1950 in the meantime left Germany and settled down in France. Durtng my stay there in 1934 I spent several evenings with and his family. The atmosphere was dis- tinctly a nonpolitical one, and neither then nor at any subsequent time have I ever no. ticed any pronounced political interest on the purt of other than those of the average well-educated man. Early in 1934 I entered the employ of the Yale & Towne Manufacturing Co, Stamford, Conn., and took over the management of their Czechoslovakian company. In 1935 wrote me from Paris that he had decided that there was no future for him in Europe and that he was going to emigrate to the United States of America where he had an uncle, I invited him to visit me in Czechoslovakia before he went and in the summer of 1935 he stayed a few days with me in Opava as my guest. I gave him a letter of introduc. tion to the Iately deceased president of the Yale & Towne Manufacturing Co., Mr. W. Gibson Carey, and he was employed there for some time but left to study economics. I came to the United States of America in January 1939 and I met and his wife, , ON several occeslons during my busi- ness trips to Washington, Chicago, New York, and they also visited me at my home in Plainfield, N J, in the period from 1939 to abcut 1944 during which perlod I was employed as general manager of General Ceramics Co., Metuchen and Keasbey, N J. In renewing my acquaintance with I found that both he and his wife were well read and intellectually well developed people with a wide range of interests Our conver. sations covered numerous subjects in the fields of general philosophy, literature, art, foreign affairs, American history, etc As a result of the very engrossing conversations I am sure that I would have detected any sign of communistic ideology on either part if he or she hnd so expressed themselves and such was definitely not the case I found them both to be marked in- dividualists and antagonistic to totalitarian principles and regimes. This applied both to their attitude to the totalitarlan nations with which we were at war and to their attitude to the Russian attack on Finland and the carving up of Poland and swallow- ing up of the Baltic states prior to the actual outbreak of war In the last few years, my work has left me little time for social activities and solely for this reason my contacts with the have been limited to an occasional exchange of greetings, Christmas cards, etc. I feel however, and I have no hesitation in so state ing, that any charge that was a mem- ber of or even a sympathizer with the Com- munist Party in Europe is entirely un- founded, Judging from my personal observa- tions of his attitude and Interesfs at the time that I knew him there. As for his activities in the United States of America I again repeat that in my numerous contacts with him in the time from 1939 to 1944 or ‘46 Y have at no time observed any sympathy with the Communists or any other foreign group nor have I observed any sign or ex- pression of disloyalty to the United States of America. On the contrary, I always regarded him as being an enthustastic believer in the democratic principle and American way of life and I particularly remember his avid reading of all available literature on Lincoln, of whom he was a great admirer. Both he and his wife always impressed me as being people of high moral character and idealism and ‘I felt that his repeated statements of his thankfulness for being able to live in the United States really reflected the sin- cerity of their feelings in this respect. Al- though it would at this time be personally inconvenient to me to travel to Washington, I am prepared if necessary to do so in order to appear as & witness at the Loyalty Board CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE hearing as I am convinced from all my ob- servations and previous contacts with them that both are loyal American citizens. Geruarp E, Kapiscu, —— Stare oF Sour CaRoxiNa, County of Marlboro: Personally appeared before me G. E, Kadisch, who, being first duly sworn, says that the foregoing statement is true of his own knowledge. Geruarp E. Kapiscx, Sworn to before me this October 15, 1948, [SEAL] Juuiet LEEF, Notary Public for South Carolina, Brare or Fiorina, County of Volusta, ss: Paul E Raymond first being duly sworn, On oath deposes and states that: 1, He is a@ citizen of and a practicing at- torney at law in Daytona Beach, Volusia County, Flu, and is president of the Day- tona Beach Chamber of Commerce, and chairman of the Halifax District and vice president of the Central Florida Council, Boy Scouts of America, 2. Aflant was personally acquainted with ————— from October 1937, to June 1938, and was in dally association with him. was research assistant of the af- flant who was preparing as editor a volume on parole for the United States Attorney General’s Surevy of Release Procedures. At that time affiant was professor of law in John B. Stetson University, DeLand, Fla, be- fore he became Dean of the School of Law from 1938 to 1941. 3. During the 9 months association bee tween affiant and , affant had fre- quent occasion to discuss with various national and international questions involving social, economic, and political policy In all of the many conversations re- garding such matters the affiant never heard express any word of sympathy to- ward communism or any other philosophy inconsistent with the American ideals. The impression that the affiant gained of ————— after this association was that was @ steadfast opponent of com- munism and the various totalitarian philos- ophies, and was a loyal adherent to the pre- valling American interpretation of demo- cratic ideals. 4. During this association between the affiant and ——————, the afflant was vice president of the DeLand, Fla, Chamber of Commerce and was active in several other civic o1ganizations. As such he induced to speak on international ques- tions for the junior chamber of commerce, the Stetson University student body, and other civic organizations. At one time he arranged for a radio broadcast of speech, At that time the most imminent threat to the peace of the world appeared to be from Nazi and Fascist countries, and most of comments related to this fact. His comments, however, indl- cated that he was strongly opposed to any form of totalitarianism and aggression, whether Fascist or Communist, and afflant believes that no one could have heard him without concluding that he was opposed to nazism, fascism, and communism alike. Several listeners commented to the affiant after said speeches that had a better understanding and appreciation of American ideals than most native-born Americans. 5 Affant was assistant attorney general of Florida from 1941 to 1942, and there- after was an officer in the United States Navy on active duty for 40 months, Afflant has no sympathy whatever with any un- American philosophy and is extraordinarily sensitive to any expression sympathetic to 10943 any foreign philosophy. Afflant strongly bee Neves that persons sympathetic to activities subversive of American ideals shoud not be tolerated in governmental positions, but affant is at a loss to understand how an acousation on this score could be leveled at &@ man who manifested the ideals and be- Nefs that did during his 9 months association with the affiant. 6. Affant regrets that because of the pressure of his business he is unable to make the trip to Washington to testify in behalf, but he will do so in the event that it is required. Pau, E RayMonpD Sworn to and subscribed before me this 23d day of October A. D. 1948. [szaL] Frances C. TAYLor, Notary Public, State of Florida at Large. My commission expires February 22, 1950, — UniTep States SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, October 26, 1948. The Loyatty Securiry Boarp, Department of State, New State Department Building, Washington, D.C. GENTLEMEN: I have just received a tele- phone call from Mr. Paul E. Raymond, an attorney of Daytona Beach, Fla, formerly dean of the John B Stetson Law School of Florida, in regard to Mr. . Myr. Raymond intorms me that Mr. » an employee of the State Department, is being investigated by the Loyalty Security Board on charges that he is or has been a Com-~ munist. Mr. Raymond was on my staff in the United States Department of Justice from 1936 to 1938, when I was Director of the Attorney Gencral’s Survey of Release Proce- dures He served as director and editor of that phase of the study which dealt with the subject of parole. One of Mr. Raymond's assistants on the editorial staff was Mr. , who had been appointed as a sociologist to assist the editorial board with some of the sociological problems involved in parole procedure As director and editor in chief of the en- tire survey, I came to know Mr. in connection with his work on our staff. On the basis of his professional work for the Attorney General’s Survey of Release Pro- cedures during the period of time indicated above, he gave no indication at all that he held even friendly feelings toward the Come munistic ideology. In fact, it would be a great surprise to me as well as a keen dis- appointment if, since Jeaving his work in the Department of Justice, Mr. had de- veloped even the slightest sympathy for the Communist philosophy. Of course, I did not know Mr. ine timately outside of his office, but my recol- lection of him is that he was always a rather emphatic opponent of any totalitarian view, be it of fascism, nazism, or communism. As I recall, Mr. came to the United States from Poland, but I am not certain about that. However, I do recall distinctly that he was very critical in those days of the totalitarian philosophy which was sweeping | Europe in Germany and Italy as well as in Russia. Nevertheless, I wish to make it perfectly clear that I have had no contacts with Mr, whatsoever since 1938, and I am in no position to pass any reliable Judgment what- soever upon his political, social, economle, or religious philosophy since he served on the Department of Justice staff at the same time I was there. Also, I wish to make per- fectly clear that if there is any evidence against Mr. which establishes the fact that he is a Communist or a fellow traveler, then I am very much of the opinion that he and all others of like point of view
10944 should be discharged from holding any posi- tion in our Federal Government. However, in fairness to Mr. , for whatever value it may prove to be worth in light of any evidence which has been devel- oped subsequent to his service with the Department of Justice, I think it is only right to give you my impression that when he was asscciated on Mr. Raymond's editorial staff in connection with the parole phase of our study, Mr. gave no indication ®nat he held any sympathy whatsoever for any form of totalitarianism, including com- munism * Very truly yours, Wayne Morse. AFFIDAVIT I, the undersigned, Eugene W. Posnjak, residing at 1076 Tornoe Road, Santa Bar- bara, Calif, do solemnly swear and affirm that I have recently retired from the Geophys- ical Laboratory of the Carnegie Institution of Washington, where I held the position of research chemist continuously since 1913. During most of this time I was residing at 3400 Rodman Street NW., Washington, D. C. I was born in Moscow, Russia, in 1888 and was educated there and at the University of Leipzig, Germany, where I received the Ph, D. degree in chemistry in 1912 I came to this country in 1912 and became a citizen of the United States in 1921 I have known my nephew ————, of 6404 Thirty-ninth Street NW, Washington, D C, since he was about 10 years old and have followed his development closely, see- ing him on trips I made to Germany in 1921, 1923, 1929, and 1932 when I visited his par- ents who were living in Germany, as were also my parents. They had all been forced to flee Russia as a result of the Communist revolution = - father, the late —-—— was my brother He had been a well-to-do industrialist in Moscow before the revolution and owned several factories in that city, which were expropriated by the Soviet re- gime. My nephew was educated in Germany and was attending the University of Berlin in 1933 when the coming to power to Hitler made it advisable to leave Germany, and he went to live and work in Paris, France I spent several month on each of my trips to Europe and while there saw & great deal. We became close friends and had many intimate conversations, occasionally discussing also politics. I had never heard him to express Communist views or even any opinions that might be considered radical, In fact, I had the impression that he was not greatly interested in politics, being more concerned with cultural subjects, such as lit~ erature, theater, art, etc Iam certain that he did not engage in any radical or sub- versive activities when he was in college in Berlin or Jater when he went to Paris and I am also sure that he never belonged to any Communist or other subversive organizations in Europe. I think his family background makes this quite understandable, In August 1935, at my suggestion (which I first made in 1933 while he was still in Berlin) and with my assistance, ob- . tained the United States immigration visa and came to this country. For about 6 months, until early January 1936 lived with me and my family at my residence at 3400 Rodman Street NW. I had an oppor- tunity to observe him closely. I never heard him express views sympathetic to commu- nism and he certainly never took part in any political activities whatsoever. After got a job with a Washington patent attorney (as translator), he went to live by himself, but he came to my house frequently and my opinion of him did not change. I met wife, , before they were married in 1938, and I saw them both fre- quently after their marriage at my home and at theirs, impressed me as a quiet, re- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mable, cultured person, devoted to her hus- band and his career She seems to do her own thinking but I have never obeerved any- thing subversive and in the least fanatical about her Both were greatly interested in euch cultural matters as thea- ter, Htcrature, art, music, and also gave much of their free time to their hobby of waicr-color painting Since the birth of their two sons when —--—~ was in the Army, they have been preoccupied with their chil- dren's upbringing to the exclusion of prac- tically all other interests I am completely confident that neither of them engaged in any subvcrsive or radical activities of any kind. I can recall that in some of our conversa- tions both expressed profound disgust for such manifestations of Soviet foreign policy as the Nazi-Soviet pact in Au- gust 1939, the Soviet invasion of Finland, or more recently the Soviet aggressions in Iran, Greece, and other small nations. They wero strongly opposed to Nazi and Fascist aggressions in Ethiopia, Austria, and Spain but they seem to be fully as much opposed to the Soviet aggressions. They both im- pressed me as being utterly hostile to totall- tarian states and profoundly attached to the democratic