distinguished friend from West Virginia was present. Mr. L'Heureux stated that they must have the veto power, and therefore we placed it in the bill at his request. He appeared before the subcommittee. The distin- guished Senator from West Virginia made some complaint that he did not know what was happening in the sub- committee, so we got Mr. L’Heureux to appear before the full committee, and the same request was repeated. Let me state further that, the same afternoon, if I remember correctly, my friend from West Virginia attempted to secure the adoption by the committee of a substi- tute adopted which would not give Mr. L'Heureux the authority he had re- quested. Mr. KILGORE. May I ask the Sena- tor from Mississippi whether the testi- mony of Mr. L'Heureux on this point has been printed? Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, I do not know whether it has been printed. I am not in charge—— Mr. KILGORE. May I say to the Sen- ator-—— Mr. EASTLAND. Wait a minute. The Senator asked me a question, and J
2714 will answer it. I am not in charge of printing testimony in the committee. The Senator from West Virginia is senior to me on the committee. If it was not printed, I am certain the Senator could have caused it to be printed, had he re- quested it; but Ido not know. The Sen- ator was present when Mr. L’Heureux was there; the Senator heard everything I heard from Mr. L’Heureux, and I am sure the Senator can verify the accu- racy of the statement I have made. Mr. KILGORE. May I say to the Sen- ator that the verification-— Mr. EASTLAND. I am now informed that the testimony was not reported; that it was an informal meeting at which Mr. L’Heureux appeared before the committee. He made the request, and, of course, there was no point in tak- ing down the request in writing. Mr. KILGORE. I may say to the dis- tinguished Senator from Mississippi that I felt sure, because the chief con- sultant of the Judiciary Committee on this matter was sitting beside the Sena- tor, that he would find that out. Itisa question of interpretation of Mr. L’Heu- reux’s statement. One interpretation might be placed upon it by, shall I say, Mr. Arens—— Mr, EASTLAND. Oh, no, Mr. Presi- dent. Mr. KILGORE. Another by the Sena- tor from Nevada (Mr. McCarran |—— Mr. EASTLAND. Oh, no, Mr. Presi- dent. Mr. KILGORE. Another by the Sena- tor from Mississippi [Mr. EastLanp]——. Mr. EASTLAND. Oh, no, Mr. Presi- dent. Mr. KILGORE. And another by the Senator from West Virginia. Mr. EASTLAND. Oh, no, Mr. Presi- dent. Any person who can hear and understand the English language could not place two interpretations on what Mr. L’Heureux said. Let me tell my friend from West Virginia, I was present on two or three occasions. I heard Mr, L'Heureux; I have made my own in- terpretation, and I think my intcrpreta- tion is in line with the interpretation of every other member of the committee. It was a simple request. Mr. KILGORE. May I again ask the indulgence of the Senator from Missis- sippi, to state that the recollection of the Senator from Mississippi as to the in- terpretation, and that of the Senator from West Virginia, are entirely differ- ent? So I cannot accept the statement of the Senator from Mississippi that it was the opinion of all members of the committee. Certainly it was not the opinion of the Senator from West Vir- ginia. Mr. LEHMAN. Mr President, may I ask: The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Mississippi yield to the Senator from New York? Mr. EASTLAND. Let me state, Mr. President, in fairness to Mr. L’Heureux, that he did not come before the com- mittee on his own initiative. He was requested by the committee to come for the purpose of giving information and of answering questions. At those meet- ings he asked for the authority the com- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE mittee bill gives him, which authority the Senator from West Virginia would deny. The consular service can veto the Immigration Service: the Immigra- tion Service, in a matter pertaining to an immigrant, can veto the consular service. Why cannot the consular serv- ice veto the Displaced Persons Commis- sion on all matters? Why cannot the Immigration Service veto the Displaced Persons Commission on all matters? Why should the Displaced Persons Com- mission be placed on a pedestal? Why should it be said that on questions of eligibility under the act, its word is final and conclusive? If the consul, because of the evidence before him, knows that & so-called displaced person was not in the zones in Germany on the date in question, and knows the documents are false and fraudulent, why should he not be in a position to object. In the name of all fairness, what is to be lost by giv- ing the power of veto to the consular service and to the Immigration Service? Mr. FERGUSON and Mr. KILGORE addressed the Chair. The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Mississippi yield; and if so, to whom? Mr. EASTLAND. I yield first to the Senator from Michigan, for a question. Mr. FERGUSON. Is it not possible today for the Immigration Service to declare that the statement was false, and therefore to exclude the applicant because of false statements? Mr. EASTLAND. Solely if it comes within the terms of a violation of the immigration law, but not under the Dis- Placed Persons Act. Mr. FERGUSON. Why would not a false statement relative to residents be such a fraud on the Immigration Serv- ice as to warrant its exclusion of the applicant? Mr. EASTLAND. The Senator asks why would it not? Mr. FERGUSON. Yes. But is it not a fact that the Immigration Service can exclude displaced persons? Mr. EASTLAND No. Mr. JENNER. No Mr. EASTLAND. All the testimony shows they cannot. Mr. FERGUSON. I did not so under- stand the testimony at the hearing. Mr. EASTLAND. I am going to read it to the Senator. The Senator will understand, in a minute, if he will accord me the courtesy of listening to the read- ing of the testimony. Mr. FERGUSON. The Senator cer- tainly is entitled to courtesy. Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, will the Scnator yield? The VICE PRESIDENT. Docs the Senator from Mississippi yicld to the Senator from New York? Mr. EASTLAND. I yield for a ques- tion. Mr. LEHMAN. It is a question. Does the Senator not realize that the state- ments he has made and the statement he has attributed to Mr. L'Heureux, of the State Department, refer to the entry of persons who are connected with affil- fates of international organizations, or with other nations, or with the United Nations Organization, UNESCO, the MarRcH 3 Soviet Government, and s0 on. the Senator not know that? Mr. EASTLAND. No; and that is not true, Mr President. Mr. LEHMAN. Could the point-——— Mr. EASTLAND. The Senator from New York is in good faith. Under no condition would I attribute bad faith to the Senator in making the statement he has made. The testimony which the Senator has in mind was taken in con- nection with the bill of the Senator from Nevada [Mr. McCarran] having to do with subversives. It has nothing in the world to do with the appearances of Mr. L’Heureux before the subcommittee on the displaced-persons bill which is now before the Senate. Mr. LEHMAN. Did not the Senator from Mississippi, a few minutes ago, at- tribute a statement to Mr. L’Heureux? Would the Senator have any objection to pointing out the exact part of the testi- mony to which he made reference? Mr. EASTLAND. The testimony on another bill is entirely distinct from and foreign to the bill now under considera- tion by the Senate. The Senator from New York speaks of other testimony. If my veracity 1s challenged, there are many members of the Senate Judiciary Committee on the floor of the Senate who heard the testimony and heard the request, not once, but several times. Mr. KILGORE. Mr. President, will the Senator yleld? I want to ask a qucs- on. Mr. EASTLAND. I yield for a ques- tion, and that is all. Mr. KILGORE. Is the Senator from Massissippi, in all fairness, trying to get all the members of the Judiciary Com- mittee to acquiesce in his interpretation of a statement which was made, but not recorded, according to the Senator from Mississippi? Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, I was not following the Senator from West Virginia. The Senator from New York was pulling a green book on me, and I wanted to see what it was. I shall first answer the Senator from New York. The book which the Senator from New York has is with reference to hearings on Senate bill 1832. The bill now under consideration is House bill 4567. The Senutor from New York was waving an entirely different. book of hearings held by the subcommittee, and, of course, he could not find anything regarding the displaced persons bill in testimony taken on another bill. I now yield to the Senator from West Virginia. Mr. KILGORE. Is it not a fact that the same subcommittees handled both hearings and that the same staff was used in connection with those hearings? Mr. EASTLAND. No. There were two separate subcommittees, Mr. KILGORE. Not being a member of either of the subcommittees, I should like to ask the Senator from Mississippi to tell me the membership of the sub- committee to which he refers. Mr. EASTLAND. There were two sepe arate subcommittees. Mr. KILGORE. May TJ ask as to the membership? Does Senator
1950 Mr. EASTLAND. My friend from West Virginia has given a demonstration of the fact that Senators have not gone into the subject thoroughly and do not understand it. If they had, there would not be any question about thi. bill. My friend from West Virginia has proved my point. The difficulty is the lack of understand of the bill. Senators are so busy that they have not had time to go into the question. Mr. KILGORE. I should like to ask if members of the committee as a whole were advised when subcommittee hear- ings were being held? Mr. EASTLAND. Many of them were advised. I am advised that my friend from West Virginia was invited and that he attended a number of hearings. He attended the meeting at which the tes- timony of Mr. Donald W. Main was given. Mr. Main was an officer of the Displaced Persons Commission at the time he tes- tified, and the Senator from West Vir- ginia heard his testimony. Mr. KILGORE. Is it not a fact that that committee meeting was a meeting of the entire Judiciary Committee? Mr EASTLAND. No. My information is that it was a subcommittee meeting to which the entire Judiciary Committee was invited. The Senator from West Virginia had raised the point that the entire committee did not know what was happening at the hearings, and, there- fore, to meet his objection, which I think was well taken, the entire committee was invited, and the Senator from West Vir- ginia attended. I desire to read the testimony given by Mr Main—— Mr. KILGORE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? I should like to ask a further question. Mr. EASTLAND. question. Mr. KILGORE. Is it not a fact that while the entire committee was invited, some of the testimony which is being produced here was never produced be- fore the full committee? Mr. EASTLAND. There were public hearings. Which meetings the Senator attended I do not know, but they were “all public hearings, or most of them at least, where testimony was taken, I know the Senator from West Virginia was present when the testimony of the former officer who had been in charge of certain phases of intelligence work in Germany was given, and the Senator complimented the gentleman on his fine appearance and his sincerity. Mr. KILGORE. Will tne Senator yield for another question? Mr. EASTLAND. I yield. Mr. KILGORE. Is it not a fact that it was at the request of the Senator from West Virginia that Mr. L’Heureux, and he head of the Immigration Service, nd others were called to the public hearing? Mr. EASTLAND. I cannot answer that question, because I was not present when the Senator made such a request. However, if the Senator says it was done, of course his statement satisfles me. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. EASTLAND. tion. I yield for a further I yield for a ques- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. WHERRY. It seems to me that it does not make any difference whether the witness testified before a subcommit- tee or before the Committee on the Ju- diciary. The Senator from New York is of one opinion, in all sincerity, and the Senator :rom West Virginia is of another opinion. I am sure that the Senator from Mississippi is also sincere in his opinion. I should like to hear the testi- mony. Is the Senator about to read the testimony? Mr. EASTLAND. I intend to read It when my colleagues permit me to con- tinue. I desire to be courteous. Of course, I think I should be asked ques- tions, for I want this matter to come to light in full Mr. WHERRY. We should hear the testimony. Mr. #ASTLAND. If Senators will per- mit me to read the testimony, I shall gladly do so. I am about to read the testimony of Mr. Donald W. Main. Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. EASTLAND. I yield. Mr. LEHMAN. The Scnator made refcrence to testimony given by Mr. L’Heureux, of the State Department. That is the testimony which I believe Senators are interested in. I understood the Senator to say that the hearings were public. If they were public, certainly every member of the Judiciary Commlt- tee and every Member of the Senate is entitled to the record. Mr. EASTLAND. Let us be fair. The Senator from New York certainly heard me say on several occasions that the tes- timony of Mr. L’Heureux was not taken down. We asked him to give us some in- formation in an informal consultation. He gave us the information, and the pro- vision he requested was put in the bill. My friend from New York heard me say that. Let us be absolutely fair and square. I know men can differ, but I say, Mr. President, that when the facts in this controversy are known, as far as the rank and file of the Senate are con- cerned, there cannot be much conflict. I shall refer now to the testimony of Mr. Donald W. Main, who is the senior officer of the Displaced Persons Commis- sion in charge of the office at Munich, Germany. He testified on February 14 of this year, approximately 2 weeks ago. Let us see what Mr. Main said. He is talking about IRO, which the Senator from Nebraska asked me about. That is the international organization which initiates everything and plays a most important part in the program. Mr. Main. They [the IRO] prepare docu- mentation in the names of these persons. They certify to us— zis talking about the Displaced Per- sons Commission— that the person is a displaced person within the meaning of the IRO's constitution, and the concern of IRO. In addition to that, they certify that their records show that the individual entered Germany, Austria, or Italy on a particular date and that they were in one of the west- ern zones or sectors on January 1, 1948, or otherwise, if that is the case. Let me say there that I shall shortly put into the Recorp exhibits consisting of Government documents which show 2715 the fraud and bribery used to create fictitious dates so as to enable criminals to come into the United States. Mr. ROBERTSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. EASTLAND. I shall be glad to yield when I have finished reading this testimony. He testified that the records and certifications by the IRO were pre- pared by displaced persons employed by the International Refugee Organization. Mr. President, how can there be ob- jection to providing that the files must be initiated and compiled by American citizens and by an American organiza- tion? Who can object to that? I read further from Mr. Main's tes- timony: Mr. MAIN. I think that these decisions as to eligibility under the act * * * which is an interpretation of IRO’s constitution, that decision should be made by citizens of the United States. I invite the attention of Senators to that statement. Here is a senior officer of the Displaced Persons Commission who says that the decisions as to eligi- bility should be initiated by citizens of the United States. He is the only senior officer with immigration experience. The others were put there by UNRRA and are former employees of UNRRA and former employees of voluntary agencies whose duty it was to rush immigrants in here, law or no law. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. the Senator yield? Mr. EASTLAND. I yield. Mr. WHERRY. The answer to the question which I asked the distinguished Senator from Mississippi, if I interpret correctly his observation, as well as the evidence which he has presented, is that the issue here in the first place is wheth- er or not an applicant is the concern of IRO, or whether he is the concern of Congress acting through an authorized agency. Mr. EASTLAND. That is exactly cor- rect. Mr. WHERRY. The evidence which the Senator is now offering was given by the senior officer of the Displaced Per- sons Commission, who testified that a subdivision of the American Government ought to be the one to make the final test of the definition. Mr. EASTLAND. Yes; and he is the only senior officer who has had immigra- tion experience. President, will Mr. WHERRY. Is that testimony available? Mr. EASTLAND. It is available. Mr. WHERRY. Is it on the desks of Senators? Mr. EASTLAND. I do not know whether it is in the hearings or not. Mr. WHERRY. Is testimony being taken daily now, as we debate the ques- tion? Mr. EASTLAND. Testimony is being taken daily. In fact, the bill was re- ported while the testimony was being taken. We were rushed to get the bill out under an order of the Senate. Mr. WHERRY. It is unfortunate that we do not have the testimony available. Mr. EASTLAND. By the way, we are to hold a hearing tonight. Now let me continue. The Senator has not heard anything yet.
