1950 to other countries. Mr. Carusi further testified that of the approximately 130,- 000 displaced persons admitted under the act to the United States as of Janu- ary 23, 1950, 48 percent were of Catholic faith, 25 percent were of Jewish faith, 25 percent were of Protestant, Greek Ortho- dox and other faiths, with 2 percent un- reported. I have said before, and I re- peat, there is no discrimination against displaced persons of Catholic faith or of Jewish faith. During my investigation in Europe, every representative of the religious voluntary agencies, and every employee of the Consular Service, Immi- gration Service, Counter Intelligence Corps of the Army, International Refu- gee Organization, and even the Displaced Persons Commission, testifying before me—and there were more than 50 such witnesses—stated that the 1948 act does not discriminate against Catholics, or Jews, or persons of any other religious faith. There was only one witness who testified otherwise—the European Co- ordinator of the Displaced Persons Com- mission, Mr. Squadrilli. Yes, Mr. Pres- ident, those who wish to be informed know that there is no discrimination in our law. Because of the seriousness of the charge, however, and in order to prevent its repetition, the bill, as report- ed, contains a prohibition against dis- crimination in the administration of the Jaw. Itis really a prohibition. The Judiciary Committee has had be- fore it, at all times during its delibera- tions on H. R. 4567 and related bills, two major considerations—first, to draft such legislation as may be necessary on the subject of displaced persons within the framework of our general immigration laws: and second, to secure maximum protection of the security interests of the United States to assure the exclusion of subversive and undesirable displaced persons. With the exception of the ad- vance in the so-called eligibility cut-off date, I believe H. R. 4567, with the com- mittee amendments reported to the Sen- ate, will accomplish these over-all objectives. Mr. President, I am aware that an ef- fort will be made to pass H. R. 4567 in the same form in which it passed the House of Representatives. Such a move should not, and must not, succeed for the reasons I have stated in my remarks today. I urge Senators not to vote on this important issue without of full reali- zation of the consequences of passing the bill, either as passed by the other body, or in substantially the same form. Iam éonfident that sound, mature judgment will emphasize the wisdom of the com- mittee amendments, excepting, however, the advance of the cut-off date. I am equally confident that Senators who have studied this matter without bias, preju- dice, or political commitment, will sup- port the committee amendments. Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yicld? Mr. McCARRAN. I yleld. FEDERAL RENT CONTROL Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, accord- ing to press reports, the Senate Appropri- ations Committee voted last week to cut the deficiency appropriation request of XCVI——156 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE the Federal Housing Expediter from $3,600,000 to $2,500,000. In so doing, ac- cording to the newspapers, the Appropri- ations Committee recommended that the Senate and the Congress direct the Hous- ing Expediter to liquidate his rent-con- trol activities. Mr. President, I do not know or pre- tend to know what the Congress is going to do about the action of the Appropria- tions Committee. The Committee has, I beheve, every right to indicate its rec- ommendations on this or on any other subject. But I, as one Member of the Senate, should hke to serve notice that I will seek to restore the funds for the Housing Expediter to whatever level is absolutely necessary to enable him to con- tinue functioning during the remainder of the fiscal year, without any thought of the liquidation of his activities. As one Member of the Senate, the junior Senator from New York will use all his efforts to see that rent control is extended beyond June 30 for an addi- tional year. I should like to see and shall propose that the rent-control law be strengthened. I should also like to see the administration of rent control strengthened. I do not know as a fact, but I should guess that one of the reasons for the many instances, which I am sure exist, of injustices and inequities to landlords as well as to tenants, is that the Housing Expediter has had insufficient appropria- tions for an adequate staff to administer the law flexibly and intelligently. I am for the prevention of gross injustice to individual landlords through the inflex- ible application of rent controls. But I am also in favor of strengthened rent- control legislation to prevent gross in- justices to tenants in localities where the shortage of adequate rental units is such that free competition does not exist, and where the tenants are not in a position to exercise freedom of choice in their selection of rental units and have no bargaining power in making that choice. The war, with the unprecedented growth in our industrial production re- sulting from war demand and from the demand for our’ products abroad, brought us into the present housing shortage situation. It is right and proper that the Federal Government should eontinue to exercise its powers to protect the people, as far as possible, against the consequences of this situation. When and where we have adequate rental units, we should strike off rent controls without delay. But in those centers of pcpula- tion and industrial production, so essen- tial to our national defense, we must not run the danger of upsetting the entire national economy, with the terrible con- sequences which might result from such a course, by abandoning rent controls. Mr. President, the New York State legislature is now considering a measure for State rent controls. I am wholly in accord with such a measure, if it is a good rent-control law, adequately pro- tecting the tenants and renters of New York, and if it is not a mere subterfuge to weaken rent controls, or to set the stage for their sabotage or abolition. But I am also in favor of the continuation 2477 of Federal rent controls, in which case the Federal controls would serve as a stand-by for State controls in New York; the reverse of the situation which now pertains. It is also necessary to have Federal controls for the sake of the rest of the Nation, in areas which do not have the facilities with which to institute ade- quate local controls, and yet have a cry- ing need for such controls. Mr. President, in asking the Senator from Nevada to yield, I thought he had completed his statement; otherwise I should not have made the request. Mr. McCARRAN. I think probably I had completed 1t. Mr. LEHMAN, I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will cal] the roll. ahe Chief Clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. McCARRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for @& quorum call be rescinded and that further proceedings under the call be suspended. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. LEH- MAN in the chair). Without objection, it is so ordered. TRIBUTE TO FORMER SENATOR WARREN R. AUSTIN Mr. WILEY. Mr. President, a few days ago, while reading the Christian Science Monitor, I came across a column by Mr. Homer Metz, who is the chief of the United Nations News Bureau for that publication, in which he spoke about a distinguished former Member of this dis- tinguished body who sat next to me in the Senate for 2 or 3 years. I refer to the United States Representative to the United National, Warren R. Austin. I desire to read a few paragraphs from this very fine column: In his quiet, earnest way, Warren Austin, Chief United States Delegate to the United Nations, has scored something of a diplo- matic coup in his lecture tour of Central America, now drawing to a close. In any event, this appears to be indicated by reports on the former Vermont Senator's trip which have been coming back to Lake Success through various Latin-American intermediaries. Mr. Austin has long held to the theory that inter-American unity 1s a sine qua non of Western Hemisphere security. Apparently he has succeeded admirably in convincing some of the more doubtful Thomases among Latin-American officials of the validity of this thesis. Then there is this statement, which I think is of tremendous significance: Mr. Austin is one of the most refreshing individuals to appear on the international scene in a long, long time. He has the one quality that is needed above all others in international diplomacy—rugged honesty. Disagree with him !f you will, but never doubt his sincerity, his desire to be fair. Mr, Austin is a Christian gentleman. No one could possibly represent the United States more ably. Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- sent that the entire article be printed in the Recorp following my remarks,
2478 There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: UN’S AUSTIN: HIS “RUGGED HONESTY” IS ASSET FOR PEACE (By Homer Metz) Laxe Success.—In his quiet, earnest way, Warren R. Austin, chief United States dele- gate to the United Nations, has scored some- thing of a diplomatic coup in his lecture tour of Central America, now drawing to 8 close. In any event, this appears to be indicated by reports on the former Vermont Senator's trip which have been coming back to Lake Success through various Latin-American in- termediaries, Mr. Austin has long held to the theory that inter-American unity js a sine qua non of Western Hemisphere security. Apparent- ly he has succeeded admirably in convincing some of the more doubtful Thomases among Latin-American officials of the validity of this thesis. Outstanding among Mr. Austin’s achieve- ments to date in Central America appears to be the influence he evidently exerted upon President Trujillo of the Dominican Re- public. President Trujillo, who for one reason or another has made himself one of the most unpopular individuals in the Caribbean area, has asked the Dominican Congress to repeal a law, enacted at his request last December, which empowered him to declare war on any neighboring countries which, in his judg- ment, might be harboring enemies of Dominica. Manifestly, possession of such arbitrary powers by any individual did not contribute to that hemispheric unity which is 80 essen- tial if the west is to be able to withstand the aggressive encroachments of the Soviet Union and international communism. In some way or other, Mr. Austin appears to have persuaded President Trujillo of this fact—no mean diplomatic feat by any standards. To those who have followed Mr. Austin’s career at the United Nations, his success in Latin America is not surprising. The former Vermont solon is not one of the most brilliant or forceful diplomats regu- larly assigned to the UN. His speeches have not been devoid of clichés; from time to time he has indulged in obvious attitudin- izing. And yet his earnestness, his sincerity, his idealism, if you will, has expressed itself in unmistakable fashion on almost every occa- sion in which he has occupied the inter- national spotlight. I recall a corridor discussion among diplo- rats and journalists after a stormy Security Council session in which Mr. Austin had made a ruther long, involved, and to some extent, ambiguous speech. Several participants gave voice to critical appraisals of the American delegate’s re- marks, but a celebrated western diplomat who has often crossed polite swords with Mr. Austin cut them short. “Mr, Austin is one of the most refreshing individuals to appear on the international scene in a long, long time,” he said. “He has the one quality that is needed above all others in international diplomacy— rugged honesty. Disagree with him if you will, but never doubt his sincerity, his desire to be fair. Mr. Austin is a Christian gentle- man. No one could possibly represent the United States more ably.” As an observer who has followed UN sessions since the opening Security Council meetings at Hunter College, I can attest that this opinion is shared by the over- whelming majority of diplomats and journalists regularly assigned to the UN. The former Vermont Senator has done &@ truly excellent job at Lake Success in one CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE of the most difficult periods in human his- tory, and his success on his current Latin- American tour 1s especially gratifying to his friends and well-wishers here. It is Mr. Austin's intention, it is under- stood, to take a less active part in the future in the hurly-burly of UN debate and devote his main efforts to directing the complex affairs of the United States mission and in explaining the nuances of American policy, both at home and abroad. It is one observer's opinion that few, if any, persons in American public fe are better qualified for such a vitally important task. DISPLACED PERSONS The Senate resumed the considera- tion of the bill (H. R. 4567) to amend the Displaced Persons Act of 1948. Mr. WILEY. Mr. President, we have listened to a very fine talk by the dis- tinguished Senator from Nevada [Mr. McCarran] in relation to the displaced- persons statute. I believe this legisla- tion represents one of the most impor- tant humanitarian challenges to the Eighty-first Congress, and I am sure the Senate will fulfill its Christian obliga- tions to the displaced persons as well as to the expelled persons of German ethnic origin. On previous occasions I have stated in great detail my position on each of the literally dozens of changes that are necessary in the present statute. Obviously, this statute was designated in compromise form as a stopgap bill. However, now that we have seen it in operation and have noted its deficiencies, it is incumbent upon us to make neces- sary changes. Throughout the consideration of this subject, I have emphasized that the thing for which most of us were hoping and praying would be a unity of the major religious and national origin groups 50 that the Congress would be able to act with speed and with assurances that the various groups felt the changes in turn would be equitable and nondiscrimina- tory in nature. Fortunately, the various groups, Prot- estant, Catholic, and Jewish, as well as the groups representing the various an- cestries of our American people have in- deed united to a substantial degree, although, almost inevitably, there are some few differences particularly on the critical problem of expellees of German ethnic origin whose plight I have pre- viously discussed on the Senate floor. It was a year ago in February 1949, that I introduced Mberalizing amend- ments to the present DP statute, and now at long last, I belleve that the sub- stance of my suggestions and of the rec- ommendations made by my colleagues will be enacted by the Senate. I have previously incorporated in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Many messages from Wisconsin citizens and organiza- tions who have rendered magnificent service in arranging for the admission and assimilation of worthy DP’s to the Badger State. These individuals and or- ganizations have been gracious in their comments regarding the activities of their senior Senator toward this same objective, and I am humbly grateful for their response. ‘Naturally they, like myself, are interested in the careful screening of the DP’s and expellees so as FEBRUARY 28 to make absolutely sure that in this atomic-hydrogen age, with all its po- tentialities for war and mass destruction, no unworthy individuals be given entry to this blessed land. IT have in my hands, Mr President, tele- grams and letters from some of the out- standing religious and civic leaders and organizations in this country. I believe that the comments in these messages will be of interest to my colleagues. So I ask unanimous consent that the text of this correspondence be printed at this point in the body of the ConcrESSIONAL REcoRD, because each of these letters and tele- grams is an open expression of the faith and the judgment of these very fine groups and individuals. There being no objection, the matters were ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: New Yors, N. Y., February 22, 1950. Hon. ALEXANDER WILEY, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: May we take this opportunity of com- mending you for associating yourself with the minority report recently introduced in the Senate to amend the Displaced Persons Act of 1948. We are appreciative that you have found !t possible to demonstrate your interest in displaced persons in so concrete @ way. We are grateful for the recognition which you and your six other colleagues give to the fact that the displaced persons prob- lem cannot and must not be solved by partial or halfway measures. We want you to Know that throughout America there continues a grave sense of re- sponsibility for helping the displaced persons still homeless in Europe. Many American citizens have dedicated themselves to offering new homes and new opportunities of work in American to displaced persons. We feel that the substitute amendments most close- ly reach the objectives which have been rec- ommended by our various groups concerned with the resettlement of displaced persons and represent an advance toward a workable, just and humane law. . Basically the modifications of the present DP act incorporated in the bill accompanying the minority report are favored by those of us actively engaged in sponsoring displaced persons. In addition we feel it would be advisable to designate the group which is benefited by section 12 in terms that are not suggestive of distinctions according to race. We feel that referring to persons because of their “Ger- man ethnic origin” fs not in keeping with our democratic tradition and heritage. We would also hope that provision could be made to cover the inland transportation for DP's we welcome to America. This will help to implement a broad geographic distribu- tion of DP’s throughout the country. We earnestly hope that the Senate as a whole will accept the corrections you have offered in the substitute amendments when the matter of adequate legislation to admit dis- placed persons comes before them for consid- eration. Rt. Rev. Msar. Enwarp E SwansTRom, Executive Director, War Relief Services, National Catholic Welfare Conference. Rev. WALTER W. Van Kirk, Executive Secretary of International Justice and Goodwill, the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America, Rev. CLARENCE KRUMBHOLZ, Executive Secretary, Diviston of Wel- fare, National Lutheran Council. Dr. Bernarp J. BAMBERGER, President, Synagogue Council of America.
1950 CATHOLIC WAR VETERANS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Washington, D. C., February 20, 1950. My Dear Senator: The Catholic War Vet- erans of the United States of America have Jong been interested in displaced persons’ legislation. In two national conventions, the 1670 posts and 400 auxiliary units of our organization have gone on record requesting our Government to maintain its position as being the asylum of the oppressed. In u matter of days, there will come before you, Icgislation relative to these stalwart souls who have refused to subject themselves to the materialistic will of a satanic power. We have been cognizant of this legislation and our interest urges us to request you to support the Ferguson-Graham-Kilgore amendment, which we believe will improve the judiciary bill. This amendment will add a fair solution to the displaced persons’ pro- gram. We respectfully urge your support of it. Yours in C W.V. NICHOLAS J. WAGENER, National Commander, RESOLUTION, TEXAS CONVENTION, CATHOLIC WAR VETERANS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, JUNE 16, 17, 18, AND 19, 1949 Whereas, the United States has recognized the plight of the displaced persons in Europe by adopting Public Law 774 (80th Cong), also commonly Known as the Displaced Per- sons Act of 1948; and Whereas in the cause of furthor facilitat- ing the admission of displaced persons to the United States, it 1s most desirable that this act be amended: and Whereas there have been introduced into the Eighty-first Congress, first session, in both House and the Senate, bills to amend Public Law 774; and Whereas recently the House of Represeita- tives by a voice vote approved House bill H R 4567 amending Public Law 774, and Whereas the Judiciary Committee and the Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalization of the Senate has not tuken action to date; and Whereas in addition to the assistance ren- dered to the displaced persons by the liberal provisions of H R, 4567 there still remains a deserving group of European displaced persous not provided for by H. R. 4567 and who are presently residing outside of the oc- cupied areas of Germany and Austria, and Italy, and who are not yet firmly resettled, and who continue to remain a serious prob- lem; and Whereas the Catholic War Veterans of the United States of America has for the past 5 years strongly indicated its great interest in the welfare and resettlement of the dis- placed persons and has continually urged the adoption of legislation that would bring these fine people to the shores of our great country: Therefore be t Resolved, That the Catholic War Veterans of the United States of America in annual convention assembled at Houston, Tex., on June 15, 16, and 17 hereby records itself as praising the House of Represcntatives for its prompt and favorable action In pass- ing bill H. R 4667; and be it further Resolved, That the Catholic War Veterans of the United States of America strongly urges that the Scnate committee take prompt and favorable action on the displaced per- sons legislation now before it and further expresses the hope for early action by the Senate; and be it further Resolved, That the Catholic War Veterans of the United States of America propose that up to 10 percent of the total number of visas authorized under H. R. 4567 be ap- plied to these displaced persons outside Germany, Austria, and Italy who are not per- manently resettled and are otherwise eligt- ble; and be it further CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Resolved, That copies of this resolution be forwarded to the members of the Senate Ju- diclary Committee as well as to each of the Members of the United States Senate. WASHINGTON, D C., February 23, 1950. Hon. ALEXANDER WILEY, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C: As Americans we are deeply concerned that our country fulfill our moral obligation and international commitment to find new demo- cratic homelands for the helpless displaced human beings under our care in Europe. Therefore we respectfully petition the Mem- bers of the United States Senate to approve the substitute amendments to the Displaced Persons Act of 1948, presented by Senators FERGUSON, GRAHAM, and KiLcore. It is our sincere and heartfelt conviction that without these amendments it is impossible for us to create a displaced persons law that will enable our Nation to admit our share of dis- placed persons in a just, humane, and fair way. Gen. Lucius D Clay, Mrs. Franklin D. Roosevelt, James A. Farley, Maj. Gen. William J. Donovan, James F O'Nell, Judge Joseph Proskauer, James L. Kraft, Mark Ethridge, Fred Lazarus, and Harry Bullis. NATIONAL CATHOLIC Rurau LirE CONFERENCE, New York, N. Y., February 9, 1950. Hon ALEXANDER WILEY, United States Senate, Washington, D C. My Dear SENATOR WILEY: I have been very happy to leain that progress is being made on the displaced persons legislation and espe- cially that you have given it your encourage- ment and support. A number of us have hopes that oa sutisfactory bill will be finally forthcoming incorporating the best features of what has been presented thus far. The following are objectives which seem to us mest desirable of attainment in the amended legislation to assist displaced persons and ex- pellees: 1. A definition of a displaced person that will not cause contusion or result in unnee- essary competition with the remaining IRO displaced persons who may be eligible to cnter the United States within the total number of visas authorized 2. Provision under section 12 for a num- ber of expellees equivalent to approximately half of the German and Austrian quotas for a 4-year period Eligible expellees within this number should be provided with the op- portunity for housing and job assurances, ocean transportation and remission of visa and head-tax fees as is granted displaced persons under the present law. 3 Extension of the date line to January 1, 1949, 4. Provision for orphans and children adopted by United States citizens not merely service personnel 5. Some aid to Greek displaced persons seeking permancnt resettlement. 6. Opportunity for resettlement for ap- proximately 4,000 European refugoes formerly residing In China, but now In the Philip- pines, 7, Substitution of a suitable wording for the words “ethnic origin” at present to be found tn section 12 It being understood that the new wording would apply to this same group and to no others. 8. Administration of the displaced-persons program by the Displaced Persons Commis- elon including final declaration of eligibility, A change to another arrangement at this time would cause considerable delay in the résettlement program and would add to the expense, as new personnel would be necessary, 9. A grant for inland transportation costs, if this can be satisfactorily worked out. Some of the operating agencies feel that a 2479 grant ts a better arrangement than a loan for this purpose. A number of persons to whom I have spoken feel that the Senators have proven their interest in the displaced-persons problem through the efforts they have made for amended legislation. I hope that final action will not be too long delayed. With all good wishes, I remain, Very sincerely yours, (Rev.) Witu1am J. Grssons, 8. J. WasHINGTON, D. C., January 24, 1950, The Honorable ALEXANDER WILEY, Senate Judiciary Committec: The CIO strongly supports the President's recommendation for Nberalizing the extend- ing the present DP law. Discriminatory and unjust laws have no place on our statute books. In its two last annual conventions, the CIO has formally voted approval of ad= mitting a larger number of displaced persons into the United States. If we in the CIO felt that this action would adversely affect the labor market today, we would not have taken this action. It is preposterous for any one to think that a humanitarian program like this which adds three-tenths of 1 per- cent to the total labor force can injure labor. The CIO calls upon the Senate to pass H R. 4567 at the very earliest possible time. PHILIP Murray, President, CIO. Cuicaoo, ILu., January 20, 1950. Hon. ALEXANDER WILEY, Senate Office Building: Six million Americans of Polish origin united in the Polish-American Congress through their organizations, lodges, clubs, parishes, and newspapers in 26 States urge you strongly to support in the Senate the House-passed bill H. R 4567 which corrects the deficienr’es of the Displaced Persons Act ot 1948 and cludes members of the valiant Polish arm.d forces. Your favorable cone sideration ot this bill will be deeply apprecl- ated by millions of your fellow citizens who are enyer to assume their fair share of the humane problem of the DP's. CHARLES ROZMAREK, President Polish-American Congress. Mr. KILGORE. Mr. President, the issue we are debating today is a very simple one. It is: Do we want a fair and workable displaced persons law, or do we not? In the next few days the air is going to be blue with circumlocutions, charges, allegations, justifications, vig- orous defenses, violent attacks, but when all the smoke has lifted, the issue simply remains: Do we want a fair and workable displaced-persons law? Those of us who wanted a workable displaced-persons law voted for the pres- ent law in 1948, not because we thought it filled that specification, but rather be- cause we realized it was all we could get at that time. The President signed it, as he said, “with very great reluctance.” As he signed the bill he said it was “fla- grantly discriminatory. It mocks the American tradition of fair play.” He was referring to the bill, and not, as has been alleged at various times, to the framers of the bill. The President felt, as others of us have felt, that the way the bill worked made it discrimina- tory, not that its authors were trying to discriminate against anyone. For one thing, he meant that the dateline was discriminatory. The fact that even the Committee bill has changed the dateline shows that that contention is now recog- nized to have been correct.