institutions and traditions of America, I have no hesitation in stating that in my opinion both ~—————— are completely loyal to the United States and devoted to the principles on which this country ts founded. I am convinced that they are both wholeheartedly patriotic Americans. Eucens W Posnsax, Subscribed and sworn to before me this 16th day of October 1948, [szaL} E J Mrcas, Notary Public in and for the County of Santa Barbara, State of Cali- fornia. My commission expires March 18, 1952. Strate or New York, County of New York, ss: Lazar I Estrin, 65 Central Park West, New York, N. Y., being duly sworn, deposes and Bays’ I am a native of Russia; have immigrated into the United States in 1916; naturalized in 1922, I have been on the staff of the Irving Trust Co and its predecessor banks continuously since 1917 and have been a vice president of the institution since 1930 in its foreign de- partment. I have been informed of an investigation of the loyalty of Mr. , of 5404 Thirty- ninth Street NW, Washington, D. C, who its employed in the State Department as an economist. I am familar with Mr. background over a long period of years, going back to his grandfather, Mr, Solomon Koppleman, in Russia, who was a prosperous and conserva~ tive merchant, religious and devoted to philanthropy. I met Mr. father and mother re- peatedly during my travels in Europe where they were refugees from the Soviet regime in Russia. The family fortune having been lost as a result of the Communist revolution, the entire household was permeated with a strong anti-Communist feeling. I met when he first arrived in this country as a very young man and he impressed me most favorably as to his char- acter and up-bringing. I had many personal contacts with him during the first few years of his stay here and am convinced of his en« tire loyalty to this country and its institu. tions and his genuine gratitude for the op- portunities 1t has given him. It is my firm conviction that he is not a Communist or a Communist sympathizer or otherwise in any way disloyal to this country. Lazar I. Estrin. JULY 25 Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public, in and for sald county, this 14th day of October 1048, GrorGE F, Maurer, Notary Public, State of New York, CoMMUNITY Hatt, Gladwyne, Pa , October 13, 1948, To Whom It May Concern: I was indeed astonished to learn that a charge of Communist learnings had been brought against ——————.. I have known since 19380, at which time I was appointed head of social service work in Gladwyne. (At the present time I am also executive secretary of the Gladwyne Civic Association, and president of the Gladwyne fire company.) As I live across the street from the Aranson home I feel I knew the family very well indeed. was always ambitious, and eager to familiar- ize herself with the cultures—music, litera- ture, and art. We have had many talks on national and international affairs, both before and after her marriage with ——_———. She and seldom came home on a Visit that they did not come across the street to call on us, sinca we all enjoyed the same things, I have never heard either say anything that was un- American, or that could be construed as the least subversive I have always felt that I could trust both in every way, and I still have the same feel- ing toward them. I can only regret that owing to ® recent serious heart attack it 1s impossible for me at this time to travel to Washington to testify on their behalf My condition also prevents Mrs, Beli from leaving home for any appre- Ciable length of time, also. Sruart BELx. Sworn and subscribed before me this 15th day of October 1948 Water B Lownes, Jr., Notary Public. My commission expires end next session of Senate. —_— GLADWYNE Free LIBRARY, Gladwyne, Pa., October 13, 1948. To Whom It May Concern It was with profound shock that I learned recently that were looked upon as Communists, I have known since she was a school girl. My husband and I came to Glad- wyne in the fall of 1930, as he had been ap- pointed head of the social service work in that village. The home of the family was across the street from the Com- munity House, where we lived, and we saw & great deal of them. They were a family, quiet, hard working, and respected in the community I might add that I have never known a more generous and kindly person than She was constantly spend- ing herself in the gervice of those in trouble. As a family they were well-read, vitally tn- terested in current events, and with a keen love of the arts, especially music. In all the years we knew them, when affairs, both na- tional and international, were freely dis- cussed between us, I have never heard a sub- versive statement from any one of them, To them all, America was a land of beauty and integrity, and on graduating from high school was eager to work in Washing- ton—to her a city of romance and of prom~ ise. I might add that while waiting to take her civil-service examination she freely of- fered her ser.ices as pianist to the play- ground commission in Philadelphia, and through her associations there came into close contact with a group of music lovers, which led to an association with the Phila- delphia Orchestra and other music groups. Until she left Gladwyne she was also a mem- ber of the Girls’ Friendly Society branch in that village, of which I was leader, and was very active in all their interests—music,
1950 dances, athletics, and social-service work. T can only reiterate that she was a girl with an exceptionally fine mind, a deep love of all things cultural, and an intelligent in- terest in national and international affairs. On her visits home, after she was employed in Washington, she invariably called on us, and our conversations were often on world affairs. I can recall her distress and horror as conditions grew blacker in Europe. After her marriage she and her husband, . continued to call on us during their visits back to Gladwyne. Naturally by that time (from 1988 on) the topic of German, and later, Russian aggression, formed s large part of our conversation, but at no time did either express anything but the greatest reopugnance for National Soclalist and Communist ideologies. We were giad to change the sub- ject back to our old gay debates on music and books. I feel strongly that there has been serious misunderstanding somewhere, because after having known 18 years, and 10, I am still convinced that there are no more sincere and loyal American citizens in this country than they. Mavp Butter Bet. (Mrs. Stuart Bell). Sworn and subscribed before me this 15th day of October. Watrrr B. Lowens, Notary Public. My commission expires end next session of Senate, Ocroser 14, 1948. REPUBLIC OF FRANCE, DEPARTMENT OF SEINE, Crry or Paris, Embassy of the United States of America, ss: LOYALTY AND SECURITY Boarp, DEPARTMENT or STATE, Washington 25, D.C. Subject: Loyalty of ——__—_——. Having been informed that in the course of the investigation of under the employee loyalty program the allegation has been made that he is a Communist or Com- munist sympathizer, and that a hearing of his case has been set for October 26, 1948, I welcome this opportunity to place the following information before the Board. I met Mr. for the first time early in 1941, through mutual friends, Mr. and Mrs. Robert M. Carr (Mr. Carr is a foreign service officer, presently assigned to the American Embassy, Paris, France). Since that time I have, on a number of occasions, attended social functions or small informal gatherings where he was present. I have nothing: but the most pleasant recollections of his conduct in these situations. Nothing he said ever gave me the slightest impression that he was a Communist sympathizer, much less a Communist. On the contrary, I have from the beginning had the very definite impression that he had no intellectual or political leanings toward communism. Never in the years I have known him have I ever heard anyone question his complete loyalty to the United States. In regard to my professional contacts with Mr. ———, the longest period of close asso- ciation with him was in 1946, when he was my assistant for several weeks in New York, during the second part of the first session of the General Assembly. As executive offi- cer of the United States delegation for com- mittee 2, I was responsible for helping Alter- nate Delegates Adiai E. Stevenson and HELEN Ganacan Dovcias with their work on this committee. As might be expected, the views of the U. S. 8. R. and satellites concerning items on the agenda frequently were op- posed to those of the United States dele- gation. Never during the course of his work with me in the development of arguments in favor of the United States position and against those of the U. 8. 8. R. did I sense the slightest hint of disagreement with the United S.ates position. His work was uni- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE formly excellent and constructive; he was most cooperative; and I had complete con- fidence in his loyalty. These earlier favorable impressions were further confirmed recently, shortly before my departure for Paris as executive officer for committee 2 of the General Assembly, third regular session. At my suggestion, Mr, prepared a confidential paper (U8 (P)/A/C.2/4, September 28, 1948) entitled “Criticism of the International Bank,” for possible use here in Paris in dealing with an anticipated repetition of attacks on the Bank by the U. 8. 8. R. and satellites. This paper, which was widely cleared in the De- partment, 1s an example of the competent work done by Mr, . It ts, in my view, entirely in accord with United States policy, and should prove valuable to the United States delegation If the occasion arises. (The Board should he able to obtain a copy of this paper from UNE.) Before final clear- ance of the paper, Mr. showed me the original and we discussed it together at some length. This conversation strengthened my earlier impressions of his competence and trustworthiness. To sum up, from my personal and profes- sional association with I am con- vinced that he is completely loyal to the United States. Wiuuiram A. Fower, Foreign Service Officer, Class Il. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 15th day of October 1948. Leonarp R. MoREy, Vice Consul of the United States of America, AFFIDAVIT REPUBLIC OF FRANCE, DEPARTMENT OF SEINE, Ciry oF Paris, Embassy of the United States of Amer- ica, ss: 1, ———_——_—— has been well known to me, Hubert F. Havlik, since August 1946. When I became Chief of the Division of Invest- ment and Economic Development in the Department of State, Mr. was a member of the staff of that Division at that time. While I was Chief of that Division, until September 5, 1948, he worked under my general direction and often under my specific guidance, in connection with mat- ters I was handling personally. Many mem- oranda which he prepared were specifically reviewed and approved by me, and I fre- quently discussed with him at length mat- ters which fell within the scope of his as- signment. 2. Mr. was specifically responsible for the subject matter of the Division's re- sponsibility relating to the central and east- ern European area (Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Austria, Rumania, Yugoslavia, and the U S. S. R). Important matters with which Mr. dealt were the following: (a) Financial and development needs of Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Poland, and requests for Export-Import Bank or Inter- national Bank loans by these countries, as well as the application of loans granted by the Export-Import Bank to some of these countries, (b) Problems of compensation for proper- ty of United States nationals nationalized by Czechoslovakia and Poland. (This work was, after several months, transferred to another Division of the Department.) {c) The economic development aspects of trade between the eastern and western Eu- ropean countries, as well as of policies re- garding the control of exports from the United States to countries of eastern Eu- rope. 8. Because of his capacity for analysis and drafting, and knowledge of the work of the Division, Mr. alao was designated by the Division to act as advisor on economic development to United States delegation to 10945 at least one meeting of the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations, as well as meetings of some of the subgroups of ECOSOC. He also assisted in drafting various “position papers” for the guidance of delegation members 4. Work on all these problems involved a large degree of skill and analysis of the eco- nomic aspects of problems within the boundaries of the general policies estab- Mshed by the Department of State. In my experience, Mr. followed ednstructions with respect to the scope and objectives of his assignments with conscientious regard for the interests of the United States Gov- ernment, Draft recommendations which he formulated or assisted in formulating were usually discussed among representatives of other interestcd Divisions of the State De- partment and revised in accordance with decisions reachcd in the course of these dis- cussions. I have never felt at any time that his analyses and recommendations were biased in favor of the interests of the U. 8. 8. R. and ite satellites, or in favor of communism, or that they were taken with a view to action against the interests of the United States Government. While there were often differences of opinion among de- partmental personnel as to policy on mat- ters which Mr. was called upon to deal with, my conviction based on my per- sonal knowledge of his work, is that Mr. fs not sympathetic with communistic doctrine, methods, or objectives. 5. According to my observation, Mr held scrupulously to both the spirit and the letter of requirements for security made nec- essary by his position in the Department. I do not have ror ever have had any reser- vations with respect to his loyalty to the United States Government nor have I ever heard any reservations expressed by any per- son. 6. At present I am Chief of the Payments Section in the Office of the Special Repre- sentative, Economic Cooperation Adminis- tration, Paris, France. From 1942 to 1944, I was an economist and an official in the War Production Board; from 1944 to 1945, I was in the Foreign Economic Administra- tion holding the position of Deputy Assist- ant Administrator for economic programs at the time of its termination From Decem- ber 1945 to Ausust 1946, I was Chief of the Division of Lend-Lease in surplus property policies in the Department of State; from 1946 to 1948, I was Chief of the Division of Investment and Economic Development, and on several occasions Acting Director of the Office of Financial and Development Policy Husert F. Havire. Paris, Francg, October 19, 1948. Then personally appeared the above named Hubert F. Havlik and made oath the foregoing statements by him subscribed are true to the best of his knowledge and be- lief. | BEAL] Lronarp R Morty, Vice Consul of the United States of America. 1. Tam making this affidavit at the request of Mr. —————-, for presentation to the Loyalty and Security Board of the Depart- ment of State. 2. I was employed by the Department of State from July 1944 to September 1946 From approximately December 1945 until my resignation, I was Chief of the Division of Investment and Economic Development. (It 1s possible that my formal appointment as Chief was not made until some weeks after I was in fact responsible for the work of the Division.) Mr. was an Officer in this Division durrg the entire period that I was in charge of the Division. 8. A large part of Mr. work related to economic policy toward the countries of eastern Europe. In view of the small number