2716 Mr. WHERRY. I have not read the testimony because it is not available. It is not the fault of any Senator that we do not have the testimony which is being read now. I am not blaming the Sen- ator from Mississippi. Mr. EASTLAND. It is the fault of the Senatc. I shall state where the blame lies. The Senate said the bill had to be reported to the Senate by the 30th day of January, and we could not get these gentlemen to come here from Europe before that time. Mr. WHERRY. It is very difficult for Senators to make up their minds when one Senator’s statement is in complete contradiction with the statement of an- other Senator on a question of fact, and we do not even have the evidence before us. Now let me read further. Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield so that I may give a brief answer to the Senator from Nebraska? Mr. EASTLAND. I yield, but I ask the Senator to be brief. Mr. LEHMAN. I may say to the dis- tinguished Senator from Nebraska that it is difficult for Senators to form an opinion when statements are made with regard to testimony given before com- mittees of the Senate of which no rec- ord has been kept, and those officials who are alleged to have given the testi- mony are quoted as giving testimony entirely contradictory to the plain facts, which I shall submit to the Senate a little later. Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, the testimony I was reading was taken at @ public hearing of a Senate committee. As to Mr. L’Heureux’s statement, as I have said, that was not testimony. No one knows better than does the Senator from New York that it was not testi- mony. It was a statement at an infor- mal meeting, and the present Presiding Officer [Mr. WitHeErs in the chairl was present at that meeting, and knows ex- actly what happened. Mr. LEHMAN. Let me ask the Sen- ator whether it was off-the-record testi- mony. Mr. EASTLAND. Of course, it was not off the reeord. We asked Mr. L'Heureux to come up to the Capitol. He was here three times. He was be- fore the subcommittee, he was before the full committee. We all heard what he said. We wrote into the bill the lan- guage he requested to have inserted. We certainly would not have put it in the bill if he had not asked us to do it. Mr. LEHMAN. I thought the able Senator from Mississippi said it was at a public hearing. Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. yield for a question only. Mr. LEHMAN. The Senator from New York understands that this was a public hearing, and is it not a fact—— Mr. EASTLAND. Wait a minute. What I have stated time and time again to the Senator was that Mr. L'Heureux was called up for an informal consulta- tion. We went over the bill with him. He requested that they could better pro- tect this country if they were given the veto power. Information was given us. He gave us information about different zones in Germany, and acting on his re- quests, we put provisions in the bill. President, I CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE It is unheard of in the Senate, when an officer of the Government comes up to the Capitol to confer with Senators on a bill and make suggestions, to take down his testimony and write it out and pass it around to everybody. What he suggested is in the bill. We scrupu- lously did what we said we would do. Now, Mr. President, I shall read fur- ther. I want to finish Mr. Man's testi- mony, then I shall yield to any questions any Senator desires to ask. Question Mr, Main, are these people in IRO who make their determination on those points in some instances citizens of cgun- tries other than the United States? Mr Main I think in most Instances, Note that, Mr. President. There was the senior officer of the Displaced Per- sons Commission stating that the de- termination of eligibility for people to come to this country to become citi- zens is by people who are not citizens of the Un:tcd States. Question What countries are these citi- zens of, fo. the most part? Mr Main. They are what they call class 1 employees of ERO, which includes English, Dutch Canadian, and all participants of the IRO, I thirk Question To what extent are the records of the IRO. which you receive, prepared by Displaced Persons themselves? I cali special attention to this, Mr. President. The Senator from New York and the Senator from West Virginia want to retain a system under which dis- placed persons are selecting displaced persons to come to the United Siates. That is the desire, to have a system like that in existence today, under which displaced persons are selecting displaced persons to come here. Listen to what this man says: Almost all of the records, the documenta- tion received, is prepared by displaced per- s005 employed by IRO Mr. TYDINGS Mr President, will the Senator yield? Mr. EASTLAND tion. Mr. TYDINGS Not being a member of the committee, I am not so familiar with the subject under discussion as are some other Senators, and I should hke to ask, for enlightenment, whether these in- itial papers which are prepared, as al- leged, by displaced perscns themselves, are then scrutinized and processed to the same effect as if they had not been pre- pared by displaced persons. Mr. EASTLAND. No. I willsay to the Senator that the record shows, I think the proof is, that practically the entire information on which action is taken is prepared by an international organiza- tion, and that organization has a legal division set up to get paroles for crim- inals so that they can come to this coun- try as displaced persons. Mr. TYDINGS. How many parolees have come? Mr. EASTLAND. Ihave the figures in the records in my possession. I will have to take that matter up in its turn. Ican- not put my hand on it at the moment. I will say to the Senator that the testimony of a former Army officer, who came be- fore the full Committee on the Judiciary, an officer who had been in chargc of cer- I yield for a ques- MARCH 3 tain phases of military intelligence in Germany, was that they had caught Rus- sian agents, Russian Army officers, whom the Russians were attempting to get through as displaced persons. Mr. TYDINGS. Does the Senator mz2an, to plant them in the displaced persons’ camps? Mr. EASTLAND. Yes, ultimately; so as to gct them into thir country. And when they caught some Russian Army officers—I repeat, army officers, Mr. Pres- ident—and arrested them, the Russians arrested two American officers in retalia- tion, and held them tor several months, The officer in question testified that be- yond any peradventure of a doubt Com- munist agents had rotten into this coun- try by reason of lax screening. I want to tell the Senator from Mary- Jand something else about screening. I will say this to begin with: The McCar- ran bill and the substitute would let into this country about un equal number of displaced persons, There can be no question about that Mr. TYDINGS. There is a difference of only 9,000 between the two measures, as I understand. Mr. EASTLAND. That is substantial- ly correct. Listen to this testimony: Question. Do you know of any instances in which the Displaced Persons Commission or its employees have solicited pardons for con- victed displaced persons, in order to make them eligible under the law? This question was asked of Mr. Tripp. Mr. Tripp is a Unitcd States official in charge of the immigration detail in Europe. Answer. I know that IRO does that IRO, in fact, maintains a legal division just to try to get pardons for displaced persons. Mr. TYDINGS. What are the offenses with which these persons are charged? What kind of offenses are they? Mr. EASTLAND. I cannot answer that question. One of them is murder, I will tell the Senator this about screen- ing—— Mr. TYDINGS. Before the Senator leaves that point. Have we admitted anyone who has been paroled after con- viction on the charge of murder—know- ingly, I mean? Mr. EASTLAND. Thirty-four. Not murder alone, but for serious crimes. Mr. TYDINGS. What are the serious crimes? Mr. EASTLAND. I do not remember. Mr. TYDINGS. If the Senator could remember one other, say, I would have some kind of a yardstick. Mr. EASTLAND. I would not attempt to make that statement, because it might be inaccurate. But I want to make this point to the Senator respecting the sys- tem of screening that is practiced. What I say is not hearsay. It comes from wit- nesses. The Government maintains the Berlin Document Center, as the Senator knows, to find out the political affilla- tions of persons who have been interned. The Provost Marshal General of the Army maintains lists of those who have been convicted. The record shows that the Displaced Persons Commission have testified, “We have taken a deliberate and calculated risk.” When the IRO file
1950 comes to them they send it to the Berlin Document Center and to the Provost Marshal's office to obtain the informa- tion about the man in question. They do not wait for the report, however, but rush him on into this country. They say, “We have taken a calculated risk.” Mr. TYDINGS. If persons are to be permitted to enter under this bill, I should think there would be plenty of deserving ones over there, persons who would cer- tainly have no criminal record, who would be preferable for us to bring in, without taking in those who have crim- inal records. Mr. EASTLAND. Now, the distin- guished Senator from Maryland, with his razor-sharp mind, has put his finger in a second on the issue here. It is just as the Senator says. What we are try- ing to do is to improve the system, for bringing desirable persons here. Mr. TYDINGS. I think there should be, of course, a large element of hu- manitarianism in this program, but at the same time it ought to be appHed to the deserving in preference to the unde- serving. I am considerably shocked to learn that persons who have been charged with heinous offenses are pa- roled and admitted to the United States. It scems to me the Senator has made a rather serious charge, and I know he is not given to reckless statements. Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, I am reading the record of the testimony of officials of the Government. Mr. LEHMAN. Myr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. EASTLAND. I want to answer the question of the Senator from Mary- Jand. The Senator from Maryland says he is shocked. I want the Senator to listen to this letter: HEADQUARTERS, UNITED STATES DisPLaceD PERSONS COMMISSION, Frankfurt, July 28, 1949. To: Mr. Donald W. Main, senior officer, area 6. From: Alex E. Squadrilli, Coordinator. Subject: Kohn, Josef. Listen to this: The above-captioned file is returned here- with for reprocessing as directed below. As far as the Commission is concerned, rejections under section 10 of the act in doc- ument and perjury cases must be based upon proof—either the record of a court convic- tion, or a confession In writing— The law says the burden of proof is upon the applicant; that he must bear the burden to show that he is of good moral character. I continue to read— either the record of a court conviction, or @ confession in writing, or a signed consular statement to the effect that the applicant committed perjury, or was previously denied a visa because of the submission of false documents. If the applicant is otherwise acceptable, you will, therefore, write a favorable report with appropriate reference therein to the allegation of record and the Commission findings in the premises, Now listen: Please withdraw from the file all previous Commission reports and notifications before forwarding same to the consul. This letter may be incorporated in the file in support of the directed action. ALEX E. Squap-1Lt, Coordinator. XCVI-—-171 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE When there was an unfavorable report on the man it was ordered withdrawn from the file. Mr. TYDINGS. Does the Senator at- tribute the condition he describes to the law, or to the incapacity of those who are administering the law? Mr. EASTLAND. Will the Senator be good enough to repeat his question? There was some talking going on behind me and I did not hear the Senator. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- ate will be in order. There is sufficient disturbance so the Senator from Missis- sippi cannot hear the question addressed to him Mr TYDINGS Does the Senator at- tribute the conditions he has described to (a) a fault in the law itself, or (b) to the lack of capacity of the administra- tors, or (c) to a policy which the admin- istrators themselves have assumed which is not permissible under the law? Mr. EASTLAND. I do not think the fault lies with the law; in fact, I know it does not. It is a deliberate evasion of the act. The Displaced Persons Com- mission, under the law, is not supposed to direct the selections and operations in Europe. It was the congressional intent that that aspect of the matter should be handled by the Immigration Service and the consular service. But the Dis- placed Persons Commission has assumed control there under Executive order. We are solely and simply attempting to tighten up the law. Mr. TYDINGS. I hope the case the Senator used as an illustration does not represent a prevalent condition, but rather that the case is an isolated one. But even assuming that it is isolated—— Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, I read an order from the headquarters in Europe to withdraw the unfavorable matter from the files. Mr. TYDINGS That is what I am coming to. What authority had the American administrator to issue a letter of that kind which would seem to present an applicant for admission into this country in a more favorable light than the record indicates would be warranted? Mr. EASTLAND. I think that is pretty general practice. The law says that the burden fs on the applicant to prove that he is not a Communist; to prove that he was in the camps at cer- tain dates. The counterintelligence rep- resentatives say that they must abso- lutely prove by court records, or a con- fession in writing, that a man was a Communist or that he was a Russian agent, and that even though they have information which leads them to believe it, yet the person is processed and sent here anyway, unless there is absolute proof that he is a Communist agent. They further state that it is practically impossible in Germany to get court rec- ords because the system there now is larecly informal, Mr. TYDINGS. I should like to ask the Senator this final question, because I do not want to interrupt his speech at great length. Outside the difference be- tween the two propositions of numbers, one bill providing roughly for about 350,000 persons, and the other for about 359,060 persons, is the principal remain- 2717 ing difference between the two proposi- tions that on the one hand the system which the Senator has described is re- tained more or less intact, and on the other hand there is additional screening to take care of the situation he has described? Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, here is the principal difference—— The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. WITHERs in the chair). enator will suspend for a moment, please. There are in the Chamber Senators who per- sist in talking to one another while in their seats. Their voices are stronger than they realize, and the carrying power of their voices is much greater than they think it is. If they wish to continue their conversations they should retire to the cloakrooms, rather than to carry on conversations in the Senate Chamber and prevent other Senators from hear- ing the Senator who has been recognized to speak or Senators who wish to ask questions of the Senator who has the floor. There must be order. The Chair asks the Senator who has the floor to remain silent until the con- versations in the Chamber crase. [A pause.] The Senator from Mississippi may now proceed. Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, here is the difference: Both the House bill and the substitute retain the same sys- tem, whereby an international organiza- tion, the IRO, whose personnel in policy- making positions are French, Dutch, English, and Canadian; and the persons who do the work under them are dis- placed persons—initiates the file and puts in it the necessary information, and sends it to the Displaced Persons Com- mission, and says, for instance, that “Hans Schmidt is in our care, and is a displaced person.” 'The Displaced Per- sons Commission cannot say that Hans Schmidt is eligible to come to this country as a displaced person, under the law passed by the Congress, because the Displaced Persons Commission is bound by the file initiated by the IRO. The law now in effect adopted as the definition of a displaced person, the definition which is found in the IRO constitution In the committee bill, we attempt to change that definition. First, we define a displaced person. The definition we use is as broad as that con- tained in the constitution of the IRO. We say, however, that no foreign or- ganization shall have the power to define who is a displaced person for admission into the United States. So in the bill we draw up the definition. Then we say the entire subject matter shall be initiated by American citizens; and the applicants shall be investigated and handled b; American citizens; and only an American organization, a branch of our Government, shall participate in the selection of the displaced persons who shall come to the United States. The testimony of one of the officials— I have forgotten whether he was an off- cial of the consular service or of some other agency—was that an applicant for admission to the United States as a dis- placed person did not see an American citizen until he got to the consul; in other words, not until after he had
2718 cleared the IRO and the Displaced Per- sons Commission. Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, does not the Unitcd States have some repre- sentatives on the IRO? Mr. EASTLAND. That is not in the proof. We put up a part of the money. Mr. TYDINGS. I should think we would have some representatives on the IRO Mr. EASTLAND. Yes; I should judge BO. Mr. TYDINGS. Likewise, I should think that if a displaced person is to come to this country, he should be processed by our representatives on the IRO Mr. EASTLAND. But the IRO is not our organization. Why should not a displaced person be processed by a branch of our own Government? Mr. TYDINGS. I do not take issue with the Senator’s statement; but it seems to me that in the case of such persons who apply for admission into the United States, American officials in the IRO should be used from the be- ginning If the Senator will bear with me, let me state my reason in that connection: Let us assume that the four of us are, respectively, English, French, Canadian, and American; let us assume that there are four displaced persons who are ap- plying for admission to one or another of our countries If I had the right of selection as between those four persons, it would be very easy for me to take the best one of them for admission into my own country, and to assign the question- able ones to the other countries. Mr. EASTLAND. Certainly. But the present practice is worse than that. Mr. TYDINGS. Certainly the system should be arranged 1n such a way that the burden is equal and the caliber of the persons admitted to the various countries is more or less equal. I am afraid that if an American in the IRO organization does not have con- tacts with applicants for admission into the United States the United States may get the dregs. That assumption may be unfounded, but it is a natural as- sumption. Mr. EASTLAND. It is not unfounded; it is mild, when compared to the present situation. In the committee bill we have adopted the procedure which is used by the French, the Australians, and almost all other countries, namely, that our own citizens shall have the right to deter- mine who shall be admitted into our country. Mr. President, the Senator from Mary- land has asked me to state the differ- ences between the two bills. The next great difference is as follows: After an application for admission to the United States clears the Displaced Persons Commission, to which it goes first, it then goes to the Immigration Service and to the consular service. The consular service and the Immigration Service have the right to veto each other in the case of the applications of ordinary im- migrants; if either one of them thinks the applicant does not mect the test, either one of them can veto the other. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE However, in the case of applications for admission to the United States as dis- placed persons, the consular service and the Immigration Service are bound by the findings of the Displaced Persons Commission and of the IRO. Mr. L'Heureux, who is in charge of the Visa Division—I understand that the Ser- ator from New York denies that Mr. L’Heureux did it; I do not know—came before the committee several times and said that he could veto the Immigration Commission and the Immigration Com- mission could veto him or his organiza- tion. He said that in many cases when a displaced person who is an applicant for admission into the United States ap- pears before one of our consuls, although the consul knows that the applicant's documents are forged, and knows that the applicant was not in Germany on the cut-off date stated in the law, neverthe- less, the consul is helpless. He may send the file back to the Displaced Persons Commission, but the findings of the Dis- placed Persons Commission are final. Under the bill we gave the consul the exact authority he has relative to the Immigration Service, namely, that he can veto such an application if he does not think the applicant meets the test Third, in the case of agricultural pref- erences, there is a difference between the two bills. The fourth difference between the two bills—and I think this one 1s the subject of the controversy—it is as follows: Under the Kilgore-Lehman-Ferguson substitute, if a displaced person was persecuted in Germany, and therefore went to another country and settled there, although not permanently, that person could return to Germany, and then could come into the United States as a displaced person. That provision is not included in the committee bill, for the reason that if such person is in another country and has his home there, he is taken care of; and there are in Germany now too many deserving per- sons who do not have homes. Mr. TYDINGS. I thank the Senator for the information. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. EASTLAND. I am glad to yield, but I have already agreed to yield to the Senator from New York. Mr. LEHMAN. I am glad to defer to the distinguished Senator from Illinois. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, the Sen- ator from Mississippi has been discussing with the Senator from Maryland, as I understand, existing conditions in Eu- rope in respect to the institution of the proceedings by which a displaced person makes application for admission to the United States. I understand that all the troubles we have had in that connection arise under the present law. Am I cor- rect as to that? Mr. EASTLAND. The troubles are due to direct violations of the present law. Mr. LUCAS. Very well. In any event, those who are operating the organization in Europe are operating it under the law the Conercss passed last year. Is that not correct? Marcu 8 Mr. EASTLAND. They are operating under the guise of that law; yes. Mr. LUCAS. Hew would the Senator’s bill protect us from these troubles? Mr. EASTLAND. I have outlhned how the committee bill protects in that situa- tion. Mr. LUCAS. I am sorry that I did not hear all the Senator's statement. Mr. EASTLAND. Under the bill, the authority is retained in the Displaced Persons Commission. But under the law which we passed, it was not contem- plated—and the debate so shows—that the Displaced Persons Commission would administer the program in Europe. The Displaced Persons Commission was lim- ited to finding houses and jobs for those persons and places where they would stay. But the Displaced Persons Com- mission has been given this authority by Executive order. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, if the Senator will yleld further, let me say that the only point I am trying to make is that if the Displaced Persons Com- mission is operating illegally in Europe and is not following the intent of Con- gress, that is one thing, of course. Mr. EASTLAND. That is right; that jis what is happening. Mr. LUCAS. The Senator says that is correct, I understand. Mr. EASTLAND. Yes; it is correct. Mr. LUCAS, If the Senator says it is, of course, I accept his statement. I regret to have to ask these ques- tions; I regret that I did not hear all the Senator’s statement. How does this bill correct that situa- tion? let me ask the Senator. Mr. EASTLAND. It corrects it by screening It provides that no one but an American citizen shall process the applicants or shall have anything to do with the admission of such persons into the United States. It gives the con- sular service and the Immigration Serv- icc an additional veto. It takes the IRO entirely out of the matter. It takes care of one of the big sources of fraud, be- cause under the two bills the cut-off date is the same. Mr. LUCAS. Yes. It occurred to me, from what I had heard informally about the Displaced Persons Act, that the pres- ent act itself is fairly satisfactory, and that what the Senator from Mississippi and other Senators who take his view- point are attempting to do is to defeat the substitute which has been offered by the Senator from West Virginia and other Senators. Of course, the Senator knows how dif- ficult a time we have had during the past year in trying to get any action of any kind in the way of securing the adop- tion of an amendment to the Displaced Persons Act. I wonder whether the Senator from Mississippi and the Sena- tor from Nevada would have come in with this kind of an amendment to the pending bill if the House had not passed the bill it did pass. Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, a year ago I announced that I favored a reasonable Displaced Persons Act. Cer- tainly we have gone into the matter in a judicial way, to try to work out the very best bill it is possible to devise to