2480 At the appropriate time I, together with 17 of my colleagues, expect to offer @ substitute for the House bill as reported by the committee. At that time I shall discuss the substitute at some length. I should like to invite the attention of all Senators to the fact that a printed copy of the proposed substitute amendment has been placed on all desks in the Cham- ber, so that any Senator who cares to do so may read and study it. The bad points of the present law, ac- cording to the President, ‘form a pattern of discrimination and intolerance wholly inconsistent with the American sense of justice.” Despite the fact that the pres- ent law was a bitter disappointment to those who wanted a fair and workable displaced persons law, the President signed it with the expressed expectation that Congress would amend the law, as we are now attempting to do. We are not talking here about a mat- ter of purely sectional or partisan inter- est. The platforms of both political par- ties have shown dissatisfaction with the present law, and committed themselves to a decent and workable law. This ts perhaps one of the few occasions in re- cent legislative history when organized labor, organized business, and organized agriculture have jointly supported a sin- gle legislative program. The governors of 23 States, and representative organi- zations from all walks of life in America and from all parts of the country have urged upon the Senate enactment of a just and fair displaced-persons law. There has been, and still is, a lack of understanding of what the displaced- persons law provides. It does not repeal our immigration law. The same require- ments must be met by a displaced per- son which are met by any other immi- grant who seeks to come here for per- manent residence, plus others which must be met by the displaced person which are not required of the immigrant under normal immigration laws. He must pass the requirements of the Im- migration Service and the requirements of the Consular Service. The only dif- ference is that the displaced persons law gives the displaced person a priority on the normal immigration quota. The quotas are not changed. Let me emphasize, Mr. President, that displaced persons are charged against regular immigration quotas. All the major religious faiths in Amer- fca—the Catholic Church, the Federal Council of Churches of Christ, the Na- tional Lutheran Council, and the Syna- gogue Council of America—have jointly urged upon the Senate amendments to the present law, for a more satisfactory law, in the spirit of American traditions. Editorial comment throughout the land clearly discloses an almost universal agreement that the present law must be changed and that the conscience of America is ashamed of our present nig- gardly, restrictive, and unfair displaced- persons law. Those who do want a fair and just dis- placed persons Jaw have come to these conclusions: First, that we do not have one now; second, that unless we do some- thing now and do it well we will never be able to terminate the present IRO dis- Placed persons problem, which weighs so CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE heavily upon the conscience and pocket- book of the American people; and, third, that our willingness and capacity to as- sume world leadership will be forfelted unless we take forthright and fair action in this matter. Mr. President, yesterday I had the privilege, on behalf of myself and 17 other Senators, of offering a proposed substitute for the bill reported by the Judiciary Committee to amend the dis- placed-persons law. There are certain major things we must do now, Mr. President, if we are to have a satisfactory and workable and fair displaced-persons law. First and foremost, we must change the discriminatory provisions of the present law. I am happy to say that both the committee bill and the substi- tute bill have extended the discrimina- tory December 22, 1945, date line of the present law to the fair and almost uni- versally accepted date of January 1, 1949. The committee bill has also elim- inated the in-camp priority, and here again we have a very excellent amend- ment. However, Mr. President, the committee bill retains two of the undesirable pro- visions in the present law, and, to make matters worse, weakens a fine provision in the House-approved bill which forbids discrimination for or against displaced persons because of race, religion, or na- tional origin, and does it in such a way as to imply that there should be favor- itism because of race or national origin. The undesirable provisions which the committee bill seeks to retain and which the substitute bill has eliminated are: First. The 40 percent so-called de facto preference, which grants an un- warranted advantage to certain groups wholly because of national origin, and works to the disfavor of Jewish and Catholic groups. In fact, the provision is merely positive proof that the com- mittee bill requires favoritism because of national origin. The 30 percent agricultural preference which also carries its implicit favoritism. This restriction creates a very serious ad- ministrative difficulty, which is further complicated by a requirement of proof of 2 years previous experience. The substitute bill has adopted the language of the House-approved bill for- bidding discrimination for or against dis- placed persons because of race, religion, or national origin, and I submit, Mr. President, that this is consistent with the American concept of fair play and equality among groups irrespective of their race, their religion, or their na- tional origin. Second. I think, Mr. President, that my colleagues will agree that it is desirable to bring the IRO refugee problem to an end at the earliest possible moment. We will have contributed by the end of June 1950, a total of $212,000,000 to the IRO. That has been our share of the operating expenses of IRO. Our last annual con- tribution was $70,000,000 and all this money, Mr. President, has been spent in behalf of the refugees, for their care, maintenance, and resettlement under the IRO which, as we all know, was created by the United Nations—Russia, of course, excepted. FEBRUARY 28 So, Mr. President, any displaced-per- sons Jaw which we may pass and which is designed to solve the IRO refugee problem, has the twofold purpose of solving an international problem to which we have been committed, as well as relieving the American taxpayer eventually of a heavy financial burden. The substitute bill, I submit, Mr. Presi- dent, will have this effect, but the com- mittee bill as now reported I regret to say will not bring the IRO refugee prob- lem to an end, but rather encourages its continuatioh. Permit me, Mr. President, to explain what I mean by this statement. The present law—section 2 (b)—defines a dis- placed person to mean one so defined in the IRO Constitution and who is the concern of the IRO. By that is meant one who is being supported by IRO funds and being cared for out of such funds. The committee bill deletes this provision and substitutes a new statutory defini- tion which includes not only the dis- placed persons for which the IRO has been given responsibility, but also some 8,000,000 expellees who are not now the concern of any international body. It is this definition which dilutes the avail- ability to the IRO displaced persons of the authorized number of visas. In other words, the House bill, and the proposed substitute bill, would give to the German ethnic-origin group, who compose the main part of the expellees a total of 54,744 visas. Except for cer- tain selected groups for which we are charged, for instance Anders’ Army Poles, the 10,000 Greeks, the 4,000 refu- gees who originally were refugees from Europe to Shanghai, and now are refu- gees from the Communists in Shanghai, a great many of them being in the Philippine Islands at the present time, they having fled to any place where they could find refuge—except for those per- sons the remainder of the bill is taken up with displaced persons within the meaning of the IRO definition. These are persons for whom we are now con- ducting camps, issuing food rations, in other words, who are now what might be called upon international relief, of which amount of relief we are paying al- most 70 percent of the total. As I stated before, that total we contributed to the IRO amounted last year to $70,000,000. Such definition would create very se- rious difficulties and would cause a break-down in the program: First. The displaced persons within the TRO’s concern are registered and have been known for some time. If the bill would add new people as to whom there are no Official records, the already great problem created by restrictions main- tained by the bill would be augmented to the necessities of proof. I call attention at this point to the fact that one of the objections made in 1948 upon the floor of the Senate to the date- line December 22, 1945, was, and it has since proved to be true, that there would be great difficulty of proof in connection with that dateline because most of the people were registered at a later date, That happened to be the date the Presi- dent signed the directive. But later we had to lift the restriction, due to perse-
1950 cution from behind the iron curtain. As I said, there had been no registration. The persons had flied into the camps, had fled into Germany. By putting too strict, too low a dateline we created the very problem which has been so in- veighed against in connection with the question of fraudulent applications. Second. The new bill creates great confusion as to the emigration of Volks- dcutsche or expellees by authorizing two separate agencies of the Government to engage in two separate procedures for their admission. Section 2 (b) would let them in as displaced persons under the Displaced Persons Act, whereas sec- tion 12 would let them in as ordinary immigrants with a special quota charge. Third. The problem of the expellee is a serious one and deserves careful atten- tion. If it is our intention to bring some remedy, small though it be, to this tre- mendous human problem, we have not done so through this bill. Something must be done for these expellecs. But this bill does nothing for them. It plays one group off against another to the det- riment of both groups. We propose to strengthen section 12 and make it an effective instrument for the admission of xpellees rather than weaken section 2 and nullify opportunities for TRO dis- placed persons. This, incidentally, is the view of the religious and voluntary agencies involved, various church organi- gations and civic groups, which are of such assistance in placing displaced per- sons in this country, securing assurances of work, assurances of homes, without which the Government would be put to great expenSe in the operation of the agency. While some people may feel that a great moral victory has been won by ex- tending cqual eligibility status to the ex- pellees as that enjoyed by the displaced persons under the care of the Interna- tional Refugee Organization, the fact is no practical results may be attained through this moral victory. It is fair to assume that it was the intent of the committee to make it possible for eli- gible expellees to be admitted into the United States, and therefore it is im- portant to point out the basic reasons why the equal status cannot be applied: (a) The processing centers have been established by the International Refugee Organization and are maintained by them. Under the IRO constitution it is impossible to admit expellees to these processing facilities. (pb) Arrangements would have to be made to set up resettlement centers in armany and Austria independent of the IRO 1n order to meet the new definition of a displaced person. These resettle- ment centers must provide facilities for the full care of the applicants for immi- eration to the United States for a period of irom 1 to 2 weeks. In addition, facili- ties must be provided for all the agencics of the United States Government idcen- tical with those that now apply in the IRO resettlement centers. (ec) Centers would have to be estab- lished at the ports of embarkation, sim{- lar to those now established by the IRO to provide for persons under its care. Experience has proven that persons ap- proved for immigration to the United CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE States must wait in the ports of em- barkation for a period of from 5 days to 2 weeks. Since there are no available housing facilities in the port of Bremen, the complete :facilities for embarkation camps would have to be provided. In other words, they would have to be bullt there. (d) The IRO is responsible for pro- viding transportation from Europe to the United States for all persons under its care who are approved for immigration to the United States. It is impossible for the IRO to provide similar service for expellees. Thus, we would be faced with the problem of shipment. The IRO charters ships and uses them to bring to the United States the persons for whom it is responsible. It brings them to the United States in shipload lots. Those persons and the expellees could not be mixed; the IRO would refuse to accept expellees for transportation to the United States, unless the charter of the IRO were amended. The IRO cannot constitutionally consider expellees to be its charge. Mr. President, we have the problem of ectting people to a port and then exam- ining and interrogating them, and deter- mining, by the use of some sort of mystic wand, the ones the IRO will transport and the ones we must take care of; and then we have the responsibility of get- ting the two groups aboard different ships, for transportation to the United States. Either that would have to be done, or else we would have to pay the IRO for shipping them in IRO ships, even though we are now paying almost 70 percent of the cost of operating the IRO ships, anyway. But, under its char- ter, it cannot dothis. It would be neces- sary for the Government of the United States to provide facilities to transport expellees to the ports of entry in the United States; and the committee bill does not make such provision, Students of the expellee problem are agreed that it is impractical to seek a remedy for this problem through the simple expedient of changing the defini- tion of a displaced person. There is al- most unanimous agreement among the religious, nationality, and welfare groups seeking to deal with the expellee prob- lem that the best step now would be to make section 12 of the Displaced Per- sons Act really effective and workable. These groups have agreed upon the de- sirability of the provisions proposed by our substitute amendments which have been filed with this body. The bill would set up a joint congres-~ sional committee to study and report on expellees. To date, the problem of deal- ing with expellees has not been under- taken by any international body. To continue dealing with the problem with- out such international cooperation would tend to place the entire burden for its solution, as to the 8,000,000 cxpellees, upon the Amcrican people. The substitute, Mr. President, which we expect to offer, provides for the call- ing of an international conference to deal on a broad basis with the important problem of expellees. This solution is likely to be more effective for the expel- lees and less costly for the American 2481 taxpayer. Before I depart from the sub- ject of expellees, Mr. President, I want again to call the attention of this distin- guished body to the substitute-bill pro- vision which—and I want to emphasize this—assures 54,744 visas to expellees, and provides for their ocean transporta- tion to the United Siates, something which has not been done before. Third. I am sure, Mr. President, that fair-minded and objective people favor a continuation of the present adminis- tration of the displaced-persons pro- gram. The committee bill creates a serious and unnecessary slowdown in op- erations by a provision that final deter- mination—and I stress the words ‘final determination,” of eligibility—by that is meant ehgibility to be classified as a displaced person, not admissibility for immigration—shall be made exclusively by the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the American Foreign Service. In other words, the Displaced Persons Commission could make a find- ing that a certain person was eligible as a displaced person. Then he would appear before the Foreign Service officer for his visa. That office would go over the same ground and would make a final determination as to his eligibility to be classified as a displaced person, before it would consider him as qualified for a visa. Then he would go before the Immigration and Naturalization Serv- ice, and the question of whether he was a displaced person would arise again, and that Service would moke another final determination. In other words, there would be three investigations and seemingly several “final” determinations. That is what the situation would be under the bill as reported by the com- mittee. That bill provides that both the Immigration and Naturalzation Service and the Foreign Service of the Department of State shall make the “final” determination of eligibility of applicants. We cannot understand how these two agencics—acting separately and, under the normal immigration law and procedures, one after the other, the immigration officers pass upon ad- missibility after issuance of the visa by the consuls—can both make the final decision. In other words, the displaced persons must first appear before the consul and must satisfy him that they are eligible to come into the United States as immigrants, just as they would have to do if they were coming under a regular quota. Then they must appear before the Immigration Inspector, and must satisfy him that they come within the limitation of our immigration laws; in other words, that they will not be- come public charges and they are not diseased. They would have to qualify in every way that is required in the case of other immigrants. At the pres- ent time that is being doae abroad by aur regular Consular Service, by an out- post of immigration inspectors we have sent abroad. Normally, that would be done at Ellis Island, for insiance. But now it is done abroad hy some of the Government’s inspectors. At a hearing at which the chief of the European inspectors, Mr. Tripp, ep- peared, I asked him where he would get
2482 a staff, if we turned this work over to him. He replied that it would take some time to train one. I asked the same question of Mr. Watson B. Miller, Com- missioner of Immigration and Naturali- zation. He said it would take a long time to get them, that they did not have them to spare. Asa matter of fact, Mr. Presi- dent, they had loaned eight men to the Displaced Persons Commission; those were all the men they could spare. Of course, immigration inspectors are not made overnight. They require consid- erable training and experience. Thus, it should be obvious that a change in administrative jurisdiction at this time would cause a serious delay, if not a complete break-down, in the entire pro- gram. Furthermore, Mr. President, in re- spect to their particular fields, the deci- sion of the Consular Service is final; and the same is true in the case of the Immigration and Naturalization Serv- ice. Under the immigration laws, there is no appeal from its rulings. The only appeal is to an Appeals Board within the Department of Justice, and from it to the Attorney General. There is no appeal back to the Displaced Persons Commission. In other words, the Dis- placed Persons Commission cannot and does not overrule either the Consular Service or the Immigration Service. Moreover, it seems to us that the com- mittee provision would preclude the Board of Immigration Appeals, which is not a part of the Immigration and Nat- uralization Service, and the Attorney General from making decisions on ap- peal, as under present immigration law. In other words, under the rules of the Immigration and Naturalization Serv- ice an applicant now has the right to go before the Board of Immigration Ap- peals, to have it determine whether the primary inspector has made a mistake. To take one further step, does the word “exclusively” in this connection seek to remove the authority of the courts to review such “final” consular and immigration determinations? Inter- twined with these complexities is the authority granted to the Displaced Per- sons Commission by the law, and not diminished by the committee version of the bill, to issue regulations for the ad- mission into the United States of eligible displaced persons and eligible orphans. The consuls and immigration authorities evidently would not have to pay any at- tention to the clear congressional intent, because they could ignore the regulations which, when issued in accordance with the act, have the force of law. In the administration of the present law, all determinations of admissibility under the normal immigration law are made by the Foreign Service and by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and all determinations of eligibility un- der the specific provisions of the Dis- placed Persons Act are made by the Dis- placed Persons Commission. This prac- tice is based upon a mutual agreement among these three agencies as to the most effective and economical way to carry out the intent of the law, and has been working most satisfactorily. And it is obviously the congressional inten- tion that this should have been done. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Under the present procedure, over 28 percent of all the cases preliminarily considered by the Commission for eligi- bility are rejected or disqualified by the Commission before they ever get to the consul, and without the necessity of the long, expensive investigation which is conducted in cases of prima facie eligi- bility. If final determination of eligibil- ity under the special provisions of the Displaced Persons Act, as well as of ad- missibility under the normal immigra- tion law, must be made by the consuls and Immigration Service, then the Dis- placed Persons Commission must for- ward to them all cases, even those it now rejects. This would automatically slow up the process and would cause disap- pointment to sponsors in Amcrica who feel that the process is now sufficiently complicated and already too slow. One of the complaints I have received is in regard to the time it takes to get a dis- placed person to the United States and the delay arising before a prospective employer can have a displaced person brought into the United States. The Foreign Service prefers that it not be burdened with the large number of cases which have already been turned down by the Displaced Persons Commission. The Displaced Persons Commission has performed its functions in a diligent and satisfactory manner. Not only is there no need for the change included in the committee bill, but it is clear that such change would seriously disrupt and temporarily halt a smooth-working process, without accomplishing any use- ful end. It is important to note that the Dis- placed Persons Commission does not ad- mit displaced persons into the United States. Mr. President, I wish to em- phasize that point. It does not admit them; it can merely certify that they are displaced persons, and that it has, from a responsible person or organiza- tion, an assurance of their placement. That is as far as it can go. The rest must be done by the consular service and by the Immigration and Naturaliza- tion Service. The Displaced Persons Commission does not even make a recommendation to the consuls. It processes cases for submission to the consuls, who have complete authority, under the normal immigration law, to grant or deny visas; and it processes cases for inspection by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which has complete authority, under the normal immigration law, to admit or exclude displaced pcrsons who have _ been granted visas. Consequently, the com- mittee provision is unnecessary, and serves only to create additional difficul- ties in an already complicated admin- istrative operation. Perhaps it is worth adding that it is very difficult to com- ply with the provision’s requirement that the consular service have in each of these Jobs persons with at least 3 years’ ex- perience. I wonder where they would get them. They do not know. The committee bill recommends that the present law in this respect be un- changed. Mr. President, the proposed substitute has had firm and vigorous support by the welfare and religious organizations of FEBRUARY 28 America which have been devoting their energies and strength to the welfare of displaced persons. The Federal Coun- cil of Churches of Christ, the National Catholic Welfare Conference, the Na- tional Lutheran Council, and the Syna- gogue Council of America, have all en- dorsed it. The substitute has been es- poused by a widely representative group of distinguished American citizens in- cluding Gen. Lucius D. Clay, James F. O'Neil, former commander of American Legion; James A. Farley, Maj. Gen. Wil- liam J. Donovan, Harry Bullis, chairman of the board of General Mills, Mrs. Franklin D. Roosevelt, Fred Lazurus, of Cincinnati, Ohio, Mark Ethridge, of Louisville, Ky., Judge Joseph Proskauer, and James L. Kraft, the industrial leader. The great labor organizations of the country have come out in vigorous sup- port of the bill. Only as late as 2 weeks ago the executive council of the American Federation of Labor called up- on the Senate to pass a bill along the lines of the proposed substitute for the committee bill. Mr, Philip Murray, the president of CIO, has written me as fol- lows: The CIO strongly supports the President’s recommendation for liberalizing and extend- ing the present DP law. Discriminatory and unjust laws have no place on our statute books. In its two last annual conventions, the CIO has formally voted approval of ad- mitting a larger number of displaced persons into the United States. If we in the C1O felt that this action would adversely affect the labor market today, we would not have taken this action. It is preposterous for any one to think that a humanitarian program like this which adds three-tenths of 1 percent to the total labor force can injure labor The CIO calls upon the Senate to pass H. R. 4567 at the very earliest possible time. Since the receipt of the letter, the substitute has been exhibited to Mr. Murray, and has his approval. In fact, Mr. President, I think it fs probably a fair statement to say that with the ex- ception of the people who are opposed in principle to a displaced-persons law in any shape or form, the substitute proposed yesterday by 18 Senators is the generally accepted proposal for an amendment to the present law. What are some of the major objec- tions being raised at the present mo- ment? By and large they are two in number, First, there are a very small number of complaints being raised by disgruntled employers or by sponsors of displaced persons in cases where for one reason or another the displaced persons have not worked out well. Of course, this is bound to happen in a program of such magnitude as this. But let us not be deceived by the occasional dissat- isfaction. Let us look rather at the fact that the governors and State displaced persons commissions of at least 21 States recently reported that the great major- ity of displaced persons were working out satisfactorily. A special subcom- mittee of the House Judiciary Commit- tee submitted a report on January 20, 1950, on “Displaced Persons in Europe and Their Resettlement in the United States.” It is House Report No. 1507. The report of the subcommittee was based on a Nation-wide survey, made by
1953 communicating directly with the gover- nors of the 48 States, the State displaced persons commissions, and with reli- gious and welfare agencies working in this field. The overwhelming number of such reports indicate satisfactory adjust- ment, successful adaptation to new en- vironment, and a desire to receiv? more displeced persons. The report also at- tests to the high grade character of the large majority of the displaced persons. Mr. President, I received one com- plaint that certain persons who were sent to work on a farm did not perform satisfactorily. The reason was that they could not understand English. Of course, Mr. President, they could not understand English. Their native lan- guage was German, and they had not had a chance when they came to Amer- ica, in a period of 2 or 3 wecks, to learn the English language Imagine what would happen if one of us were to go to their country and, without a knowledge of the language, go to work on a farm. We would be using the sign language largely in communicating with others, and that is what the people I refer to have had to do. Yet there has been complaint because of that The fact is that the overwhelming majority of the displaced persons are making out very well in the United States, and are giving satisfaction to their sponsors. A second kind of objection is expressed by people who are opposed to the pro- gram altogether and are seeking to cx- agecrate alleged administrative prob- Jems into a national crisis. By and Jargc, the testimony is pitiful, and is given eliher by men who sincerely ad- mit that they merely disagree on quces- tions of legal interpretation or by other people, some of them minor employees in the program, who failed to exhibit either interest or understanding of the pro- gram’'s objectives. In any event, the question of administrative problems is a completely different issue from the one we are now debating and has no rele- vance to it at all except as part of an effort to confuse the issue and attack the merits of the displaced-persons pro- gram, I might also add that through- out this welter of unsubstantiated and frequently foolish charges the Displaced Persons Commission has never been given an opportunity to be heard in pub- lic. Mr. President, I believe these issues should be settled, but I believe they have no relationship to the problem we are now discussing and should not enter into this discussion at all. Since we are talking about administra- tion, it might be pertinent to call to the attention of Members of this body the conclusion of the House Judiciary Com- mittes’s special overseas survey of the displaced persons program. On Janu- ary 27, 1950, the House committee re- ported: The ttudies and investigation undertaken in Europe have convinced this subcommittee that, on the whole, the administration of the 1948 act is heing undertaken in a diligent and satisfactory manner, In the face of an all but unworkable law, the Commission's efforts to achieve the congressional intent deserves high CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE commendation rather than unwarranted and unsubstantiated criticism. Let me add only one further item on this matter. Since there has been some discussion of the security aspects of the program, the great and distinguished statesman, the Presiding Officer of this body, the Vice President of the United States, has recently said: There has never been in my judgment, in the whole history of the United States, a more careful piece of machinery of inspection and investigation than is now in effect in regard to the administration of these dis- placed persons in the United States. Our Army, through its Counter Intelligence Serv- ice, all of our consuls abroad who have to pass on visas, the Federal Bureau of In- vestigation, the Department of Justice, the Immigration Service, everywhere—here and elsewhere—and many others which I might mention, are a part this screening process, I do not know how there would be any bet- ter system of investigation by which it could be determined that those who are permitted to come are entitled to come. Mr. President, the present situation af- fords an extraordinary opportunity for a demonstration of national unity. The substitute bill, which I had the honor to introduce yesterday 1n behalf of myself and 17 other Senators, has found en- thusiastic support throughout our Na- tion. It represents the point of view urged upon this body by 23 governors from all parts of the United States; it represents the united opinion of organ- ized labor, business, and agriculture. It is the proposal recommendcd to this body by the leaders of our major religious fuiths in America. It is in the spirit of almost unanimous editorial approval throughout the United States. It is, I believe, in the real spirit of the American tradition. Mr. President, I sincerely hope, and earnestly urge, that all Members of this body will carefully read the substitute which has been placed upon their desks. If there are weak spots in it, we who sponsor it have not discovered them, We believe it will, if enacted, make work- able the present law, which has been very difficult to administer. We believe it will remove the unfairness and the restrictions of Persons getting valid certificates. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Scnator from West Virginia yield to the Senator from Illinois? Mr. KILGORE. For what purpose? Mr. LUCAS For a question. Mr KILGORE. I yield for a question. Mr. LUCAS. I should like to pro- pound a question to the Senator, dealing with quotas. Has the Senator discussed what is known as the mortgaging of quotas in his speech today? Mr. KILGORE. Yes, to some extent. Mr. LUCAS. Am I correct in my un- derstanding that, under the present law, all displaced persons entering the United States must be charged to the normal quotas of the country of origin? Mr. KILGORE. Yes; a charge or so- called mortgage is placed on 50 percent of the quota of each successive year, Mr. LUCAS, I understand. Mr. KILGORE. In other words, we are not overlooking the quotas, and we 2483 are not increasing the eventual numbers authorized under the present normal quotas. Mr. LUCAS. That is the point exactly. The people do not understand it. Mr, KILGORE, There is another thing I may say to the distinguished majority leader. We must remember that for a long period of time, especially during the war years, there was very little immigration even under the quotas Mr. LUCAS. I thoroughly understand that. But I have letters in my files, and I think the press reports would indicate that in addition to the normal quotas we now have for the people of a certain country, we are also admitting an addi- tional number of displaced persons; and that is not the fact, as I understand. In other words, the displaced persons are only given priority, so to speak, so far as quotas are concerned, and we are not increasing the quotas in any respect whatever. Mr. KILGORE. No, no; we are not changing the quota system. We are charging displaced persons who are ad- mitted against the quota of their country of origin. A refugee who happened to originate in Rumania is charged to the Rumanian quota. Mr. LUCAS. I do not think the Sena- tor can make that too plain. I think it should be talked about in the debate over and over again. A great number of citizens of the United States are labor- ing under a delusion with respect to people who are coming 1n as displaced persons. I could show the Senator let- ters which indicate that a citizen in Illinois is under the impression that, in addition to the normal quota of persons coming, for instance, from Belgium or from some other nation, we are also bringing in displaced persons from that country, when the truth of the matter ts that all we are doing is giving priority to the displaced persons, so far as quota is concerned Mr. KILGORE. That is correct. We are, thereby, bringing to an end a seri- ous situation without in any way dis- turbing the normal immigration quotas. Mr. LUCAS. In other words, we are in no wise changing the present immigra- tion laws, so far as quotas are concerned. Mr. KILGORE. Not one iota. Mr. LUCAS. They remain exactly as they are. What we are doing, I repeat— and I hope to talk about it again before Wwe conclude the debate—is giving the dis- placed persons, as the Senator stated a moment ago, an opportunity to come in under the quota ahead of anyone else. Mr. KILGORE. We give them a prior- ity over other applicants, but within the authorized cumulative quotas. Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. KILGORE. I yield. Mr. TYDINGS. The Senator will re- call that I introduced a bill to permit a certain number of war orphans to come into this country as a part of the pro- gram. I understand that that bill, at Jeast in part, has been incorporated in the committee bill, and I think approxi- mately 10,000 orphans will be permitted to come into the United States. Mr. KILGORE. A total of 10.000.
2484 Mr. TYDINGS. I do not know what evidence there was before the committee touching on this question, but I have in my Office, and I think the Senator will be glad to hear it, rather striking evidence of the willingness of a great many rather prominent and substantial persons to adopt some of the orphans. For example, a celebrated doctor in Massachusetts, I think, who has a large practice and is a very substantial member of the com- munity, would like to adopt one of the war orphan boys and, at his own expense, send him to school to become a physician, with the idea of turning over his prac- tice to him eventually. Another person who has communicated with me is a very wealthy man, as things go in this world, and he is very anxious to take a deserving war orphan and make him his heir. I cite those two examples, among many, of the willingness of our people in deserving cases, to adopt orphans when there seems to be a likelihood that their hopes regarding the children will be ful- filled. That is a great tribute to the humanitarianism of Americans. I had the privilege, approximately a year ago, of talking with a Catholic priest who had built five “boys’ towns,” on the American model, just outside of Rome. These towns or camps are primarily for war orphans. At the time they were started, many of the children from 6 years of age up to 14 or 15 years of age were living in ruins and stealing in order to get food, clothing, and shelter, and were on the way to becoming totally bad citizens. The Catholic priest, whose name escapes me for the moment, started to raise funds and built five camps, which many of the Senators and Represent- atives have visited. Good citizenship is being implanted in the minds of those Italian youngsters. They had been little more than wild animals, particularly in the period immediately following the war. If these war Orphans are reasonably screened, to insure that those who come to this country are healthy—I hate to condemn the unfit, but we must have some self-interest in the matter—are reasonably fit physically and seem to have the capabilities of making good citi- zens, and our citizens are anxious to adopt them, it seems to me we can make a double contribution in a practical way in being good Christian people and being good Samaritans, and, at the same time, under an environment such as I have mentioned, these young persons will be- come good citizens and will return divi- dends to the United States in many use- ful occupations. Iam glad the committee incorporated this idca in the bill, because I think that of all the tragedies which have resulted from the war, the tragedy of little people, particularly those under 15 years of age, whose mothers and fathers are missing, who have no relatives, and who are friendless and alone, should have a wider appeal to our humanity and to our con- sideration in this program than should any other class of persons of whom I could think. I am glad the committee has put a provision of this kind in a bill. I think it adds a great deal to the bill to have such a provision in it. I would further say, with the consideration that CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE there are families ready and willing to adopt some of these children, that there is no question of public charge, and it is one of the finest things this Government has done to reconstruct and rehabilitate a war-torn and desolated Europe. Mr. KILGORE. I thank the Senator for his observation. I may say to the Senator that there are a number of re- quests from some of our Army, Navy, and Air Corps personnel, and from some of our civilian personnel, who want to adopt war orphans and bring them back to this country with them. A special proviso was made that we would, up to 5,000, adopt the proceedings in a German court as if they had been had in a court of the United States so that any United States citizen could bring in such adopted child. Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. KILGORE. I yield. Mr. TYDINGS. I am hkewise advised in this morning’s mail that there are many societies composed of very out- standing persons of splendid background and patriotism who are organizing in an effort to find suitable homes for orphans who will be adopted and become mem- bers of the families which adopt them. That, too, is a matter of tremendous credit to our citizenship, for the butld- ing of a reconstructed and rehabilitated world is not like the building of a wall that can be constructed in a single day. It consists of many solid bricks of the character which we are discussing, which over a period of time, one after another, build the wall. I use that as an illustra- tion of building civilization and human- ity where it is desperately needed. MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE A message from the House of Repre- sentatives, by Mr. Maurer, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House had insisted upon its amendments to the bill (S. 1008) to define the appli- cation of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Clayton Act to certain pric- ing practices, disagreed to by the Senate; agreed to the further conference asked by the Senate on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon, and that Mr. CELLER, Mr. Water, Mr. Witurs, Mr. MIciirENER, and Mr. Cast of New Jersey were appointed managers on the part of the House at the further conference. REPRINTS FROM THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Mr. CAIN. Mr. President, until about @ month ago the junior Senator from Washington had understood, and taken for granted that the CONGRESSIONAL REc- orRD was a public document, and was therefore available to all Members of the Congress to use in whole or in part as they saw fit. I was necessarily surprised when I was informed by others that the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD was not in fact a public document in some seases. I was informed that the CONGRESSIONAL REc- oRD was clearly a public document when there was @ wish to use it in one way, but it was not a public document when Members of the Congress sought to use it in another way. This so-called restric- tive policy, which I held to be entirely untenable, aroused my curiosity and concern. I think that every Member of Congress will be interested in the steps I FEBRUARY 28 have recently taken in an effort to re- store a freedom of use to a public docu- ment, the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. Without prejudice to or criticism of anyone, I ehall merely relate the story of how I secured permission to have re- prints made of a portion of the Recorp after I had been told by others that I could not be permitted to use portions of the REcorD as I thought proper. The Senate will recall that on Tues- day, January 17, 1950, the junior Senator from Washington moved that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the bill, H. R. 3905, to amend section 3121 of the Internal Revenue Code. This bill in- cluded a section the intent of which was to reduce some of our outstanding war- created excise taxes. The Senate de- bated the motion on Wednesday, Janu- ary 18, and it was defeated by a vote of 45 to 35, with 16 Senators not voting. On Tuesday, January 24, 1950, I In- structed a member of my staff to order through Mr. Ralph L. Harris, the Gov- ernment Printing Office Congressional Record clerk, 2,000 reprints of the de- bate in its entirety. I wantcd to make the debate available to interested citi~ zens throughout the State of Washing- ton. Mr. Harris accepted the order. On Wednesday, January 25, Mr. Har- ris called my office to inform me that by order of the Government Printing Office the requested reprints could not be made without the written permission of the several Senators who had par~ ticipated in the excise-tax debate. I took this to be merely an act of courtesy to the participating Senators, and with- out objection of any kind, I instructed a member of my staff to secure the re- quired signatures. My agent, Mrs, Walker, prepared the following letter re~ quest for the Senators in question to sign: Benator Harry P. CaIN, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR CaInN: I hereby grant my permission to have reprints made for Wash- ington State distribution, of the colloquy ape pearing in the CoNGressionaL Recorp of Jane uary 19, 1950, beginning on page 615, the first column, under the heading “Reduction and Repeal of Excise Taxes,” and ending on page 622, first column, at the heading “Amendment of the Hatch Act.” Sincerely. Mrs. Walker processed the letter and secured all the necessary signatures save one. Those who signed the letters were Senator SALTONSTALL, Senator BREWSTER, Senator Gxorce, Senator Epw1n JOHN- son, Senator WriLi1amMs, and Senator MILLIKiIn. The signature of the major-~ ity leader, the Senator from Illinois [Mr, Lucas}, who had been a major partici- pant in the debate, was not secured. Mrs. Walker handed the letter to the administrative assistant of the Senator from Illinois, who presumably conferred with the Senator. She said, in substance, when returning to Mrs. Walker the let- ter without the Senator’s signature, that “It is not the policy of Senator Lucas to give permission for any colloquy in which he takes part to be reprinted for use by other Senators.” She pointed out, however, that the Senator from Wash- ington was at perfect liberty to delete the statements of the Senator from Nli-