10946 of men in the Division, I had close contact with Mr , and I found him thoroughly competent, conscientious, and reliable. His actions and his attitudes all indicated a sin- cere devotion to the best interests of the United States, and nothing that he sald or did in my association with him could pos- sibly be regarded as disloyal, or as suggesting in any way an association with the Commu- nist Party, Nothing in my contacts with Mr. would lead me to question his in- tegrity, or @is observance of the strict se- curity standards that would be expected of an officer of the Department of State. 4.1 do not know what Mr did outside of office hours, or with whom he associated, but there was nothing in his at- titude, conversation, or behavior that raised the slightest suspicion in my mind as to his loyalty, or that made me consider him in. any different light than I would consider any officer of the Department 5. Around the spring of 1946, after Mr. ——— had attended several meetings in the Department on eastern European problems, repoits came to me indirectly that an offi- cer—or perhaps more than ono officer—in the Department had made unfavorable com- ments about Mr -——--, apparently as a result of some discussion at the meetings. The remarks were of a very vague nature, and suggested that the person or persons originating them might have had a personal disagreement with Mr . or possibly objected on gencral principle to having @ person born in eastern Europe working in the Department of State on Eastern European problems I did not feel that the remarks reflected in any way on Mr loyalty, his integrity, or his reliability In view of thelr trivial nature I paid no attention to them 6 I resigned from the Department in Sep- tember 1946 to return to Haverford College as professor of economics I had been at Haverford since 1934, and in January 1943 had been given leave of absence to enter Government service I resigned from Hav- erford Cuilege early in 1948 ta join the faculty of liberal arts of Northwestern University as professor of economics, a position that T now hold I reside at 580 Orchard Lane, Winnetka, Tl 7, Ihave seen Mr sever! times since T left the Department, and nothing tn there contacts has altered the high opinion I formed while in the Department of his loy- alty, his integrity, and his observance of high standards of security FRANK WHITSON FFTTER Subscribed and sworn to before me, a no- tary public, this 18th day of October 1948, Ruti Garrs, My commission expires August 19, 1951, AFFIDAVIT Strate or New York, County of New York, ss‘ Emilio G. Collado, being duly sworn, de- poses and says 1 My name ts EmilloG Collado, 2 I reside at Old Westbury Road, East Hillis, Roslyn, Long Island, N. Y. 3. I am presently employed as Foreign Exchange Manager, Standard Oil Co., (Inc. in New Jersey), 830 Rockefeller Plaza, New York 20,N Y. 4. In 1945 I was Deputy on Financial Af- fairs to Mr. William L. Clayton, Assistant Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, and Director of the Office of Financial and De- yelopment Policy of the Department of State, Washington, D C. I resigned these positions in May 1946, to become United States Execu- tive Director of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Wash- ington, D. C., retaining a consultant status with the Department of State. &. The Division of Bconom‘c Development Policy (E. D.), now known as the Division of CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Investment and Economic Development, was at that time, and continues to fall, within the jurisdiction of the Office of Financial ana Development Policy. 6. Mr. - was appointed an economist in such division on October 10, 1945, and continued a member of the staff of the di- vision when I resigned from the State De- partment. Mr.——— was appointed at the rec- ommendation of Mr D M. Phelps, then Chief of E D, who subsequently served as a mem- ber of the United States delegation to the Paris reparations conference, and then re- signed to return to the University of Michi- gan Mr, subsequently served under Mr Frank W Fetter, who has since returned to academic work and is now at the North- western University. 7 My association with Mr. was very largely confined to the period in which we were both employed in the Department of State, and to our work together there. Our contacts were in general those of the director of an office with one of the respon- sible officers within his organization. I had specific association with Mr. on a number of occasions in connection with fi- nancial and economic questions, especially relating to Czechoslovakia and Poland. He had developed the circumstances surround- {ug such questions and policy and action rec~ ommendations. The 1ecommendations Mr. -- made on these questions were, in my opinion, well balanced and constructive and my regard for his work and ability, based on these contacts, was very high. 8 Insofar asI am aware, Mr has not been connected with any organization whose purpose it is to overthrow the Government of the United States. I have no reason to believe that he is in any way disloyal to the United States On the contrary, in the duties which he petformed under my general supervision as an officer of the Department of State in making recommendations on foreign policy matters, with special reference to castern Europe, Mr conducted him- self as an able, effective and loyal officer of the Department EMILLIO G CoLtapo. Sworn to before me this 22nd day ot Oc- tober, 1948 CuHarLes E Hitn, Notary Public, Rockland County. Commission expires March 30, 1849. ATFIDAVIT FOR INFORMATION OF LOYALTY AND Secunrry Boarp oF THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE Repusuic oF CHUNA, PROVINCE OF KIANGSU, Crry oF NANKING, Embassy of the United States of America, ss Before me, Bruce M. Lancaster, vice con- sul of the United States of America in and for the city of Nanking, China, duly com- missioned and qualified, personally appeared Thomas J. Cory, who, being duly sworn, deposes and says as follows: My name is Thomas J Cory and I am seiving as second secrctary of the American Embassy at Nanking, China I wish to make certain statements concerning the loyalty to American institutions and the anticommu- nism of ————-——. I have known Mr. since July 19, 1947, when we both began service as advisors to the United States Repesentativo to the fifth session of the Economic and Social Council at Lake Success I snw a great deal of him during the month the fifth session continued During the subzequent year, I hed two long dinners and conversations with him in his home in Washington, D. C, and one long dinner and conversation in my home in New York City. In addition, we have also had luncheons together in Washington, D. C, Mr. and I are both deeply interested in and have discussed at length the position of the U.S S. R. in the world today, its JULY 25 internal stresses and the present and future status of its relations with the United States. My knowledge of the U. 8. 8. R. is derived from 8 months of Russian language study at Cornell University, 11 months of service as gecond secretary of the American Embassy in Moscow, 8 months of service as American vice consul at Vladivostok, 3 months of serv- ice as an officer in the Division of Eastern European Affairs of the Department of State, and 8 months of study at the Russian Insti- tute of Columbia University. To the best of my knowledge, Mr. interest in the U 8 S&S. &. derives from his excellent mind and his broad intellectual and professional interests as well as his Russian origin, I understand that he was born in Russia of Russian parents who fled from Moscow when he was 6 years of age that Js in 1947, He came to the United Stctes from France in about 1936, is now a naturalized American citizen after serving in the United States Army dur- ing the war and is mariied to an American girl from Philadelphia whom I know and respect as an intelligent, well-educated per- son thoroughly loyal to American institu- tions It is in the light of our respective backgrounds that I wish to state categoric- ally that during many long conversations about the U 8S. S. R. I have never known Mr - to express a thought or give any indication suggesting that he was at any time or in any way sympathetic to Commu- nist alms and methceds or hostile to American society ard policies On the contrary, I con- cluded from my knowledge of his past history, from the manner in which he discharged his duties at the fifth session of the Economic and Social Council and from my observa- tions of his personal relationships with the other foreign and American advisors to that fifth session that Mr is a competent and balanced obseiver of Soviet Russia, an honorabl* man and a loyal American And further deponent saith not Tuomas J Cory. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 18th day of October 1948 [sEAL| Eruce M LANCASTER, Vice Consul of the United States of America. Crry or Paris, Republic of France. John C. Ross being duly sworn, deposcs and says, 1 Iam Deputy to the United States Rep- resentative to the United Nations having an office at 2 Park Avenue, New York, N. Y. Iam a resident of the State of New York. For a petiad in excess of 11 years I have been an officer of the Department of State; 2 I have known for approxi- mately 8 years. I can recall meeting him at dinner at the home of Mr. and Mrs. Robert M Carr at a time when Carr and I were employed in the Trade Agreements Division of the Department of State, 3 Since that time I can recall having seen him on one or two other cccasions at dinner at the Carr’s home In addition to this I have dined once or twice at home and he had dined once or twice at my home; 4 In the course of the past year or 18 months during which I have been a resident of New York and engaged in the work of the Department there, I can recall having dined with ——— on two occasions when re was in New York as an adviser to the American Delegation in the Economic and Social Council. Our conversations on these Occasions touched upon the subjects of com- munism, Soviet furelgn policy, and Russia; 5 During the entire period of my ac- quaintance with and on the basis of our various mectings as set out above I have no recollection of having heard him make any statement or express any opinion which would indicate to me that he is a Communict, a Communist sympathizer, or
1950 in any way disloyal to the United States. Since I have known no information has come to my attention from any other source suggesting or indicating that is 2 Communist, a Communist sympathizer, or in any way disloyal to the United States; 6. This affidavit is made for submission to the Loyalty and Security Board of the De- partment of State, JOHN C. Ross. Sworn to before me this 29th day of Octo- ber 1948, Lronarp R Morey, Vice Consul of the United States of America Panis, France, October 15, 1948. LoYALTy AND SecuRITy Boarp, Washington, D. C.: LOYALTY OF I have known Mr ag an econo- mist in the Department of State for about 2 years During that time I have been spe- cial assistant to the Assistant Secretary of State for Economic Affairs and Deputy United States Representative in the Economic and Social Council. In these capacities, I have had repeated occasion to observe and work with Mr. both within United States delegations to the General Assembly and to the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations, and in preparatory work in the Department of State for meetings of these and related bodies On every occasion I have always found Mr. a loyal and useful citizen. His con- tributions have been valuable and positive as an assistant in preparing American posi- tions on issues coming before the Economic and Social Council and as an adviser to the United States spokesman. His views have uniformly been opposed to the policies of other delegations which were antagonistic to the policies and interests of the United States. His relations with members of other delegations have, so far as my observation goes, been entirely correct and discreet, On no occasion have I ever had any evidence tending to cast doubt on his loyalty to the United States. To the best of my knowledge and belief, Mr is a thoroughly loyal employee of the United States Government, Nothing has ever come to my attention which would cast any doubt on his behavior or judgment in matters of security. Leroy D STINEBOWER. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 15th day of October 1948. Lronarp R. Morey, Vice Consul of the United States of America. — Crry or WASHINGTON, District of Columbia, 8s.: I, Irving G. Rudd, residing at 4709 Alton Place NW., Washington, D. C, being duly sworn, depose and say: That I am a citizen of the United States of America. That prior to the war I was partner tn D. M Minton and Co, 111 Broadway, New York City, members of the New York Stock Ex- change, and that I am now engaged in inter- national trade and shipping as president of Trade Abroad, Inc. and treasurer of Earley- Walter, Inc , located at 1010 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, D. C That between November 1941 and July 1944, I was a staff member of the U S. 8. R, Division of the Office of Strategic Services and its predecessor agency, the Office of Co- ordinator of Information. That I met Mr. in the fall of 1943 while I was Chief of the Industrial and Military Supply Section of U. 8. 8 RB. Divi- sion, Office of Strategic Services, 1n connec- tion with Mr application for a posi~ tion as a staff member in my section. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE That after careful examination of Mr, qualifications, I recommended his ap- pointment to the Chief of the U. 8. 8. R. Division. That the appointment of Mr. was duly made on or about May 1, 1944, after the security check was satisfactorily com- pleted That during the time Mr. worked under my direction he performed his duties in a most capable and conscientious manner and made important contributions to the several projects which were at that time under study in my section. That I became well acquainted with Mr during our association tn the Office of Strategic Services and that our friendship continued after my resignation from the U 8 8.R Division of OSS That while I was Special Assistant to the Chairman of the War Production Board un- til the beginning of 1945 and afterward when I returned to private business, Mr and I met at frequent intervals end more recently, during the summe: of last year, Mr. and his family resided for a period of 2 weeks as our neighbors at Dewey Beach, Del. That it has been called to my attention that during recent investigation of Mr record allegations have been made by certain persons that he was sympathetic to the Communist cause On the basis of my ac- quaintanceship with Mr during the last 5 years, Ican vouch for his integrity and can state unequivocably that in my opinion he is a loyal citizen of the United States Irvine G Rupp. Sworn to before re this 25th day of Oc- tober 1948, [SEAL] Patrick H McCormick, Notary Public. To the Loyalty and Secunty Board, Depart- ment of State, Washington, D C.: This is to certity. 