1950 protect this country. In my State there are a great many families of displaced Persons, and they are doing well. They are good people. A family of displaced persons is working as servants where I live, and they are satisfied. I want a bill that is fair to every type and class and every religious group. Certainly religion should not have any- thing to do with this matter. Every form of discrimination has been elimi- nated. But we should protect this coun- try from Communist agents. Mr. LUCAS. I am all for that. Mr. FASTLAND. I know the Senator is. I tell him that when he carefully goes over—as I know he will—the substitute and the committee bill, he will be startled at the similarity between the two bills. In their main features, with respect to bringing in displaced persons, they are the same. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further? Mr. EASTLAND. I yield. Mr. LUCAS. The Senator was dis- cussing with the Senator from Maryland a certain individual who is in charge of a displaced persons camp in Germany. Will the Senator give me the name of that individual? Mr. EASTLAND. Donald W. Main, the senior officer of the Displaced Per- sons Commission in the Munich area of Germany. Mr. LUCAS. Was he appointed by the Displaced Persons Commission in Amer- ica? Mr. EASTLAND. Yes. Mr. LUCAS. He is in charge, Is he the individual who is responsible for the failure of the committee to carry out the law in Germany? Mr. EASTLAND. No. Others have testified—I do not know whether he was one of those who testified—that in an office employing nine people, seven of them went to the coordinator, Mr. Squadrilli, to protest that they were be- ing made to do something contrary to the law, that the security of this country was not being protected, and that the matter was outrageous. Mr. LUCAS. Who is Mr. Squadrilli? Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. Squadrilli is a coordinator. He is the head man in Europe, transferred from UNRRA. Mr. LUCAS. From what country does he come? Mr. EASTLAND. The United States. Mr. LUCAS. Is he an American citi- zen? Mr. EASTLAND. Oh, yes. But he told them to do as they were told. It shows that, the way the thing is there administered, the selectors never even see the persons they select to come here. They have protested that they could neither see them nor interview them, and that they were told, “If you don't like what we are doing, get out.” Mr. LUCAS. It seems very strange to the Senator from Illinois to find Ameri- cans in this zone deliberately ignoring the files of individuals making applica- tion to enter this country, applicants whom they know to be Communists or to have been associated with subversive elements, or who have some sort of crim- inal record. Can the Senator tell me CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE why those who are presumed to be good Americans permit a thing of that kind? Mr. EASTLAND. I cannot tell what is in a man’s mind, of course, but the testimony respecting Russian agents and saboteurs, of course, does not come from those men. It came in one instance from the head of certain phases of mili- tary intelligence in Germany. They raise these questions; they tell us what is happening. We have done the best we could, in our feeble way, to correct the situation. Mr. LUCAS. I think the Senator has. I know the Senator is most sincere in what he is trying to do with respect to the Displaced Persons Act. But in view of the fact that the Senator has said the military agency in Germany has given in- formation to the committee with respect to this matter let me ask the further question: Did the military agency give similar information to the Displaced Per- sons Commission? Mr. EASTLAND. I cannot answer that question, but I will give the Senator a sample of what has happened. I holdin my hand an intelligence file which was approved by General Clay. It was sent to Washington. A high official who read the file stated that, if it were made pub- lic, there would be serious repercussions in the Halls of Congress. Here is the file. The chairman of the Judiciary Commit- tee, for weeks, has asked that he be per- mitted to make the file public. He has been told it could not be made public. If the Senator from Illinois desires to read this confidential file, I think his eyes would be opened as to what is happening in the administration of the law. There it is Mr. LUCAS. The Senator from MNii- nois will try to read the secret file a little later on, in order that he may have his eyes opened. I had thought his eyes were open all the time. Mr. EASTLAND. Here ts something else. Mr. LUCAS. May I ask a question on that matter? Mr.EASTLAND. Yes. But I have not finished answering the previous ques- tion. Mr. LUCAS. I am sorry. Mr. EASTLAND. Here is an officer in charge of military intelligence in Ger- many, who formerly had been stationed in Berlin. He was questioned: Question. Colonel, do you know of cases where there were adverse security reports on displaced persons, but in which cases they were brought to this country, notwithstand- ing the adverse security reports? The WITNEsS. Yes, sir. Question. I did not understand whether the Colonel thinks that investigation would disclose that, among the persons who have come over as displaced persons, are Com- munists. The Witness. I am sure of It, sir. That is a sample. This man testified that, through his organization in Berlin, he caught Russian officers and Com- munist agents who were trying to slip into this country as displaced persons, and that when those Russian officers were arrested, the Russians, by way of retaliation, arrested two American offi- cers, whom they held for 6 months, 2719 Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. EASTLAND. I yield. Mr. LUCAS. Does the Kilgore sub- stitute take care of that situation? Mr. EASTLAND. No; ft does not. Mr. LUCAS. I thought the Senator said there was practically no difference between the two proposals. Mr. EASTLAND. I will state the dif- ference in that respect. The thing is initiated by the International Refugee Organization. The file is compiled by the Displaced Persons Commission. It goes to a senior officer there, who is a Canadian, a Dutchman, or a Frenchman. This country would be better protected under the committee bill, because our own agency would do the selecting, an American citizen would compile the pertinent information, and furthermore, the consul, in case he did not think a per- son qualified under the act, could veto the application, That is the difference. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further? Mr. EASTLAND. I yield. Mr. LUCAS. As I understood the Senator a moment ago, he stated that so far as discrimination in the matter of restrictions was concerned—a _ thing about which many Senators have become somewhat alarmed—the committee bill and the substitute bill are practically the same, but, so far as—— Mr. EASTLAND. In regard to the ad- mission of displaced persons, I said they would both admit about the same num- ber. Mr. LUCAS. I see. Mr. EASTLAND. I said the question was not whether we were for displaced persons or against them. Mr. LUCAS. Let me say to the Sen- ator from Missisippi that the Senator from Illinois wants the best type of proc- essing and screening the Government of the United States can devise, so far as displaced persons are concerned. Mr. EASTLAND. Of course the Sen- ator from Illinois does. He is then con- fronted with this proposition. It is not a rumor, it is not hearsay. It is what witnesses have testified. This is the way the applicants are screened: When the file gets to the Displaced Persons Com- mission, 8 man’s name is sent to the Berlin document center and to the pro- vost marshal’s office, to see what they have got on him. His fingerprints are sent to the fingerprint section in Berlin. But the Displaced Persons Commission does not even wait until the security re- port gets back. The officials testified, if the Senator will bear with me, that they took a calculated risk in order to hurry the entry of displaced persons into this country. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further? Mr. EASTLAND. I yield. Mr. LUCAS. I wish the Senator would point out in the debate which one of the committee amendments will take care of the situation. I am very much inter- ested in tightening up on all applications for entry to this country. Assuming the Senator’s statement is correct With re- spect to the apparent manner in which they are being screened at the present
2720 time, I think he should identify the amendment which will take care of the situation, and, when the amendent comes up on the floor of the Senate, I think the Senator again should identify it. Mr. EASTLAND. It is the very first amendment. Mr. LUCAS. Very well. Mr. EASTLAND. By the very first amendment, as I told the Senator, we would take the matter out of the hands of a foreign organization, out of the hands of displaced persons, and out of the hands of aliens. If I can find it, I should like to read to the Senator a re- port given to the Displaced Persons Com- mission about the bribery that was taking place in the International Refugee Or- ganization. Mr. LUCAS. The Senator can read all of that. The Senator has now read enough, assuming all the facts to be as he has stated them, so far as the Senator from Illinois is concerned. Mr. EASTLAND. The Senator wanted me to state exactly how we were remedy- ing the situation. Mr. LUCAS. That is correct. Mr. EASTLAND. This is the way we fix it. Mr. LUCAS. The Senator need not read a report on bribery. I merely want to know how it is proposed to proceed, assuming bribery to exist. Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. Edward W. Glazek, in a report addressed to the Chairman of the Displaced Persons Com- mission under date of May 11, 1949, among other things, said: The issuance of documents from IRO has become a complete racket, and is unworthy of reliability. Individuals who normally could not qualify present false documents which are readily accepted, and often such individuals are coached by the IRO inter- viewers as to their fitness. If the prospective candidates do not possess documents, IRO has the authority to issue such on the mere statement of the individual under oath. The applicants are interviewed by clerks, and these documents are certified by IRO officers without direct contact with the candidates. This procedure offers an opportunity for widespread bribery and corruption. Mr. LUCAS. That is merely a con- clusion upon his part, is it not? Mr. KASTLAND. That is the reason we have taken IRO out of the bill. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. EASTLAND. I should like to read the remainder of it. Mr. Cutler is em- ployed by the Displaced Persons Com- mission in Germany, and he testified on the 6th of February, of this year. He said: You must remember that the job of the International Refugee Organization is to get rid of displaced persons, as many and as soon as possible, no matter how. That is their job. The people who do the actual work are all displaced persons, practically all of them. There is an IRO eligibility offi- cer. He accepts the work done by displaced persons, and he simply signs his signature. Question. When the American consular officer gets a file on a displaced person, does the American consular officer, in addition, make an ascertainment as to whether or not the displaced person is eligible under the immigration law, and also make an ascer- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE tainment as to whether or not the applicant is an eligible displaced person? Answer. No, sir. Question. By whom is that done? Answer. It is done by the IRO entirely. Question. The IRO makes that deter- mination through employees who are them- selves displaced persons? Answer. Yes, sir. He testified further as follows: The International Refugee Organization maintains a legal division to solicit pardons for convicted displaced persons so they may become eligible for immigration to the United States under the law. We made a terrific improvement when we took IRO out of this picture. No other nation in the world uses it. Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. EASTLAND. I yield for a ques- tion. Mr. LEHMAN. Does the Senator not know that, in addition to the screening by the IRO, which is simply on the question of whether the displaced per- sons meet the definition of the consti- tution of the IRO, there is a further check of every DP by the United States Army’s Counter-Intelligence Corps, by the State Department, through its con- sular service, and by the Immigration and Naturalization Service of the United States, and that no DP can enter this country without such a check and with- out authority given by these agencies? Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, as I have shown, the IRO its shot through, so we have been told, with bribery and corruption, and I do not think the great United States of America, the greatest Nation on which God’s sun ever shone, should be bound by a security report made by a foreign organization. Good American blood flows through my veins, and I cannot think that this country should be bound by a security report made by an international organization and that the files in Europe should be compiled Ly displaced persons who want to rush each other to this country. Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for another question? Mr. EASTLAND. I yield for a ques- tion. Mr. LEHMAN. No better American blood flows through the veins of the Sen- ator from Mississippi than that which flows through the veins of the junior Senator from New York. Mr, EASTLAND. Of course, I mcant nothing personal by my statement, I may say to the Senator. Mr. LEHMAN. I accept the explana- tion. Mr. EASTLAND. The Senator from New York is a great American, and I have the highest confidence in his integrity and ability. Mr. LEHMAN. I thank the distin- guished Senator from Mississippi. Mr. EASTLAND. The consular serv- ice and the Immigration Service do not have facilities abroad to make a wide- spread check. It has been testified that they are bound largely by the files sent them which have been compiled by dis- placed persons, and they largely act on that basis. MarcH 3 The Senator has mentioned a security check and security screening by the Dis- placed Persons Commission, and yet em- ployees of that Commission say, “We do not even wait for security reports. We do not even wait for a security report from the provost marshal’s office.” The man in charge of the fingerprint bureau says: They send me fingerprints that are not even written in the English language. I can- not tell anything about them. Many of them are illegible, Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a further question? Mr. EASTLAND. In a moment. Here is a letter to the chairman of the committee from the fingerprint division, and I shall read the letter at this point: The reason I am writing you is that I saw the enclosed clipping of an article which appeared in an Army newspaper, the Stars and Stripes, on Friday, the 13th of January. There is one particular sentence that inter- ests me most: “They are putting pressure on everybody and every single organization to pass every- thing.” In that connection, let me say that a high official of the Displaced Persons Commission testified he got a transfer because he had given adverse reports on DP’s. Let us see what is happening at the fingerprint center: Since 1948 our section has been charged with processing the fingerprints of every DP requesting entry into the United States under the DP Act of 1948. This is the man who fingerprints every applicant who comes in. We have been under constant pressure to speed up the work. Many of the finger- prints we receive for processing are taken in such a haphazard manner as to render them useless to us. Mr. President, there is the screening of which the Senator from New York speaks of. Many of the fingerprints we receive for processing are taken in such a haphazard manner as to render them useless to us. It is therefore practically impossible to check these for any previous conviction, The signature of the person taking the prints is invariably that of a displaced person. That bears out what one official said, that an applicant does not even see an American citizen until he gets down to the consul. That is the first time he looks into the eyes of an American citizen. Any notations made as to missing fingers, scars in the pattern area, etc., is usually in such poor English that it is tncompre- hensible. When for some reason one of the fingers is not printed, a notation should be made as to the reason. This is hardly ever done. Desptte this, I don't believe there are ever any prints returned by our office to the contributors for retaking. When they are illegible, Mr. President, and are sent back with the statement, “They are illegible; send me some more prints which have been taken again,” they are never sent back. Our office has concentreted almost solc!y on DP prints. Therefore, the fingerprints