1950 nojis and then have the colloquy re- printed. After Mrs. Walker brought the letter back to me with all the required signa- tures save that of the Senator from Illi- nois, I thought first of going to the Sena- tor to suggest that he reconsider his Position, because I thought I could easily convince him that I had no desire to embarrass him or any other Senator. All I sought to have reprinted was the excise tax debate in whole. On reflection I decided that the problem with which I was confronted had but very little to do with the Senator from Illinois. The fact was that an order, the origin of which I knew nothing sbout, prevented a Sen- ator from using a portion of the Con- GRESSIONAL REcorpD, a public document, unless another Senator agreed in writing that he might do so. This appeared to make no valid sense of any kind, and I determined to test the question of whether a Senator had a right to use the CONGRESSIONAL ReEcorD in any way he might see fit. I instructed Mrs. Walker to have with others whatever conversations might be required so that she might advise me fully concerning the origin and back- ground of the Government Printing Office order which would prevent a Sen- ator from securing a reprint from the ReEcorp unless every Senator who was a party to a colloquy gave his written per- mission. Mrs. Walker returned to Mr. Harris, the Congressional Record clerk. He stated that the order canceling my order for the reprints came from the Government Printer through an admin- istrative officer, Mr. Herrell. Mr. Harris added that he had known of the written- permission requirement since he became the Record clerk about 9 years ago. ‘ Mrs. Walker then talked with Mr. James W. Broderick, planning manager for the Government Printing Office. Mr. Broderick informed Mrs. Walker that the written signature permission require- ment had been laid down as a precedent about 25 years ceo. He did not know who had established the precedent, or for what reasons it had been established, but that he had heard of it. Mrs. Walker then conferred with Mr. Charles L. Watkins, the Senate Parlia- mentarian. Mr. Watkins knew of no such precedent, and he was positive that the Senate had never established a prece- dent on the question. At a later date I conferred personally with the Parliamcn- tarian of the House of Representatives, and he likewise said that the House had not established any precedent on the subject of restricting the use of the Con- GRESSIONAL REcorD by Members of the Conercss. When Mrs. Walker told me of these several conversaticns I instructed her to demand of Mr. Harris, the Congressional Record clerk—who, I would say in pass- ing, is a most excellent public servant— that he either accept my order for the re- prints, or request the Government Print- er to write me a letter in which he would state over his signature why my reprint order was denied. Mr. Harris said that he would tell the Public Printer of my wish that he write to me. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE I put these facts down by dates and names because there are so many factors in this particular and unusual questfon. For the first time we now hear of a new individual involved in the question of whether or not a Senator may have re- prints made of a public debate on a public question. On Thursday, January 19, Mr. James L. Harrison, staff director for the Joint Committee on Printing, called Mrs. Walker to say that the chairman of the joint committee, the Senator from Ari- zona (Mr. HaypDEN] had instructed him to say to the Senator from Washington that the ruling or precedent should hold, and that all signatures must be ob- tained before the Printing Office would fill the order. Mr. Harrison suggested that the Senator from Washington was at liberty to have the reprints made by private printers downtown Mr. Har- rison attempted to establish the point that one Senator could not use the facili- ties of the Government Printing Office to the disadvantage of another Senator. Mr. MORSE Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. CAIN. Certainly. Mr. MORSE. The junior Senator from Oregon would hke to be sure that he follows the Senator from Washington in the address which he is now making. I should like to put this hypothetically to him. Suppose a Senator makes a speech on X subject, that during the course of the speech a Senator rises and asks one question, and the Senator who is making the speech answers the question, and that that is the only interruption during the entire speech. Am I to understand that the Senator who is making the speech cannot have his speech reprinted unless he obtains the consent in writing of the Senator who asked him the one question during the course of the speech? Mr. CAIN. It seems to be a fact that up until this time the Senator who had made the speech could not have made by the Public Printer a reprint of the speech, which included a question by an- other Senator, unless the Senator who had asked the question gave his written permission for it to be included in the reprint desired by the Senator who made the speech Mr. MORSE, I may say to the Sena- tor from Washington, for whatever value it may be to him, that I feel com- pelled to confess my own guilt, because on many occasions I have had speeches of mine reprinted which included collo- quy with other Senators. I knew of no such rule or precedent, and no one had ever raised any question about my right to have those speeches reprinted. Ihave had them reprinted in full. I thought that was my right and privilege. Mr. CAIN. For the reason that the junior Senator from Washington is rather convinced that a good many Sen- ators have not previously known of the so-called precedent to which I have called their attention this afternoon, I thought it proper in the most objective way I could to recite the facts involved in the present case, in a double effort, first, to inform the Senators of what has heretofore been a precedent, and, sec- ond, to hope that other Senators would agree with the junior Senator from 2485 Washington, that we can give only one construction actually to a public docu- ment, which is that it is public, and that what it contains should and ought and must be made available for use by Sena- tors, and Representatives also, as in their judgment they deem fit and proper. Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. CAIN. I yield. Mr. MORSE. If that is the rule, does the Senator from Washington not agree that it is going to affect debate on the floor of the Senate when it comes to the question of yielding to another Senator; because if by yielding a Senator runs the danger of a denial of the privilege of having his speech reprinted, he is go- ing to be inclined, is he not, to proceed and make his speech and not yield to any colleague during the course of his remarks? Mr. CAIN. My own opinion is that when Senators generally become aware of what up to this time has been a prece- dent on the subject, and when they have had an opportunity to think about it, they will agree that such a precedent is not in the public interest, and they will want to reach an agreement to do away with the precedent in order, as indicated by the Senator from Oregon, that the debate may be full and illuminating and free as to contributions made by all Sen- ators. Mr. HAYDEN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. CAIN. I am pleased to yield to the Senator from Arizona. Mr. HAYDEN. This matter was taken up for consideration in the Joint Com- mittee on Printing on yesterday, and this is in part the situation as I understand it. Along in the twenties sometime, when George Moses was a Senator from New Hampshire, and was chairman of the Joint Committee on Printing, a Senator printed in his speech a portion of the remarks of another Senator, which, had they been printed in full, would have con- veyed a different meaning than they conveyed when only a portion were printed. The Senator whose remarks were partially printed brought the mat- ter to the attention of the Joint Com- mittee on Printing. At that time the Public Printer was instructed that if a Senator sent to the Printing Office a speech which contained remarks made by another Senator, the proper thing to do was to inquire of the other Senator if he had any objection to his remarks being printed together with the speech of the Senator who desired to have the reprint made. That has been the rule since that time. There was good sound reason for the rule. There is also another reason why it ts proper that such inquiry be made of Sen- ators whose remarks appear in the speech of a Senator who wants to have his re- marks reprinted. Many times the Con- GRESSIONAL Reccrp, as it appears, con- tains matter which a Senator did not actually say. It will frequently be no- ticed that on the floor a Senator will ask to have the Recorp corrected, saying that he made a statement in a certain way, but the reporters took it in ane other way. The other day a Senator, in speaking during the debate on the
2486 use of Colorado River water mentioned the State of California, but in the Rro- orp the name “Colorado” appeared. If one Senator’s remarks are to be re- printed in connection with the remarks of another Senator, and at the request of the other Senator, it is entirely proper for the latter to ask, ““Have you corrected any errors in your remarks, if any such there be?” If it is proposed that the full colloquy be printed, and a Senator who may have taken part in the colloquy knows that his remarks are correctly recorded, I do not see how anyone can prevent the printing of such a colloquy. Mr. CAIN. I wish to interrupt the Senator for an obvious reflection. The Senator from Arizona does not know how a Senator could be stopped from having a reprint made of a debate in full, but the junior Senator from Wash- ington, on a temporary basis, was stopped. Mr. HAYDEN. That may be true, but at the present moment I am sure the Senator from Illinois would not object if the Senator from Washington made in- quiry of him if he had any objection. Mr. CAIN. What I said was obviously without prejudice to the Senator from Illinois, because it goes far beyond the action that was taken by the Senator from Illinois. The Senator from Illinois has already, on reconsideration, thought it proper that I be permitted to have the reprint made. But let us assume that the Senator from Illinois saw fit to main- tain a contrary point of view on the basis of the precedent which up until the time we began to examine it had been con- trolling on this question for 25 years. In that event the junior Senator from Washington and no other Senator could have had the reprint made. Mr. HAYDEN. Nothing serious has ever developed from the precedent. The Senator will agree that as a matter of courtesy the Senator who desires to have made a reprint of a colloquy in which the remarks of another Senator appear should ask the other Senator if his re- marks appear correctly in the daily Con- GRESSIONAL Recorp, and if the Senator has any objection to his remarks being reprinted. There would be no trouble about that. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. CAIN. Certainly, sir. Mr. LUCAS. When the matter was brought to my attention for the first time, through my secretary, I paid very little attention to it, since as majority leader of the Senate I have a number of matters to consider. I temporarily for- got all about it until the Senator from Arizona called it to my attention. As I recall, there was a considerable amount of debate upon the measure. As the Senator from Arizona suggested a mo- ment ago, before I gave my consent I wanted to read over what I had said. I wanted to read it again to determine whether everything I had said appeared correctly in the Recorp. I do not believe I ever got around to reading it because of the manifold duties which are thrust upon me from day to day. Later on the Senator from Arizona said he had read the speech and was con- vinced it was a very good one, that the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE colloquy appeared in the Recorp as it occurred, and then I said I had no objec- tion to a reprint being had. I am sure that if the Senator from Washington had asked me about it at the time he made his request for a reprint I would have made no objection, because, after all, granting such a request is a matter of courtesy. I am sorry I caused the Senator from Washington all the trouble he has been obliged to go to. But per- haps it is a good thing that I acted as I did, for I believe it to be fortunate and constructive that the Senator is bringing this matter to the floor. Let me ask the Senator a question at this point. Mr. CAIN. Certainly, sir. Mr. LUCAS. In view of the query pro- pounded by the Senator from Oregon, I wish to present an assumption. Assum- ing that a Senator propounded three questions during the course of a major speech delivered by the Senator from Oregon, would such Senator, by reason of the fact that he had propounded three not very important questions during a 30-minute speech delivered by the Sena- tor from Oregon have the right to print the entire speech of the Senator from Oregon? Let us say that during the course of such a speech I asked two questions of the Senator from Oregon, perhaps occu- pying 2 minutes of time, while the re- maining 28 minutes were consumed by the Senator from Oregon. Would I be permitted to have a reprint of the entire speech without obtaining permission from the Senator from Oregon? Mr. CAIN. I will say, Mr. President, that Iam complimented that the major- ity leader should appear to consider me an authority upon the subject of what can or cannot be done with the ConarEs- SIONAL RECORD. Mr. LUCAS. I am sure the Senator is an authority upon that subject. Mr. CAIN. I wish to make it very clear to the Senator from Illinois that, so far as I am concerned, the Recorp is a public document, and the Senator from Illinois is entitled, or should be at any time, to have any part or all of it printed, to do with as he likes. What the Sena- tor from Oregon does with reference to reprints which are made of his speech from the Recorp is his concern, and a different question. Mr. LUCAS. I am sure the Senator from Oregon would not object were I to make a request for a reprint of his speech, whether I conferred with him or not, because his speeches are always su- perb; therefore, he would consider it quite a compliment if I were to use his speech. The Senator from Oregon has risen, and I believe that is what he is proposing to say. I hope I have antici- pated his remarks correctly. Mr. CAIN. I very much appreciate the comments just made by the Senator from Illinois, because I brought the ques- tion to the floor without any motive of animosity toward the majority leader, as I think he knows. Mr. LUCAS. I appreciate that and thoroughly understand it. The Senator from Washington has gone so far as to say that if the Senator from Illinois de- sires to print the entire speech of the FEBRUARY 28 Senator from Washington, I can do 80 without conferring with the Senator, and do it on my own responsibility, and it will be perfectly all right with him. Let me say to the Senator that that may be all right, but I certainly would never do so until I had conferred with the Sena- tor from Washington. Mr. CAIN. I agree with the Senator from Illinois that in such a case as that to which he has referred the Senator from Washington should, as a matter of courtesy, call the Senator from Illinois, or any other Senator whose speech he wishes to print, and say: “I am going to have a reprint made of a speech in which you are a participant. I should like to know if you believe that is proper.” On the other hand, if the Senator did not think it was proper, I believe I would have a right to use that material after having given due notice to the Senator, let us say, from Oregon or from Illinois, or any other Senator who might be involved. Mr. HAYDEN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. CAIN. I yield. Mr. HAYDEN. I merely want to say that there was a reason why the late Senator Moses as chairman of the Joint Committee on Printing had the directive sent to the Public Printer to the follow- ing effect: “If you receive copies of a speech wherein several Senators are in- volved, the proper thing is to inquire whether they have been consulted about printing the speech,” because there can be errors in the daily CONGRESSIONAL Recorp. That is reason number one. Moreover if a Senator participating in the debate is consulted, he may say, “I have no objection to having a reprint made, provided you print all of it. But you cannot take anything out of the context and misrepresent me.” That was the trouble in the original instance. Mr. CAIN. I am satisfied that the chairman of the Joint Committee on Printing would not consider to be a valid excuse the fact that all of us, including of course, the Senator from Ilinois, are very busy and often may not have an opportunity to determine whether we will give permission to have a debate reprinted. The Senator from Illinois has said that, after reflection after studying and looking at the speech, and after being convinced by the Senator from Arizona that it was a good speech and should be reprinted and distributed throughout the State of Washington, he was delighted to agree to have that done. But, Mr. President, he was delighted at my expense, for 5 weeks of time. With- out antagonism or criticism, I merely say I am satisfied we are all about to agree that is not the proper thing to do in this body. Mr. HAYDEN. Mr. President, it seems to me we shall have to appoint a liaison officer between the Senator from Washington and the Senator from Il- linois, so they can properly get together on matters of this kind. Mr. CAIN. In this instance, I have been my own liaison officer, and I have proceeded to make a constructive sug- gestion to the Senate. Mr. HAYDEN. Do I correctly under- stand that the Senator from Washington
1950 in the beginning personally consulted ihe Senator from Illinois about this mat- ex? Mr. CAIN. That is not a fact. Mr. HAYDEN. That is the way I do business in the Senate. If I have to deal with another Senator, I go to him and straighten out the matter with him. Mr. CAIN. The Senator from Arizona has his own method of operation, no doubt. I think he would want me to suggest that I followed procedures which are considered to be proper, any way they are dissected. I sent a letter, in the hands of an administrative assistant of mine; I had my administrative as- sistant call on the Senator from Illinois, not as one Senator, but as one of eight Senators, while the Senator from Wash- ington was busy with a committee. She successfully secured the signatures of the seven other Senators, and found that only the Senator from Illinois was tem- porarily too busy to give consideration to the matter. Mr. HAYDEN. That, I think, would have been the proper time for the Sena- tor from Washington to have consulted him. Mr. CAIN. But had I pursued that course, I suggest that I still would have been faced with a precedent which would have kept any one of 96 Senators from availing himself or herself of a public document, namely, the CONGRESSIONAL REcorpD. Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. CAIN. I am glad to yield. Mr. MORSE. Speaking facetiously for ® moment—and after that I shall speak seriously—I wish to stay that my good friend, the Senator from Illinois, did not put quite the point I wished to make. My point is that if anyone wanted to spend his own money in obtaining re- prints of any of my speeches, I would welcome having that done, provided he would help me out with my own mailing list, by supplying a sufficient number of copies so that I could send them to the persons on my own mailing list, and thus save me some of the heavy expense which I have had to undergo for that purpose since I have been in the Senate. Speaking seriously now, I wish to say that I think it is well that this point has been raised, because some of us have been in error, so far as concerns the point which has been made by the Senator from Arizona. I plead guilty to having had reprints made of some speeches of mine which contain brief colloquies with other Senators, without first getting the consent of the Senators involved. Now that the Senator from Arizona has raised the point, I think I have been definitely in error in doing so. So I am glad to have this matter cleared up. I took it for granted that aftcr the CONGRESSIONAL REcorRD appeared, and after there had been opportunity for Senators to make corrections in it, if no corrections were made, we were then dealing with an official Government doc- ument which was freely available for cir- culation throughout the United States. It seems to me that if Senators have reprints made of their speeches which are published in the CONGRESSIONAL REc- orp—and I wish to say that I have fol- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE lowed this course very carefully—they should have reprints made of the entire speech, including all colloquy, and not simply have reprints made of excerpts from the speech. The reprinting of ex- cerpts I think would not only be dis- courteous but would be unethical. But after there has been opportunity for corrections to be made, if any Sen- ator who is involved in the colloquy wishes to make corrections, I think any Senator should have the right to have the entire speech reprinted, including the colloquy which may have occurred dur- ing the course of the remarks. Mr. President, as I have said, if that is not possible, I think it will have a very definite effect upon the procedure in the Senate so far as debates are concerned, namely, that Senators will state at the beginning of their speeches that, under no circumstances, will they yield to other Senators to permit them to make com- ments or to ask questions during the course of their remarks, because the speeches they are about to make are ones which they may desire to have reprinted. Mr. CAIN, Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oregon for his remarks, because I think the question is rather important. I wish to say to the Senator from Illi- nois that I am completely satisfied that he meant no harm of any kind or no loss of time or no rejection of a right or priv- ilege, so far as the junior Senator from Washington 1s concerned. I simply take that to be a fact. I think what the Sen- ator from Illinois did was done just by a busy man. I bring the matter to the at- tention of all Members of the Senate not in reference to the Senator from Illinois as such but in order that we may estab- lish the various uses to which the Con- GRESSIONAL RECORD may be put, because, as the Senator from Oregon has stated, if every one of the 96 Scnators were thor- oughly conscious of the ramifications of what has apparently been a precedent in this body and in the Congress for 25 years, many Senators 1n preparing to de- liver speeches 1n the Scnate would com- mence by saying, “Under no circum- stances will I permit any other Senator to ask me a question about anything,” because of his fear that, by permitting interruptions, he would lose his right to use for reprints the specch which he him- self was about to deliver. Mr. President, the rest of my state- ment at this time will take approximately 15 minutes, I believe. It is merely a rec- ognition of fact, at the conclusion of which I think the Senate could establish its own precedent, and would have no trouble in arriving at a reasonable solu- tion of the problem, Mr. MALONE. Mr. President, will the Senator yicld? Mr. CAIN. I yield. Mr. MALONE. What is the Senator’s conclusion, as of this moment, first, as to whether there has been a precedent— regardless of whoever established it, whether it was established by the Public Printer or by the chairman of the Joint Committee on Printing or by some other- well-intentioned person; and if there has been such a precedent, has it been followed without the full knowledge of the Senate; and is it effective? 