1. That I first met and his wife about 1942 and saw them socially on @ number of occasions prior to my departure for London in 1944, 2 That my acquaintance with them was sufficient to give me a clear impression of their characters and to cause me to regard them with great liking and respect, 3 That I have never heard or known of anything that would suggest in any way that they are or have been members of the Com- munist Party or sympathetic toward com- munism, or that would in any way bring their layalty to the United States into ques- tion. Harry C. HawkK1ns, Foreign Service Officer, Retired, for- merly Director, Office of Economic Affairs, Department of State, and Minister Counselor for Economic Affairs, American Embassy, Lon- don, COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, Middlesex County, 8s: Subscribed and sworn to by said Harry C. Hawkins, before me this 16th day of October 1948, at Arlington, Mass [SEAL] Joun J Burtcu, Notary Public. My commission expires December 13, 1951. ee NoveMBeER 1, 10948. To Whom It May Concern I am presently employed, since August 1947, as an economist, grade P-6, in the Di- vision of Statistical Standards, Bureau of the Budget, Executive Office of the President, I was previously, since June 1938, with the United States Housing Authority, later the Federal Public Housing Authority and now the Public Housfhg Administration, Housing and Home Finance Agency, I have known 10947 since the fall of 1938 when he joined the staff of USHA I was fatrly closely associated profession- ally with Mr. during the entire time, October 1938 to September 1943; he was at USHA. At the beginning of that time we were in different sections of the same divi- sion. In about January 1941 he was trans- ferred to the section of which I was chief. A few months later he was transferred to the position of regional research adviser, the re- gional counterpart of the position I held in the central office, but for about a year he was located in Washington so that I maintained frequent contacts with him After his of- fice was moved to Chicago in March 1942, until he went into the army tn the fall of 1943, I saw him less frequently although I Kept in close touch with his work. In all of our work together, approximately 5 years, I found Mr. to be competent, sincere, discreet, honest, and trustworthy. During that time, and since he returned to Washington in the spring of 1944 when I have seen and talked with him only occa- sionally, I have never heard Mr. say anything which would lead me to suspect his loyalty or devotion to the United States. Pau. F Krvurcer Subscribed ana sworn to before me this — day of November 1948, in Washington, DC [SEAL] Martia E. HELwece, Notary Public. My commission expires June 14, 1953. Ocroper 18, 1948. To Whom It May Concern: My wife, Marjorie Stewart Johnson, and myself became friends with very soon after they came to Chicago, and saw them frequently until their departure for Washington. My wife met at the first assembly for obtaining ration books In the natural confusion, the two women were attracted to each other in sympathetic understanding. My wife told me that evening about Mrs. and soon after, I met her and . We four became friends, with like sym- pathies and appreciation of the important elements of human conduct, music, theater, books, art. We sensed deeply that are gentle, tolerant, wise people of fine sensi- bility and deep understanding, who knew, as we agreed in discussion, that the highest human values reside in a system where gov- ernment, by all the people, operates for the good of all the people And that any system wherein the individual is forced to exist for the state, which inevitably means for a small group of selfish, powered people—no matter what the tag-—Communist, Fascist--is a wicked cheat of human dignity and freedom, I have not known two finer, more kindly people, deeply perceptive of the essential values of life and, as such, vigorously aware of the favored climate this country supplies for the healthy development of those values, than . I am, and have been for the last 24 years, art director for Reincke, Meyer & Finn, ad- vertising, 620 North Michigan Avenue, Chi- cago, Ill. I ama veteran of the First World War and during World War II was sponsor for a@ Japanese alien for the United States Bu- reau of Immigration and Naturalization. Sincerely, CLARENCE Nog JOHNSON. REPUBLIC oF FRANCE, City OF Paris, Embassy of the United States of America, ss: Before me, Leonard R. Morey, vice consul of the United States of America, duly com- migsioned and qualified, personally came Ossip Bernstein, doctor at law, exporter, Who, being duly sworn, deposes and says that: He was a member of the Morccw bar, and was forced to leave Russia in 1920. He lives
10948 since then fn Paris, as a naturalized French citizen (naturalized in 1933). He knows and his whole family for more than 35 years. parents and grand- parents were very honorable people, indus- trialists. He knew thoroughly Mr. background, education and behavior from childhood on and during his life in western Europe. He had very often the opportunity to see Mr. and to follow his develop- ment and life. He certifies that he has never seen or heard anything suspicious about Mr. like sympathy for communism or Soviet Russia. He considers Mr, as an honest, straightforward and loyal person, unable of any Communist or other un-Amer- ican activity, Dr. O. 8 BERNSTEIN. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 15th day of October 1948. [SEAL] LEONARD R. MOREY, Vice Consul of the United States of America, Paris, France, AFFIDAVIT OF Dr. JOSEPH KEMLER STATE OF FLORIDA, County of Dade: Before me, a notary public in and for the State of Florida at large, personally appeared Joseph I. Kemler, who being duly sworn states that he is a citizen of the United States and that he is a resident of Baltimore, Md., residing at No. 1908 Eutaw Place, Baltimore, Md. Afflant further says that he is engaged in the practice of medicine at said address, specializing in otolaryngology, having prac- ticed in said city since the year 1911. Afflant further says that he is a member of the American Medical Association; that he 1s a fellow of the American College of Surgeons; that he is a fellow of the American Academy of Ophthalmology and Otolaryngology; that he is chief of the otolaryngology department of Sinui Hospital of Baltimore, Md, and also chief of laryngologists of Mount Pleasant San- itarium in Baltimore County,a member of the staff of the Eye, Ear, Nose, and Throat Hos- pital of Baltimore, Md., and on the teaching staff of the University of Maryland, and the originator of the operation for cancer of the larynx, known as the Kembler bilateral thy- rotomy for carcinoma of the larynx. Afflant further says that he is in Miami at the invitation of the Southern Medical Associa- tion to present his operation at the sctentific exhibition of this meeting. Affiant further says that he Js making this affidavit in behalf of —-—-———, who are under investigation by the United States Government in connection with the United States Government's employee loyalty pro- gram. Affiant further says that he and are first cousins and that he has known since the year 1936 and that ho has known her husband since the year 1938, but since said dates he has scen and talked with both many times, and he has had numerous conversations with them on philosophical, political, and educa- tional subjects. As is usual In conversations between friends and relatives the talks were frank and intimate without reservations or evasions, and affiant was in a position to Jearn the real opinions on social and political subjects which were held by Affant jis therefore in a position to state that nelther were ever Commu- nists or Communist sympathizers. On the contrary they were always strongly opposed to totalitartan systems of government whether Communist, Nazi, or Fascist. Affiant further says that and . her husband, have always held in abhorrence the Communist system of gov- srnment under which the individual is de- prived of the basic freedoms to which the ‘ndividual is entitled in a democratic state, Chey have always been opposed to the Com- nunist practice which subjugates the iIndi~- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE vidual and makes a fearsome robot of him. They have always been contemptuous of a system under which elections are not free, but the individual is given one set of candi- dates to either vote for or against. On all the foregoing matters they have frequently expressed themselves in clear and unmistaka- ble language. Affant further says that both @ro persons of fine character and high intelli- gence. They are idealistically inclined and are kcenly interested in philosophy and edu- cation. I consider them both to be worthy citizens of the United States of America, strong adherents of the American form of government, who as the parents of two chil- dren are very much interested in rearing them to be good Americans. They fully sub- scribe to the Constitution of the United States and I am sure they would hold in abhorrence anyone who would wish to over- throw or undermine our system of govern- ment. JosePH I. KEMLER. Sworn to and subscribed before me at Miami, Dade County, Fla., this 23d day of October 1948, [SEAL] Sam SIMONHOFF, Notary Public, State of Florida at Large. My commission expires January 8, 1952, BRavENTON, FLA., November 1, 1948, To Whom It May Concern: This is to state that I have known since we were small children (3 or 4 years of age) and that we were especially close filends at Lower Merion Junior and Senior High Schools, Ardmore, Pa., from 1928 to 1933. Since we lived near each other in Gladwyne, Pa., we were frequent visitors in each other's homes. I knew her mother, father, sister Bella, and her brother Norman, also, Each of her family was civic minded and a respected citizen of the community. Neither nor any of her family ever participated 1n communistic or any sub- versive or radical activities either in or out of school. During school days we sang together in the chorus, often rehearsed our numbers at each other's homes, and traveled to and from con- certs together. Since we did not have a radio at our house, I recall enjoying numerous programs with - and her family. Our interest in needlework brought us together often for sewing and conversation centering on Frchool and its activities. Sports was al- ways a chief topic for we were both very proud of our school’s athletic records. We were ardent fans and could be found to- gether at most home games. We shared our enthusiasm for hiking and tennis with other girls in the neighborhood, We, also, par- ticipated together in the dramatic club activities, Following high school, I attended State Tenchers College at Buffalo, N, Y., taught home economics for 5 years near Buffalo, and in 1942, married Melvin J. Bates, also a teacher, With our two small children we are now residing in Bradenton, Fla, My hus- band teaches math , science, and shop in Pal me(to Junior Ugh, Palmetto, Fla. I am teaching home economics and science in the same school. I have always found to be a true and loyal person and have valued our friendship these many years. RutH Harrison Bates. wee before me this 2d day of November W. W. Witte, Jr., Notary Public, State ‘of Florida at Large. My commission expires October 1, 1951, Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President—— The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator yield? Mr, WHERRY, I want ‘the floor in my own right. JULY 25 Mr. MORSE and Mr. DONNELL ad- dressed the Chair. The VICE PRESIDENT. 'The Senator from Connecticut—— Mr. McMAHON. I yielded to the Sen- ator from Oregon, and sent him the file. Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I want the Senator from Nebraska to know that I want him to have the floor just as soon as I finish this discussion. Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, 8 par- liamentary inquiry. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair will recognize the Senator from Mis- souri as soon as he can. Mr. MORSE, Mr. President-—— The VICE PRESIDENT. Both the Senator from Connecticut and the Sen- ator from Missourl were claiming the floor at the same time, and the Chair recognized the Senator from Connecti- cut instead of the Senator from Mis- souri, and the Chair feels under some ob- ligation to recognize the Senator from Missouri when the Senator from Con- necticut has yielded the floor. Mr. MORSE. A parliamentary in- quiry. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator wiil state it. Mr. MORSE. Is it proper for the junior Senator from Oregon to ask unan- imous consent to make a few very brief remarks on the letter which the Senator from Connecticut has introduced into the Recor», which letter, I think, should have my comment at the time it is in- troduced, for very obvious reasons? The VICE PRESIDENT. If the Sen- ator from Connecticut is retaining the floor, he may, by unanimous consent, yicld to the Senator for that purpose. Mr. McMAHON. Mr. President, I wish to yield to the Senator from Ore- con, and hope that the unanimous con- sent may be forthcoming. The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there ob- jection? The Chair hears none, and the Senator from Oregon may proceed. Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I shall bo very brief. As I have said, I under- stand that when I was out making a long-distance telephon2 call the Senator from Connecticut introduced a series of affidavits in regard to the unnamed per- son whom the Senator from Wisconsin fMr. McCartity] was discussing this afternoon, and that one of those affi- davits was a letter written by the Sen- ator from Oregon. My, President, I want the Recorp to be perfectly clear in regard to that let- ter, and therefore I desire to read it and disclose the persons about whom it was written, and to whom the letter was written. The letter is dated October 26, 1948. Mr. MCMAHON. Mr. President, will the Senator state whether I heard him correctly to say that he was going to divulge the name? Mr. MORSE. I am going to read the entire letter. Mr. McMAHON. Giving the name of the subject? Mr. MORSE. I most certainly am. Mr. McMAHON. Both the Senator from Wisconsin and the Senator from Connecticut have ‘carefully crossed out the subject’s name.