1950 of any person arrested for a criminal offense stand @ very good chance of not even being ' in file. In spite of my repeated protests, {t has been made clear to me and to the other members of our section by our section chief that what mattered was production rather than accuracy. Please note that. The section chief Says that accuracy does not matter. It is production that counts. He tells them they need not even be accurate. There, Mr. President, is the screening. ‘There is the security check. That is what is being done to protect our country. Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. EASTLAND. I shall be happy to yield when I have finished reading the letter. However, I feel that the American people are entitled to know that the DP’s are not receiving the security screening (as far as fingerprints are concerned) that the Amer- {can public may think. There is a man who says the DP’s are not receiving the screening which the American public may think they are re- ceiving. Oh, no, there is no provaganda machine, with a lobby to spend millions of dollars, talking about screening dis- placed persons to protect the country! Mr. President, the testimony of the men who administer the program shows that they agree almost unanimously that the United States is not being protected. That bears out the statements of numer- ous Senators who have been in E-rope and have seen at first hand conditions in this fleld. I read further: I should like to make it clear that I am not against the DP Act itself. I am against the abuse of it. I hope that some day I may have the pleasure of meeting you in person. I now yield to the Senator from New York. Mr. LEHMAN. In view of the fact that the able Senator from Mississippi has denied the accuracy of my statement that these people are screened by the Immigration and Naturalization Service and by the State Department, I made inquiry as late as this morning—— Mr. EASTLAND. Right there, Mr. President, I may say this is not a personal matter of my word against the word of the Senator from New York, or of the Senator’s word against anyone else’s word. I have simply read the state- ments made by officers who administer the program, and those statements speak for themselves. If the Senator from New York has some statements which deny the truth of the statements which I have read, the Senator may refer to them in his own time. He may put that information in the Recorp if he wishes, It is certainly proper to do so in this de- bate, and it should by all means be placed in the REcorp. Mr. IVES. Mr. President—— Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a further question? Mr. EASTLAND. I yield to the jun- jor Senator from New York for a ques- tion. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. LEHMAN. Does the Senator ob- ject to my reading the result of my in- quiry from the Commissioner of Immi- gration of the United States and from the Chief of the Visa Division of the United States at this time, in order to clarify the situation? Mr. EASTLAND. The Senator may read that a little later, when I have fin- ished reading the testimony. I should like to get in the Recorp all the testi- mony that bears on the question. Mr. IVES. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. EASTLAND. I yield for a ques- tion. Mr. IVES. The senior Senator from New York would like to ask the distin- guished Senator from Mississippi if he does not believe that in all fairness, in order that the Recorp may be as com- plete and full as possible, he should ac- cede to the request of the junior Senator from New York. Mr. EASTLAND. The senior Senator from New York evidently does not under- stand what has happened, when he chal- lenges anyone’s fairness. I stated that I had the testimony of a number of wit- nesses on the point I was discussing and that I desired to put all the testimony in the Recorp. I said that I would yield to the Senator from New York after I had put the testimony in the Recorp. I think I am being most fair. I should like to get the testimony in, and then I shall be very happy to yield to the Senator from New York, so that he may make a speech in my time, if he wishes. I be- lieve fairness Hes in that suggestion. I do not believe it is fair to jump up in the middle of the reading of testimony, when only part of the testimony has been read, and ask me to yicld for another purpose. Mr. IVES. Mr. President, will the Senator yield again to the senior Sena- tor from New York? Mr. EASTLAND. I yield for a ques- tion. Mr. IVES. The senior Senator from New York understood that the junior Senator from New York was endeavoring to have inserted at this point in the Rrc- orD a statement which he said would clarify the situation to a considerable extent. Mr. EASTLAND. That is what he said. As the senior Senator from New York well knows, I stated that I had other testimony which bore on the point, and that when I had placed that testi- mony in the ReEcorp, I would permit the junior Senator from New York to place his material in the Recorp. Mr. IVES. The senior Senator from New York is very grateful to the Sen- ator from Mississippi. Mr. EASTLAND. There is nothing to be grateful about. I did not agree to do it because the senior Senator from New York requested it. I had agreed to do it before the senior Senator from New York rose to make the request. I now read further from the testimony of Mr. Main: Question. Are these people in the IRO who make their determinations on those two 2721 points in some instances citizens of coune- tries other than the United States? Mr. Main. I think in most instances. Question. What countries are they citizens of, for the most part? Mr. Main. They are what they class “I” employees of IRO, which includes English, Dutch, Canadian, and all participants of IRO, I think. Question. To what extent are the records of IRO, which you receive, prepared by dis- placed persons themselves? Mr. Marn. Almost all of the records, the documentation received, 1s prepared by dis- placed persons employed by IRO. Question. In connection with the docu- mentation that you receive from IRO, on which it makes deterrhinations and decisions binding upon the Commissicn, the records are prepared by displaced persons them- selves, is that correct? Mr. Main, The records themselves are usually prepared by displaced persons. The certifications, however, are in the names of class I employees, not displaced persons. Mr. Almanza Tripp, whom I have pre- viously identified as the officer in charge of the immigration detail stationed in Europe to examine displaced persons, testified in public session before the Sen- ate Committee on the Judiciary on Feb- ruary 15, 1950, as follows: Question. Now, Mr Tripp, to continue: Who prepares the IRO records which are certified to the Displaced Persons Commis- sion? Mr. Trrpp. Do you mean the resettle- ment form and similar documents? Question. Yes. Mr. Trirp. They are prepared by displaced persons employed by the IRO. Question. In other words, is it true that the certifications which go from the Inter- national Refugee Organization to the Dis- placed Persons Commission are prepared, that 1s, the files are prepared, by displaced persons themselves? Mr. Tripp. Yes; they are. But the cer- tification 1s by one of their international employees. Question. But he just signs his name to @ document which has been prepared by other displaced persons; is that true? Mr. Tripper. I believe so, in most cases. Question. Now, when the displaced per- sons have prepared this document which has been certified by their officer and trans- mitted to the Displaced Persons Commission, does the Displaced Persons Commission, in the usual run of cases, accept the certifica- tion of this document which was prepared by the displaced persons themselves? Mr. Tripp. To the best of my knowledge, they do. Mr. President, there is the testimony of the man who fs at the head of the immi- gration detail stationed in Europe. The Senator from New York says that the displaced persons are screened, actually screened, by the Displaced Persons Com- mission. This gentleman says that that certification is usually accepted by the Displaced Persons Commission without question. He says a certification and file made up by displaced persons and certified to by an alien, is accepted when it gets to the Displaced Persons Com- mission. I read further: Question. In other words, We have a situ- ation where displaced persons are preparing documents which, as the practice is, are
2722 binding upon the representatives of the Government? Mr. Tripp. Yes. I call that to the attention of the Sen- ate, Mr. President. Here are represent- atives of a foreign organization who in practice make documents which are binding on the representatives of our Government. Now here is the testimony of Mr. Ed- ward M. Glasek, who was formeriy em- ployed by the Displaced Persons Com- mission in Europe. This is a report dated May 11, 1949. addressed to the Chairman of the Displaced Persons Com- mission. The Senator from New York says that the displaced persons are screened by IRO. Here is a report to the President of the Displaced Persons Commission. Listen to this: Issuance of documents by IRO has be- come a complete racket and is unworthy of reliability “A complete racket and is unworthy of reliability.” Where is the screening? Where is the security check? Individuals who normally could not quali- fy present false documents which are readi- ly accepted and often such individuals are coached by the IRO interviewers as to their answers. If the prospective candidates do not possess documents, IRO has the authori- ty to issue such on the mere statement of the individual under oath. The applicants gre interviewed by indigenous clerks and these documents are certified by IRO officers without a direct contact with the candidates. This procedure offers an opportunity for widesprend bribery and corruption. Mr. President, there is a report made nearly a year ago, and no steps have been taken by the Displaced Persons Commission to remedy that situation. I quote further from Mr. Tripp: Question. I want to get this crystal clear for the record. On the basis of your ob- servations and experience and the work over there as chief of the immigration service in Europe, is it not a fact that the administra- tion of the Displaced Persons Commission, or the people in key position over there, are people who have been formerly associated with UNRRA or with voluntary agencies? Mr. Tripp, The majority of them. The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Fer- GUSON] said in 1948, when the present law was under consideration, that if UNRRA employees would have anything to do with this administration, he would be opposed to it, yet many such UNRRA employees were transferred to key po- sitions in the Displaced Persons Com- mission. Question. Which voluntary agencies are those trying to get displaced persons over here in this country? Is that correct? Mr. Tripp. That 1s correct. Mr. President, testimony before the committee by field employees of the Dis- placed Persons Commission and by the officer in charge of the immigration de- tail in Europe described numerous in- stances of pressure by officers of the Dis- placed Persons Commission in every phase of the operation. This pressure is exerted not only on the employees of the Commission, but upon the United States consuls and upon the immigration offi- cers. Seven out of nine employees in the office under one area director, who CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE had formerly been assmciated with a vol- untary agency, went to the European theater to protest, but they were trans- ferred. Note, Mr. President, that seven out of nine employees in the office of one area director who had formerly been associ- ated with a voluntary agency went to the European headquarters to protest what had been done. But no attempt was made to protect our country, Mr. President. These men were transferred because they attempted to do so. One field employee of the Displaced Persons Commission testified with re- spect to the action of a senior officcr of the Commission who had sought a par- don for a convicted displaced person in order to make him eligible for immigra- tion to the United States. Think of that—a senior officer of the Commission obtaining a pardon for a criminal so he could make him eligible to come here. Another field employee testified that approximately 50 percent of his rejec- tions of ineligible displaced persons were overruled. Think of that. There is a field employee who said that in 50 per- cent of the cases which he had rejected as being ineligible, he was overruled by others higher up. Another field employee of the Dis- placed Persons Commission presented to the committee numerous files of cases in which he had been directed to white- wash ineligible displaced persons. Think of that, Mr. President. Another em- ployee brought before the committee numerous files to show that he had been directed to whitewash ineligible displaced persons so they could come to this coun- ry. The officer in charge of the immigra- tion detail in Europe, Mr. Tripp, testified that the officers of the Displaced Persons Commission requested him to refrain from interrogating applicants concern- ing their eligibility under the displaced- persons law so that there would be fewer cases for investigation. Another one said he went to interview certain persons to ascertain their eligi- bility, but was directed not to do so, in order that they would not have so many case: to investigate. There is a sample of the screening, Mr. President. I desire to apologize to the Senator from New York. I told him that when I had finished the reading of the testi- mony I would let him place a memo- randum in the Recorp, I am not through with the testimony, but in my prepared text I have found some argu- ments in which I do not quote from testimony. Mr. President, provided I do not lose the floor, I shall now be glad to yield to the Senator from New York to place in the Recorp the memorandum to which he referred, and then I shall return to a reading of the testimony of other wit- nesses, Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Missis- sippi for his courtesy and consideration. I believe my statement will serve to clarify the question of the authority and the effectiveness of screening. The Senator from Mississippi stated yesterday, and agair. today, that the Im- Marcu 3 migration Service and the consular serv- ice do not have a veto on the entry of displaced persons into the United States. I have made inquiry of the Commis- sioner of Immigration, Mr. Watson B. Miller, an able and outstanding public servant, and he has advised me that the Commissioner of Immigration, through his agents and employees in Eu- rope and through his agents and em- ployees at Ellis Island, has and excrcises final jurisdiction on the admission into the United States of displaccd persons insofar as these persons qualify or fail to qualify under the immigration laws of the United States. This includes the provisions of the law on moral turpitude, political background, health, and many other restrictions placed upon all immi- grants seeking to enter the United States, After the Displaced Persons Commission has forwarded the files of an individual eligible under the standards of the Dis- placed Persons Commission, the Com- missioner of Immigration has the au- thority, which he exercises, to bar people from entering the Unitcd States who do not have the qualifications which are called for under the immigration laws. The Immigration Commissioner may even inquire into and investigate—and does—the facts of eligibility under the displaced-persons law, and may remand to the Displaced Persons Commission such cases regarding which the Immi- gration Commissioner has doubt as to qualification under the current construc- tion of the Displaced Persons Act. It is true that the Displaced Persons Com- mission, under the terms of a gentle- man’s agreement with the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization, has the final word on this fleld of eligibility and may determine, after further in- vestigation, that the applicant does ac- tually qualify under the definition of a displaced person. But in regard to all other aspects of immigration eligibility, the Commissioner of Immigration has the final word. In practice, the juris- diction of the Commissioner of Immi- gration is exercised after the issuance of the visa by the consular service. All this, of course, is set forth in section 10 of the Displaced Persons Act, which I urge the Members of the Senate to read. I should like the unanimous consent of the Senate to insert that section into the Recorp at this point. Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, I ob- ject to it being placed in the Recorp at this point. I do not object to the Sona- tor having it placed in the Recorp fol- lowing the conclusion of my speech. Mr. LEHMAN. I may say that I am entirely agreeable to the suggestion by the Senator from Mississippi that I place the section in the Recorp at the conclu- sion of the Senator’s speech. Mr. EASTLAND. Has the Senator concluded his statement respecting what Mr. Watson B. Miller advised him? Mr. LEHMAN. No;I have not entirely completed it. I shall conclude it in a moment. The Commissioner of Immigration has 20 employees and agents engaged in this work in Europe. In addition to these, there are the regular immigration offi- cials at Ellis Island and other points of
1950 entry where displaced persons may be re- fused entry—and sometimes are—on the basis of facts not originally known which would bar these displaced persons from entry into the United States under the immigration laws of the United States. Mr. President, this statement has been read to the Commissioner of Immigra- tion, and he has advised me that what I have said is in accord with the facts. Mr. President, with the further indul- gence of the able Senator from Missis- sippi—— Mr. EASTLAND. Wait a moment, please. Has the Senator concluded his stalement respecting what Mr. Miller ad- vised him? Mr. LEHMAN. Yes. I have not stated what Mr. L’Heureux advised me. Mr. EASTLAND. I want to answer Mr. Miller’s statement, and then the Sen- ator from New York can place Mr. L’Heureux's statement in the REecorp. Mr. LEHMAN. That is quite agree- able to me. Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, what I said yesterday, and what I have said today, which I am quite confident the CONGRESSIONAL Recorp will bear out, fs that on matters of eligibility or cut-off date the findings of the Displaced Per- sons Commission are final; that matters under the general immigration law, whether a person qualifics under the immigration law or not, can be vetoed by the Immigration Service. Isaid yes- terday and I have said today, and I am absolutely sure the Rrcorp will bear me out, that when the consular service or the Immigration Service have informa- tion which leads them to believe 8 man has come fraudulently into the zones he is not eligible to come into, that that file goes back to the Displaced Persons Commission, but that the decision of the Displaced Persons Commission is final; that it cannot be overruled by the con- sul and cannot be overruled by the im- migration officials. For that reason we placed in the bill the provision that the Displaced Persons Commission could be overruled by the consular service. I emphasize what I said yesterday, and what I have said today, which the Rrc- orp will certainly verify, that that is the system which is used. Yesterday I placed in the Recorp the rule promulgated by the Displaced Per- sons Commission, and I shall read it again: The report shall be deemed to establish prima facie the applicant's history and eli- gibility under the act and shall be deemed to establish as conclusive— “As conclusive,” Mr. President— the existence of all factors relating to eligi- bility to enter the United States, except ex- istence of those factors required in appli- cable immigration laws other than the act. Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. EASTLAND. I yield. Mr. LEHMAN. I am perfectly willing to allow the record to speak for itself, in view of the fact that the statement I have just read definitely refutes the claim made—not once, but many times— by the senior Senator from Mississippi that the final word with regard to the admission of displaced persons and all CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE other would-be immigrants to the United States does not He with the Immigration Service, under the immigration law. Mr. EASTLAND. Of course it does, under the immigration law. But under the Displaced Persons Act, the Displaced Persons Commission has the final au- thority and decision. Mr. LEHMAN. But it is perfectly clear, from the statement I have pre- sented, that it does not. Mr. President, with the further indul- gence of the able Senator from Missis- sippi, I should like to state that I have also made inquiry of Mr. L'Heureux, the Chief of the Visa Division, who affirms, without question, that the consular service has, and exercises, final jurisdic- tion over the issuance of visas to dis- placed persons, insofar as the laws ap- plicable to the issuance of visas arc con- cerned. The consuls may and do reject displaced persons who do not qualify under the laws governing admissibility of immigrants, where the Foreign Service is given, by law, jurisdiction over such admissibility. All this is set forth in title 8 of the United States Code, where it may be read by all Senators who de- sire clarification on this point. I thank the Senator. Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, if the Senator from New York will pardon me, let me say that he misinterprets his own documents and letters in that respect. Of course, under the Immigration Act and the administration of that act in connection with the general immigration laws, the Immigration Service is respon- sible, and has authority. We have not changed that situation. In that respect, the word of the consul and the word of the immigration official are final; and they can veto each other, if they wish to do so. But in regard to the question of who is a displaced person, and whether an applicant for admission into the United States as a displaced person was in Ger- many on the cut-off date, and whether he comes within the IRO catcgories, neither the consular officia] nor the im- migration official can veto the findings of the officials of the Displaced Persons Commission. The findings of the offi- cials of the Displaced Persons Commis- sion are final. That is why Mr. L'Heureux asked the Judiciary Committee to give to the con- sular service and to the Immigration Service that additional authority. His statements are in the record. If those Services now have that authority, as the Senator from New York says they have, then why does he object to having such a provision included in this bill? Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, inas- much as the Senator from Mississippi has asked me the question, Jet me say that the entire thesis of his argument, since yesterday afternoon, has been that subversives are coming into this country because of the complacency, or worse, of the Displaced Persons Commission. I have maintained, and the Senator from Mississippi has denied, that the final de- cision with regard to the admissibility of displaced persons and all other immi- grants, as far as their political back- ground is concerned and on many other factors rests in the Immigration and 2723 Naturalization Service and in the State Department. Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, either the distinguished Senator from New York misunderstood me or I mis- understood him, I said that if a person is a Communist, the Immigration Serv- ice and the consular service can veto his application, when it reaches them. But, as a matter of practice, it does not work out that way, because the consul has before him only the file for that per- son. The consul cannot act intelligently on a file that is prepared by displaced persons. Especially is that ‘rue when there was an order to remove adverse reports from the file, before the file reached the consular service. That is the whole purport of what I said. If I told the Senate that the consular service could not veto the application of a displaced person whom it knew to be a Communist, I was certainly in er- ror, because the consular service can veto such applications. But my point was that it does not have facilities with which to make the necessary investiga- tions, and the Displaced Persons Com- mission has taken what it eis a calcu- lated risk. It sends the file on before it receives a report from the Berlin docu- ment center or from the Provost Mar- shal's office; and it takes what it describes as a calculated risk that the man is not a bad character. Mr. LEHMAN. Let me say to the Senator that it is perfectly possible that he may have misunderstood me or that I may have misunderstood him. In or- der not to continue the colloquy, let me say that I am perfectly content to rest on the REcorp as it now stands. Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, if I said the consular service could not veto the application of a person known to be a Communist, I was certainly in error. I do not think I said that. I said that, as the procedure works out, the consul is bound by the file, because all the in- formation he has fs contained in the file, and there has been no screening as to it. The whole purpose is to avoid screen- ing and to rush the displaced persons into the United States. That is the situ- ation which the consular service is at- tempting to rectify. Mr. LEHMAN. I thank the Senator. Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, I hope the Senator from New York will listen to this: For violations of the Dis- placed Persons Act, the consul and the Immigration Service have no veto power at all, except under the general immi- gration law. Mr, President, Mr. Tripp further testi- fied, with reference to representations which had been made to him, that the European coordinator of the Displaced Persons Commission, who formerly was with UNRRA, had solicited certain per- sons to complain of Mr. Tripp’s admin- istration of the Immigration Service in Germany. A ficld employee of the Dis- placed Persons Commission _ testified that a senior officer of the Displaced Persons Commission, who was formerly with one of the voluntary agencies, stated at a staff meeting to the field em- ployees that if they could not reconcile certain irregularities with their con- sciences, they should quit the job.