2487 Mr. CAIN. I can answer all three of those questions: In the first place, there has been a precedent—at least, that seems to be undeniable, so far as I am concerned, Second. I think most Senators are not aware of the existence of the precedent. The Senator from Oregon has just risen to say that he has broken the precedent several times, simply because he did not know it existed. Third. The precedent to which we have referred as applying in the past, in my considered judgment at the moment is not only not effective as of the present time, but does not exist as of the present time, for I established the remaining steps to secure the reprint without secur- ing the written permission of the Senator from Illinois. The fundamental point I shall make at the conclusion of this statement is that what has been done by the Senator from Washington likewise can be as readily and as properly done by any other Member of this body. Therefore, if I have secured a reprint, which I have been told by those referred to as competent authorities that I could not secure, without observing certain re- strictions; if that has been done—ana it has been done—then we have no prece- dent on the subject any more; and it is up to the Senate of the United States to do as it likes. Mr. MALONE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield once more? Mr. CAIN. Certainly. Mr, MALONE. Then what it amounts to is that we have been subject to more of a chaperonage over the Senate's ethics than anything else—not a prece- dent at all, but, rather, somewhat of a sitting of the chairman of the Joint Com- mittee on Printing to determine whether in his judgment at the moment a certain reprint should be made. Mr. CAIN. In being as fair as I can, I think the precedent was established for what the then chairman of the Joint Committee on Printing thought were valid reasons. That chairman is a gen- tleman whose name has bcen lost in his- tory, because I have conferred with such distinguished historians as Mr. Charles Watkins, our Senate Parliamentarian; and when he cannot tell who did some- thing in the Congress in years gone by, we know it must have been done many, many years ago. Mr. FLANDERS. Mr. President, I should like to pass on a bit of informa- tion: The late Senator George Moses, of New Hampshire, goes down in history as the inventor of the phrase “sons of the wild jackass.” Mr. CAIN. I thank the Senator from Vermont. Mr. President, when I was interrupt- ed—and certainly I was pleased to be in- terrupted—I was reading, from my pre- pared remarks, a sentence which I wish to repeat by way of emphasis, because I think it indicates why at the outset the junior Senator from Washington was rc- {fused permission for the reprint in ques- tion. I shall restate that sentence: Mr. Harrison, a member of the staff of the Joint Committee on Printing, in his conversation with Mrs. Walker, of my office, attempted to establish the point
2488 that one Senator could not use the facili- ties of the Government Printing Office to the disadvantage of another Senator. It is beside the point to suggest that Mr. Harrison had not even read the debate or my letter of request. Had he done s0, it would have been clear to him that I sought only to reprint in its entirety a debate in which every participant spoke fully for himself. Mr. Harrison con- cluded his conversation with Mrs. Walker by stating that the Joint Com- mittee on Printing was responsible for the precedent, and that it had ordered the Government Printing Office not to go ahead with my reprints, or with re- prints for any other Member of Congress unless participating Members to 8 col- loquy had given their written permission, As some will agree, these varied con- versations were becoming somewhat con- fusing. My order for reprints had been denied by the Government Printing Of- fice, but apparently the Joint Commit- tee on Printing had established the precedent which resulted in a denial of my request. I next thought it proper to write to the Public Printer, because I had not heard from him following Mr. Harris’ request that the printer write to me, and to Mr. Harrison, who had pro- vided Mrs. Walker with so much interest- ing information. The letters merely stated that I wanted all of the informa- tion about the history of the precedent, and that I expected this historical resumé to be submitted in writing over the signatures of the proper authori- ties. These letters were written on Jan- uary 31, 1950. Mrs. Walker delivered the letter to Mr. Harrison by hand. He read the let- ter in her presence, and then said to her that he would rather not write me a letter because he had told me, through her, what the precedent was, and he did not think it necessary to commit the subject to paper. By then, I was both ready and able to understand his reluc- tance. During this conversation, Mr. Harrison told Mrs. Walker that he knew that I had written to the Government Printing Office. I wondered how he knew about that simple fact so rapidly, because I had sent the Government Printer the letter by riding page only sev- eral hours before. Mr. Harrison sug- gested that the Senator from Washing- ton ought to familiarize himself with section 4 or title 44 of the United States Code, for this section was the one from which the Joint Committee on Printing had laid down the precedent many years ago. Following Mrs. Walker’s return to the office I talked with Mr. Harrison by tele- phone. I told him in simple, if blunt, fashion that if he did not wish to an- swer my letter, he ought to refer it to the chairman of the Joint Committee on Printing. I told him that I wanted someone to say in writing what he had said on several occasions to Mrs. Walker. I merely said, “If you mean what you say, put it down, and sign your name to it.” I thought it a simple and fair re- quest. During this day I talked with Mr. Her- rell in the Government Printing Office. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE I asked him how it came about that my Jetter to the Government Printer had been discussed with Mr. Harrison. He said that was natural enough, because the Joint Committee on Printing acted es a board of directors for the Govern- ment Printing Office and that the latter referred all questions concerning policy to the Joint Committee. I had not known that. When I learned of it, I thought it was a very reasonable posi- tion. Mr. Herrell said that so far as he knew the precedent with which I was concerned had been established a quarter of a century ago by the Joint Committee on Printing. He said also that Mr. John J. Deviny, the Public Printer, would respond to my letter. Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- sent, partly in an effort to save time this afternoon, that my letters to both Mr. Harrison and Mr. Deviny be made a part of my remarks at this point. There being no objection, the two let- ters were ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: January 31, 1950. Mr. James L. HARRIEON, Staff Director, Joint Committee on Printing, United States Capttol, Washington, D.C. My Dear Mr. HarRison. As you know the Senate debated on Wednesday, January 18, a motion that the Senate proceed to the con- sideration of the bill (H. R. 3905) to amend section 3121 of the Internal Revenue Code. This debate tn tts entirety will be found in the CONGRESSIONAL Recorp of Thursday, Jan- uary 19, beginning on page 615 and conclud- ing on page 622. On Wednesday, January 25, my agent, Mrs. Walker, and on my order, requested of Mr. Ralph L. Harris, Congres- sional Record clerk, that reprints of the de- bate be made for distribution to interested citizens. Mr. Harris informed Mrs. Walker that reprints of a congressional debate could only be authorized providing that the written permission of all participating Senators had been secured. I then instructed Mrs. Walker to resubmit my reprint order to Mr. Harris or to have Mr. Harris, if the order was re- fused, request a letter from the Government Printing Office, in which it would state its reasons for refusing the order. Mfr. Harris said that he could not accept my order for reprints but that he would willingly request the Government Printing Office letter I de- sired. On Thursday, January 26, you discussed the request I submitted to Mr. Harris with Mrs. Walker, You told her of some precedent which you thought had established the au- thority that written permission from par- ticipating Senators must be secured before reprints of debates would be permitted. Why you initiated a call to Mrs. Walker I do not know and I am not aware of any debate re- print policy power your committee has over the Government Printing Office. Iam keenly interested in determining what the authority of your committee actually 1s and why an order for reprints of a public debate has seemingly been refused by your command. All I seek at the moment 1s information and I wish to have it in writing over the aig- nature of the proper official, With your help I hope to clear this question up at once. Mrs. Walker will deliver this letter to you in person and she will be guided by your advice as to when I may expect an answer and from whom. Most sincerely, Hargy P. Cam. FEBRUARY 28 January 81, 1980. Mr. Joun J. Deviny, Public Printer, Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C. My Dear Mn. Daviny: On Wednesday, Jan- tary 18, 1950, the Senate debated a motion that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the bill (H. R. 3905) to amend section $121 of the Internal Revenue Code. The full debate on this motion will be found on page 615 through & portion of page 622 in the ConcREessionAL Recorp of January 19. Your subscriber directed a member of his staff to have reprints made of the debate in question. Mrs. Walker, my agent, was informed by Mr. Ralph L. Harris, Congres- sional Record clerk, on Wednesday, Janu- ary 25 that by order of the Government Printing Office the reprints could not he made without the written permission of the several Senators who had participated in the debate. In an effort to determine the reasons for the Government Printing Office order, Mrs. Walker conferred on Wednesday, January 25 with your planning manager, Mr. James W. Broderick. Mr. Broderick stated that a precedent of some 25 years’ standing was the primary reason for the order that reprints of congressional debates were not to be au- thorized unless all participating Senators gave their written permission. On Thursday, January 26, Mrs. Walker in- formed Mr. Harris that Senator CaIn de- sired a letter from the Government Printing OmMce to cover its reasons for refusing his order for reprints of the debate. Mr. Har- ris willingly agreed to forward this request. No acknowledgment of the request or any letter has yet been received from the Gov- ernment Printing Office. On Thursday, January 26, Mr. James L. Harrison, staff director of the Joint Com- mittee on Printing, informed my agent, Mrs. Walker, by telephone that he had been ad- vised of my submitted request to the Government Printing Office and that he, Mr. Harrison, had been instructed to inform me that written signatures from all participat- ing Senators had to be obtained before an order fo. reprints of any debate would be authorized. At the moment I am not concerned with Mr. Harrison of the Joint Committee on Printing. I wish to be advised by you, or by your proper agent, and in writing, of your authority for refusing to fill my order for reprints of a debate which is carried tn the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, a public document. I am anxious to have your letter in the im- mediate future. My intention 1s to secure the reprints of a debate which covers a sub- ject of continuing interest to citizens every- where. I can think of no reason why your position should not be committed to paper over your signature without delay. Your prompt consideration of a matter which is of considerable importance to me will be sincerely appreciated. Most cordially, Harry P. Carn. Mr. CAIN. For the information of Senators and all other Members of the Congress I want to read the section in the code to which Mr. Harrison referred me, and from which he claimed the Joint Committee on Printing had fashioned the so-called precedent I am talking about: Src. 4. Remedying neglect or delay in pub- lic printing: The Joint Committee on Print- ing shall have power to adopt and employ such measures as, in its discretion, may be deemed neceseary to remedy any negiect, delay, duplication, or waste in the public printing and binding and the distribution of Government publications.
1950 What every Member of the Congress will be much more interested in is section 185 of title 44 of the United States Code. It states in unmistakable language: It shall be lawful for the Public Printer to print and deliver, upon the order of any Senator, Representative, or Delegate extracts from the CONGRESSIONAL Recorp, the person ordcring the same paying the cost thereof. There are no restrictions of any kind, character, or description of this author- ity, which says extracts shall be made available on order of any Senator, Rep- resentative, or Delegate. Mr. MALONE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. CAIN. I yield. Mr. MALONE. The junior Senator from Nevada is curious, as a result of hearing this argument on the restriction of the use of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, as to whether, if the Joint Committee on Printing so desired, it could also prohibit to the press, for the purposes of quota- tion, the use of any part of the ConcrEs- SIONAL REcorD, a public record, it might desire, the request being, 1n effect, some- what different from a request for a sim- ple reprinting of the Recorp and the mailing of it to certain citizens, or mak- ing it available to all citizens. Could the Joint Committee on Printing, in the judgment of the junior Senator from Washington, carry it a step further by prohibiting the press from quoting the CONGRESSIONAL REcorD, except with the consent of Senators making the REecorpD? Mr. CAIN. I think it is obvious that the Joint Committee on Printing, or any other committee, can do anything it wants to do. What the Senate will do about action committees may take, 1s again quite another thing. My own conviction 1s that neither the Senator from Arizona | Mr. HaypeENn! nor the Sen- ator from Illinois |My. Lucas] sought to be unfair in his treatment of the Senator from Washington. It scems to me they have had, somewhere in the back of their minds, a precedent, as to the origin of which they were not very certain, and as to what it covered they were not very clear, but which had bcen estab- lished presumably to maintain, insofar as it 1s possible, the courtesy of one Sen- ator toward another. Their present-day construction, arrived at in hasie, was, “Regardless of what the reasons may be for his resistance, you must secure the written permission of every participating Senator, before you, as a Member of this body, can have a right to a reprint.” I am satisfied that the majority leader, the Senator from Ilinois, meant what he said a few minutes ago when he offered the observation that the subject had been properly brought to the fioor of the Senate, and that it would result in the estaclishment of a precedent, to become known to all—a precedent which would resirict no lepitimate right of any in- dividual Member of the Senate. Mr. MALONE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. CAIN. I yield. Mr. MALONE. What I had in mind was, if the use of the ConGrRrssIONAL REc~ orp can be restricted beyond the Sen- ate floor, and if the material in the REc- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE orD can be restricted from the use of any Senator, why cannot the restriction be extended equally to its use by the press or by anyone else? Mr. CAIN, Again, the answer to the question of the Senator from Nevada it seems to me is very obvious. The Joint Committee on Printing could do as the Senator from Nevada has suggested and. the Senate could condone what the com- mittee had done, in such instance. But it is my feeling, and I fecl very strongly, that neither the Joint Committce on Printing nor the Senate has any such intention, and that this body only needs to have the matter brought to its at- tention as factually as possible, for it to establish a different precedent by which we may be guided in the future, I shall proceed as rapidly as I can, though there are several references yet to come, which I think are rather inter- esting. The Public Printer, Mr. Deviny, ac- knowledged my Ietter of January 31, under date of February 1. I wish this letter, in full, to be made a part of my statement, so I ask unanimous consent to have it included in the Recorp at this point. I wish to emphasize this paragraph of Mr. Deviny's letter: As wos explained to you yesterday, the purpose of the custom ts to assure each indi- vidual Member that the remarks he makes on the floor will not be used in any manner other than that in which he intended, and we have recived no sliggestion from the committee indicating a change in this prac. tice The policy has been uniformly ap- plied. In having requested a reprint of a debate in 1ts entircty I could only con- clude that every Senator engaging in the debate sought only to oppose or sup- port the motion to which he addressed himself. I had no desire to take any comments out of the context. This means that no participating Senator could possibly be embarrassed by having anyone else read what he said during the debate. There heing no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Frnruary 1, 1950. Hon Harry P. Cain, United States Senate, Washington D, C. My Dear Senator: I huve your letter of January 31, requesting citation of authority for requiring writter permission of the sev- eral Senators who participated in debate of H, R 3905 before honoring your order for reprints of the same. A search of our files discloses no record of a written authority for this procedure, which has been in effect for 25 years. It is presumed there was at one time a ruling or order of the Joint Committee on Printing which covered the matter. As was explained to you yesterday, the purpose of the custom 1s to assure each indi- vidual Member that the remarks he makes on the floor will not be used in any manner other than that in which he intended, and we have teceived no suggestion from the committee indicating a change tn this practice. This policy has been uniformly applied. As the custom whs established by the Joint Committee on Printing, and as the Government Printing Office conforms to the polictes and directives of the committee 2489 with respect to all congressional printing, any change in procedure must have come mittee approval. With assurance of high esteem, Respectfuly, Joun J. DEvINy, Publie Printer. Mr. CAIN. Senators will be inter- ested probably in Mr. Deviny’s letter ad- mission that no written authority ap- pears to exist for the policy procedure which is being uniformly applied by the Government Printer. On February 2, 1950, the chairman of the Joint Committee on Printing, the Senator from Arizona |Mr. Haypen], entered the picture for the first time and conferred with me about my problem. He said that the so-called precedent had been established, so far as he knew, to keep one Senator from embarrassing an- other Senator. He said that there was nothing in writing about the question and that he did not know how long ago it was when the precedent had been laid down by the Joint Committee on Printing. He only knew that it had been a long time ago. When I told the Sen- ator from Arizona that all I wanted was the reprint of a debate in full he readily understood that I sought to embarrass no one He suggested that perhaps I would like to attend the next meeting to be held by the Joint Committee on Print- ing for the purpose of discussing the situation. I told him that I would appre- ciate such an opportunity and that I hoped it would soon be forthcoming be- cause the question of excise taxes was important to people in my State and elsewhere and I wanted them to read the reprints which had thus far been denied to me. Shortly after our conversation I wrote to the Senator from Arizona to acknowledge it and I ask unanimous con- sent that a copy of this Ietter be made a part of my remarks, There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Fesruary 8, 1950. Hon Cari HAYpdEN, Chairman, Joint Committee on Print- tng, Senate Office Building, Washe ington, D C. Dear SENATOR HayvEN: I wish to acknowl- edge the conversation which we had dur-« ing Wednesday afternoon of this week. During our visit you gave me a copy of & letter which the Public Printer had written to Senator KNOWLAND under date of August 13, 1946. This letter advised Senator KNow- LAND that reprints from the CONGRESSIONAL RecorpD are permitted only upon getting ap- proval of Senators who interpose statements or questions. The Public Printer said that this position had long been the policy of the Joint Committee on Printing and the Public Printer. I suggested to you that in my considered view the so-called restrictive precedent docs not and could not cover the request I re- cently made for reprints of a public debate which took plece in the Senate on Wednes- day, January 18. You very frankly said thot you knew ttle of the precedent referred to and even Icss concerning where it came from or by whom {it was established and agreed to. You were kind enough to suggest that I attend the next meeting of the Joint Com- mittee on Printing. I want to accept your invitation and I trust toat the meeting is to