1950 Mr. MORSE. I will assume full re- “ponsibility for the disclosure. Mr. MCMAHON, I might say that I was in communication with the subject, and I got permission from him, because I could not get it from the State Depart- ment, to read the affidavits into the Record, providing, of course, the name was not divulged. Of course I cannot prevent the Senator from Oregon from going into it. Mr. MORSE. I understand how the subject might take that attitude, but the name of the Senator from Oregon has been discussed publicly on the floor of the Senate, and now the name of the subject is going to be discussed publicly on the floor of the Senate. Any state- ment the Senator from Connecticut made to the subject cannot be binding upon the Senator from Oregon now that his name has become involved in this debate. My. President, from 1936 to 1938 or the first part of 1959 the junior Senator from Oregon was an assistant to the At- torney General of the United States un- der the Criminal Division of the Depart- ment of Justice. My distinguished superior officer was the present senior Senator from Connecticut |Mr. Mc- Mauon]. I do not know of a more pleas- ant association I have ever had in my life than my association with the Sen- ator from Connecticut [Mr. McManon] and the other members of the Depart- ment of Justice with whom I worked during those years when I served as director and editor in chief of the Attor- ney Gencral’s Survey of Release Proce- dures. Release procedu.es is a legal term which encompasses within its defi- nition pardon, probation, and parole. The Attorney General’s survey started out as a WPA project for white collar workers in the United States among lawyers and statisticians and similar professional people who at that time were on relicf. I was not on relief, but I was selected to direct this particular research study in c1iminal law adminis- tration and we employed many profes- sional people who were on relief, I had some 2,000 people on the pay- roll during the first part of the study. We made a Nation-wide study, State by State, of the administration of pardon, parole, probation, and prison adminis- tration in the United States. The individual under discussion this afternoon happened to be one of the 2,000 or more employees on the Nation- wide staff of the survey. He was selected by and worked for the then dean of the Stetson Law School, of Florida, Paul Raymond, now a prominent attorney in Daytona Beach, Fla. He assisted Dean Raymond in the research connected with the parole volume that was subsequently published under my editorship. Dean Raymond was one of my most able asso- ciates on the survey and he is a fine lawyer and loyal citizen. Mr. President, that is the background I wish to report to the Senate as to my connection with the individual who has been discussed at much length this after- noon by the Senator from Wisconsin. The letter I addressed to the Loyalty Board speaks for itself. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator would yield to me to make for the Recorp some show- ing as to the quality of the Florida citi- zen who has been mentioned. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Oregon is speaking in the time of the Senator from Connecticut. Mr. MORSE. When I get through with the letter, I intend to enlarge upon my remarks about Mr. Raymond. If, when I finish with that, the Senator from Florida wishes to comment further upon Mr. Raymond and the Senator from Connecticut can get permission for him to do so, I shall have no objection. Mr. HOLLAND. I should like to have the privilege. Mr. MORSE. The letter reads as follows: THE LOYALTY SEecurRiITy Boarn, DEPARTMENT oF STATE, New STATE DEPARTMENT BUILDING, Washington 25, D.C. GENTLEMEN: I have just received a tele- phone call from Mr. Paul E. Raymond, an attorney of Daytona Beach, Fla., formerly dean of the John B. Stetson Law School of Florida, in regard to Mr. Edward G. Posniak. Mr. Raymond informs me that Mr. Posniak, an employee of the State Department, is being investigated by the Loyalty Security Board on charges that he is or has been a Communist. Mr. Ruymond was on my staff in the United States Department of Justice from 1936 to 1938, when I was Director of the Attorney General’s Survey of Release Procedures He served as director and editor of that phase of the study which dealt with the subject of parole One of Mr Raymond's assistants on the editorial staff was Mr. Edward G. Posniak, who had been appointed as a soci- ologist to assist the editorial board with some of the sociological problems involved in parole procedures. As director and editor in chief of the entire Survey, I came to know Mr. Posniak in connection with his work of our staff. On the basis of his professional work for the Attorney General's Survey of Release Pro- cedures during the period of time indicated above, he gave no indication at all that he held even friendly feelings toward the com- munistic tdeology. In fact, it would he a great surprise to me, as well as a keen dis- appointment if, since leaving his work in the Department of Justice, Mr. Posniak had developed even the slightest sympathy for the Communist philosophy. Of course I did not know Mr. Posniak in- timately outside of his office, but my recol- lection of him is that he was always a rather emphatic opponent of the totalitarian view, be it of fascism, naziism, or communism. As I recall Mr. Posniak came to the United States from Poland, but I am not certain about that. However, I do recall distinctly that he was very critical in those days of the totalitarian philosophy which was sweep- ing Europe in Germany and Italy as well as in Russta. Nevertheless, I wish to make it perfectly clear that I have had no contacts with Mr. Posniak whatsoever since 1038, and I am in no position to pass any reliable Judgment whatsoever upon his political, social, eco- nomic, or religious philosophy since he served on the Department of Justice staff at the same time I was there. Also, I wish to make perfectly clear that if there is any evidence against Mr. Posnisk which establishes the fact that he is a Communist or a fellow traveler, then I am very much of the opinion that he and all others of like point of view should be discharged from holding any posl- tion in our Federal Government, 10949 However, in fairness to Mr. Posntak, for whatever value it may prove to be worth in Nght of any evidence which has been de- veloped subsequent to his service with the Department of Justice, I think it is only right to give you my impression that when he was associated on Mr. Raymond's edi- torial staff in connection with the parole phase of our study, Mr. Posniak gave no in- dication that he held any sympathy what- soever for any form of totalitarianism, in- cluding communism, Very truly yours, ‘Wayne Morse. Mr. President, I hesitated to read this letter, but on the other hand, when a letter of mine is introduced into the Rec- orD—and I have no objection to its being introduced into the Recorp—so far as the junior Senator from Oregon 1s con- cerned, from that point on no names mentioned in the letter are going to be withheld from the Senate. It would not be fair to me not to make a full dis- closure of the person involved in this case now that my name has been men- tioned in connection with it? Believe me, Mr. President, when I be- come involved in any matter of this na- ture, I care not how incidental or minor the involvement may be, I am going to produce, so far as I am concerned, the full record. I am not going to conceal any names. I think it is Just such sec- recy that leads to unfounded rumors and serious misunderstandings. I want to say with regard to the for- mer dean of the Stetson Law School, Mr. Raymond, that he is a very good friend of mine. He was on my law fac- ulty in the University of Oregon for 1 year during the early 1930's, He was a teacher of superior ability. He is a for- mer resident of the State of Iowa. He is a graduate, as I recall, of the Uni- versity of Iowa Law School. He is a fine citizen, and I am satisfied, Mr. Presi- dent, that the views I expressed in my letter would b° the views of Dean Ray- mond. If Dean Raymond had any evi- dence presented to him which either in- dicated that this man or any other man was even sympathetic to communism, he would want to see to it that such a per- son was eliminated from the State De- pariment. That is the view I expressed in my letter. It has always been my view. On the basis of the very limited professional relation I had with Mr. Posniak while he was serving on Dean Raymond’s staff, I had no reason to be- lieve that he was sympathetic with to- talitarianism in any form, including communism. As I said in my letter to the State Department Loyalty Board, I have had no contacts with him, so far as my recollection is concerned, since 1938. I do not know what has trans- pired in regard to him since 1928. But believe me, if he is even a sympathizer with the Communist philosophy, then he ought to be eliminated from the State Department, as I said in my letter. If, on the other hand, he is innocent of any connection whatsoever with the Com- munist cause, then I think the Loyalty Board owes it to him to clear him. I do not know officially what action the Loyalty Board has taken, but in view of the fact that, if I correctly understood the conversation here today, he is still
10950 in the State Department, and in view of the fact that a hearing was held on him, I assume he was cleared, but I do not know that to be a fact. Mr McCARTHY. Mr. President, will the Senator from Oregon yleld? Mr MORSE Mr President, the Sen- ator will have to ask the Senator from Connecticut to yield. The Senator from Connecticut {Mr. McManon! has the floor. So far asIam concerned, I should be glad to yield Mr McMAHON. Mr. President, I had agreed to yield to the Senator from Florida [Mr. Ho.tann] who wishes, I be- lieve, to make a comment regarding Mr. Raymond Mr. HOLLAND. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, I simply wanted it to appear clearly in the Recorp, for any good purpose that may be subserved— and I wish the Senator from Oregon would give attention, if he will—that Dean Raymond is regarded in our State as a very splendid and high grade Amer- ican. He came to Florida, I believe, from the University of Oregon. He was dean of the law school of the John B. Stetson University. He went from there to become an able member of the staff of the Attorney General of Florida, as an assistant attorney general, and from there went into the armed forces as an officer in the Navy during the war, where he served with ability and distinction I do not know how his name comes into this matter, but I wanted it clearly to appear that Dean Raymond 1s a citi- zen of undoubted patriotism and an at- torney of very high reputation in our State, where he is well and most favor- ably known Mr MORSE Mr. President, if the Senator will permit me, I want to asso- ciate myself with what he has said about Dean Raymond, and I want the Recorp to show that Dean Raymond happens to be one of my very best friends. Mr, DONNELL secured the floor, Mr McCARTHY. Mr President, will the Senator yicld? Mr. DONNELL I yield. Mr McCARTHY. I should like to ask the Senator from Missouri a question. As I understand, the Senator is a law- yer; is he not? Mr DONNELL, Well, that is my pro- fession Mr McCARTHY. And has been for & number of years? Mr. DONNELL. Yes. Mr. KEM. Mr President, let me say for the Recorp that the senior Senator from Missouri is a very distinguished lawycr, and has been for many years in Missouri. The VICE PRESIDENT, The Senator from Missouri has yielded to the Senator from Wisconsin. Let Senators speak one ata time. Mr. DONNELL. I have yielded to the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. McCARTHY. Does not the Sen- ator from Missouri agree with me that we have demonstrated here a very, very dangerous picture of the loyalty proce- dure? Have we not also had demon- strated a very dangerous picture of how the committee has acted? Have we not CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE had demonstrated on the floor, for ex- ample, what has occurred after the loy- alty board has received positive, uncon- tradicted evidence that a State Depart- ment official, together with his wife, be- longed to the Communist Party; that they had in their home a man who was a known party member, with the posi- tive admission on the part of the wife that she roomed with the two women who were “probably Communists”? We have all that positive testimony of a man having belonged to the party. Then the attorney for the accused man goes out, in this case one of Dean Acheson's law partners, and secures affidavits, negative testumony from people saying ‘‘We do not know he was a Communist.” And be- cause they have been able to find 21 per- sons who do not know this man was a Communist, they then use that testi- mony to offset all the positive testimony. Under that theory of the law, affidavits of a few hundred people that they did not know that the Senator was from Missour1: would prove he was from some other part of the world. Mr DONNELL. Mr. President, I do not care to engage in discussion of the question at issue between the Senator from Wisconsin and those who may op- pose his views. My remarks today are addressed to another question. The qucstion is a very simple one, and I think @ very important one. I trust the Sen- ator from Wisconsin will not take offense at my not going into the subject matter of which he is speaking. Mr McCARTHY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield briefly again? The VICE PRESIDENT Does the Senator from Missouri yield to the Sen- ator from Wisconsin for a question? Mr. DONNELL. I yield for a question only, Mr. McCARTHY ‘The Senator may not care to discuss this matter, but I should like to get 1t into the Recorp Does the Senator agree with me that after a man such as Alger Hiss is proved to be a member of the party, an espio- nage agent, he 1s able to secure witnesses, Supreme Court Justices, if you please, prominent men to testify that they do not know he 1s a Communist, that they do not know he is an agent, does not the fact that he can secure such prominent men to come forth and testify for him indicate that he is much more dangerous than the Communist who is recognized by everyone as such? Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, the Senator has presented in his question the point which he has in mind. Of course, I think we all realize that any individual who is capable of command- ing the favorable attention of great out- standing men such as members of the Supreme Court, has it within his power to be not merely a power for good but also a power for evil if those character- istics are inherent in him. This after- noon I shall not undertake to discuss Alger Hiss or any of the other dramatis personae who have been mentioned here this afternoon. Mr.McFARLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me? Mr. DONNELL, I yield for a question. JULY 25 Mr, McFARLAND. I should like to ask the Senator to yield to me to make & unanimous-consent request. Mr. DONNELL. If I may do so with- out losing the floor I shall do it with pleasure. The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there ob- jection to the Senator from Missouri yielding to the Senator from Arizona, without losing the floor? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered. Mr. McFARLAND. Mr. President, I have been trying to work out a plan by which we can give some consideration to- day to the appropriation bill, which is the unfinished business. I understand the senior Senator from Nebraska [Mr. But- LER] desires to make a few remarks at the conclusion of the remarks of the Sen- ator from Missouri, and that the junior Senator from Michigan |Mr. Feravson] also desires to address the Senate. I therefore ask unanimous consent, Mr President, that after those remarks have been concluded, that the remainder of the day be devoted to the unfinished business, the appropriation bill, and that debate upon amendments thereto be lim- ited to 10 minutes to each Senator, and that all remarks be germane to the amendments, Mr LANGER. Mr President, I object. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from North Dakota objects. Mr. McFARLAND. Mr. President, I wish to give notice that we are going to have a night session unless we can de- vote 2 hours to the appropriation bill. The procedure of using all the time for speeches on matters not related to the unfinished business must cease. Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, I did not yield for the purpose of anything other than a unanimous-consent re- quest. Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. DONNELL. I yield, although I should hke to proceed with the subject matter which I wish to discuss, and I do not desire to go into extraneous mat- ers. Mr. McCARTHY. The Senator from Missouri may not wish to discuss this question now; if so, I hope perhaps he will discuss it later: Is the Senator aware of the fact that at the time when Mr. X was working on the project described by the Senator from Oregon | Mr. Morse], Mr. X was then a citizen of Russia, and did not become a naturalized citizen of the United States until 1939? Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, I am not aware of the Posniak matter; but I wish to say that I have been impressed with the earnestness and stick-to-it-ive- ness and courage of the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. McCarty] in present- ing the matters he has discussed today and previous to today; and I wish to pay tribute to him for those qualities, which he has evidenced here on the floor of the Senate. However, Mr. President, my purpose today is not to discuss the Senator from Wisconsin or the Senator from Mary- land or Mr. Posniak or Mr. Hiss. In- deed, my remarks are addressed, as I have indicated, to a question which |