2724 Just think of that, Mr. President. A senior officer of the Displaced Persons Commission told the men working un- der him, “If you cannot reconcile irre- guar itles with your conscience, quit your lo aad Then will Senators tell me that we should not tighten up the procedure in this matter? Will they tell me that we should not take steps to protect the United States? Mr. President, another field employee of the Displaced Persons Commission testified before the committee with refer- ence to a senior officer of the Displaced orsons Commission who formerly had been with a voluntary agency. He was ack-d: Did Mr Bashien indicate in this staff con- ference that he was the moving force which caused the transfer of the Counter-Intel- ligence Corps man who had been giving derogatory reports? Just think of that, Mr. President. There was an intelligence officer, an offi- cer of the American Secret Service, who is in the front line in the fight against Communist infiltration into the United States, a senior officer in the Army In- telligence Service, now stationed in Eu- rope, a man who seeks to protect this country from infiltration by Russian agents who are attempting to get into the United States. That man gave some derogatory reports; and, as a result, the Displaced Persons Commission officials in Europe tried to have him transferred. In the face of that situation, Mr. Presi- dent, how much importance should we attach to statements about screening and about security reports and about attempts to protect this country? Mr. President, I shall repeat the ques- tion I previously read from the testi- mony: Did Mr. Bashien indicate in this staff con- ference that he was the moving force which caused the transfer of the Counter-Intelli- gence Corps man who had been giving derogatory reports? Mr. Craig. He did. Question. What did he say on that point specifically, as you recall? Mr Craic. He said that the individual who had been giving these derogatory reports, that he had put pressure on, and that the individual who had been giving these derog- atory reports had been transferred. So, Mr. President, a man in the Counter-Intelligence Corps who had given derogatory reports on displaced persons was transferred, under pressure from a man named Bashien, employed by the Displaced Persons Commission. Mr. Bashien was an area director. I read further from the testimony: Question. He had put the pressure on whom? Mr. Craic. On the Counter Intelligence Corps. Mr. President, the testimony before the committee by fleld employees of the Displaced Persons Commission was to the effect that they had been ordered by the European headquarters of the Displaced Persons Commission to with- draw adverse reports from the files on cases which had been rejected, and that although in one area a letter indicating that the adverse reports had been with- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE drawn was inserted in the file, this was not the practice in other areas. Mr. KILGORE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. EASTLAND. As soon as I finish emphasizing this point, I shall be glad to yield. Mr. President, in all the areas but one, the employees of the Displaced Persons Commission were told to remove from the files the derogatory reports, so that the Consular officials or the Immigration officials would be fooled, when the files and reports got down the line. In only one area was a notation to the effect that such reports had been removed from the files included in the file. In all the other areas, no such notation was included in the files. Mr. President, in all fairness, let me state that when Mr. Carusi reached Europe and found that that had been done, he exploded, and ordered that that should be changed. But I submit that this country is be- ing morally betrayed, and that we should not leave in charge, in Europe, a man who would try to put over such a system as that. Now I yield to the Senator from West Virginia. Mr. KILGORE. Mr. President, let me inquire of the Senator, is it not a fact that the letter directing the withdrawal of those statements from the files stated, “This letter shall be included in the file”? Mr. EASTLAND. My information is that that was true in one of the areas, as I said. Mr. KILGORE. But did not the letter from the Frankfurt central office in one paragraph advise the area director to rewrite the report and to include the letter from the Frankfurt office as a part of the file? Mr. EASTLAND. As I told the Sena- tor, my information on this point, which may be in error, is that the letter went into the file in one of the areas, but it did not go into the files in other areas. That was my statement. Mr. KILGORE. May I refresh the Senator’s recollection? Mr. EASTLAND. Very well. Mr. KILGORE. The Senator is speak- ing about the Munich area, I am confi- dent. That is Mr. Main’s area, in which Mr. Main, rewriting the report under the direction of the Frankfurt office, in- cluded in the report the fact that he had turned down the application. That is not the question I asked the Senator. It is true that Main did that, and that in the other areas it was not done. Is it not also a fact that the letter from the Frankfurt office directing withdrawal of the papers, also directed that the letter ordering the withdrawal of papers be in- cluded in the file, in order to give notice? Mr. EASTLAND. No. Mr. Tripp who, as the Senator knows, was head of the immigration detail in Europe, testified it was put in the file in one of the areas, but that in the other areas he did not think the letter was placed in the files, That is as I remember the testimony. Iam advised that that is correct. Mr. KILGORE. May I ask the Senator whether he will not include the full letter as a part of his remarks today? MARCH 3 Mr. EASTLAND. The Senator has not been in the Chamber all the time. The letter in full was placed in the Recorp yesterday, and it has again been Placed in the Rrcorp today. Mr. KILGORE. That is fine. I thank the Senator. Mr. EASTLAND But, as I said—— Mr. JENNER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. EASTLAND. Ina moment. But, as I said in justice to Mr. Carusi, when he got to Europe, he stopped the prac- tice. Mr. President, permit me to say I think Mr. Carusi is a good man. I have confidence in him. But I do not think he knows what is happening in Europe. I now yield to the Senator from Indiana. Mr. JENNER. Mr. President, I be- lieve the distinguished Senator from Mississippi said there was certainly moral deceit on the part of certain of the Dis- placed Persons Commission officials. Mr. EASTLAND. In Europe. Mr. JENNER. In Europe. Mr. EASTLAND. Ido not impute any bad motive to any member of the Dis- placed Persons Commission, and I do not want anything I have said to be a reflec- tion upon the integrity of any member of the Commission. I do not want to make that statement so far as the Euro- pean theater is concerned. The best I can say, based on the testimony before me, is that there is gross negligence there. Mr. JENNER. Does the Senator from Mississippi know of the moral deceit in connection with an IRO interoffice com- munication or memorandum dated No- vember 8, 1949? Mr. EASTLAND. I should like to have it Mr. JENNER. Mr. President, I hold in my hand an air-mail envelope sent from IRO headquarters in Europe, ad- dressed to “Senator P. McCarran, Sen- ator from Nevada, Senate Office Build- ing, Washington, D. C., United States of America.” It is from the International Refugee Organization. Enclosed in this envelope is a communication reading as follows: Interoffice memorandum, Addressed to: Mr. C. C K.—Grierson-Rick- ford. Date: November 8, 1949 Subject: Public information release plans ” for United States program reduction. Without taking the Senator’s time, I may say this long memorandum con- tains a résumé of facts, namely, that when Congress adjourned last year without amending the Displaced Persons Act, the International Refugee Organi- zation had thrown upon it the burden of beginning to process agricultural dis- placed persons, as it should have done under the law, but which it had failed to do, selecting only such displaced per- sons as they wanted, without regard to the law of the United States, and that when the displaced-persons bill was amended during the last session, they were then up against it, because they were away behind in their agricultural quotas. That is the gist of the memo- yandum. For the Senator's information, let me read the salient points: (1) At a meeting between the Displaced Persons Commission and public information
1950 officers this afternoon, the following plans were agreed to for the release of informa- tion about the production of United States shipping, visaing, etc., during the coming months. (a) On or about the 20th day of December, a straight-faced announcement to be made on shipping schedule planned for the month of January; (b) On the 24th day of December, Mr. Rosenfield will arrive in New York with the bad news, making appropriate comment as to the reasons for the reduction in produc- tion and transportation of persons for the United States; (c) Early an January, the IRO, on the basis of stimulus, either natural or arranged, will release more detailed information as to— (i) Why the shipping schedule has been cut (11) What effect this cut will have on the total program. (iii) The number of persons being held up who might otherwise depart had not these agricultural percentages been applied. This referred to a law of the United States. They are planning and schem- ing to smear that law, and to explain why they have not lived up to it. Note the climax: (2) It was mutually decided that it was to our best interests not to release the in- formation too early, but felt impact could best be felt when Congress reconvenes on January 8, and when the Congressmen are more sensitive to the New York and Wash- ington press. Mr. EASTLAND. That is a powerful document. Mr. JENNER. I emphasized the state- ment I just read. It is signed by Mr. Warren G. Fuller, Assistant Director of Resettlement, with a copy to Miss Wil- son. Mr. EASTLAND. In other words, Mr. President, the organization is to bring pressure on Congress. I may say, had the organization spent as much time attempting to enforce the program and to get desirable persons into this country as they have spent in schemes to break the law, we would be in much better shape. Mr. JENNER. But here is the Dis- placed Persons Commission conniving with the information officers of the IRO to bring pressure on the Congress at the strategic time, so that they can sell their pregram. Mr. EASTLAND. That is conniving with the outfit which has its lawyers in this country soliciting pardons for crim- inals. Mr. JENNER. That is correct. I want to bring out the fact that, in addition to moral deceit on the part of the Dis- placed Persons Commission in Europe, certainly there is moral deceit on the part of displaced persons in the IRO, who are selecting persons who are to become the future citizens of this coun- try. Mr. EASTLAND. I thank the Senator. I think that should go in the Recorp in full at the conclusion of my remarks. Mr. KILGORE. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield at this point for an inquiry addressed to the Senator from Indiana, did the Senator from Indiana place the entire letter in the REcorD? Mr. JENNER. No; I have not put the entire letter in the Rrcorp yet. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. EASTLAND. I stated I thought the entire letter should be placed in the Recorp at the conclusion of my remarks, Mr. JENNER. If I do not put it in the Rxzcorp today, I should like to put it in after I have an opportunity of saying a few things about the program referred to in the letter. Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, I have just read the testimony to the effect that officials of the Displaced Persons Com- mission had an officer of the Central In- telligence Corps transferred, because he gave derogatory information in connec- tion with the entrance of displaced per- sons. Mr. KILGORE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question at that point? Mr. EASTLAND. I yield. Mr. KILGORE. The Counter Intelli- gence Corps jis an arm of the military government in Germany, is it not? Mr. EASTLAND. It is. Mr. KILGORE. Therefore, it is not under the direction of the Displaced Per- sons Commission, is it? Mr. EASTLAND. That is correct. Mr. KILGORE. It is under the direc- tion of the head of the military govern- ment of Germany, is it not? Mr. EASTLAND. But that does not change the situation, when senior officers put heat on the Counter-Intelligence Corps to get a man transferred who was giving adverse security reports. Mr. President, the testimony given be- fore our committee by field representa- tives of the Displaced Persons Commis- sion was to the effect that they had been ordered by the European headquarters of the Displaced Persons Commission to withdraw adverse reports from the files on cases which had been rejected, and we have have, as to one area, a letter indicating that an adverse report had been withdrawn. The letter was in- serted in the file. Mr. John W. Cutler, Jr., who was a ficld employee of the Dis- placed Persons Commission, testified be- fore the committce as follows: Mr. Curirr. What I want to say is that the reason I have come over here and jeopard- ized my position—and I want to say now that I have a very good job, as far as salary is concerned, I make more money than I made b« “ore in my position and my wife and I are perfectly happy in Germany, but the fact 1s that things like this and the steady pressure on everybody to pass tveryone, pass him, no matter how—if you cannot prove it, pass it—it has been that way in every bit of the whole organization. That is not only in the DP organization, but it spreads down to the lowest DP clerk, the selector, the analyst, and even the senior officer. The reason I say that is that originally, in Butz- bach, four of us had gone to Butzbach to complain— Butzbach is the location of the head of one of the area organizations— before this thing took place, before the VVN, and we had been told that we had no right to question what our superior officer told us and we had no right to reject anybody— They went to complain about the VVN, which, as I shall show, is a Communist organization— that if we wanted to reject somebody, we had to band the case over to him, and he cou:d overrule us at any time. 2725 Mr. JENNER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. EASTLAND. I yield for a ques- tion. Mr. JENNER. Something has been brought up regarding the CIC, and I should like the Senator to explain to the Members of the Senate what security checks there are for the protection of this Nation as to a displaced person who tells the American officials or the TRO that he came from some other address in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, or some other nation of that kind. Mr. EASTLAND. There is really no adequate check, as the Senator knows. Mr. JENNER. There is no way such persons can be checked, is there? Mr. EASTLAND. No. Mr. JENNER. So long as the IRO and the Displaced Persons Commission say these people are qualified as displaced persons, there is nothing the Immigra- tion Service or the Consular Service can do about it in protecting the American Government. They have to let them come in. Is not that a fact? Mr. EASTLAND. That is what is hap- pening. Mr. Tripp testified that approximately 30,000 persons who had come in thus far were of doubtful eligibility. That is a startling figure to come from the Im- migration Service. Mr. JENNER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for another question? Mr. EASTLAND. I yield. Mr. JENNER. Mr. Tripp testified that more than 30,000 had already entered. I ask the Senator how many have al- ready come in? Mr. EASTLAND. I should judge, from 130,000 to 135,000. Mr. JENNER. Then, under the pres- ent law, if that same percentoge pre- vails, of the 205,000 there will be ap- proximately 40,000 to 50,000 displaced persons in this country who are doubtful security risks, according to Mr. Tripp, who is the head of the Immigration Serv- ice detail in Europe. Is that correct? Mr. EASTLAND. Who are of doubt- ful security risk and who are ineligible under the law. Mr. JENNER. There is no difference, I believe the Senator has stated, between the two bills in regard to numbers. One provides for 339,000 and the other for ap- proximately 330,000. Unless the Senate does something to tighten up the se- curity risk we shall project the same per- centage of doubtful risks into an addi- tional 120,000 persons over the 205,000 under the present law, which means that, under the same percentage of operation, we would have approximately 70,000 or 80,000 displaced persons in America who, according to Mr. Tripp, who is an au- thority in this fleld, are doubtful security risks. Mr. EASTLAND. I say to my distin- guished friend from Indiana that if this is not changed—and the committee bill is the only pending change—we had just as well junk any attempts to pass se- curity legislation. It would amount to nothing, when an official in charge of phases of military intelligence says that Russian officers are being smuggled into
2726 this country. If we cannot stop that, we might as well junk any attempt to pass security legislation. Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. EASTLAND. I yield for a ques- tion. Mr. FERGUSON. The Senator has passed the point to which I wanted to refer. He stated that no one checked any person from Poland or Czecho- slovakia, for instance, to see whether the person had resided at an address behind the iron curtain in previous years. I ask the Senator whether the Immigration Service could check behind the iron cur- tain. Mr. EASTLAND. That point is reached very simply in the committee bill. I have here the official Counter- Intelligence Corps reports, three of them, which show fraud in admitting persons to this country, which the Counter- Intelligence Corps found in spot checks. The way that is reached is that the cut- off date was in 1945. One town was checked, and it was found that the people were lining up at night to see the regis- trar, and it was proved that he was ad- mitting great numbers of persons who had settled there the previous year. It could be proved by check that those people were not in Germany at the time of the cut-off date. Therefore we reach great numbers of frauds by taking IRO out of the picture. As the Senator knows, officials of the Displaced Persons Commission say that IRO’s reports are unreliable and that bribery is widespread. Why should they not be taken out? Mr. FERGUSON. I do not think the Senator has answered my question. Even though the change would place the Immigration Service in absolute charge of determining who is a displaced per- son, who is a qualified displaced person— “eligible displaced person” are the words used—how would they go behind the fron curtain to check up on residences, dates, and so forth? Mr, EASTLAND. Mr. President, I am sorry I did not make myself clear. Of course they cannot go behind the iron curtain, But here is a man who says he had registered in Butzbach in Septem- ber 1945. Investigation shows that he registered there in 1948. We do not have to go behind the iron curtain. The in- formation can be obtained largely in Germany. Mr. FERGUSON. The act says that is a fraud and that the person is not an eligible displaced person. The Immi- gration Service could deny his entry into this country. If the law were followed, there would be a denial of his entry. Mr. EASTLAND. Of course, the whole controversy, as has been stated time and again, is a question of screening. Proper investigations are not being made. There is no adequate system of screen- ing. That is exactly what the committee bill attempts to remedy, and that is all. The consular officers and the immigra- tion officers have a file prepared by IRO. It is information compiled for displaced persons, and of course they cannot act on it. I refer further to Mr. Cutler’s testi- mony. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Question. Who would overrule you? Mr. Cur.er. The senior officer. Mr. President, he had just testified that if they wanted to reject someone, they were to send the file to him, and he could overrule them. Mr. Cutler continues: Shortly after this, that is, four of us from our organization at Butzbach—and there were about six there at the time, at the same time, or shortly thereafter—— Question. Where did you four go, the four that you make reference to? You said you went somewhere Mr CurLer. We went to Frankfurt. Question. To do what? Mr. Cur.Ler. To complain about the exist- ing situation. At that time we were con- cerned with the fact that we were not al- lowed to see the displaced persons we se- lected. Mr. President, should not a displaced- person selector see the people whom he selects? They went to complain because they were not permitted to do that. I quote further from his testimony: In doubtful cases we wished to be able to interview the applicant to see if by a per- sonal investigation, interview, we could de- termine certain facts: and we were told we could not. Now, in the Munich area, for instance, that is the one area that I know, you have always been allowed to interview applicants of dcubtful character. But they would not let him do that in his area. Shortly thereafter, seven people, seven members of the Ludwigsburg mission, went to Frankfurt for more or less the same rea- son, to the best of my knowledge. Question. What did your group of four do when they went to Frankfurt? Mr. Courier. We asked Mr. Squadrilli— He is the chief man in Europe— if we would not be permitted to see certain DP applicants about which questions had been raised regarding their eligibility, Question. Was that their eligibility or their loyalty? Mr. CurLer. That was at that time their eligibility. That was very early in the pro- gram. Two months after the commencement of the program, In Ludwigsburg seven mem- bers of the team, out of a total membership of nine, went to Frankfurt for the same rea- son, or more or less the same reason. Question. What were you told in Frank- furt? Mr. CuTLER. We were told we had no right to question the orders of the senior officer and that he had given us those instructions, we were to follow them out. Mr. President, the Constitution of the United States gives a humble citizen of this country the right to petition. Here a majority of the employees of an agency say, “This thing is being run wrong. Dis- loyal persons are getting to the United States. We want to correct that. We want to interview these people.” They are told, “Oh, no. You follow our orders or get out.” Mr. JENNER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. EASTLAND. I yield for a ques- tion. Mr. JENNER. I was called off the floor during the debate, and I have just returned. When I came into the Cham- ber I heard the Senator mention Mr. Cutler’s name. Will the Senator tell us who Mr. Cutler is? MarcH 3 Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. Cutler's full name is John Wilson Cutler, Jr. Here is his record: In 1940 he was with the American Field Service in France and in the Middle East. Later he served with the Royal Air Force. He was in the RAF in 1941. From 1941 to 1945 he was in the United States Air Force. He was shot down over Yugoslavia, where he was made a prisoner of war during the last year of the war. My information is that he was recently promoted. I should like to give the Senator, if he will permit me, the remainder of Mr. Cutler's testi- mony, Question. Who are the senior officers? Could you tell us about them? Mr. CuTLer. There are Mr. Bashein. There are seven senior officers in Germany. Question. Are they located in seven dif- ferent places? Mr. Cuter. Yes. When I first went there, there were 11 senior officers in Germany. f can give you their names. Mr. Bashein, Miss Ruskin, Mr. Myerson, Mr. Hoexter, Mr. Main, Mr. Dervan, and Mr. Conan. Question. How many of these senior officers were formerly affiliated with one of the groups which is active in expediting tho work of aliens in their emigration to the United States? Mr CuTier At least three of those. Question. Who are they? Mr. Cutter. Mr. Bashein, Miss Ruskin, Mr. Myerson, and Mr. Kaplan. Well, he is not a@ senior officer. Question. Wnat is Mr. Kaplan's function? Mr. CuTLer. He is Mr. Squadrilli’s executive assistant. Question. What ground? Mr Currier, He was formerly employed by the American Joint Distribution Committee. Nothwithstanding the Counter Intel- ligence Corps reports, which were pre- sented to the committee, indicating sev- eral thousand cases of fraud and false documents by persons who had applica- tions pending as displaced persons, there is a letter which Mr. Bashein of the Dis- placed Persons Commission wrote. Iam not going to read it at this time, but I ask that it be placed in the Recorp at this point. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: UniTeD Srares DISPLACED PERSONS COMMISSION, Butzbach/Hesse, April 11, 1949. To: All members of the staff and voluntary agencies. From: M. D. Bashein, senior officer, Are- 1. Subject: False statements and falsification of documents by applicants. The following 1s quoted from a memoran- dum from U. 8. D. P. C. Headquarters, Frank- furt, dated April 1, 1949, for your information and you are urged to implement this directly in any case which comes to your personal attention. “1. You will be interested to know that the Consular Service has for some time now liberalized its policy toward those persons who may have misrepresented facts prior to or in the course of making application for immigration to the United States. Consular Officers have been instructed to advise each candidate as he appears for interview that should he wish to make any correction of previous statements or falsification of docu- ments, he may do so without necessarily Pprejudicing his case up to the time he gives is Mr. Kaplan's back-