4 2490 be held in the near future. I continue to desire to have the requested reprints of the Cebate and I fecl satisfied that I am en- titled to have my order filled by the Public Printer I have no desire to embarrass any- one and I shall discuss the problem with your committee before considering the mat- ter further. With kind personal regards, I am, Most cordially, Harry P. Carr. Mr. CAIN. Mr. President, during my talk with the Senator from Arizona he gave me a copy of a letter which had been written by the Public Printer to the Sen- ator from California [Mr. KNow.anp] under date of August 13, 1846. It ap- pears that the Senator from California had been refused certain reprints sev- cral years ago, and that he had received e@ letter from the Public Printer, and “that was that.” He assumed the Public Printer knew not only what he was talk- ing about but that he had sufficient au- thority to enforce what he said. I should hike to read the letter written to the Sen- ator from California, because it goes back about 2 years, and it will further grouse our curiosity. The salutation is, “My Dear Senator,” referring to the Sen- ator from California, and the letter is signed by the Public Printer. It reads as follows: AucusT 13, 1946. Hon. Wiir1am F,. KNOWLAND, United States Senator, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. My Dear SENATOR’ Your letter of July 30, addressed to Mr. Ralph L. Harris, in which you ask to be advised of the particular policy or rule under which reprints from the Con- GRESSIONAL Rscorp are permitted only upon getting approval of Senators who interpose statements or questions, has been referred to me for consideration. In reply, I am pleased to advise that, since the CONGRESSIONAL Recorp is a public docu- ment, it is not copyrighted, and mattcr ap- pearing in the Recorp may be reprinted by outside sources without obtaining a clearance from anyone. As to reprints by the Govern- ment Printing Office, it has long been the policy of the Joint Committee on Printing and this Office to ask for the approval of the Member whose remarks are to be reprinted before reprinting and distributing the same. This ts purely for the protection of each individual Member— I should like to say, in parentheses, that I have never known the day in the Senate of the United States when every one of its Members was not thoroughly qualified to protect and take care of him- self. But the Public Printer wishes to rive us protection as individuals, to which we are not entitled and which most of us do not want. I read further from the letter: This is purely for the protection of each individual Member, as it not only protects the Members whose remarks are to be re- printed, but it also protects the Member who would order and distribute the same against charges of abuse of the franking privilege, unauthorized use of Federal funds, and so forth. The policy has been uniformly applied, and I cannot recall a single instance where a Member, when approached, has refused to give his colleague permission to have his re- marks in the Rxscorp reprinted. I trust this gives you the information you Q@esire. If I may be of other service to you CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE in this or any other matter, please do not hesitate to call on me. Respectfully. Mr. MALONE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. CAIN. Certainly. Mr, MALONE. That injects another proposition, namely, whether a Senator is to be the Judge of whether he is using his franking privilege properly. Mr. CAIN. I think I have an answer to that question. Mr. MALONE. It seems to me it is go- ing rather far afield to .nject the ques- tion of whether the franking privilege is being properly used. Mr. CAIN. The Public Printer con- siders himself and his organization to be an operating unit having no control whatsoever over matters of policy, the best example of which is what I have already used, that I send a letter in writ- ing to the Public Printer and, having reason to confer with the staff director of the Joint Committee on Printing, a little later, I find that the director of that staff is thoroughly aware of every- thing I wrote in a letter to the Public Printer. I asked him the reason why, and his answer was: That is very simple. The Joint Committee on Printing is our board of directors. We do not wiggle unless we refer all matters in- volving trouble to them. That situation has changed somewhat since 1946, when the Public Printer wrote to a distinguished Member of this body, the junior Senator from California [Mr. KNOWLAND], and in his Ictter of August 13, 1946, said: As to reprints by the Government Printing Office, 1t has long been the policy of the Joint Committee on Printing and this Office to ask for the approval of the Member whoso re- marks are to be reprinted before reprinting and distributing the same. He has, in the intervening 3 years, cut out from his letter the phrase “this Office,” because of his determination to handle matters of routine and pieces of machinery, but not matters concerning Policy. Mr. President, I would invite the at- tention of Senators to a paragraph in the Knowland letter in which the Public Printer said that he could not recall a single instance of a Member, when ap- proached, refusing to give his colleagues permission to have his remarks in the Recorp reprinted. If Members gave their written permission without excep- tion, that would be one thing, and no one would have a right to complain, be- cause what we would be doing then would be merely saying to another Member of the Senate, “It is my intention to have reprints made of the colloquy in which you participated.” When any Member, however, for reasons of his own, refuses to give such permission, in the case I have presented to the Senate this after- noon, that is quite another thing, a thing to which I have been addressing myself for some time. Mr. President, on Tuesday, February 4, I happened to be acting as the Presid- ing Officer of the Senate. Time is march- ing on. We began on the 18th day of FEBRUARY 28 January, and now I refer to the 7th day of February. Iam still looking for those reprints. The Senator from Arizona (Mr. Haypew], in his capacity of chair- man of the Joint Committee on Printing, came to me while I was in the chair to say that he had suggested to the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Lucas] that I be given permission to order the reprints. I thanked the Senator from Arizona for his efforts on my behalf. I onty said I thought it was a reasonable request for him to make of the Senator from Illi- nois. By this time, quite obviously and naturally I was tremendously interested in what was going to happen before this case came to its logical conclusion. I continued to feel that I was on extremely sound ground in my opinion that the CONGRESSIONAL ReEconp is a public docu- ment and must be made available to all of us for any reasonable purpose, or per- haps even for an unreasonable purpose which we as individuals and as Membe:s of the Senate of the United States, have in mind. Two weeks went by. Then, on Mon- day, February 20, the Senator from Ari- zona again came to me and told me on the floor of the Senate that the Senator from Illinois had reconsidered, that the Senator from Arizona had advised the Senator from Illinois that what the Sen- ator from Illinois had said had been worth saying and ought to be read by a large public, everywhere. As a result of that conversation, supported and con- firmed this afternoon by the distin- guished majority leader, he, the Senator from Illinois [Mr. Lucas], agreed that the junior Senator from Washington might have the reprints for which that Senator first placed an order on Tuesday, January 24. I again thanked the Senator from Ari- zona for his interest and concern, and I appreciated the action which the Sen- ator from Illinois took in the matter. On Friday, February 24, my office re- ceived for my signature the order blank for 2,000 reprints of the excise-tax de- bate which I had submitted a month pre- viously. I instructed the office to re- turn the signed order blank to Mr. Har- ris, the Congressional Record clerk, and to advise me when the reprints had ac- tually been received. Those reprints were delivered to my office this morning and have already been mailed, or, at least, they are on their way to interested persons in the State of Washington. I likewise enclosed a covering note, in- dicating briefly why the debate carries the date of January 18 or 19 and the envelope carries the date of the last day of February. I think that citizens, cer- tainly in my State, and elsewhere, are entitled to know what obstructions there happen to be to progress and to the car- rying on of the public business. Mr. President, I hold in my hand the original letter which Mrs. Walker proc- essed for me to the several Senators who engaged in the excise-tax debate. This letter contains the signatures of all the Senators, except the Senator from Illi- nois [Mr. Lucas!, who were parties to the colloauy. As I have stated, the Sen- ator from Ilinois finally agreed I was
1950 entitled to the reprints, and I have them, but the majority leader has not signed this letter as I had been told he must before I could get the reprints of a public debate, What the junior Senator from Wash- ington has accomplished—and I want to restate it without prejudice to any in- dividual—in having secured reprints of the excise-tax debate without the written permission of a Senator participating in that debate can be accomplished and done by any other Member of the Sen- ate, or, from my point of view, by any other Member of the Congress of the United States. If there has been, as is the case, a precedent for 25 years, that preccdent has been broken and shattered into a thousand pieces, because one Sen- ator in testing this question has been able to get, without the written permis- sion of one of his colleagues, a reprint of a public debate to which, in his con- sidered opinion, he was entitled from the beginning. What I have accomplished, in having secured reprints of the excise-tax debate without the written permission of a Senator participating in that debate, can be accomplished and done by any other Member of the Senate, or of the House of Representatives. I think that any Membcr ought to be entitled to have re- prints made of any colloquy which takes place in the Congress without being re- quired to sccure written permission from anyone. I believe also that 1f a precedent is to be established concerning the use of the CONGRESSIONAL Recorp it must be established by the Senate or by the House of Representatives, or by both, rather than by a committce of either or both Houses, however well directed and led the respective committees may be. Mr. President, in all seriousness, I re- gret that I have consumed precious time this afternoon in an effort to establish a reasonable and logical precedent con- cerning the CONGRESSIONAL REcorD for the future. Unless the Senate thinks it proper to resolve othcrwise, I will take it to be a fact that the CONGRESSIONAL Recorp is a public document, and that any Member of the Senate is entitled to have reprints made trom it on his order to the Congressional Record clerk, and without needing the written permission of any other Mcmber of this body. Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. CAIN. I am very glad to yield. Mr. MORSE. I beheve the Senator from Washington has performed a very worth-while service to the Senate by rais- ing for discussion the points he has brought out. I should like to ask him a question which I asked myself as I sat here listening to the Senator. What should be the common-sense rule for handling the problem? I ask that ques- tion because I agree with the distin- guished majority leader and the Sena- tory from Arizona, if I correctly under- stood their remarks, that adequate op- portunity should be given to a Senator to correct errors in any statement which he may make on the floor of the Senate. Therefore, I ask the Senator from Wash- ington if he belicves it might be merely CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE ordinary common sense for us to edopt a rule to the effect that any debate on the floor of the Senate should be sub- Ject to reprint on the order of any Sena- tor who wishes to have it reprinted, pro- vided notification of the intention to do so is given by him to other Senators in- volved in any colloquy occurring during the course of the debate, and that after, say, 48 hours or, possibly, 72 hours, have elapsed, giving opportunity to make cor- rections in the Recorp, a Senator shall be free to proceed to order reprints? Would that not be the common-sense solution of the problem? If we wish to correct the Recorp, the place to correct it is on the floor of the Senate, by asking permission to make a correction. I believe the practice which has grown up is to make correc- tions in the office of the official reporters. I do not believe that is a good practice. I believe the corrections ought to be made in open court, as we say in the legal profession. If there is an error in the Recorp, it ought to be corrected on the floor of the Senate. I believe that after notification to a colleague that a Senator intends to reprint a debate, so long as it is a Senator's intention to re- print the full debate, and not to take remarks out of context, I believe a Sen- ator should be free to have the reprint made after a lapse of 48 hours or 72 hours. It would seem to me that that jis all the time a Senator would need to make any official correction he was entitled to make. I agree with the Senator from Wash- ington that the problem should be solved by a rule of the Senate, and not by any committee of the Senate, because I think we are dealing with the rather important right of a Senator to reprint portions of the official REcorp of the Senate. Mr. CAIN. Tomy mind, what the Sen- ator from Oregon has just stated de- serves to be read and pondered by all Senators. Fortunately, to my way of thinking, we are not faced with very much of a problem. I hold at least a large majority of my colleagues in very high regard. I consider them to be dis- tinguished gentlemen. A _ gentleman, among other virtues, possesses courtesy, and the intention to exchange fair play with his colleagues. I know of very few Senators—and I would rather say I know of not a single Senator—who premeditatedly, through the use of the Recorp, would try to em- barrass a colleague by taking comments out of context. Therefore, it seems to me that what we need in the Senate is the approval of a resolution, or the adop- tion of a rule, which would act as a re- minder to each Senator, that before he uses the words of another Senator he ought to lean backward in order to be certain that the other Senator has had a chance to make any corrections he wishes to make in the Recorp. Beyond that no Senator has a right to object to any other American’s reading what he said on the floor of the Senate, and what he meant when he said it. I should like to join with the Senator from Oregon [Mr. MorsE], the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Humpurey], the 2491 Senator from Connecticut [Mr. McMa- Hon], and the Senator from Nevada LMr. Matone], who are on the floor at the moment, devising a rule not for any en- forcement procedures but to remind us, as we need to be reminded occasionally, that every Senator has certain rights, and that what we seek to establish is the fact that the public document we call the CONGRESSIONAL REcorD, to which we ad- dress ourselves almost every day in the year, belongs not to us alone, once we have said something, but to our col- leagues and to the American Nation to use as it will. Mr. MALONE. Mr. President—— Myr. CAIN. Mr. President, I shall pladly yield, but I ask the Senator from Nevada to permit me to conclude with the last paragraph of my statement, because what I say is with particular friendli- ness to the Senator from Arizona [Mr. HaybDEN] and the Senator from Illinois [Mr, Lucas], with whom I have ex- changed remarks this afternoon. I certainly do not begrudge the time I have employed as an individual Senator in securing reprints during the past month of the excise-tax debate. In the future all Senators ought to have their orders for reprints filled without hesita- tion, or delay, or argument. They are entitled to the service. I am not an- noycd by the time it took for the Senator from Illinois to change his mind. I am not unhappy over the unwillingness of given individuals to express themselves in writing during the last month. I can understand how difficult it was for them to talk about something concerning which they knew so little. These ob- structions and obstacles had to be met in order that a free use of a public docu-~ ment, the CONGRESSIONAL REcorD, might be enjoyed by every Senator and, I hope, every Member of the House of Repre- sentatives. I think the time has been well spent, and I am cheerfully satisfied with the result. Mr. MALONE. Mr. Presidcnt, will the Senator now yield? Mr. CAIN. Certainly. Mr. MALONE, It seems to me that the junior Senator from Washington has done the Senate of the United States a service this afternoon. There certainly should be no restraint on the use of a public document, regardless of whether it is the CoNnGrressroNaL REcorp or some other public document. It seems to me that the Public Printer and others who have established the precedent which has been discussed, at least have given their reasons with mixed feelings, say- ing that it might embarrass a Senator, but none of them gave the reason which we consider important, that the Senators participating might not have had oppor- tunity to correct their remarks. I did not catch that reason as being among the ones given. Mr. CAIN. No; they have never, in fact, given that reason. The statement they have made is that unless there is written permission, which in itself has nothing to do with a Senator’s oppor- tunity to correct his remarks, another Senator shall not be authorized to use what is said in a colloquy,
2492 Mr. MALONE. Then, the statement of the distinguished funior Senator from Oregon and the distinguished junior Senator from Washington give now, which fs a very reasonable one and should be taken for granted, is grounded on the kind of men who are supposed to be Members of this body, and the assump- tion that they would give such permission in any case, without any rule. If a large amount of debate is to be reprinted, it would be only the courteous thing to say to one of the participants in the debate, “Have you made your corrections for the permanent Recorp?” Mr. CAIN. I believe we are in com- plete agreement. The rule would be only a reminder. Mr.MALONE. The two reasons which the Senators gave for the rule would, in the judgment of the junior Senator from Nevada, have no weight whatever, be- cause the question whether a Senator would abuse the franking privilege is something entirely apart from the use of Janguage in the ConaressionaL REcorpD. That is something of which we are the sole judges at the moment, and if we do abuse the franking privilege, there is another remedy entirely apart from the Public Printer. The second point is, if the junior Sen- ator from Washington will permit me—— Mr. CAIN. I am glad to yield. Mr. MALONE. The second point is the fact that those in authority would not use the printing machinery of the Gov- ernment for making public something which some other Senator had said, with- out his permission, and that ts another thing far removed, because the rate for printing accorded a Senator is, like the franking privilege, a matter entirely separate from the question whether or not the language in the Recorp is to be used. In other words, it seems that over the past 25 years probably the objectives and the reasons given have been con- fused. I should like to say another thing. The value of a reprint often depends on the time element. In other words, something is said today that may be im- portant to the constituents of the senior Senator from Oregon, or the junior Sen- ator from Washington, or the junior Senator from Nevada, but after a week or two it may have no value whatever. Mr. CAIN. Fortunately, I should add, with reference to the excise tax ques- tion, people throughout the country con- tinue to be as much interested in it as they were on January 19, when the sub- ject was debated. That happens to be a fortunate circumstance. I had to wait & month to bring the people up to date. That, however, is not important. In concluding my part of the colloquy this afternoon I should like to say that I have had a real sympathy for both the Public Printer and the Joint Committee on Printing, and that sympathy has arisen from the fact that there was nothing in front of them. They did not actually know what the rule was or what the precedent was. In their anx- fety to observe a precedent with the na- ture of which they were not familiar, they became literalists. Well, it is im- possible to be a literalist respecting an CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE uncertainty. That is all there was to the matter in the first place. As the Senator from Illinois was among the first to say, in having had this matter drawn to his attention, I think we ought to do something about it. The prece- dent has already been broken, so our chief concern is to agree, for example, with the acting minority leader, the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Morss] and the acting majority leader, the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. MYERS], as to what sort of a rule would best serve the purpose of the Senate, on the assump- tion that none of us want unfairly to take advantage of any single one of our colleagues. Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. CAIN. I yield. Mr. MORSE. I agree with the Sen- ator from Nevada that a rule should not be needed, but I wonder, however, if we are not exactly in the same position we were in before the case of the Senator from Washington arose. Let us suppose this hypothetical. Suppose that the Senator should proceed tomorrow to ask the Public Printer to reprint another speech in which there occurred a col- loquy with another Senator. In that event does not the Senator from Nevada think the Senator from Washington would obtain the same decision from the Public Printer, namely, that the Sen- ator from Washington would have to secure for him a letter from the Senator who took part in the colloquy, before the matter would be reprinted? Then there would occur another interval of time be- fore the Senator from Washington could obtain the reprint he requested. Al- though the Senator from Washington has broken the precedent in this particu- lar case, unless I miss my guess he is going to obtain the same sort of response from the Public Printer in the future that he received in the instance which is being discussed this afternoon. Mr. CAIN. I would not be guilty of differing with my friend the Senator from Oregon, but I feel that is not so, because the way in which the problem has been presented to reasonable men has, I think, convinced them that the so-called precedent was never estab- lished in the first place; that it could not have been established for the pur- pose of keeping any Senator from secur- ing reprints of any argument, particu- larly in its entirety. ‘The reason why the Junior Senator from Washington finally obtained the reprints he desired was that both the Senator from Wlinois (Mr. Lucas], who was a participant in the de- bate, agreed with the Senator from Ari- zona [Mr. Hayprw], and, by indirection with me, that it was not even proper or necessary for him to give his written permission to do something which in the first place was my right as a Senator. Then the distinguished chairman of the Joint Committee on Printing apparently either picked up the telephone or went to see the Public Printer, and said, “The Senator is entitled to his 2,000 reprints with or without any other Senator's writ- ten permission.” Mr. MALONE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr, CAIN, Certainly, sir. FEBRUARY 28 Mr. MALONE. The interest of the Junior Senator from Nevada in this mat- ter is not entirely academic, because he has received word from the Public Printer on two or three occasions that apparently he himself has gained the necessary consent. The junior Senator from Nevada has never written any Sen- ator, but has never had any trouble about reprints. However, I can see that I might have such trouble. Mr. CAIN. Will my friend from Ne- vada permit me to suggest that, being a reasonably selfish man, I brought from that selfish point of view my own indi- vidual trouble and problem onto the floor of the Senate in high hope, not that every other Senator would be interested in my particular problem, but that he could so readily see once it had been advanced to him that similar trouble might also involve him, and that, there- fore, the sooner we come to grips with the situation and improve it, the better. Mr. MALONE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further? Mr. CAIN. Certainly I yield. Mr. MALONE. It seems to the junior Senator from Nevada that no rule is needed. We still have on the floor of the Senate the rule of courtesy to our fellow Members. The precedent has been broken. The subject has been thor- oughly debated and the fact thor- oughly established that there is in reality no precedent. Therefore, why do we now need any rule? Mr. CAIN. The answer to the Sena- tor’s question is that there is no longer a need for a rule because the precedent has been broken. But the Senate of the United States on reflection might want & rule, as encouraging a more consid- ered and courteous treatment of our colleagues. Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. CAIN. I yield. Mr. MORSE. I respectfully suggest to both my friends from Washington and Nevada that the test of their position is going to be made when the hypothetical js raised; when the Senator from Wash- ington, for example, seeks to reprint a speech he made on the floor of the Sen- ate, including a colloquy with another Senator, and the other Senator objects. Then what does the Senator think is go- ing to be the decision of the Public Printer? I believe it is necessary to have a rule such as the one I suggested, that a Senator shall be given the privilege of making corrections within 48 or 72 hours after the request has been made, and if he does not make the corrections, or if there are no corrections to be made, then automatically, after that period has elapsed, the Senator from Washington will be free to proceed and have the re- prints made at the Government Printing Office. Mr. CAIN. I should like to suggest that there are two promising factors present this afternoon. The first, and a highly practical one, is that I have been told, though the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Haypen] has not said so to me per- sonally, that the Joint Committee on Printing, having given this matter some considered thought, recognizing the mer- lis of the case of the junior Senator from
1950 Washington, are about to agree, if in fact they have not already agreed, to commit to writing a rule which contains the pro- vision that any Senator desiring an argu- ment in its entirety need ask permission of no one else. My thought, after listen- ing to the Senator from Oregon, whose legal points of view I deeply respect, is that we ought to determine soon what action has actually been taken by the Joint Committee on Printing. It ought to come before us for a little discussion, for improvement by way of change or amendment, if that is required, or to be agreed to. Then we shall have finally closed this chapter to the satisfaction of everyone. Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. CAIN. I yield. Mr. MORSE. What the Senator now says is the case so far as the Joint Com- mittee on Printing is concerned. I think that will solve the problem. But there was nothing in the remarks of the Sen- ator from Arizona made this afternoon to indicate that the committee had reached the conclusion the Senator from Washington now says they have reached. To the contrary, the Senator from Ari- zona left me with the impression that the Joint Committee on Printing was standing by the advice it had given the Senator from Washington in the first in- stance, namely, that consent of the other Senator or other Senators con- cerned was necessary. Mr. CAIN. That is why I thought it proper to call my understanding to the attention of the Senator from Oregon. Mr.MALONE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. CAIN. I am pleased to yield. Mr. MALONE. The junior Senator from Nevada only wishes to add that, ac- cording to the well-documented evi- dence presented by the junior Senator from Washington this afternoon, it is not up to the Joint Committee on Print- ing to determine anything about this business——. Mr. CAIN. I think that its well established. Mr. MALONE. Unless they change the rule with respect to the right of a Senator to order reprints at all. In other words, if the Senate sees fit to pre- vent any Senator from ordering reprints from the Government Printing Office, or modifying the procedure which now ex- ists, that would be one thing. But how can the Joint Committee on Printing or the Public Printer change the law with- out some measure being passed by Con- gress? So far as meeting with opposi- tion is concerned, I am of the opinion that the Senator will meet with no fur- ther opposition. If he does, the Sen- ator can bring the question to the floor, and it would not be very long before some different arrangement would be made. Mr. CAIN. It seems quite clear and logical to me that the interest Senators have shown in the problem this after- noon will in a reasonable way be shared by other Senators. Therefore, having provoked the interest in a problem that concerns ourselves, I take it to be a good XCVI——157 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE solid fact that we shall have reached a satisfactory solution very soon. NOTICE OF ADDRESS BY SENATOR Mc- MAHON ON THE SUBJECT OF PEACE Mr. McMAHON. Mr. President, I give notice that I shall address the Sen- ate tomorrow, as soon as I can be recog- nized, on the subject of peace, and what policy we should now pursue in securing it. Ido not now ask unanimous consent to be recognized tomorrow, because I do not believe that practice to be a good one. But I give notice that I shall seek recognition as soon after the Senate con- venes tomorrow as is possible. DAVID DEMAREST LLOYD Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I have recently noticed reports in the press concerning David D. Lloyd, employed at the White House on the President’s staff. Mr. Lloyd is an associate and an assiSt- ant to Mr. Murphy, who recently took the place of Mr. Clifford on the White House staff. Without trying to burden the Senate with too long a discussion of the subject at this moment, I do, how- ever, want to cite a few facts concerning Mr. Lloyd and what I consider to be some of the dangers which are involved in the hit-and-miss policy of accusation, char- acter assassination, and attack upon some of the people in our Government. I am not in a position to know whether or not the charges that have been brought to the attention of the people of the United States, and particularly to the attention of the Senate, by th» junior Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Mc- CartHy], are capable of being substanti- ated. I am not here either to protest or to affirm the accusations which have been made in reference to the other cases, which I believe have been substantially whittled down from the number stated in the original accusation. It so happens that Mr. Lloyd, out of his respect for the President of the United States and for the Government of the United States, stated that he was “case number nine,” that case number having been brought to the attention of the Senate by the Senator from Wiscon- sin. It also happens that Mr. Lloyd, in revealing that he was case number nine, revealed the facts which pertain to his case. I think it is important that those facts be known by those of us who are on the floor of the Senate, and also be incorporated in the REcorp. The case of Mr. Lloyd is one that is characteristic of what I call promiscuous hunting without facts and without ade- quate evidence. Mr. Lloyd’s case was first brought to the attention of a House committee in 1947. Subsequently, Mr. President, the now Deputy Under Sec- retary of the State Department, Mr. Peurifoy, sent a personal apology to Mr. Lloyd. The substance of that personal apology was reported by Mr. Peter Ed- son, in his column of February 22, in which he said that Mr. Peurifoy, now Deputy Under Secretary of State in charge of Administration and Security, included in his apology an admission that there were no questions of security or of security risk in connection with Mr. Lloyd’s case; likewise, Mr. Peurifoy in- 2493 cluded an explanation that Mr. Lloyd’s file should not have been sent to the House Appropriations Committee. His file was not classified as a security risk. In other words, Mr. President, here is & young man, a man in his thirties, who is married, who is a good citizen, who has a family, who is a member of the Epis- copal Church, who comes from a good family, whose mother and father are fine people; and yet this young man is suffering today by reason of an attack upon his character and his loyalty. I would think myself remiss as a friend of his, as one who has been associated with him in political work, at least during the time when I was active as one of the vice chairmen of the Americans For Democratic Action, if I did not rise at this time to say that Mr. Lloyd's loyalty should be beyond question and is beyond question. He is an avowed anti-Com- munist. He is a pro-democrat with a small “d”, and, also, I trust, with a big “D.” I believe him to be a good Chris- tian. I believe him to be a good parent. I believe him to be a loyal Government servant. Mr. President, so there can be no doubt as to my personal position on the matter of loyalty, I wish to quote the remarks of the distinguished junior Senator from New York, a former Governor of New York, the Honorable Hersert LEHMAN, who now is presiding over the Senate. His remarks express my feeling and my thoughts on the subject of loyalty. I quote now from an address delivered by the junior Senator from New York: Certainly the Government has a right to expect and demand that persons holding what are defined as sensitive positions be fully loyal to the Government, to its philos- ophy and its principles. Any person holding views inconsistent with our present form of Government, our own philosophy of Gov- ernment, seems to me to be obviously dis- qualified for any position with access to policy information or confidential restricted information. This would certainly apply to Communists or fellow travelers, but it also should apply with equal strength to Fas- cists and to believers in racial superiority and other equally un-American concepts. I think that anti-Negroism, anti-Semitism, anti-Catholicism and  anti-Protestantism should be as positive grounds for disqualify- ing individuals for sensitive Federal Govern- ment positions as membership in the Com- munist Party. Mr. President, I concur in that philoso- phy. I think Senator Lenman has pre- sented a masterful statement on the question of loyalty. Senator LeHman has proven himself to be a devoted public servant and a devoted Democrat, in the best meaning of the word. Mr. President, I ask that at the con- clusion of my remarks there be printed in the Recorp an article by Edward T. Folliard, Post reporter, which appears in today's Washington Post. The article is entitled “McCartHy’s Case 9 Just 1947 Probe Slip.’”” I wish to have the article incorporated in the body of the Recorp, as part of my remarks, as further dem- onstration of the loyalty of Mr. Lloyd and also of the background material which pertains to this particular case.
2494 There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the REcorp, as follows: McCartTuyr’s CasE 9 Just 1947 PRoBE SLIP (By Edward T. Folliard) David Demarest Lloyd, who works for the White House, was glad yesterday that the whole story was out, and that there was no longer any mystery about Case No, 9. He felt that his own experience might possibly show the danger of having Govern- ment departments turn over secret loyalty files to Congress. Senator McCartHy (Republican, Wiscon- sin) didn’t mention Lloyd by name, but he had him in mind last week when he charged that Communist Party workers were em- ployed by the State Department, and that a speech writer in the White House had failed to get clearance from a loyalty board when he sought a job in the Department in 1946. CHARGES DAILY WORKER LINK Senator McCarruy said that Case No. 9 (Lloyd) and his wife were members of Com- munist-front organizations. He said that a relative * * * hasa financial interest in the Daily Worker. After charging that No. 9 wa. not given clearance by the State Depart- ment, the Wisconsin lawmaker said he got a job in the office of the Secretary of Defense. “And where do Senators think that man is today?’’ McCarTHy asked. “He is now a speech writer in the White House. That is Case No. 9.” Lloyd had no doubt that McCartHy meant him when he read the speech. After con- sulting White House Press Secretary Charles G. Ross, he told his story, first, to Peter Edson of the Newspaper Enterprise Associa- tion, who had sought an interview. Yester- day he talked to other reporters. This is his story. He was born in New York City 38 years ago. He is married to the former Charlotte Tuttle, daughter of Charles Tuttle, a Republican, who was appointed United States attorney for the southern district of New York by former President Hoover. He and Mrs. Lloyd have two children, live at 2501 Ridge Road Drive, Alexandria, Va., and attend the Em- manuel Church on the Hill (Episcopal). Lloyd’s parents were Democrats, but many of his relatives are Republicans. The rela- tive mentioned by McCartHy as one with 8 financial interest in the Daily Worker was & well-to-do great-aunt, Mrs. Caroline Lloyd Strobell. AUNT BECAME COMMUNIST A one-time Socialist, Mrs. Strobell became an avowed member of the Communist Party. Louts F. Budenz, who resigned as managing editor of the Daily Worker in 1945 and re- turned to the Catholic Church, told about her in his book This Is My Story. Mrs. Strobell, according to Budenz, was one of three women who became owners of the Daily Worker after it was ostensibly divorced from the Communist Party. Of these three women, Budenz sald: “They were classical examples of nice people who were used to conceal undercover skulduggery against the Natlon—a conspiracy of which they were totally unaware.” Mrs. Strobell died in 1941, and Lloyd re- calls that the family used to say that Stalin Killed her. He has reference to the shock she got when Stalin entered into a friend- ship pact with Hitler. Lloyd was graduated from Harvard in 1931 and Harvard law school in 1935. An ad- mirer of the Roosevelt New Deal, he entered Government service through the Resettle- ment Administration of the Department of Agriculture, About this time, he joined the Washington Cooperative Bookshop, which offered books at a discount. He got out when he dis- coverca it was a Communist-front outfit. He CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE also joined the National Lawyers Guild, along with Robert Jackson, later to be a Supreme Court Justice, and other New Deal lawyers. He quit this, too, when he decided it was too far to the left. HORRIFIED BY SPEECH In 1945, Lloyd went to Europe with the Harriman economic mission. Over there, he says, it became clear to him that commu- nism was trying to block European recovery. On his way back in 1946, aboard the steam- ship Washington, he read in the ship’s news an account of Henry Wallace’s famous speech in Madison Square Garden, a be-nice-to- Russia speech which cost Wallace his job in the Truman Cabinet. Lloyd says he was horrified by the speech. Back in Washington, Lloyd talked with other New Dealers who felt the time had come to draw a line between themselves and the Wallaceites. Out of this sentiment came Americans for Democratic Action. Lloyd helped draft its constitution, which has a plank forbidding membership to Communists. About this time Lloyd applied for a job in the State Department. While his applica- tion was pending he took a job with Ameri- cans for Democratic Action, serving as direc- tor of its research and legislation division. In 1947 Representative KaRL STEFAN (Re- publican, Nebraska) asked the State Depart- ment for an abstract of its files on employees and applicants for jobs, which were being studied by the House Appropriations Com- mittee. Lloyd’s file was sent to Sreran. It became part of the published hearings of the committee in 1948. RECOGNIZED CASE Lloyd recognized his case in the published report and protested to the State Department and to STeraN. John Peurifoy, now Deputy Under Secretary of State in charge of admin- istration and security, apologized. He told Lloyd that there was no question of his loy- alty and said his file should never have been sent to Capitol Hill. Representative Sreran assured Lloyd that his statement of protest would be filed with his record. Lloyd thought that was the end of it and continued to think so until Senator McCarrTuy, 2 years later, picked up the old Stefan file and publicized it as Case No. 9. In that 2-year interval Lloyd had quit his job with Americans for Democratic Action to do research work for the Democratic Na- tional Committee. This was in the summier of 1948. As the campaign progressed he be- gan working with Charles Murphy, then a White House administrative assistant, who was sending speech material to the Truman campaign special. After President Truman's victory at the polls Murphy asked Lloyd to join the White House staff. Lloyd was investigated by the FBI for a month or s0, was cleared, and began working for the White House in December 1948. For budgetary reasons he was placed on the pay roll of the Department of Defense. ASSISTANT TO MURPHY Hs is now a $10,305-a-year assistant to Murphy, who recently succeeded Clark Clif- ford as special counsel to the President. Like several other White House employees, he works on speeches, but his principal job is in the legislative field. In talking about case No. 9 last week, Sen- ator McCartny said he felt he was doing President Truman a favor by exposing his speech writer. “I do not think he knows it,” McCarty said. “I do not think he would have this in- dividual there writing speeches for him if he knew it.” The story at the White House is that Mr. Truman knows all about Lloyd. Last fall he invited him to Key West, where Lloyd turned out some pretty good water colors, FEBRUARY 28 Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. HUMPHREY. I yield. Mr. MORSE. Does the Senator from Minnesota agree with the junior Senator from Oregon that this particular case is a very good illustration of the importance of giving to the individuals concerned in the attacks upon their loyalty to the Government, full opportunity to be heard in a public hearing before the subcom- mittee which has been appointed to in- vestigate the charges? Mr. HUMPHREY. I certainly do. Mr. MORSE. And that such a hear- ing would give to Mr. Lloyd the oppor- tunity, to which I think he certainly is entitled if the facts are as I believe them to be—namely, that he is a very loyal person—to make his case, through the medium of that committee, before the American people? Mr. HUMPHREY. I certainly concur in the views just expressed by the Sen- ator from Oregon. Mr. President, these procedural rights should be guaranteed to every American citizen. I also wish to state for the Recorp that the loyalty of the Government employees is outstanding. When a group of em- ployees that is investigated by loyalty boards, under careful scrutiny and ob- servation, is found to have a record of 99.6 percent loyalty, certainly that is a very good record. I do not wish to be facetious; but, Ivory soap has been sold for years as being 99.44 percent pure, and as being as pure as any soap on the market. So I say that a group of em- ployees with a record of 99.6 percent purity certainly is an outstanding record of loyalty. Mr. President, it seems to me we must be extremely careful as to any charges against our fellow citizens. We should be extremely careful about making charges concerning those who are em- ployed in either the administrative or the legislative branches of Government. Today many a Government worker feels that he has been severely injured, in terms of his over-all reputation, by the constant charges made by many persons in the Government service. Govern- ment workers have been abused, all too often, by unwarranted insinuations as to their loyalty, their efficiency, and their integrity. Frankly, Mr. President, I submit to the Senate that, man for man, woman for woman, employee by employee, in terms of loyalty, the record of the public serv- ants, the persons who work for the United States Government, is as good or better than the record of those who work in private industry. In fact, those who work for our Government have again and again demonstrated their loyalty. Lest there be any misinterpretation of my remarks, let me say that if a man is a Communist, he should be dismissed, if a man is a Fascist, he should be dis- missed, for such a man does not believe in our philosophy of government. I be- lieve in the exposure of people who are proven to be Communists and in the prosecution of those who actively advo- cate acts of violence to overthrow the Government of the United States.