1950 consider to be a very important one. It is a question which arises out of recent happenings in connection with the sub- committee which was headed by the dis- tinguished Senator from Maryland [Mr. Typincs], and it relates to the report which was presented and filed, concern- ing which the Senate has already heard much, The question I desire to discuss is this: Is it proper that Report No. 2108, Eighty- first Congress, second session, be circu- lated with its cover page containing the words “Report of the Committee on Foreign Relations’? Mr. President, the importance of this question is inherent in the facts which have been disclosed before the Senate. If the report is a report of the Commit- tee on Foreign Relations, it is entirely proper that it be circulated under that title, By so doing, it carries much pres- tige and much weight and much validity, because the Committee on Foreign Re- lations, headed, as it is, by the distin- guished senior Senator from Texas (Mr. ConnaLty], has in its membership 12 other Senators, all of whom are noted and stand high in the United States. I shall not mention the names of the Sen- ators who were on the subcommittee, although I wish to point out that I do not refrain from stating their names at this time because of any desire to dis- criminate against them or to make any intimation whatsoever regarding them. To the contrary, I desire to point out that in addition to them—men whose names have been so prominently fea- tured in the debate during the last few days—the other members of the Com- mittee on Foreign Relations include the following: the chairman of the commit- tee, the distinguished senior Senator from Texas [Mr, ConnatLty], whom I have already mentioned, the Senator from Georgia |Mr. GrorceE], the Senator from Utah |[Mr. Tuomas], the Senator from Florida |Mr. Peprer], the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Fuusricut], the senator from Michigan [Mr. VANDEN- BERG], the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Wiey], and the Senator from New Jer- sey [Mr. SmirH], in addition—and per- haps in justice to them, I should specifi- cally state for the Recorp all the names of the members of the subcommittee— to the Senator from Maryland [Mr. Ty- pings], the Senator from Rhode Island \Mr. Green], the Senator from Connec- ticut [Mr. McManown], the Senator from Iowa [Mr. HrcKENLOOPER], and the Sen- ator from Massachusetts [Mr. LoncE]. I say that if this report goes forth to the American public with the title “Re- port of the Committee on Foreign Re- Jations’—a committee which consists of the eminent Members of the Senate to whom I have just referred—it will carry a tremendous amount of weight. Of course, even if the report goes forth as a report of the subcommittee, it will carry weight commensurate with the stature of those who served on the sub- committee. However, there is a very great difference between a report of a subcommittee which is presented to the committee which has created it, a re- port which is subordinate to that com- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE mittee, a report which can be reviewed by the committee which created the sub- committee, and a report of a full com- mittee itself—a full committee which, after careful study and deliberation, shall have passed upon the contents of the report and shall have promulgated it to the Nation as an official report of the entire committee. So, Mr. President, I say it is no mere idle or technical or formal question which is asked, when I inquire this after- noon whether it is proper that Report No. 2108 be circulated with its cover page containing the words “Report of the Committee on Foreign Relations.” Mr. President, I now hold in my hand Senate Resolution No. 316, which has been submitted by the junior Senator from Vermont [Mr. FLanpers]. It has not been acted upon as yet by the Sen- ate; but the resolution indicates some- thing of the importance of determining once and for all whether this report is actually a report of the Committee on Foreign Relations or whether it is merely a report of a subcommittee. If it is a report of the Committee on Foreign Relations, there is no objection to having the report circulated as such. On the other hand, if the report is merely a@ report of a subcommittee of the Com- mittee on Foreign Relations, there is all the objection in the world to sending forth the report to the people of the Na- tion as an official report of the entire committee of 13 members who deal with the subject matter of foreign relations. Mr. President, the resolution (8. Res. 316) submitted by the junior Senator from Vermont [Mr. FLANDERS], was sub- mitted on July 21 of this year, and reads as follows: Whereas Report No. 2108, entitled “State Department Employee Loyalty Investigation,” as printed and distributed on July 21— I pause to call attention to the fact that the report is so printed and dis- tributed that it is described on the cover page as “Report of the Committee on Foreign Relations,” I turn now to the resolution. After the words “printed and distributed on July 21,” we find in Senate Resolution 316 the following— differs from the report sub.aitted to the Senate on July 20 in certain important re- spects, particularly in being called on the cover sheet a report of the committee; and Whereas it does not appear that the For- eign Relations Committee has adopted the report; and Whereas a false impression of the status of this report will be spread abroad by the cover which has been substituted since it was received by this body: Therefore be it Resolved, That said Report No. 2108 be at once withdrawn from distribution until the cover be replaced to agree with that covering the report as submitted. Mr. President, deeming the question of whether the document which has been printed and prepared for circulation, and doubtless already to some extent has been circulated, is or is not a report of the committee whose report it purports to be, I made this statement to the Sen- ate on the afternoon of July 21, as shown at page 10785 of the ConGRESsSIONAL REc- ORD: Iam going to the committee— 10951 I was referring to the Foreign Rela- tions Committee— to find out, if I can what the action of the Committee on Foreign Relations was, with respect to this report, and to bring to the Senate information as to what the ac- tion was. Mr. President, © little later this after- noon J shall tell the Senate what has been done in pursuance of that promise, as s0 made by me. On July 20, 1950, the senior Senator from Maryland sent to the desk a report entitled “Report of a Subcommittce of the Committee on Foreign Relations Pusuant to Senate Resolution 231, A Resolution to Investigate Whether There Are Employees in the State Department Disloyal to the United States, Together With Individual Views of Senator Lopce.” It will be observed that the quotation which I have just read, which appears upon the cover page of the document sent to the desk, on July 20, by the senior Senator from Maryland, includes the words ‘‘Report of a Subcommittee’’—and I emphasize by my voice the word “Sub- committee.” There was no statement upon that occasion, Mr. President, that the report was the report of the Com- mittee on Foreign Relations. The sen- ior Senator from Maryland stated, at or about the time he sent to the desk this report, that he was instructed by the full committee to submit to the Senate, “and that” he stated, “I now do.” That is on page 10686 of the ConGRESSIONAL ReEcorp. The Vice President announced, “The re- port is filed." The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. LopcE], a member of the Committee on Foreign Relations, speaking a few mo- ments later, said: It does not mean that any members of the committee agreed to it, if I correctly understand the action that was taken. I understood that the full committee merely transmitted the report, Just the same as the Post Office Department transmits a letter from one person to another. That is clear from the record. A moment later, another member of the Foreign Relations Committee—and I refer to the senior Senator from New Jersey (Mr, Smrru] took the floor and sald: Mr. President, as a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, I rise to take issue with the statement just made by the Senator from Maryland and say that the report is not a report of the Foreign Relations Committee. Within a few minutes, however, the chairman of the committee, the senior Senator from Texas [Mr. ConnaLiy] said: As chairman of the Foreign Relations Com- mittce, I appointed the subcommittee of the Foreign Relations Committee. It made the investigation, and as a subcommittee, re- ported to the Foreign Relations Committee. That committee, as the Committee on Foreign Relations, adopted a motion that the report of the subcommittee be reported to the Senate—not as the report of the sub- committee, but as the report of the full com- mittee. I, as chairman of the full committee, designated the Senator from Maryland [Mr. Tyoinas], for the full committee, to make the report to the United States Senate.
10952 That is all there is to the matter, 80 far ag I know. Our records show that. My. President, later in the same after- noon, July 20, the senior Senator from New Jersey (Mr. SmrrH] spoke further upon this question, and I quote a portion of what he said: As I have said, after the report had been received by the committee and the subcom- mittee was discharged—and we had all voted for it, kecause we thought it was the proper disposition of the matter—it was moved that the Committee on Foreign Relations trans- mit to the Senate through the chairman, or someone designated by him, the report of the subcommittee without comment one way or another. I voted for that with the dis- tinct understanding that it was simply carry- ing cut the wishes of the subcommittee chairman that the matter be transmitted to the Senate as a subcommittee report for such use as the Senate might see fit to make of It. Continuing, the Senator from New Hampshire said. I distinctly understood that it was not a report of the Committee on Foreign Rela- tions I doubt that anyone except the chairman of the subcommittee had read the report Incidentally, Mr. President, I pause to say that this report is one of 170 printed pages, attached to one, in fact, with an addendum of two further pages and ap- pendixes, of approximately 175 addi- tional pages And the Senator from New Jersey said: I doubt that anyone except the chairman of the subcommittee had read the report I do not know that anyone else ever had a chance to read it. There was no discussion of its merits The entire discussion was on procedure, and on the procedural question it was distinctly understood that we were merely having the report sent to the Senate by the chairman of the full committee, or someone designated by him He very prop- erly designated the Senator from Maryland {Mr. TypIncs], who had been chairman of the subcommittee I recollect very clearly that what was to be submitted to the Senate was the subcommittee report without com- ment. I want to make it clear, Mr. Presi- dent, that it was to be the subcommittee re- port without comment, because there seems to be some misunderstanding as to what the committee did Certainly I would not have voted “yea” on that motion if in doing so it meant that the committee was accepting the report and sending it to the Senate as the report of the Committee on Foreign Rela- tions While there was some discussion of whether we would debate the merits of the report and approve it or disapprove it we agreed that no one knew enough about it to discuss the merits Consequently no vote was taken to approve or disapprove the report. The Senator from Maryland |Mr. Typrncs] simply stated that he wanted to submit his report, to have it received by the committee, and to have the subcommittee discharged. After that we could do anything we wanted to do with respect to it Following that a member of the subcommittee made the mo- tion that the report be transmitted to the Senate through the chairman of the subcom- mittee, but only as a subcommittee report without comment. It 1s clear in my mind that it meant we were not passing on it, but simply sending it to the Senate without com- ment, because we had all agreed that we did not have time to read it or pass comment on It, I want to make my position clear, because those are the facts cs I remember them. If CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE any other member of the committee wishes to take issue with me, he may do so, but I thought that I must make this statement. I do so because it was perfectly clear that no position was taken one way or the other by the committee. We were simply transmitting to the Senate the report of the subcommittee, The form of the document as submitted 1s the report of the subcommittee of the Com- mittee on Foreign Relations pursuant to this resolution with a deletion of some language that reftected on the minority members of the subcommittee, Mr. President, we have thus heard from several of the Senators, members of the Foreign Relations Committee, speaking promptly during the session at which the Senator from Maryland pre- sented this report, cover-leafed as it was with the words “Report of a subcommit- tee of the Committee on Foreign Rela- tions’”” Within a few mirutes after the remarks of the senior Senator from New Jersey [Mr. SmirH] had been com- pleted, the senior Senator from Iowa {Mr HICKENLOOPER] rose, and in the course of the remarks on which he soon entered, said: Then the motion was made, if you please, Mr President, to transmit this document to the Senate, and the chairman was author- ized to designate a member to transmit it to the Senate. Mr President, 1f Senators will read the record of the Foreign Relations Committee at that meeting they will find that there was discussion about the particular mean- ing of the words which were used, and that “transmit” was used to indicate that the full committee was only a conduit by which this document, developed by three members of the subcommittee, could flow onto the Senate floor. The word “transmit” was used advisedly, and in the records of the Foreign Relations Committee it will be found that the discussion of whether or not the com- mittee should take action on this document was pushed aside, and the members of the committee said they would take no action except the transmittal of this particular document The Senate Foreign Relations Committee never approved this document— I am still quoting from the Senator from Iowa, a member of that committee. He said: The Senate Foreign Relations Committee never approved this document, never adopted it as the act of the Foreign Relations Com- mittee, and there is no statement of adop- tion in the record of the Foreign Relations Committee Mr, President, I believe the statements I am making are accurate. They are cer- tainly as I remember them, and I have been in some intimate assoclation with this com- mittee. I invite the attention of the Senate, Mr. President, to the fact that there was a particular reason why the Senator from Iowa would remember so accurately the tenor of the discussion and what was the intent of the members of the com- mittee, because he was one of the mem- bers of the subcommittee whose report, or the document purporting to be its re- port, was thus under discussion. Mr. President, in the course of the re- marks of the senior Senator from New Jersey [Mr. SmirH] in the Senate on July 20, he also said: Therefore, I raised the question whether it was officially @ report of the subcommit- JULY 25 tee, because no meeting was held for the purpose of approving or rejecting It. So, Mr. President, we observe that a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who was not on the subcom- mittee, raised this very interesting ques- tion, not merely the one as to whether this was a report of the committee, but whether it was