1950 sworn testimony which results in the issuing of the visa. This principle does not apply, of course, where the falsification involves perjury. The reasoning behind this position is well understood. Innumerable displaced persons once made misrepresentations in the sincere effort to protect themselves against retaliation from authorities representing governments from which they have taken refuge. “2. It is unlikely, however, in the tense moments which surround the consular inter- view, that a candidate would alter the posi- tion which he has previously taken and which is on record. It is stressed, conse- quently, that every effort should be mide during the early period of documentation to encourage applicants to alter any falsely presented facts in the registration forms or elsewhere and thus protect themselves against conflicting evidence that may ad- versely affect their later immigration status. It has been suggested in this connection that posters in appropriate languages be utilized throughout resident camps suggesting this @s an advisable and authoritative course.” Mr. EASTLAND. Under the Displaced Persons Act, the burden of proof is placed upon the applicant. Section 10 provides: The burden of proof shall be upon the person who seeks to establish his eligibility under the act. Previously I have quoted excerpts from the testimony of Mr. Alamanza Tripp, who is in charge of the immigration de- tail in Europe under this phase of the matter, to show how the act and the will of Congress are being circumvented at this time. I read further from the testimony of Mr. Tripp: Question. Mr. Tripp, let me ask a ques- tion right there. Under the law the burden of proof ts on the applicant. As a matter of practice where does the burden of proof rest insofar as the Displaced Persons Commission is concerned? Mr. Tripp. Well, as a matter of practice, I believe the Commission is inclined in some cases to almost require proof a person is subversive before they will reject him. The law says the burden is on the applicant, yet Tripp says that the Dis- placed Persons Commission requires al- most absolute proof. Mr. John Wilson Cutler, Jr., testified, and I give excerpts from his testimony, which was given on February 6. I quote from Mr. Cutler: This is a case I will read you about with- drawing applicants from the file. This is Mr. Donald Main, senior officer, area 6, from Mr. Alec Squadrilli. Mr. President, that is the letter Mr. Squadrilli sent out, which was placed in the Recorp earlier today. What Mr. Cutler was testifying about was the par- don of a convicted criminal, to make him eligible to come to the United States. Question. For what was he on parole? Mr. Curier. A crime he had committed. There are many similar cases. Question. Am I to understand that they had directed— That is, the Displaced Persons Com- mission— a favorable report to be written on a man who was then on parole? Mr. Cutter. Oh, yes. There are several of that. This happens to be one of them. Mr. President, we have a case of a con- victed criminal out on parole, and the selectors were asked to write a favorable CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE report, regardless of his conviction, re- gardiess of the fact that he was a former convict, so that his entry into the United States would be expedited. I quote further: It this is not forthcoming, you cannot finalize the case until the time of parole has expired. I have handled several like that personally. Mr. Cutler gives another case, that of Joseph Kohn. He presented the file to the committee. The above-captioned file is returned here- with for reprocessing as directed below. As far as the Commission 1s concerned, rejec- tion under section 10 of the act in document and perjury cases must be based upon proof. Mr. President, there was a man as to whom they had evidence that he was in- eligible because his documents were false, or because of perjury. The burden was on his shoulders to prove that his documents were not forged, and that he had not been guilty of perjury. Yet the Commission sent the file back and said a rejection must be based upon proof, that it must be proved. Mr. Cutler says and Mr. Main says that that is almost impossible in Ger- many. It is impossible in Germany be- cause, of course, in those cases the pro- ceedings are informal. I read further: Question, Would you elaborate on that? How difficult ts it to obtain proof that would stand up in court? Mr. Curer. It is practically impossible in Germany to obtain proof in a court of per- jury. It is very, very difficult. These cases are almost all informal. Question. If a Counter Intelligence Corps examiner comes along and says that it is alleged on information which the Counter Intelligence Corps has to the effect that a man is a Communist, is that sufficient to bar a man as far as the Displaced Persons Commission is concerned? Mr. Curirr. Then the question is, if the Counter Intelligence Corps can prove it. That is the question, can they prove it? Time and time again the things come up. Not following the law, Mr. President, not placing the burden upon the appli- cant. The Counter Intelligence Corps says, “We have this information,” yet they cannot reject a man on the infor- mation. It must be proved, and in Ger- many, because the courts are more or less informal, due to the chaotic condi- tion, it cannot be proved, and through that loophole ineligibles and subversives are coming into the United States. Mr. JENNER. Mr. President, will the Senator yicld? Mr, EASTLAND. I yield. Mr. JENNER. Then ft is a fact that the way the Displaced Persons Commis- sion is operating, the burden of proof is on the CIC to prove that a man is a perjurer or a Communist? Is that what I am to understand the situation to be? Mr. EASTLAND. That is correct, and that is an impossible condition, in viola- tion of the law. Mr. JENNER. Does not the Senator know that the Government of the United States just got through spending—and the case is not complete yet—a million dollars to prove that Alger Hiss was a perjurer? 2727 Mr. EASTLAND. That is absolutely true. And let me say that I seriously doubt that, due to the friends Mr. Hiss has in high places, he will ever serve @ day. Question. If the Counter Intelligence Corps examiner comes along and says that it 1s alleged on information, that the Counter Intelligence Corps has it to the effect that a man is a Communist, is that sufficient to bar him as far as the Displaced Persons Com- mission is concerned? Mr. CuTixr. Then the subject is, if the Counter Intelligence Corps can prove It. That is the question. Can they prove it? Time and again the same thing comes up. The Counter Intelligence Corps says, “We have information that John Jones isa Communist.” The law puts the bur- den on John Jones, who wants to come to the United States, to prove that he is not. The Displaced Persons Commis- sion says “Prove it,” and that cannot be done, because the trials in Germany are informal. I ask, Mr. President, why in the name of all fairness is there objection to the committee bill, which simply improves the screening so as to protect this coun- try by allowing only good people to come into this country? Of course, under the present act many good people have come here. The subversives, those who are ineligible, are in the minority. But I say that the Congress of the United States must do all within its power to keep out subversives, to keep out those who are ineligible. That is all the Com- mittee on the Judiciary is attempting to oO. I quote further from Mr. Cutler: Question. What do you mean by saying the same thing has come up? Mr CUTLER. Everybody must prove. If this man is a Communist you must prove it. If he is a perjurer you must prove It, and so on in many instances. Question. The law says the burden of proof is on the applicant, does it not? Mr. CuTLER Yes, the law says that. Question. But is it your testimony in effect that the Counter Intelligence Corps has to prove the man is a Communist before the man is rejected? Mr. Curi_ger. In many cases, yes. Then he read the letter to the com- mittee from Mr. Squadrilli. Mr. Alamanza Tripp on this point tes- tified further: Question. Do then the Oounter Intelli- gence Corps make any rejections as to the date lines and as to whether he was there December 22, 1945, or rather on or before December 22, 1945? Mr. Tripp. No. Question. And as to whether he was there on January 1, 1948? Mr. Tripp. No. Question. Do they ask the Counter In- telligence Corps to look into that? Now there is the screening the Sen- ator from New York said we had. There ts the vital question: Was the man in Germany on the cut-off date? Yet the proof shows that the Counter Intelli- gence Corps was not even contacted nor asked for a report, nor asked for an investigation to see if the individual could qualify as a displaced person. Mr. Tarpp. No. In fact, early in the pro- gram the CIC reports were indicating on many occasions that their investigation in- dicates a later entry in certain cases. The
2728 information was usually ignored, those that I saw, anyway, and the IRO certificates were accepted. There is the screening, Mr. President. The Displaced Persons Commission ig- nored thc reports of the Counter Intelli- gence Corps, and took the certificates compiled by displaced persons them- selves in IRO. Those conditions are shocking. Question. Am I correct in understanding your statement to be then, Mr. Tripp, that in cases in which IRO had certifled to the Displaced Persons Commission that XYZ, to take the specimen case, had come to the area on or before December 22, 1945, and was there on January 1, 1948, the matter was transmitted by the Displaced Persons Commission to the CIC, and then the Counter Intelligence Corps found the man really was not there on December 22, 1945, that the Displaced Persons Commission ig- nored that finding and accepted the initial report on the resettlement form from IRO instead of taking the Counter Intelligence Corps finding? Is that correct? Mr. Tripp. Not exactly. Question. Tell me what ts right. Mr. Tripp. The Counter Intelligence Corps does not exactly establish that he was not in one of the areas, but they found evidence which indicated that he was not. Question. Did the CIC report that evi- ¢ nee back to the Displaced Persons Com- mission? Mr. Tripp. Yes. Question. What did the Displaced Persons Commission do with that evidence? Mr. Tripp. In the cases that I got, they processed them. They may have rejected some, but I did not see if they did. The ones that I saw had been processed all the way through. Mr. JENNER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. EASTLAND. I yield. Mr. JENNER. Can the Senator from Mississippi think of a better way for a Russian spy to get into America than the way the Senator has just read from the evidence? Mr. EASTLAND. Of course not. They have come in that way, and they are coming in now mm that way. But the question is that of screening. There isa smckescreen put up everywhere. It is said, ‘“‘Why, the Displaced Persons Com- mission screens them. The Counter In- telligence Corps screens them. The IRO screens them. The Immigration Service screens them. The Consular Service screens them.” I digress to say, Mr. President, that the information I have been reciting is not the propaganda of paid publicists but is the testimony of American citizens who are intimately familiar with the day-by- day operations of our displaced-persons program. I shall subsequently discuss these provisions of the committee bill which the committee recommends for enactment so as to strengthen the ad- ministration of the law, but since I am presently engaged in presenting the factual material to the Senate, I desire to invite the attention of the Senate to another area, and that is the IRO. Mr. President, the present displaced- persons law defines a displaced person by incorporating by reference the defini- tions contained in the constitution of the International Refugee Organization. The definition which is contained in the constitution of the International Refugee CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE ‘Organization, In addition to defining a displaced person or refugee, sets forth who shall be the concern and who shall not be the concern of the International Refugee Organization. It was clearly the congressional intent that the defini- tion contained in the constitution of the International Refugee Organization would be a formula to ‘e applied to ad- ministering the law by the Immigration and Naturalization Services and by the consular officers. However, under the administrative practice which has been followed in administering the law, the certifications which are made by the In- ternational Refugee Organization are accepted as binding not only upon the Displaced Persons Commission, but upon our immigration officers, and consular officers as well. That, Mr. President, is the practice in vogue. These certifications by the In- ternational Refugee Organization are not only with reference to whether or not the applicant is a displaced person, but also with reference to other elements of the applicant’s eligibility under the law, such as the date of his arrival in the oc- cupied areas, and whether or not he was in the areas prescribed by the law. Mr. President, as I have stated, in this whole set-up the International Refugee Organization is the most important cog in the machine. It initiates the files. Our cwn Government cannot go beyond the scope of those that it says are in its care and are displaced persons as defined by it. It is the main cog in this ma- chine, and the main source of bribery and corruption, and the main source by which saboteurs and Communist agents are getting into this country. That is why it is necessary that it be deleted from this program, and that every step in connection with a displaced person getting into the United States be admin- istered and controlled by an American agency, and supervised by citizens of the United States. Mr. President, I invite the attention of the Senate to certain factual material which is merely typical of a great volume of information which the committee has accumulated with reference to fraud- ulent and false documents under the dis- placed persons program. Mr. President, I hold in my hand copies of three or four reports by the Counter Intelligence Corps which are typical of numerous reports of this character by the investigative agency of the United States Army. One of them is a Counter Intelligence Corps report dated D2cem- ber 14, 1949, only 242 months ago. The heading of the report is: ‘‘Possible issu- ance of false statements of residence, Schnaitsee, Germany.” Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- sent to have the report printed at this point in the Recorp. There being no objection, the report was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: HeapquartTers, REGion IV, SIXTY-SIXTH CIC DETACHMENT, Visa SECTION, APO 407-A, UNITED STATES ARMY, December 14, 1949. Subject: Possible issuance of false statements of residence, Schnaitsee, Gemany 1. On November 19, 1949, this agent at- tempted to determine the validity of the en- MarcH 3 closed list of registered residents of the com- munity of Schnaiteee. 2. The burgomaster of Schnaitsee was in- terviewed and stated to this agent that he thinks that certain irregularities had oc- curred in his office concerning the issuance of residence slips to DP's and the recording of names tn the community registration book. He claimed that this had probably been done by the secretary of the community, Mayor, Georg. The burgomaster stated that numerous people reported Mayer as having numerous visitors nightly. These visitors contacted Mayer in order to establish resi- dence in Schnaitsee as of a past date. 8. This agent int>rviewed Kommiesar Mueller, Bernhard, of the Land Polizei of Schnaitsee and it was determined that at the present time only one (1) person on the en- closed list was still residing in the commu- nity and who had also been in the commu- nity since May 1945, namely, Glitman, Henry, born September 20, 1922, No. 71 on enclosed list, 4. Georg Mayer, born April 21, 1879, in Mindelheim, of the office of the community Schnaitsee, was interviewed in the presence of Kommissar Mueller of the Land Polizet and stated that the majority of the names on the enclosed list are not correct as to their reg- istration date within the community. Spe- cifically, Mayer stated that the following per- sons registered in Schnaitsee on dates shown, Leber, Najtali, born June 20, 1916, number 144, reported as having registered August <0, 1945, actually registered in June 1946. Zynger, Szmul, born May 5, 1912, number 302, reported as having registered November 22, 1945, actually registered in September 1949 Zynger had with him two witnesses, who claimed they remembered Zynger having been in Schnaitsee in 1945. A check re- vealed that one of these witnesses, Lang, Jo= sef, himself arrived in Schnaitsee on July 8, 1947, initially Goldstein, Marcho, born Octcber 18, 1910, number 79, reported as having registered Oc- tober 10, 1945, actually registered July 1946. Krein, Abraham, born March 1, 1924, num- ber 130, reported as having registered Sep- tember 22, 1945, actually registered August 1946. Mayer refused to state why he had falsely registered the people. H. FiscHer. Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, the report shows that the registrar in that town, Mr. Georg Mayer, when inter- viewed by the Counter Intelligence Corps, in the presence of the mayor of the town, stated that his records were being doctored; that people who came there after 1945 and settled there were being certified as having come there hbe- fore that date, so as to make them eligible for admission into the United States Mr. WHERRY. Mr. Pres:dent, will the Senator yield for a question? Mr EASTLAND. I yield. Mr. WHERRY. Why was that done? Who initiated the dcctoring of such papers and documents? Would the or- Gan zation that passes on the applicants, to b-gin with, be interested in doing that? Mr. EASTLAND. They were doing it for money. Mr. WHERRY. Does the Senator mean to say that they were accepting moncy to falsify documents, so as to permit those p2rsons to enter the United States? Mr. EASTLAND. Various persons were going to Mr. Mayer at night, and he was doctoring the records of the town so as to show that those persons settled in the town earlier than they aciually
1950 had; he was doing that so as to make them eligible for admission into the United States. Mr. WHERRY. Has the falsification been done by interested IRO personnel? What persons or what organization have attempted to do that? Mr. EASTLAND. Part of it is done in the IRO. Of course, the particular case to which I have just referred did not involve the IRO. But how can such matters be caught if there is no proper system of screening? | wt WHERRY. I agree with the Sen- ator. Mr. EASTLAND. The report shows that at the request of Bernhard Mueller, Kommissar of the Land Polizei, Mayer wrote and signed a statement in which he admitted having falsified the registry of numerous displaced persons. A signed copy of. the statement is on file at the headquarters. Mr. WHERRY. In connection with the testimony to which the Senator has just referred, let me inquire whether any applicants whose records were falsi- fied, or for the benefit of whom other records were falsified, have been admit- ted into the United States. Mr. EASTLAND. Certainly. Mr. Squadrilli admits that. Mr. WHERRY. Have they come into the United States after the documents have been falsified? Mr. EASTLAND. Yes. Mr. WHERRY. What organization found that out? Did the Displaced Per- sons Commission attempt to find out about it, or did the consular service or the immigration authorities attempt to find out about it? By what organization did the applicant have to be cleared, after his application was initiate¢ by the IRO? Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. Tripp, the head of the immigration detail in Europe, in- stituted that inquiry. Iam sorry to have to tell the Senator that my information is that Mr. Squadrilli attempted to get him fired; I am informed that Mr. Tripp says that. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a further question? Mr. EASTLAND. I yield. Mr. WHERRY. The Senator will re- call that in the colloquy earlier today the Senator from Michigan asked if it were true that the immigration officials had authority to screen displaced per- sons as well as immigrants. Does the Senator recall that question by the Sen- ator from Michigan? Mr. EASTLAND. No. Mr. WHERRY. I am quite satisfied that question was asked during the col- loquy earlier today. Under the present law, would the im- migration authorities have authority to screen an applicant who came through with a falsified record, as the Senator has just disclosed? Mr. EASTLAND. They do not know whether it is false, because they accept the certification by the IRO. Mr. WHERRY. That is the point I make. They accept the certification by the IRO; therefore, they do not have knowledge as to the applicant or the screening which has gone on in Europe; is not that true? Mr. EASTLAND. That is true. Even CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. WHERRY. Then, as I under- stand, that is the position the Senator from Mississippi takes, namely, that in the absence of such screening by the immigration authorities, there is no American agency or subdivision of our Government which screens the appli- cants after the IRO has initiated the ap- plications and after the Displaced Per- sons Commission authorizes the appli- cants to come to the United States. Is that correct? Mr. EASTLAND, That is correct. On that point, let me read the testi- mony of Mr. Tripp: There became available to me recently copies of the results of a fingerprint check made by the provost marshal’s office in @ number of cases. The first group of cases in which the information became available to me related to ninety-odd individuals. Immediately I checked the camp registra- tion records, Camp Grohn in Bremen, to determine {f any of the persons named had proceeded to the United States. I found that 33 of the people had already sailed to the United States. Examining the nature of the report in each case, I concluded with- out investigation that 11 of the individuals were probably deportable on criminal charges. Yet, they are in this country now. Mr, WHERRY. They are in this country now? Mr. EASTLAND. Yes. MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT A message in writing from the Presi- dent of the United States was com- municated to the Senate by Mr. Miller, one of his secretaries. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. EASTLAND. I yield. Mr, LUCAS. Mr. President, this is an extremely important message. I ask unanimous consent that the debate which is proceeding be interrupted long enough for the message to be read. The VICE PRESIDENT. Unanimous consent 1s requested that the Senator from Mississippi may yield without los- ing the floor, to have the message from the President of the United States read. The Chair assumes that in that con- nection there may be a request for a quorum call. Is there objection to the unanimous- consent request? Mr. WHERRY. I have no objection. The VICE PRESIDENT. Without ob- jection, it is so ordered. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. The VICE PRESIDENT. The secre- tary will call the roll. The roll was called, and the following Senators answered to their names: Alken Ellender Kerr Anderson Ferguson Kilgore Brewster Flanders Knowland Bricker Frear Langer Bridges Pulbright Leahy Butler George Lehman Byrd Green Lodge Cain Gurney Long Capehart Hayden Lucas Chapman Hendrickson McCarran Chavez Hill McCarthy Connally Hoey McClellan Cordon Humphrey McKellar Darby Hunt McMahon Donnell Ives Magnuson Douglas Jenner one Downey Johnson, Tex Martin Dworshak Johnston, 8.0. Maybank Eastland Kefauver Millikin Morse Smith, Maine Tobey Mundt Smith, N. J. Tydings Murray Sparkman Watkins Neely Stennis Wherry O'Conor Taft Wiley Robertzon Taylor Williams Russell Thomas, Okla Withers Schoeppel Thomas, Utah The VICE PRESIDENT. A quorum is present. RESTORATION OF NATIONAL COAL PRO- DUCTION—MESSAGE FROM THE PRESI- DENT (H. DOC. NO. 492) The VICE PRESIDENT laid before the Senate a message from the President of the United States, which was read by the Chief Clerk, (For President’s message, see today’s proceedings of the House of Representa- tives on pp. 2774-2775.) The VICE PRESIDENT. The message will be referred to the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare. Mr. THOMAS of Utah. Mr. President, I introduce for appropriate reference a bill to carry out the recommendations of the President, and I ask unanimous con- sent that it be printed in full in the REcorp. There being no objection, the bill (S. 8178) to restore national coal production, was read twice by its title, referred to the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, and ordered to be printed in the Rrecorp, as follows: Be it enacted, etc , That in order to remove impediments or obstructions to trade or com- merce among the several States or with for- eign nations, to protect the national health or safety, or to meet the needs of national defense or of a national emorgency, the Presi- dent, in time of national emergency hereto- fore or hereafter declared, is empowered and authorized to take possession and assume control of and to operate any plant, mine, or facility engaged in or suitable for the mining, production, or distribution of coal (including any real or personal property, franchise, right, fund or other asset, or any record, pertaining to or used in connection with the operation of any or all such plants, mines, or facilities), and to take such ac- tion as he decms necessary in his discretion to carry out the authority herein conferred. Sec. 2. Whenever an agreement concerning the terms and conditions of employment shall have been reached between the repre- sentatives of the employees and the repro- sentatives of the operators with respect to any plant, mine, or facility taken over under this Act, or whenever in the Judgment of the President it is no longer necessary to con- tinue possession, control, and operation of any such plant, mine, or facility, the Presi- dent shall return posseasion, control, and operation of such plant, mine, or facility to the person lawfully entitled thereto. Sec. 3. (a) In administering this act: (1) The President is authorized to deter- mine fair terms and conditions of employ- ment of the employces of any mine, plant, or facility taken over under this act, but he shall not enter into any contract govern- ing such terms and conditions with the representatives of such employees. (2) The President is authorized to deter- mine just compensation to be paid by the United States for the use of each mine, plant, or facility taken over under this act. (b) The President may appoint and com- pensate such persons or boards as he deems necessary to assist him in making the de- terminations required by subsection (a). Src. 4. The personnel of plants, mines, or facilities taken over under this act shall be subject to the laws relating to Federal officers and employees only to the extent specified by the President. Personnel appointed for the
2730 purpose of administering this act may be employed without regard to the civil service laws or the Classification Act of 1949. Sec. 5. (a) The Reconstruction Finance Corporation shall advance to the President such sums as he deems necessary to carry out the provisions of this act and for use as working capital in the operation of mines, plants, or facilities under this act. The revenues derived from the operation of any plant, mine, or facility taken over under this uct may be used to defray the expenses of its operation, and to repay Reconstruction Finance Corporation advances with interest at the rate charged the Reconstruction Fi- nance Corporation by the Treasury Depart- ment. (b) Such revenues and Reconstruction Fi- nance Corporation advances may be expended without regard to any laws governing the expenditure of Government funds, other than laws relating to fraud, embezzlement, and other criminal acts. Sec. 6. There are hereby authorized to be e@ppropriated such funds as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this act. Sec. 7. Nothing in this act shall be con- strued to require an individual employee to render labor or service without his consent, or to dery to any person whose property has been taken over by the Government under this act the right to a judicial deter- mination of just compensation. Sec. 8. (a) The authority conferred by this act upon the President may be exercised through any officers of the Government des- ignated by the President. (b) The President shall not take posses- sion of or operate any plant, mine, or other facility under this act after June 30, 1951. Mr. THOMAS of Utah. Mr. Presi- dent, I should like to say that the Com- mittee on Labor and Public Welfare was in session this morning and will be in session tomorrow morning, beginning at 9:30, but because of the message from the President and the bill which I have just introduced, I shall ask the commit- tee to meet in the committee room this afternoon at 4:15 o’clock. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, in view of the emergency message, and the Dill which has just been introduced by the distinguished chairman of the Commit- tee on Labor and Public Welfare, it seems to me that the calling of a meet- ing of the committee for today is proper. Furthermore, I hope that the committee will act with all convenient speed, be- lieving that perhaps it may be able to report a bill tomorrow. The majority leader now advises the Senate that we shall hold a session tomorrow. We can- not afford, under the circumstances, not to act as expeditiously as may be pos- sible, because of the seriousness of the situation as expressed in the President’s message, aS well as because of the psy- chological effect it may have upon the people of America who are watching de- velopments with tremendous interest. Mr. EASTLAND rose. Mr. TAFT. Mr. President—— The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Mississippi yield to the Senator from Ohio? Mr. TAFT. Mr. President, I addrc:sed the Chair. I did not know the Senator from Mississippi was standing. The VICE PRESIDENT. Under the unanimous-consent agreement, the Sen- ator from Mississippi is entitled to the fioor. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. TAFT. I did not understand. I was not present at the time the unani- mouS-consent agreement was made. The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Mississippi yield to the Senator from Ohio? Mr. EASTLAND. I do. Mr. TAFT. Mr. President, I only wanted to invite the attention of the Senate to the fact that last year the Senate passed a bill which contained the power of seizure, which bill has been pending in the House of Representatives since the first of last July. That bill dealt with seizure in a some- what different manner from that which is proposed in the President's bill. I wish to invite attention to the fact that under the bill as presented, it seems to me that the President’s right to pay any wages he sees fit to pay will in effect fasten a wage scale on the operators without their con- sent. The power requested by the Presi- dent is very much broader than that which is contained in any seizure bill we have heretofore had under considera- tion, and therefore, it seems to me to be practically a complete capitulation to the miners who have refused arbitration when the employers have agreed to arbi- tration. I merely want to invite attention to the fact that I shall move to substitute the bill which the Senate recently passed by a substantial vote for the bill which has been suggested by the President, when that bill is reported from the committee. Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, will the Senator from Mississippi yield to me for just 2 minutes? Mr. EASTLAND. Under the same conditions. The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there ob- jection to the Senator from Mississippi yielding to the Senator from Oregon, with the understanding that he shall] not lose the floor? The Chair hears no ob- jection, and the Senator from Oregon may proceed. Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, appar- ently we shall have a series of substitutes, although I desire to say, having read the President’s bill, that we should keep in mind that what we seek in this emergen- cy hour is coal for the suffering American people. I am satisfled that the Presi- dent’s |i]] will give us coal. Iam satisfied that the President’s bill is fair in prin- ciple, and I am further satisfied that the President’s bill 1s not subject to the criti- cism which my very good and able friend from Ohio [Mr. Tart] makes of it. Ido not think it is wrong for the Government of the United States, when it is in pos- session of an industry in this country un- der Government seizure, to pay the work- ers what an emergency board believes to be fair wages and to grant them fair working conditions on the basis of the merits of the case as the emergency board finds them, because unless that principle is adopted, all that will be done under Government seizure is to impose upon the men working conditions, irre- spective of the facts and the merits, which the employers have sought to im- pose upon them and which gave rise to the dispute in the first instance. MaRcH 8 There is an area, it seems to me, of possible compromise with the Senator from Ohio, and I shall suggest it in com- mittee this afternoon, namely, that we give consideration to a so-called retro- active principle that might be applied as a possible amendment to the Pres- ident’s bill. I wish to make one further comment, and I am through. It is true that we passed a bill at the last session of the Congress which in- cluded a seizure provision as recom- mended by the Senator from Ohio. Al- though we voted on it as a separate amendment, each one of us knew when we voted that it was a part of a larger bill, and we did not, in my judgment, vote upon it without taking into account the other provisions of the bill which would go along with it. Mr. President, we are here met with a message which requires us to vote on a separate seizure bill without any relation whatsoever to any other proposal for an amendment to the Taft-Hartley law. My first reaction to the President’s bill is that the President has risen to heights of statesmanship in this critical hour; and I hope I shall always be nonpartisan enough to place what I feel is the welfare of the American people above any ques- tion of political expediency. Mr. TAFT. Mr. President, will the Senator from Mississippi yield further, under the same conditions? Mr. EASTLAND. I yield, under the same conditions. Mr. TAFT. I wish to point out one thing further which I intended to indi- cate. There is absolutely not the slightest assurance that if the bill rec- ommended by the President shall be passed the men will go back to work. Far from that, the United Mine Workers, under the same leadership in 1946, struck against the Government when the Gov- ernment had full possession of the mines. They did not return to work until an injunction had been sought, until a peti- tion for contempt had been filed, and until the union had been found guilty of criminal and civil contempt, Mr. Lewis had been fined $10,000, and the union had been fined $3,500,000. The next day they went back to work. So, Mr. President, so far as seizure is concerned, there is not the slightest guarantee that seizure will solve the cur- rent problem. I think we should cer- tainly remember that there should be the power of fhjunction in any bill that is passed, as well as the power of seizure, because otherwise the precedent set shows that the Government is completely at the mercy of the miners who refuse to work. Mr. JENNER and Mr. HUMPHREY addressed the Chair. The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Mississippi yield, and if so, to whom? Mr. EASTLAND. I yield first to the Senator from Indiana, and then I shall yield to the Senator from Minnesota. Mr. JENNER. Mr. President, it seems to me that in the present great emer- gency, in which the people of the country
1950 are suffering from a lack of coal, an emergency which has been brought about because the laws which are on the tatute books were not followed or en- orced as they should have been—a fact which every thinking American knows— it is a kind of delaying tactics to come to the Congress today asking for the intro- duction and reference to a committee of a bill, which subsequently will reach the floor, at which time the various ideas which we can see this body is going to have will be debated. The distinguished junior Senator from Oregon sounds very much like a can- didate, for we discussed a seizure bill in this body last year for 3 weeks, and I believe the record will show that the junior Senator from Oregon was opposed to it. That seizure bill anticipated the very situation which confronts the Na- tion tonight, and that seizure bill also provided for injunction. Therefore it seems to me that we should act in order to help the people of the country who are cold—not cold tomorrow, not the day after tomorrow, or not next week, but who are cold now. In my State the school systems are closed. In view of that condition it scecms to me that in this hour of emer- gency, rather than have new legislation, with all these prima donna statemen having their two-bits to say about it, we might as well take a bill which passed this body a year ago, and which is pend- ing in the House of Representatives, a bill on which the administration has kept its foot. Let it take its foot off; let the House pass that bill, which they can do in 1 hour, and then the Presi- dent can sign it, and it can become a law. I am tired of people playing politics with crises and emergencies. This very legislation passed this body a year ago, 60 why pass it again? Let us take up the idea of seizure and injunction, which we would all like to see, and debate it next June or July or August. But the people are cold now. One body of the Congress acted almost @ year ago. Let the President take his foot off the bill passed last year, let it go to conference, let the differences be jroned out, and it can be a law in an hour’s time. Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, will the Senator from Mississippi yield to me for half a minute? Mr. EASTLAND. I promised to yield first to the Senator from Minnesota. Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I wish to associate myself with the re- marks of the distinguished Senator from Oregon, and to commend him on his very cogent and statesmanlike attitude. He presented a measure last year which to my mind would have met the situa- tion. I also wish to bring to the attention of the Senate, in view of the President’s message, the second portion of the mes- sage, which I realize is not so vital as the first part. He calls the attention of the Congress to the necessity of estab- lishing a commission of inquiry, com- posed of Members of Congress, mem- bers of the executive branch, and of CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE the public, to make a thorough study of the coal industry. As of March 1, the junior Senator from Minnesota, the junior Senator from Oregon, and the junior Senator from Mli- nois, introduced a bill for the estab- lishment of a bipartisan national coal commission. I understand the bill has been referred to the Committee of Terri- tories and Insular Affairs, and in view of the statement of the President, and the facts of the present situation, I hope the Committee on Territories and Insular Affairs will hold hearings on such a Dill, report it and have it acted upon, so that we may proceed as expeditiously as pos- sible to get at the root of the difficulty which now faces the country. Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, will the Senator from Mississippi yield? Mr. EASTLAND. I yield first to the majority leader. Mr. LUCAS. The Senator may yield to the Senator from Oregon, who wishes to make merely a remark or two. Mr. EASTLAND. I yield to the Sen- ator from Oregon. Mr. MORSE Mr. President, I wish to say to my good friend from Indiana, in complete good nature, that I am per- fectly willing to let the record speak for itself as to who has made a partisan political speech on this subject this afternoon. Mr. JENNER. Mr. President, will the Senator from Mississippi yield? Mr. EASTLAND. I yield to the Senator from Indiana under the same condi- tions. Mr. JENNER. Mr. President, the junior Senator from Oregon is going to be a big peacemaker. He is going to work out, possibly, an amendment to the bill which will satisfy and help every- body. The bill the junior Senator from Oregon has introduced, and which he proposcs as a compromise, was voted on by this body last year. It was defeated by a vote of 77 to 9. Mr. President, I am not playing politics; I am trying to get coal. My point is that this body has passed a bill which provided for seizure and injunc- tion. It is pending in the other House of the Congress. It could be brought out of committee and passed, the differences could be ironed out in conference, it could be signed, and it could be the law of the land before the sum comes up tomorrow. Why introduce a bill and send it to the Committee on Labor and Public Wel- fare, and let the great statesmen of this great deliberative body have their say, when the Senate has already spoken on the bill of the Senator from Oregon and said “No” by a vote of 77 to 9? That is my point. Let us have action. We are in an emergency. Let gentlemen quit playing politics. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President—— The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Mississippi yield to the Senator from Illinois, under the same conditions? Mr. EASTLAND. I yield. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I should like to read a sentence or two from the message from the President of the 2731 United States which has just been read at the desk. I read from the second paragraph: Since February 6, 1950, the production of bituminous coal has been dangerously cur- tailed. By now stocks of coal are almost ex- hausted, and many parts of our country face crisis conditions. e s e * e * © © Within a very few days we shall be virtually out of soft coal. The danger to the national health and safety is real and immediate. It requires action at once. Tread further u portion of the message, where the President said: I recommend that the Congres. enact leg- islation authorizing the Government to take over the coal mines and operate them tem- porarlly as a public service. The parties are continuing their negotia- tions, and I earnestly hope that they will reach agreement before it actuall” becomes necessary for the Government to take pos- session of the mines. But we can wait no longer to prepare ourselves with the neces- sary legislative authority. I am submitting at this time a draft of legislation to accomplish this purpose. I earnestly request that the Congress consider this proposal and enact the needed legisia- tion as quickly as possible, Mr. President, I merely wish to make one or two comments with respect to what my distinguished friends on the other side of the aisle have said. I sincerely hope that the Senator from Ohio [Mr. Tarr], who was one of the authors of the Taft-Hartley law, which is now on the statute books, will not press the amendment he propose: to offer be- fore the committee. My reason for that statement is one of the reasons that has been advanced by the distinguished Sen- ator from Indiana. The present emer- gency is real and it is serious. There can be no question about that. We have to assume that the facts as stated in the message of the President are true and correct. If the emergency is a real one, it seems to me there is no point becom- ing involved in a long and continued con- troversy in the Senate and the House of Representatives over another so-called Taft-Hartley bill, Knowing the good judgment the Sen- ator from Ohio has about all matters, Iam sure that after he duly considers the message, he will not proceed to precipi- tate a long debate, thereby perhaps keep- ing coal from coming out of the ground. I agree with the Senator from Ohio that the very fact that we pass a seizure bill will not put shovels into the hands of the coal miners. They do not have to go back to work unless they want to. But I am convinced that when the Govern-~ ment seizes the mines, the men in the mines, because of their patriotism and loyalty to their country, will not continue to strike against their Government. I may be wrong about that. Time alone will tell. But I believe that to be beyond any question of doubt. Cer- tainly this is probably the last legal resort Congress will have to consider, and I am satisfied that we should act upon the proposed bill as an emergency measure, and not attempt to substitute this kind of provision or that kind of