1950 But, Mr. President, just as I believe strongly in that position, I likewise be- leve in the procedural rights of every American citizen, no matter what his political faith; and I also believe in the right of every man to be considered in- nocent until he is proven guilty—the old Anglo-Saxon principle of law. It ap- pears to me that too often we assume the guilt of persons until they can prove themselves innocent. Mr. President, as one who likes to feel that the most precious possession a per- son has is his good name and his char- acter, I say there is a solemn obligation upon every Member of the Congress and upon everyone else in our Government to be extremely careful about the charges they may level against any of their as- sociates in the Government service, or against persons anywhere else, as to their political affiliations or as to any other aspects of their character. A man who steals another’s good name, has stolen the most priceless possession he has. In this instance I think a gentleman by the name of Mr. David Lloyd has been seriously injured. He has been made the subject of irresponsible charges. He has had his loyalty checked and cleared by the FBI, the State Department, and the Loyalty Board. I submit there is no Member of the Senate or no Member of the House of Representatives who can judge the loyalty of an employee of the Government as well as can the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Loyalty Boards, or those who are intimatcly as- sociated with the person in question. DECISION OF HONG KONG SUPREME COURT AWARDING CERTAIN CHINESE AIR LINES TO THE CHINESE REDS Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I have been somewhat concerned about a deci- sion which was rendered by the Hong Kong Supreme Court awarding two Chinese Nationalist air lines to the Chi- nese Reds. I am not in position to pass judgment on the legal soundness of the decision; but I wish to comment briefly on some of the implications and after- effects of the decision, after I request unanimous consent to have printed in the body of the Reconp, as a part of my remarks, certain clippings dealing with that decision of the Hong Kong court from the Washington News for Febru- ary 27 and February 28, and from the New York Herald Tribune for February 28. There being no objection, the articles were ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: (From the Washington Daily News of Feb- ruary 27, 1950] CHINESE REDS HUNT FOR UNITCD STATES PILOTS TO RUN $100,000,000 GIFT AIR LINE (By Clyde Farnsworth) Hona Kona, February 27.—Having acquired & ready-made air transport system, largely founded on the wartime bounty of American taxpayers, Red China 1s now shopping around for American know-how to help handle its $100,000,000 prize. That is what it would have cost the Ohi- nese Communists, by authoritative estimate, to amass the aviation assets to which they have now fallen heir—through bashfulness of the State Department and the good of- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE fices of the British in reallocating other peo- ple’s property. A reliable official source, who disapproves of last week’s decision of the Hong Kong Su- preme Court conferring two former National- ist air lines on the Chinese Reds, sald he be- Heved Communist talent scouts were trying here, in Bangkok, Rangoon, and possibly the United States to hire American air techni- clans. He supposed that British concerns in Hong Kong were preparing to handle Communist requirements for spare parts and fuel, and he wondered how this would fit into the pro- Posed #35,000,000 American ECA appropria- tion to Britain for aircraft parts. So far as he knew, Red agents thus far failed to sign any American pilots for the 71 planes Peiping won in the Hong Kong court. But he knew of three American tech- nicians, “and possibly three besides,” who had agreed to work for the Reds. He under- stood the Communists were offering attrac- tive salaries in foreign currencies, Apart from normal commercial airlifts in China proper, the Communists probably ex- pect to use the transport fleet for an air- borne invasion of Formosa Indicating the intensive Communist plan- ning, instructions were reported to have been sent here, 8 weeks before the supreme court decided the air-lines case, as to crating and shipping of spare parts and other equipment which the air lines’ turncoat employees were guarding. There seems to have becn no doubt among the Chinese Communists how the supreme court decision would rule on the efforts of Maj. Gen. Claire Chennault and Whiting Willauer, interim purchasers of the air lines’ assets, to have a receiver appointed pending a full-dress court trial for determination of title What the supreme court actually did was to rule that as of January 6, when Britain recognized the Peiping regime, agents of that government, actually the turncoat employees of the air lines, were in physical possession of the assots and the Red Government and the air-lincs assets therefore enjoyed sov- ereign immunity To Chief Justice Sir Leslie Bertram Gib- son it mattered not how the Reds came to be in possession of the planes Nor did it mate ter much that at the time of the air-line em- ployees’ desertion on November 10 and until January 6, the Chinese Nationalist Govern- ment was recognized by Britain. And during that time the assets had been sold and the planes registered under the United States Civil Aeronautics Authority. {From the Washington Daily News of February 28, 1950] PROTEST OVER PLANES LACKS REAL PUNCH (By Clyde Farnsworth) Hona Kona, February 28.—Whatever Sec- retary of State Dean Acheson may have said about the vigor of American conservations with the British over thetr gift of 71 Amer- ican-registered transport planes and other aviation assets to the Chinese Reds, the State Department has been pulling its punches The State Department has been using strong language but not strong enough to make the British back up on e deal that was cooking for 8 months as part of Britain's recognition of Red China. United States Consul General Karl Ran- kin has been going as far as his instructions permit in voicing official American disap- proval. But he said today there had been no actual protest over last week’s ruling of the Hong Kong Supreme Court. Representatives to Hong Kong haven't been elevated to the plane of formal notes. An official said the State Department had gone no further than to say that if a fair 2495 trial was not granted by the British to de- termine title to the air lines’ assets, the United States would view that shortcoming as an unfriendly act. {From the New York Herald Tribune of February 28, 1950] HONG KONG RULING TO STAND Lonpon, February 27.—The British Govern- ment cannot and will not interfere with a Hong Kong Supreme Court decision handing over 80 Chinese air-line planes to the Com- munist government of China, a Foreign Office spokesman said today. He confirmed that representations against the ruling have been made to Great Britain by the United States, which contends the planes passed into the hands of an American company through purchase. But, he added, the court ruling in the British colony is something over which the British Govern- ment has no control. Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, in re- gard to this problem my concern is over the point raised in one of the articles, which was written by a very able writer, Mr. Clyde Farnsworth, in which he points out the possibility that the Chi- nese Communist government will now seek to obtain parts for these airplanes from Great Britain, with the use of an earmarked sum of money, under the ju- risdiction of ECA for the purchase of airplane parts from the United States of America by the British Government. If Mr. Farnsworth jis correct in his analysis I think the implications are very serious; that is, I think it is a serious matter for the American taxpayers to be supplying funds to ECA for the benefit supposedly of Great Britain, and then for a part of those funds to be used for the payment of airplane parts in Amer- ica, to be transferred by Great Britain to the Chinese Communists in China. I am so much concerned about the matter of dealing with Communist gov- ernments that I have inserted this ma- terial in the Reconrp, only in the hope that at least it will cause someone in the State Department to take a “look-see,” so to speak, to determine whether there is a basis for the conclusions which Mr. Farnsworth has reached in his very ex- cellent article. If it be true that, as a result of the decision of the Hong Kong court, Great Britain will proceed to buy in the United States airplane parts with ECA funds, and then make those parts available to the Communist government of China, for this huge air force—which would have cost some $100,000,000, as Mr. Farnsworth in his article says, if they had had to go out and buy them—in order to put the air force into mechan- ical shape for the use of the Communist armies of China, then we, the Congress of the United States, had better go into the matter when we have the ECA re- quests before us. I make this statement as one with a record of support for the ECA program, and as one who intends to continue sup~ port of the ECA program, at least to the extent of providing such funds as can be shown to be needed for the economic rehabilitation of Europe, including Eng- land, but within the financial ability of the taxpayers of the Uniicd States to
2496 make the contributions. But, as a sup- porter of ECA, I wish the REcorpD to make perfectly clear this afternoon that I am not going to support any appro- priations for ECA to be used by Great Britain to build up the Communist air force of Communist China, and if that is what the plan is, then I think we had better have a pretty frank talk about ECA funds when the issue reaches the floor of the Senate. I give the State Department this advance notice this af- ternoon as to the position of the junior Senator from Oregon. Mr. President, while I am on my feet, L turn briefly to another subject prepara- tory to introducing an editorial into the REcoRD. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon has the floor. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD— POWERS OF GENERAL COUNSEL Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, it was gratifying to read in the press over the weekend that the National Labor Re- lations Board had revised the delegation agreement between the Board and the general counsel of the Board so as to make it clear, at least so far as the terms of the agreement are concerned, that the general counsel is to act as the agent of the Board in representing it in court. It is to be hoped that this step will to some extent diminish the area of conflict between the Board and the general counsel, although it is plain that the law under which they operate encourages the pursuit of divergent poli- cies in this bifurcated agency. In fact, this tendency of the Taft-Hartley Act became so apparent, after 2 years of operation, that last year when revision of the law was under consideration there was no disagreement in the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare on the proposition that the office of independent general counsel of the Board should be abolished. In fact, I think it is only fair and proper to point out that the distin- guished Senator from Ohio [Mr. Tart], himself one of the authors of the Taft- Hartley law, in the last session of the Eighty-first Congress, reported an amendment to the Taft-Hartley law which would have carried out the iden- tical principle for which the junior Sen- ator from Oregon fought in 1947, one of the principles that caused the junior Senator from Oregon to vote against the Taft-Hartley law, namely, the principle of the Taft-Hartlcy law which gives to the general counsel, in the wording of the law, the independent power to issue or not issue complaints in accordance with his own discretion. I recall that in the debate in 1947, on more than one occasion, the junior Senator from Ore- gon argued on the floor of the Senate that never, with his vote, would he give to any man in Government such an ar- bitrary and unchecked discretionary power as the Taft-Hartley law gives to the General Counsel of the National La- bor Relations Board when it comes to deciding to issue or not to issue com- plaints. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE In the debate in 1947 the junior Sen- ator from Oregon warned the Senate that if the power were granted to any in- dividual, I cared not who, trouble was in store. Our whole experience since the passage of the Taft-Hartley law has been that the general counsel under that law has done exactly what the junior Sena- tor from Oregon warned would be done if we ever made the mistake of giving to a@ mere man such sweeping, blanket, ar- bitrary power. At our hearings in the first session of the Eighty-first Congress, when some of us again raised the point that it was a mistake to have that section in the Taft- Hartley law, it was very gratifying to us to see that, although belatedly, the Sen- ator from Ohio had come to the same conclusion, namely, that the power ought to be checked. I say in great respect to the Senator from Ohio, that one of his fine characteristics is that, once he can be shown on the facts and by way of ex- perience that a mistake has been made, he does not hesitate to seek to rectify the mistake. In the last session of the Congress, the Senator from Ohio agreed, when we con- cluded our hearings, that it was a mis- take to give to the general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board such sweeping power as the Taft-Hartley law gives tohim. I wish he were present this afternoon, but I am sure that if I do not bespeak accurately his point of view, he will correct me in the Recorp at another date. I was greatly gratified to see the senior Senator from Ohio take the posi- tion in the Eighty-first Congress wh:ch the junior Senator from Oregon took in the Eightieth Congress when the Taft- Hartley debate was being waged in the Senate, that it was a mistake to give the general counsel the power the Tatft- Hartley law gives him. So, Mr. President, until the necessary legislative step is taken to check the power of the general counsel of the Na- tional Labor Relations Board, the exist- ing power will continue to be a handicap in what I think is a fair administration of the law. But I believe the Board is to be commended for its recent action in seeking to minimize, to the extent that it can within the wording of the present statute, the opportunity for and the area of disagreement on basic policy between itself and the general counsel. In this connection, I believe Senators will be interested in yesterday’s editorial in the Washington Post, entitled ‘“Insub- ordinate Counsel,” and I ask unanimous conscnt that it may appear in the Recorp as a part of my remarks. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: INSUBORDINATE COUNSEL The controversy between the National La- bor Relations Board and its general counsel, Robert N. Denham, is not merely a clash of personalities. The Board is obviously con- cerned about proper presentation of its point of view in labor cases that are being carried to the courts. It is Mr. Denham’'s duty to rep- resent the Board when its orders are chal- lenged, and he so far forgot that duty last month as to state in a public address that he FEBRUARY 28 thought the Board was wrong in several cases about to go to the courts. Indeed, he seemed to invite employers to take their cases against the NLRB to the courts where he will be the Board's defender. It is not surprise ing that this anomalous situation should bring from the Beard an order that Mr. Den- ham shall defend its actions “in full accord- ance with the directions of the Board.” To be sure, the general counsel is appointed by the President, and the Taft-Hartley Act gives him final authority in the investigation of charges of unfair labor practices and in the issuance of complaints. But the act also says that he “shall have such other duties as the Board may prescribe.” Apparently one of these is representation of the Board in court, Certainly, then, the NLRB has a right to tell Mr. Denham what kind of representation it wishes to have. Nor does there seem to be any question about the right of the Board to veto any important changes initiated by Mr. Denham in the offices of the regional direc- tors, for the power to appoint such officials is lodged directly in the Board. If the restrictions laid upon Mr. Denham have the appearance of a vote of no-con- fidence, it must be admitted that he asked for it in his unwarranted attack of January 12. Too often Mr. Denham has acted as if he were a detached agency having no obligation to cooperate with the NLRB in getting an important job done. He needs to be brought back into his proper orbit as “general coun- sel of the Board.” NLRB officials did not in- vent that term to belittle Mr. Denham in the process of a clash of personalities. They cop- ied it out of the Taft-Hartley Act. If Mr. Denham continues to conduct his office as if the Board were only a tail to his kite, Con- gress will have no alternative to spelling out his subordination to the Board when the T-H law is modified. EXECUTIVE SESSION Mr. MYERS. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of executive business. The motion was agreed to; and the Senate proceeded to the consideration of executive business. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. LEH- MAN in the chair). If there be no reports of committees, the clerk will state the nominations on the Calendar. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE The legislative clerk read the nomi- nation of Charles F. McLaughlin to be a United States district judge. Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I should like to ask the acting majority leader whether it is not true that this particular nomination comes to the floor of the Senate with the unanimous vote of the Judiciary Committee? Mr.MYERS. That is my understand- ing, I may say to the Senator from Oregon. Mr. MORSE. On the basis of that understanding, I have no objection. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the nomination is confirmed and without objection, the President will be notified immediately. RECESS Mr. MYERS. Mr. President, as in legislative session, I move that the Sen- ate stand in recess until noon tomorrow. The motion was agreed to; and (at 6 o'clock and 45 minutes p.m.) the Senate took a recess until tomorrow, Wednesday, March 1, 1950, at 12 o’clock meridian.
1950 NOMINATIONS Executive nominations received by the Senate February 28 (legislative day of February 22), 1950: War Claims COMMISSION Myron Wiener, of New York, to be a mem- ber of the War Claims Commission, vice Da- vid N. Lewis, deceased. GOvERNOR OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS Morris F. de Castro, of the Virgin Islands, to be Governor of the Virgin Islands, vice William H. Hastie, In THE Coast GuarD Capt. Alfred C. Richmond, United States Coast Guard, to be Assistant Commandant of the United States Coast Guard, for a pe- riod of 4 years, with the rank of rear admiral. CONFIRMATIONS Executive nominations confirmed by the Senate February 28 (legislative day of February 22), 1950: Unirep STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Hon. Charles F. McLaughlin to be United Btates district judge for the District of Columbia, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuespay, FEBruARY 28, 1950 The House met at 12 o’clock noon. The Chaplain, Rev. Bernard Braskamp, D. D., offered the following prayer: Almighty God, may this moment of prayer inspire us with a new awareness of our spiritual resources. May we be impelled by a noble pur- pose in every plan that we present for the solution of our many problems. We humbly confess that there are frequently such discrepancies between our promises and our performances, be- tween our profession and our practice, between our creed and our conduct. We pray that these may not be at variance with one another, but always in close and cordial agreement, Grant that daily we may validate and authenticate the reality and glory of democracy by our loyalty to its ideals and principles. In Christ’s name we bring our peti- tions. Amen. The Journal of the proceedings of yes- terday was read and approved. MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE A message from the Senate, by Mr. Carrell, one of its clerks, announced that the Senate had passed, with amendments in which the concurrence of the House is requested, a joint resolution of the House of the following title: H. J. Res. 398. Joint resolution relating to cotton and peanut acreage allotments and marketing quotas under the Agricultural Ad- justment Act of 1938, as amended. The message also announced that the Senate insists upon its amendments to the foregoing joint resolution, requests a conference with the House on the dis- agreeing votes of the two Houses thereon, and appoints Mr. THomas of Oklahoma, Mr. ELLENpER, Mr. Lucas, Mr. Hoey, Mr. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Armen, Mr. Younc, and Mr. Tuyr to be the conferees on the part of the Senate. The message also announced that the Senate agrees to the report of the com- mittee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amend- ments of the Senate to the bill (H. R. 4406) entitled “An act to provide for the settlement of certain claims of the Gov- ernment of the United States on its own behalf and on behalf of American na- tionals against foreign governments.” EXTENSION OF REMARKS Mrs. DOUGLAS (at the request of Mr. Patten) was given permission to extend her remarks in the Recorp in five in- stances and include extraneous matter. Mr. TEAGUE asked and was given per- mission to extend his remarks in the ReEcorp and include extraneous matter. Mr. FERNOS-ISERN asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the Recorp. CREATION OF CIVILIAN CONSERVATION CORPS Mrs. BOSONE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Utah? There was no objection. Mrs. BOSONE. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a bill to set up a modified version of the origina] Civilian Conserva- tion Corps program. I am introducing this bill for two reasons: First, at the present time there are some 4,000,000 acres of national forests which need reforestation. There are 2,000,000 acres of trees suffering from blister rust. One hundred thousand miles of roads need to be built into the various mountainous and wooded areas of this country. Fourtcen hundred lookout towers are needed for fire pro- tection. . Second, last month there were 1,000,- 000 boys between the ages of 16 and 24 who were looking for work. Unemploy- ment at the present time is greatest in this age group. I have Jong since been convinced that the thousands of boys who know nothing but the pavements of congested areas should have an opportunity to breathe the fresh air that comes from working in the out-of-doors. I believe the records will so show the health results and morale building of the CCC camps during the depression. I very definitely think that the influence of such a program has an important effect upon the future lives of these boys. It is a program of con- servation all the way around. PERMISSION TO ADDRESS THE HOUSE Mr. NOLAND. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Indiana? There was no objection. [Mr. Noxanp addressed the House. His remarks appear in the Appendix.] 2497 EXTENSION OF REMARKS Mr. CELLER asked and was given per- mission to extend his remarks in the Recorp in two instances. Mr. ROONEY asked and was given per- mission to extend his remarks in the Rec- orp in two instances, to include in one an article by David Lawrence and in the other an editorial appearing in the Brooklyn Eagle. Mr. MITCHELL asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the Recorp in two instances and include in one extraneous material. THE LATE COURTNEY WALKER HAMLIN Mr. CHRISTOPHER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute, to revise and extend my remarks and include an article. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Missouri? There was no objection. Mr. CHRISTOPHER. Mr. Speaker, it becomes my sad duty this morning to in- form the House that a man who was sup- posed to have been the oldest ex-Member of this House died at Santa Monica, Calif., the 16th day of this month, Court- ney Walker Hamlin. Perhaps some of the older Members of this House will] re- member Mr. Hamlin. A brief biography is as follows: Hamlin, Courtney Walker, a Repre- sentative from Missouri; born in Brevard, Transylvania County, N. C., October 27, 1858; moved to Missouri with his parents in 1869, settled in Leasburg, Crawford County, Mo.; attended the common schools and Salem, Mo., Academy; studied law, was admitted to the bar in 1882, and commenced practice in Bolivar, Polk County, Mo.; delegate to almost every Democratic State convention since 1886; elected as a Democrat to the Fifty- eighth Congress, March 4, 1903, to March 8, 1905; elected to the Sixtieth, Sixty-first, Sixty-second, Sixty-third, §)xty-fourth, and Sixty-fifth Congresses, March 4, 1907, to March 3, 1919; resumed the practice of law in Springfield, Green County, Mo., where he remained until 1935 when he removed to Santa Monica, Calif., where he passed away February 16, 1950, at the age of 92. While a Member of the House Mr. Hamlin became an expert on the parlia- mentary practice of the Congress and while presiding over the Committee of the Whole House rendered a number of important decisions which have been recorded in the precedents of the House and which continue to influence the pro- cecdings of the Congress. A newspaper article relating to Mr. Hamlin reads as follows: DEATH TAKES C. W. HAMLIN-—OLD-TIME LAWYER, CAME FROM HERE Courtney W. Hamlin, former Springfield attorney and believed to be the oldest living ex-United States Congressman, died Thurs- day night in Santa Monica, Calif., at the age of 92. He had lived for 15 years in Santa Monica where his two daughters, Misses Pearl and Cressie Hamlin reside Myr. Ham- lin also is survived by a son, Circuit Court Judge Carl O. Hamlin, of Corpus Christi, Tex.