even a report of the sub- committee. I shall have something more to say upon that very interesting ques- tion in a moment. In the course of the remarks of the senior Senator from Iowa [Mr. HicKen- LOOPER] on July 20, he spoke also to similar effect, raising the question, in- deed putting it somewhat more strong- ly, and saying that, in his judgment, there was no question that 1t was neither a report of the committee nor a report of the subcommittee. I should like to read what he said to the Senate on July 20: Mr. President, we have been talking about the mechanics of this thing today. But above and beyond that, I think there can be little question; in fact, there is no question in my mind, that this is neither a report of the Foreign Relations Committee nor 1s it actually a report of the subcommittee, be- cause, so far as I know, no meeting of the subcommittee was ever called to pass upon this report, at least so far as I, as a member of the minority on that subcommittee, received any notice. Mr. President, the Senator, on the same day listened to the Senator from Iowa make this further statement, at page 10699: Mr, President, this document— Referring to the one which had been presented by the senior Senator from Maryland— is a mysterious and a mysteriously prepared document. It is a document whose antece- dents, piternity, and maternity might be open to some serious and rather revealing facets. It is a document whose generation raises question in the mind of anyone who has followed this matter rather carefully. So it is not particularly surprising, Mr. President, to find that both the Senator from New Jersey and the Senator from Iowa raised the point, not solely the one which I have presented, namely, that the report which was presented obviously was one of the subcommittee, but they raised the further question as to whether it was even the report of the subcom- mittee, »ecause no meeting of the sub- committee had been called to pass upon the report. Mr. President, it was interesting and illuminating to the Members of the Sen- ate, I am sure, on yesterday, to have their attention invited to the fact by the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Lonce] that a considerable number of pages, some 35 typewritten pages of transcript of the subcommittee proceed- ings, had been omitted from the printed volume which I hold in my hand, and at the request of the Senator from Massa- chusetts the omitted portion was set forth in full in the Concressionat REc- orD, where it appears, beginning with page 10815. It have only hastily scanned portions of that Recorp, but I find in the hasty scanning which I have given to ita
1950 very interesting situation. I find, Mr. President, that the Senator from. Mary- land is reported at page 10817 as saying: Make a motion, then, so we can get your Point of view on paper. He was addressing the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Green]; and in re- sponse, the Senator from Rhode Island said: Well, I would suggest that the counsel for the committee make a draft report for this committee that we can discuss, in the first place. When you once have that draft re- port and have been over that, then we can discuss the findings. Then, Mr. President, we go further over and find a discussion between the Senator from Maryland and the Senator from Iowa [Mr. HICKENLOOPER] as to whether the work was pretty well con- cluded. The Senator from Maryland said: I think our work is pretty well concluded, if you want my opinion. The Senator from Iowa said: I do not think it is even started, Mr. Chairman. What I am reading from is the pro- ceedings before the subcommittee of the Committee on Foreign Relations, in ex- ecutive session held on Wednesday, June 28, 1950, reported in the CONGRESSIONAL Recorp, after having been omitted from the official volume containing what pur- ports to be the hearings before the sub- committee. It was the last day of the meetings of the subcommittee in the form of hearings, or the last day of the list o. days set forth on the cover of the hearings. 1 find, as I go through, that after the Senator from Maryland and the Senator from Iowa had discussed the question as to whether the work was pretty well completed, the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. McManon] said: “t seems to me like a sensible thing to make use of our counsel] to give us a brief of what we have already done. Then we find my good and distin- guished friend from Rhode Island [Mr. GREEN] a little later saying: We must make some sort of report, must we not? The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Lonce] said: My position is that the thing we ought to do is to report out a resolution, setting up @ trained bipartisan commission of experts t- make an independent investigation. The Senator from Rhode Island said: That may be a conclusion, but we must make a report of what we have done, surely. Then we go to page 10819, and the Senator from Maryland said this: Let me suggest that counsel prepare & tentative report to submit to the members of this committee— Listen to that, Mr. President—a ten- tative report— to submit to the members of this com- mittee, that each man prepare, if he wishes, such report as he want; and such recom- mendations as he wants, and that we pool those here and see if we can reach collectively or individually a basis for bringing our pres CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE ent hearings to a close and passing it on with recommendations for further action. (At this point Mr, Donneztr yielded to Mr. McFariann to propound a unani- mous-consent request relating to the appropriation bill, and debate ensued, which appears at the conclusion of Mr. DONNELL’s remarks.) Mr. DONNELL, Mr. President, it will be recalled in what I previously stated that the following was suggested by the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Green}, which appears at page 10817 of the Con- GRESSIONAL REcorpD of yesterday: Well, I would suggest that the counsel for the committee make a draft report for this committee that we can discuss, in the first place. So far as I have been able to find, Mr. President, there is nothing further emanating from the Senator from Rhode Island which could be construed to be a motion. Strictly speaking, Iam not cer- tain that what he said at that point could be considered a motion, because he says, “I would suggest.” However, it is evi- dently treated as a mot.on by the sub- committee. At any rate, it is the only motion made by the Senator from Rhode Island, and his motion reads in this way: Well, I would suggest that the counsel for the committee make a draft report for this committee— For this committee. The Senator from Rhode Island refers to the subcom- mittee, Let us see what happened on this motion, if it be such, made by the Senator from Rhode Island. I quote from page 10819 of the ConGrEssIONAL Recorp of yesterday: Senator Typines. All those in favor of the Green resolution will signify by saying “aye.” Senator GREEN. Aye, Senator McMAHON. Aye. Senator Typrnoes, All those opposed signify by saying “No.” Senator Lopez. No. Senator HickeEN.Loorer. No, Senator Typrnes. Two votes “no” and two the other way. Go ahead, Mr. Morgan, and prepare your report. The meeting is tn recess. Mr. President, I note with what I hope is not too obvious a sense of humor that the chairman of the committee did not actually cast a vote himself. I take it that the Senator would undoubtedly in- dicate that his direction, “go ahead, Mr. Morgan, and prepare your report,” would be considered as a vote on his part. I make no point of that. I do make a point, however, in supplementing the line discussed by the Senator from Iowa and the Senator from New Jersey as to whether or not this is even a report of the subcommittee, that the motion or the resolution that was carried, if the ac- tion of the Senator from Maryland in saying, “go ahead, Mr. Morgan, and pre- pare your report,” may be considered the equivalent of a yea vote, was the sug- gestion of the Senator from Rhode Is- land [Mr, Green] that “the counsel for the committee make a draft report for this committee.” Mr. President, as to this document, or this draft report, if it may be termed 10953 that, or, to use the language of the Sen- ator from Maryland, this tentative re- port which the counsel was instructed to prepare and submit to “the members of this committee,” followed by the direc- tion of the Senator from Maryland to the counsel, Mr. Morgan, “Go ahead and pre- pare your report,” it takes somewhat of a stretch of parliamentary imagination, to say nothing of parliamentary law, to consider that either the maternity or the paternity, to adopt the picturesque lan- guage of the Senator from Iowa I[Mr. HICKENLOOPER], is clear. At least there is considerable doubt as to whether or not any official action was taken, so far as the record discloses, by the subcom- mittee toward the presentation of the re- port itself. That is entirely aside from the proposition as to whether or not the document is the report of the full com- mittee as distinguished from the sub- committee. In this state of the proceedings, as set forth in the ConcressronaL Recorp on July 20 and the 21st, with the various statements of members of the Commit- tee on Foreign Relations, the Senator from Massachusetts {Mr. Longs], the Senator from New Jersey {Mr. SmitH), and the chairman of the committee {Mr. CoNnNALLY], all of them giving their views, we find that on July 21 there was received on the floor of the Senate copies of a report entitled “Report of the Com- mittee on Foreign Relations Pursuant to Senate Resolution 231, a Resolution to Investigate Whether There Are Employ- ees in the State Department Disloyal to the United States.” Mr. President, there is nothing in the record to indicate that between July 20, when the document was presented by the Senator from Maryland with “Report of a subcommittee’ on the outside of it. and the time on July 21 when there was presented some copies of a document entitled “Report of the Committee on Foreign Relations” the Committee on Foreign Relations had taken any action to authorize the report to be changed from a report of the subcommittee to a report of the full committee. ‘The docu- ment which appeared on the floor of the Senate on the afternoon of July 21 ap- pears to be, although I have not read all the hundreds of pages, but have simply scanned through it, precisely the same as the report which had heen presented on July 20 under the caption on the cover page “Report of a subcom- mittee of the Committee on Foreign Re- lations,” save only for two very signifi- cant things. One is that upon the cover page the words “of a subcommittee” have been deleted. They cannot be found with the highest powered microscope, be- cause they are not there any more. In the second place, on page numbered iil, which in the document presented and filed in this body on July 20 had read at the top “Contents. I. Report of a sub- committee,” there has been deleted and eliminated the “I. Report of a subcom- mittee.” So, the document which we had on July 21, and a copy of which I had in my hand during the afternoon as the debate
10954 progressed, and with reference to which T spoke as I had it in my hand, differs in important respects from the one which had been received on the day previous in the United States Senate. Mr President, in the course of the dis- cussion which developed after the arrival of these new copies, with the deletions to which I have referred, which suddenly transformed, in effulgent beauty, the cover page from a mere report of the subcommittee to a report cf the commit- tee, occurred this colloquy. Mr Suiru of New Jersey. Tho final vote was to transmit the report of the subcome- mittee to the Senate without reconmmenda- Yon Mr. CoNNALLY. The Senator is absolutely in error, as he will ascertain if he will con- sult the transcript which he has in his hand—the original transcript. The motion was that the committee report to the Senate. Mr SmiriH of New Jersey. The Senator is correct. I apologize Mr. ConNaLLy Very well I wanted to bring out. Mr. Smitir of New Jersey. The Senator moved that the Senate Foreign Relations Commuttee report to the Senate, thiough the chairman, or through someone designated by him, withcut comment Mr. ConNaLLy That is correct Mr. Smiri1 of New Jersey, But let me re- mark that that is the first place where the word “report” was used because throughout these particular proceedings, when the Sen- ator from Ficrida [Mr Prpeer] was discuss- ing the question, he uscd the word “transmit ” Mr. CONNALLY, The committee did not vote on what the Senator from Florida said. They voted on the question stated by the chairman. Mr President, before I read what the Senator from New Jersey said, I wish to say that it was obvious that the Sen- ator from Texas thought that 1f he made a@ motion that the committee “report” to the Senate, that the words thus used transformed this action of transmittal into one of adoption and reporting to the Senate a document adopted by the com- mittee. In the first place, Mr. President, I take it that this 1s a somewhat venuous posi- tion, even taking the word at its tech- nical meaning. But let me read some- thing of the substance of what the com- mittee had understood, as the Senator from New Jersey then proceeded: Mr. Suiru of New Jersey. It was the dif. ference betwen the words “transmit” and “report’’—that is, to “transmit” or “report” to the Senate the report of tre subcommittee without comment. I will not argue with the Senator about the words. [ither way, it means the same thing. Everyone under- stood it It was understood that we were transmitting the report of the subcommittee, and that the committee itself was taking no actéon on it because the members of the committee admitted that they had not read the report. So how could they make a re- port they had not read? I wish to pause, in fairness, to say that there is something to the point made by the Senator from Texas on the face of the record thus far which I have read into the Concressionat Recorp, that by the use of the word “report,” to which he called the attention of the Scnator from New Jersey and others, even though it be That is what CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE a tenuous ground, there is some basis, and perhaps some logical basis, for the Senator trom Texas to take the position that what was then and thereafter being done was to report on behalf of the Com- muttce on Foreign Relations. I wish to say, however, that a most interesting fact developed a little later from a Senator who had not been pres- ent at the meeting to which the Senator from Texas and the Senator from New Jersey referred. The Scnator whom I mention as not having been at the meet- ing and who contributed something to the discussion was the senior Senator from Wisconsin {Mr. Witzty]. On July 21, subsequent to the remarks made by the Senator from Texas and those by the Senator from New Jersey, the Sen- ator from Wisconsin rose, and in the course of what he said is this exceedingly interesting statement of his recollection. After reciting that he had been out of town and just returned, and went to the Committce on the Judiciary that morn- ing, where, if I am not mistaken, I re- member secing him myself, being a mem- ber of the same committee, he said: My information as to what took place in the meeting of the Foreign Relations Committee came to me later As soon as I could, Tues- day aftornoon, after hearing of the session of the Foreign Relations Committee, I did consult with the clerk of the committee and was bilefed on the subject. I have since looked at the minutes brichy. This is what he then said that is of particular interest: In the motion which was made by the Sen- ator from Florida {Mr. Pxrrer| in committee the word “transmit was uscd However, when the motion was stated by the chairman of the committee the word “report” was used In the meanwhile there had been a dis- cussion 12 committee as to whether or not the committce would approve the repoit As T recall, trom a very bricf analysis, and from what wus told me, it was the consensus of those present that there could be no accept- fice or approval of the report uatil the repoit had been studied. Mr. Fresident, I pause to call attention to the fact that I assume that we would agree that the chairman could not, by the mere change of a word, change the miotion which had been made. The recollection of the Senator from Wiscon- sinis that in his motion the Senator from Florida used the word “transmit,” but, as the Senator from Wisconsin further said: However, when the motion was stated by the chairman of the committee, the word “report” was used In the meanwhile there had been a discussion in the committee as to whether or not the committee would ap- prove the report. As I recall, from a very brief analysis, and from what was told me, it was