2732 bill for the one the President has said he seeks. I do not object, of course, to some amendments which may be in the best interests of the country and the public as a whole. But for us to become in- volved in a long-continued controversy and battle over what a proper labor law should be, in the midst of a aational emergency, seems to me to be the height of folly. I sincerely hope that those on this side of the aisle who have here- tofore been strongly in favor of the Taft- Hartley law will give every consideration to the President’s message in the light of the existing national emergency, which affects the public health and safely. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator from Mississippi yleld to me? Mr. EASTLAND. I yield, Mr. Presi- dent, under the same conditions as previ- ously. Mr. WHERRY. I am not going to make any observations respecting the proposed labor legislation. I should like to ask the distinguished majority leader, in view of the announcement he made, whether the Senate will convene tomor- row at noon regardless of what action the Committee on Labor and Public Wel- fare might make with respect to report- ing legislation to the Senate? Mr. LUCAS. The Senator is correct. Mr. WHERRY. So that whether the report is made or not, the Senate will convene, and if the labor legislation is not brought forth, the pending business, of course, will be the displaced persons bill? Mr. LUCAS. The Senator is correct. There is another good reason for the Senate being in session tomorrow. The Senator from Nebraska knows that the Senator from Nevada |Mr. McCarran], the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, is very anxious to leave for Nevada on Monday night. It had not originally been intended that a session of the Senate be held tomorrow, but in view of the President’s emergency mes- sage, I think it is proper that we should hold a session tomorrow. It may be that the Committee on Labor and Public Wel- fare can agree upon reporting a bill. I sincerely hope they can report a bill. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further? Mr. LUCAS. I yield. Mr. WHERRY., I suggest that several Senators have understood that there would not be a vote upon the displaced- persons legislation tomorrow. Mr. LUCAS, I can assure the Sena- tor that there will be no vote on the displaced-persons legislation tomorrow. Mr. WHERRY. I do not want to hold up action on the bill, but as the majority leader knows, some Senators will not be here tomorrow. Mr. LUCAS. I hope we can vote not later than Monday night on the dis- placed-persons bill. Mr. CAPEHART. Mr. President, will the Senator from Mississippi yield? Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, I yield on the same condition that I have yielded previously. Mr. CAPEHART. Mr. President, I hope the majority leader is correct in CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE this belief that the miners will go back if the Congress passes the seizure bill the President has sent to us. But I wish to call to his attention as the able Sen- ator from Ohio did, that in 1946 the same miners did strike against the Govern- ment, and that it was necessary to go into Federal Court and file charges of contempt against the miners, and they were fined $3,500,000. I hope that in this instance the miners will go back to work, but I do not think we have any assurance that they will. I think we are up against the same con- dition we were in 1946. One other thing, Mr. President. I hope that if we pass the legislation he has asked us to pass, the President of the United States will not call it a “slave- labor act;” that he will not educate the 400,000 miners to violate the law as he has been doing for the past 2 years since the Taft-Hartley law was enacted. In my opinion, the President of the United States has taught the miners that the Taft-Hartley Act, the act under which they were working, was a “slave”’ act. Mr. President, I ask this question: Is it any wonder that the miners violated the court injunction? Is it any wonder that they refused to go back to work, when the head of the Nation, over a period of months and months, has called the attention, not only of the miners, but of all other wage earners in the United States, and the people, that the only legislation under which he could deal with such crises and such situations was, in his own words, a “slave-labor act”; that it was no good, and should be repealed? He educated the workers to disobey the law, which they did when the time came that he himself was called upon to invoke it. Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. EASTLAND. No, Mr. President, I do not yield at this time. I yielded to the Senator from Indiana for the purpose, as I thought, of placing something in the RECORD. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, will the Senator from Mississifpi yield to me to make a unanimous consent request, if by so doing he does not lose the floor? Mr. EASTLAND. I yield under those conditions. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare be per- mitted to report its findings upon the bill introduced this afternoon by the Senator from Utah [Mr. THomas] during the re- cess of the Senate, if it is necessary that it be done, and I further ask unanimous consent for immediate consideration of the bill when it comes before the Senate. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, I have no objection to the first request the Sen- ator made, because I think that will ex- pedite procedure. But I ask the majority leader to withhold the second portion of his unanimous consent request for imme- diate consideration of the bill until the bill comes before the Senate. Mr. LUCAS. I serve notice on the Senate now that when the bill is re- ported by the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare I shall then ask unani- MaRcH 8 mous consent for its immediate consid- eration, and if I cannot secure unani- mous consent, I shall move that the bill be taken up for consideration. The VICE PRESIDENT. Without ob- Jection, the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare is authorized to report on the proposed coal legislation during the recess of the Senate. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator from Mississippi yield for another inquiry of the majority leader? Mr. EASTLAND. I yield on the same basis as before. Mr. WHERRY. What I have in mind is to expedite the program, so I presume it has some priority. I should like to know what is the intention of the majority leader respecting the length of the session tonight and tomorrow night? Does the Senator expect the Senate to sit later than usual? Mr. LUCAS. I think the Senate will remain in session until around 6 o'clock. Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- sent that the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare be permitted to sit during the session of the Senate this afternoon. The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there ob- jection? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered. DISPLACED PERSONS The Senate resumed the considera- tion of the bill (H. R. 4567) to amend the Displaced Persons Act of 1948. Mr. HUNT. Mr. President, will the Senator from Mississippi yield to me? Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the junior Sen- ator from Wyoming [Mr. Hunt] may address the Senate at this time without prejudice to my rights to the floor. The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there ob- jection? The Chair hears none, and the Senator from Wyoming may proceed. Mr. HUNT. Mr. President, I wish to thank the distinguished Senator from Mississippi for yielding to me a few min- utes for the purpose of explaining an amendment which I have submitted and which is printed and lies on the table, to H. R. 4567, the bill which is now pending before the Senate. The amendment I have submitted is in the interest of both the displaced per- son and the sponsor, or the employer of a displaced person. The amendment has no bearing or effect of any nature on who shall be admitted, or how, or when displaced persons shall be admitted to this country, but deals in its entirety with the handling of a displaced person after he has been received into this coun- try and has been accepted and taken in charge by the sponsor. Mr. President, I think we are all fa- miliar with the fact that in some sections of the United States considerable diffi- culty is experienced with some displaced persons aiter they have been received in- to the United States and are in the em- Ploy of their sponsors. We are all fa- miliar, I believe, with the fact that in some cases the sponsor has not lived up to his responsibility with reference to the displaced person. My amendment is intended to equalize the situation and to see to it that both the displaced person
1950 and the sponsor receive fair treatment after the displaced person is placed. Mr. President, I should like to call at- tention to an article which appeared in the Washington Evening Star of Feb- ruary 20, which referred to many in- stances of displaced persons who, after having been received into the country, made no sincere efforts to stay with the sponsors with whom they had been Placed In other words, after a displaced per- son had gotten into this country, some- times almost immediately, and some- times within a few days, he left the sponsor and sought other employment. Under such conditions it is apparent that the displaced person has come into this country with the avowed intention of not living up to his agreement to work at the assigned work for the perform- ance of which he was admitted. My amendment provides that under such conditions the displaced person shall be turned over to the immigration authori- ties, who shall handle the case and take the displaced person back to the country from which he came. As I said at the beginning of my re- marks, Mr. President, the difficulty, to my way of thinking, does not always lie with the displaced person. There are sponsors who had in mind to bring dis- placed persons to the United States and to make literally slaves or serfs of them, and who have made conditions intolera- ble for displaced persons so that they actually have had to leave the employ- ment of their sponsors. My amendment provides for the resettlement of such displaced persons. Mr. President, my amendment makes a workable plan out of this humanitarian idea, this humanitarian program of bringing displaced persons to the United States. I know of my own knowledge cases of displaced persons who have found their working conditions to be in- tolerable, which has necessitated their leaving their employers. They have more or less been turned out upon the highway, without friends, without re- sources, in a strange country, unable to speak the English language, and we find them in great difficulty. My amendment takes care of such cases. Iam aware of the fact that the amend- ment will call for some additional ex- pense, but it should not be great, for the only requirement in connection with the handling of displaced persons under the conditions I have set forth would be the addition of a few examiners. I cannot see the need for any large number of additional personnel. Of course, I know that some bureaus or departments or other agencies of Government attempt to increase their work, to make them- selves a considerable amount of unneces- sary work and to employ a considerable number of unnecessary personnel. But, under the amendment, if the Commission handles the situation in the way it should be handled, the additional expense will be very small. So, Mr. President, I sincerely hope the chairman of the committee and the Sen- ate will accept my amendment. I repeat that the amendment should have been in the original act. If it is made a part XCVI——172 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE of the present law it will make for a far more acceptable, a much fairer, and a far more workable displaced persons law. Again I wish to thank the distin- guished Senator from Mississippi for the time he has yielded to me. Mr. EASTLAND, Mr. President, I think that the distinguished Senator from Wyoming has a very meritorious amendment. I shall certainly vote for it. I should like to say a few words in support of it, to show that the amend- ment would improve the operation of the displaced persons program, so far as the United States is concerned. The present displaced persons law re- quires, as a prerequisite to eligibility, that the displaced persons shall have as- surance of a job and of housing in the United States, without displacing from a job or from housing a person already in the United States. Mr. President, between 80 and 90 percent of the assurances are blanket assurances sub- mitted by voluntary agencies. The Dis- placed Persons Commission has even validated assurances of employment and housing which have been made by other displaced persons. Just think of that, Mr. President. The Displaced Persons Commission has accepted assurances to that effect by former displaced persons, who made such assurances in behalf of other displaced persons who were seek- ing admission into the United States. Such assurances were given by displaced persons who only recently were admitted to the United States. The Displaced Persons Commission accepts such assur- ances without any independent investi- gation to ascertain whether, in fact, houses and jobs are available for the displaced persons covered by the assur- ances. The Displaced Persons Commission has issued a regulation reading in part, as follows: Assurances of suitable employment and safe and sanitary housing provided by a pub- lic agency or a voluntary agency recognized by the Commission for this purpose need not be assurances of a specifically identified job or housing accommodations. Mr. Ugo Carusi testified before the Immigration Subcommittee, with refer- ence to assurances, in part, as follows: Question. What investigation is made by the Commission or by any agency of the Government of the United States with refer- ence to a particular applicant, to ascertain whether or not there is a specified job or a specified house available without displacing some other person from that job or from his home? Mr. Carusi’s answer was “None.” Yet, Mr. President, that was their primary duty, under the law. That is merely another instance of the congres- sional intent being ignored, as a result of such loose operation. Is it any won- der that although the law provides for the admission of 205,000 displaced per- sons, yet as of December 31, 1949, the Displaced Persons Commission already had issued valid assurances for an esti- mated 345,000 persons? Mr. President, let me say in passing that although the present law and the Senate committee bill contain a job and housing assurance provision with respect 2733 to all displaced _persons, the substitute bill sponsored by the Senator from West Virginia and other Senators does not contain such a provision with refer- ence to the 18,000 Poles, the 10,000 Greeks, and the 4,000 former residents of Shanghai who are covered by the sub- stitute bill, This is one of the areas in which the substitute bill would remove the safeguards of the present law which were designed to protect the best inter- ests of the United States. It was the judgment of the Judiciary Committee, however, that in view of the housing shortage and rising unemployment, coupled with the progressive increase of admissions under our general immigra- tion laws, these safeguards must be maintained. Mr. President, before the message from the President of the United States was received, I had placed in the ReEcorp exhibit A, bsing a report from the Counter Intelligence Corps of the United States Army. At this point I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Recorp a report. of the Counter Intelligence Corps dated December 21, 1949, entitled “Fraudulent Residence Certificates in Schnaitsee, Germany.” There being no objection, the report was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: HEADQUARTERS, REGION IV, S1xTy-sIxTH CIC DrTacHMENT, Visa SECTION, APO 407-A, Unrrep STATES ARMY, December 21, 1949, To: Commanding Officer, Sixty-sixth CIC Detachment, USAREUR, APO 154, United States Army. Attention: Major Abraham. Subject: Fraudulent residence certificates from Schnaitsee, Germany. 1. Enclosed is photostatic copy of foreign- residents register of Gemeinde Schnaitsee with cover letter signed by Mayer, secretary of the Gemeinde and addressed to Miss Ger- trude Ruskin, United States DP Commission (exhibit I). This list which alleges resi- dence of DP’s in Schnaitsee has been es- tablished as fraudulent. The following facts have been uncovered: (a) Many of the alleged residents show the date of registration to be on a Sunday or a German legal holiday. The registra- tion office for Schnaitsee revealed that the office 1g closed on Sundays and German legal holidays. Thus a person arriving in Schnait- see on Sunday, November 25, 1945, would be registered on Monday, November 26, 1945. Person would not be permitted to back-date his registration. An inspection of list (ex- hibit I) reveals 28 persons showing date of registration on a Sunday or German legal holiday. These names are encircled in ink. 2. Bernhard Mueller, kommissar of land- polizei, Schnaitsee, and Georg Mayer, secre- tary of Gemeinde Schnaitsee, were inter- viewed at which time Mayer admitted ir- regularities in maintenance of his registra- tion records (exhibit II). 8. At the request of Bernhard Mueller, kommissar of landpolizei, Schnaitsee, Mayer wrote and signed a statement admitting hav- ing falsely registered numerous DP's (exhibit III). A signed copy of this statement is on file at this headquarters. 4. A list of foreign residents of Schnaitsee during various months, which was submitted to the landrat treasury, is enclosed as ex- hibit IV. These rosters were submitted in order to draw monetary allowances from the treasury. During the period November 1945 to March 1946 the highest number of foreign
2734 residents reported was eight. Alleged list of residents (exhibit I) has more than 200 foreign residents in Schnaitsee during the period of November 1945 to March 1046. 5. Individual cards showing monetary compensation to foreign residents are en- closed (exhibit V). 6. Photostatic copy of the actual Schnait- gee register ts inclosed as exhibit VIII. The register reveals numerous irregularities. (a) Registrations do not follow in order by date Person number 30d is registered on January 10, 1946. Person number 32 is registered on August 1, 1945. (b) Numerous changes, erasures and addl- tions are evident. 7. Exhibit VII is a photostatic copy of a card file retained in the office of Georg Mayer and allegedly established date of resi- dence of Zynger, Szmul Leib in Schnaitsee as of November 22, 1045. Zynger came to Schnaitsee in September 1949 and stated to Mayer that he, Zynger, had been in Schnait- see in November 1945 and requested that his name be entered on the registry to re- flect this date. Zynger produced a notarized statement and two witnesses who attested that they had seen Zynger in Schnaitsee in November 1945. A check of the Schnaitsee registry revealed that one of these witnesses, Josef Land, himself arrived in Schnaitsee inittally on July 8, 1947. 8 Bernhard Mueller, kommissar of land- polizei, Schnaitsee, was interviewed on De- cember 9, 1949, at which time he stated that he has initiated legal proceedings against Georg Mayer for falsification of official records. 9. As a result of this investigation, a list of all DP’s concerned has been compiled. This list showing which DP’s were actually present in Schnaitsee during 1945 is inclosed as exhibit VI. B J Rowax, Captain, CMP, Chief, Visa Sectton (For the Commanding Officer). Mr. EASTLAND, Mr, President, at this point I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Recorp, exhibit C, being a Counter Intelligence Corps re- port dated December 8, 1949, relative to false identity documents at Kaufbeuren, Germany. There being no objection, the report was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: HEADQUARTERS, REGION IV, Smry-smrH CIC DETACHMENT, Visa SEcTIon, APO 407--A, Unirep Strates ARMY, December 27, 1949. Subject: False Identity Documents, Kauf- beuren, Germany To: Mr. D W Main, Sentor Officer, DP Com- mission, APO 407, United States Army. 1. Attached is report of this Section in regard to issuance of false documents in Kaufbeuren, Germany B J Rouax, Captain, CMP, Chief, Visa Section (For the Commanding Officer). Fase IDENTITY DocuMENTs, KAUFBEUREN, GERMANY 1. On December 8, 1949, an agent of this Section interviewed Mr. Schindele, custodian and recorder of the Einwohnermeldeamt of Stadt Kaufbeuren and Kreis Kaufbeuren, located in the Rathaus, Kaufbeuren, Ger- many, Mr. Schindele stated in substance that this Einwohnermeldeamt was formerly in the custody of one Joseph Glueck and that on April 1, 1949, the land police in Kauf- peuren found that Glueck, in consptracy with a Polish DP named Wilhelm Grau, was issuing false residence certificates and Kenn- karte certification to DP's upon their appil- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE cation. Mr. Schindele stated that he has had reason to check his records against vari- ous lists of DP’s claiming residence in Kauf- beuren and has found a large number to be false registrations. Mr. Schindele stated that any Kennkarte or residence certificate signed by Glueck prior to April 1, 1949, are to be considered as probably false if made out in the name of DP’s. Glueck is presently under investigation and criminal charges are being placed against him by the German au- thorities of Kaufbeuren 2. Mr. Schindele stated that his records reveal that Glueck’s accomplice, Wilhelm Grau was born August 2, 1919, in Stanislaw, Poland, and that he came from Stanislaw, Poland to Kaufbeuren and registered Janu- ary 21,1946. Information on Grau’s registra- tion card reveals that he has left Kaufbeuren for immigration to the United States. 3 Mr. Schindele stated that he was pres- ent in Kaufbeuren at the time the Concen- tration Camp of Steinholz in Kaufbeuren was liberated. From his perscnal knowledge he states that all inmates of Polish national- ity left by train for Poland tmmedlately after liberation, and that to the best of his knowledge, none of them stayed in Kauf- beuren nor returned at a later date Mr. Schindele has the Anmeldungen on all in- mates of the Steinholz Concentration Camp in his possession at the present time These records, examined by an agent of this Sec- tion, show the name of all inmates, their date of birth, date of internment, date of arrival in Steinholz, where they came from prior to transfer to Steinholz, and the date of their death or release. These records are available for further reference. 4. Mr Schindele stated that ‘dlueck issued residence certificates to DP’s without first consulting any of the records available in his office. After a cursory examination Schindele gave the following names as having false Kennkarten issued by Glueck prior to April 1, 1949 Hoger, Joseph, born December 20, 1901, at Kieling, Poland. Hoger, Sara, born March 15, 1893, at Kiel- ing, Poland. Lieber, Schalom, born March 6, 1920, at Rzeszow, Poland. Lieber, Mirlam, born August 4, 1928, at Czernowicz, Poland. Thaler, Majer, born June 4, 1910, at Stanis- law, Poland. Thaler, Ada, born June 28, 1922, at Kies- geniow, Poland. Sojcher, Aba, born May 20, 1918, at Kolo- mea, Poland. Schulmann, Gitl, born June 24, 1906, at Pinsk, Poland. : Brodski, Joseph, born July 22, 1913, at Tararlije, Rumania. Brodski, Chochak, born November 15, 1915, at Tararlije, Rumania. Brodski, Dawid, born July 2, 1886, at Tar- arlije, Rumania. Brodski, Rywa, born February 21, 1895, at Tararlije, Rumania. Mr Schindele stated that he would fur- ther search his record for more false docu- ments and that he would have the names for further reference B. J Rowak, Captain, CMP, Chief, Visa Section. Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, those reports show specific cases, with names, of the use of fraudulent documents in the case of persons who were permitted to enter the United States. Here, again, Mr. President, let me say that these reports are not fiction; they are not propaganda, They are routine reports of the Counter-Intelligence Corps of the United States Army. These re- ports bear out exactly the testimony of officials of the United States Government Marce 3 in regard to fraud, bribery, and corrup- tion. Some few weeks ago there appeared in executive session before the Senate Com- mittee on the Judiciary a witness who, as I have previously shown, was formerly director of certain phases of Army in- telligence work in Germany, and who has intimate knowledge of security problems in connection with the displaced persons program. He testified, in part, as fol- lows: Question. Now, would you express yourself on the false and fraudulent document situa- tion? The Witness We had numerous instances of people who passed through our screening centers being found with false and fraudu- lent documents or no documentation at all. I had linguists, young men, officers, and en- listed men, attached to me, of incredibie ability, and we broke one large ring in Ber- lin of agents attempting to pass through be- cause this young man could tell when some- body spoke Polish with a Russian accent. Mr. President, I submit that the word of that former high official of the United States Army Counter Intelligence Corps is entitled to at least the fleeting con- sideration of the Congress. I read further from his testimony: He found at that time a number of mem- bers of the Soviet Intelligence Service trying to be filtered through as bona fide political persecutees. Think of that, Mr. President. Mem- bers of the Soviet Intelligence Service whom the Russians were attempting to filter through as political persecutees. I read further from his testimony: They included both men and women. The entire ring, I believe, was broken up and it caused quite an international incident be- cause in the process of breaking it up we arrested ceveral Russian officers in the act of engaging in espionage in the American forces and that finally got into the news- papers, and you recall that the Soviets in return arrested two of our officers and held them for 6 weeks. Now, Mr. President, let me invite the attention of the Senate to the unassail- able facts respecting the loose security check system which is presently in oper- ation in the administration of our dis- placed persons program. Contrary to what the Senator from New York has said, there is not adequate screening. Mr. Almanza Tripp, whom I have pre- viously identified, testified as follows: Mr. Tripp. There became available to me recently copies of the results of a fingerprint check made by the provost marshal’s office in a number of cases. The first group of cases in which the information became avail- able to me related to ninety-odd individuals, Immediately I checked the camp registration records, Camp Grohn in Bremen, to deter- mine if any of the persons named had pro- ceeded to the United States. I found that 33 of the people had already sailed to the United States. Examining the nature of the report in each case, I concluded without in- vestigation that 11 of the individuals were probably deportable on criminal charges. Question. Has it not been the policy of the Displaced Persons Commission to avoid BDO checks or provost marshal checks in the processing of displaced persons on the basis of this calculated risk theory of the Dis- placed Persons Commission? Mr Tripp. I do not know whether I would say they did it to avoid, but what they have