the consensus of those present that there could be no acceptance or approval of the report until the report had been studied. Yes, Mr. President, this is a report of 170 printed pages, a great deal of it in very small type. For instance, I point at random to pages 120 and 121, which are m small type, and down at the bottom extended quotations from testimony. It would take a great deal of time to con- sider and deliberate on a report of 170 JULY 25 pages, with 175 additional pages, or thereabout, in appendices and addenda. Then said the Senator from Wis- consin: I shall have something to say later, but I belHeve in view of the general discussion here es to whether or not this is the report of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, it is important that I at least express my own views on the report. The intent seems plain, The Senate Foreign Relations Com- mittee meent to tran.mit the report but not approve the same. The page on which there statements of the Senator from Wisconsin appear is 10788 of the Recorp of July 21. Mr. President, I refer to the question to which I addressed myself at the cut- set of my remarks, namely, is it proper for Report No. 21038, Eighty-first Con- gress, second session, to be circulated with its title page containing the words “Report of the Committee on Foreign Relations’? In order to know whether or not it is proper to circulate this document to the public with the statement upon ii that it is the report of the Committee on For- eign Relations, it is essential, as I see it, to know whether the full committee did in fact adopt the subcommittee report as the report of the full committee. The other afternoon I made the state- ment to the Senate, as I have previously indicated, that I was going to the com. mittee to find out, if I could, what the action of the Committee on Forcien Re- lations was with respect to this report, and to bring to the Senate information as to what the action was. I did so. I went to the office of the Committee on Foreign Relations about 9 o’clock in the morning, immediately following our dis- cussion here cn the floor on July 22. I shall not give the Senate all the details of what transpired, because the Senate will observe in a moment that a letter was wiitten by me subsequently in the morning, and a Ictter received back by me later on that day. I shall introduce those Ictters in a few moments into the REcorp. I may say, Mr. President, that I have been orally assured by Dr. Francis O. Wilcox, chief of staff of the Senate Com- mittee on Forcign Relations, that I am not required to keep confidential the contents of the Ictter dated July 22, 1950, from him to me, or the copy of certain comments by the distinguished senior Senator from Texas {Mr. ConnaLLy] to the press on July 18, or the contents of the copies of certain motions which Dr. Wilcox kindly sent to me with his letter dated July 22. In a few moments I shall, however, have something to say about the use of those copies of certain motions derived, as they are, from the transcript. Mr. President, I see Dr. Wilcox in the Chamber now, and I should like to say that with his usual and constant cour- tesy, he was very courteous to me. I could have not the slightest criticism of his courtesy to me on the occasion of my visit tohim. I want to say to the Senate that to my mind we have, in Dr. Wilcox, a& gentleman who is no. only efficient, but who is trying to do his duty and who
1950 is courteous to the Members of the Sen- ate, whether they are members of the committee with which he is connected or not. The letter which I sent to him on the morning of July 22 reads as-follows: JULY 22, 1950. Dr. Francis 0. Wi.cox, Chie? of Staff of Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, the Capitol, Washington, D. C. Dear Dr. Wicox: This confirms the re- quest which of you, as the chief of staff of the Senate Committee on Foreign Rela- tions, I made this morning on said commit- tee for the privilege of reading tha complete transcript of those proceedings of the com- mittee with respect to the report of a sub- committee of the Committee on Foreign Re- lations pursuant to Senate Resolution 231, which occurred at or after the presentation of said report to the committee. My request was accompanied by my statement to the effect that, if I be permitted to read those proceedings, I intend to copy such portion or all of them as I deem proper and present to the United States Senate such of said pro- ceedings as I deem proper so to present. In our conversation this morning I made not only a request but a demand. On reconsid- eration, I withdraw the demand, but, as above stated, confirm the request. This also confirms my request made this morning of you as the chief of staff of the Senate Committee on Forcign Relations for a copy of (a) the contents of motions made before the committee concerning said report after its presentation to the committee, and (b) the contents of statement made to the press by the chairman os to what motions had been acted on by the committee with respect to said report. Kindly give to the committee this letter. Yours very truly, Forrest C, DONNELL. Mr. President, I should like to supple- ment the letter by saying that Dr. Wilcox had and placed before me on the table on the morning of Saturday, July 22, what he informed me was a transcript of the pro- ceedings, and it would have been entirely possible for me to have opened it and read it. In fact, it was entirely agreeable to him that I should do so. But he made it clear to me that he deemed it to be his duty, and I respect him for doing what he thought was his duty, to inform me of what he deemed to be the practice, that information so received by Senators from reading such transcripts was to be kept confidential. I declined, Mr. Presi- dent, to look inside the book to see what was in it with that confidence imposed upon me, because the purpose of my go- ing there was to sccure access to the book in order to sec what transpired, and bring the information to the Senate. I may say also with’ regard to the ques- tion of the demand, that I did make a de- mand, not merely a request but a demand but on reflection it appeared to me that perhaps I had gone somewhat too far, and that a request would be sufficient to make my point, and that it would be more respectful to the committee to confine my attitude to a request rather than to a demand. ‘Therefore, on reconsidera- tion, as pointed out in my letter of July 22 to Dr. Wilcox, I withdrew the demand, but, as therein stated, confirmed the re- quest, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE As T was at the luncheon table on July 22—and this shows something of the promptness of Dr, Wilcox in bring- ing to me a@ response to my letter—he personally came to me into the Senate restaurant in the Capitol and bore with him three items which he handed to me in an envelope, and which I have subse- quently read. One of them is a letter dated July 22, 1950, on the letterhead of “United States Senate, Committee on Foreign Relations,” listing the names of the members of the committee, and “Francis O, Wilcox, Chief of Staff,” ad- dressed to me, and reading as follows: Hon Forrest C. DONNELL, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. Dear SENATOR DONNELL: This will acknowl- edge your letter of July 22, and your request to be permitted to read the transcript of the executive proceedings of the committce on July 18 when the report of the subcommittee created pursuant to Senate Resolution 231 was discussed. I note also your statement that you intend to copy such portion of the procecdings as you deem proper and present to the Senate such of the said proceedings as you deem proper to present, As I explained to you this morning, the commuttee staff is always glad to make avail- able to Members of the Senate any rccords of the committee sessions they may wish to see. As you know, however, it is policy of the committee to do everything possible to main- tain the integrity of its executive transcripts. In line with this policy it has been the reg- ular practice of the staff to remind Senators who wish to read the committee records that the information contained therein is con- fidential or secret in nature and should be treated as such. In view of the nature of your request, it will be necessary for me to present your letter to the committee for its consideration. I will be glad to do this at the first oppor- tunity. I am enclosing copies of the motions made before the committee concerning the re- port and the comments made by the chair- mian of the committee to the press follow. ing the mecting. Sincerely yours, Francis C. “VILcox. Mr, President, in addition to this let- ter, Dr. Wilcox handed me a sheet of paper entitled “Votes on Senate Resolu- tion 231 in Committee on Foreign Rela- tions, July 18, 1950,” this sheet likewise being on stationery of the United States Senate, Committee on Foreign Relations, with the names as previously indicated thereon. Mr. President, I am not willing to re- veal the contents of the copies of the mo- tions as set forth on this sheet. Not- withstanding the assurance by Dr. Wil- cox, who I know {s acting in the utmost of good faith, it might nevertheless be Geemed by the Scnate that those con- tents, having been derived from the transcript, are the secret or confidential business of the Senate Comunittee on Foreign Relations. I may say I do not share the view that they are, because of various facts, one of which is that the chairman of the committee issued a press release very shortly after the close of the meeting of the committee on July 18. Nevertheless, Mr. President, in view of the fact that it might be deemed by 10955 the Senate that those contents of the motions, having been derived from the transcript, are the secret or confidential business of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, I shall not reveal the contents of the copies of those motions to the Senate, although, as I said, Dr. Wilcox has assured me that I am not re- quired to keep confidential the contents of the copies of those motions, I should hke to state, however, that I think that in justice both to the Foreign Relations Committee and the Senate, the contents of this sheet entitled ‘‘Votes on Senate Resolution 231 in Committee on Foreign Relations, July 18, 1950”— that is the way it is titled—should be made known, and I hope that the com- mittee, or its distinguished chairman, or such person as may be authorized by the committce, will release such if any secrecy attaches to them. Mr. President, at this point I wish to read the third item which Dr. Wilcox kindly handed to me on Saturday, July 22. It is typewritten, and contains the following on the outside cover: Press Conference, Senate Resolution 231, Tuesday, July 18, 1950. United States Sene ate, Coimmittee on Foreign Relations, Wash- ington, D. C. Senator Tom CONNALLY, chairman. Francis O. Wilcox, chief of staff; C. C. O'Day, clerk Franklin A. Steinko, stenotype reporter, 711 Fourteenth Street ‘NW., Washington, D.C. On the first inside page the following appears: Press conference, Tuesday, July 18, 1950. The CHaInMaNn,— Which, of course, is the distinguished senior Senator from Texas {Mr. Con- NALLY ]— The CrarMan, All right, gentlemen and ladies. The Forcign Relations Committee met this morning and there was submitted to it the report, which you have seen, no doubt— the Tydings subcommittee report. Mr. President, at this moment I call attention to the fact that in a few min- utes it will be observed that the press conference adjourned at 12:48 p. m., and the chairman referred to the fact that the committee had met that morn- ing. So the conference was reasonably nearly contemporaneous with the events to which the chairman of the commit- tee refers at the press conference; and I think that clearly indicates, if not his recollection of the language used in the statements made in that committee meeting, or even if the language used at the committee meeting differed in some respects from what was said at the press conference, that at least the statements made at the press conference should give us accurately the recollection of the chairman of the committee in regard to what had transpired at the committee meeting, inasmuch as he was reporting, I judge, evidently sometime shortly aft- er 12 o'clock noon on the same day. I read further from the statements made by the chairman of the committee at that press conference: It was moved in the committee that the report be recelved by the committee and
10956 the subcommittee was discharged. That was the first motion, carried 11 to nothing. I wish to emphasize the next portion of the statements made at the press con- ference. Second, tt was moved that the report of the subcommittee be transmitted to the Senate. That was all made in one motion, but they asked for division, so it was voted that way. That was voted 9 to 2. Everybody voted “aye” except Senator HICKFNLOOPER and Senator Lopce. They voted “no.” To recur to what was previously men- tioned this afternoon, let me say that the comment made by the Senator from Texas in that connection was that the committee report to the Senate. I am not. undertaking to say as to that, be- cause I have not seen the transenpt, and I am not able to say whether the Senator from Wisconsin is right or wrong when he says that the Senator who made the motion, the Senator from Florida (Mr. Pepper], used the word “transmit” in making his motion, but, that when the motion was stated by the chairman of the committee, the word “report” was used. I cannot assure the Senate which word was used. However, I say that at the press con- ference held shortly after noon, follow- ing the morning when the committee meeting had occurred, on the occasion of that press conference the chairman of the committee obviously was giving what he thought was the meaning—whether or not the exact language used—of what had occurred at the committee meeting. As I stated a moment ago, the chair- man said: Secord, it was moved that the report of the subcommittee be transmitted to the Senate, Mr. President, I emphasize the words “transmitted to the Senate,” not with a view of saying that those were the words used either in the motion or in th- way the motion was put by the chairman of the committee, or whether the Senator from Wisconsin 1s correct in his recol- lection that the Senator from Florida used the word “transmit” in making the 1uotion, but that when the chairman of the committee put the motion, he used the word “report.” Iam not undertaking to say as to that. However, there was the chairman of the committee making the statement, almost contemporane- ously with the event itself, that— Second, it was moved that the report of the subcommittee be transmitted to the Senate. Certainly it is reasonable to helreve that regardless of the precise language used—whatever it may have been—the thought of the Senator from Texas, the chairman of the committee, in speaking to the press almost contemporaneously with the committee meeting itself, was that the meaning of the committee and the thought of the committee was that the report of the subcommittee be trans- mitted to the Senate. Thea the chairman of the committee proceeded at the press conference with the following statement: That was all made in one motion, but they asked for division, so {t was voted that way. That was voted nine to two. Every- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE body voted aye except Senator HickEN- Looper and Senator Lopcr. They voted no, Question— ™m other words, @ question by some member of the press, I assume— Did they say why? The CHAIRMAN. I have not got an hour to tell you. Question, Any absentee Senators? The CHAIRMAN Yes, Senator McMaHon was absent, but he had a proxy. Senator Witry was absent, and, of course, Senator VANDENDERG js ill and was not here That covers the absentees, I believe. Question Senators WILEY and VANDENPERG did not vote? There was no proxy? The CuatrMAn No, they did not vote. There was no proxy All right. Third, it was moved that Senator Hicken~ LOOPER be authorized up to the Ist of August to file with the committee his individual views on the evidence adduced by the in- vestigation and comments thereon and thereafter the committee will decide on whether to transmit it to the Senate. Now, Senator HIcKENLOOPER did not sign the report Neither did he file a minority report The majority report here says Sena- tor HicKENLcorer was told that the report was going to be made and was requested to submit his report, if he had one; he said he did not cme to file minority views and that he would make his answer on the floor, Now, on the other hand, Senator HicKen- Loorrr claims that at that time he had not seen the majority report and that he could not very well make an answer to it or file his individual views, that he only got the copy at 6 o'clock last night. Mr President, this is the Senator from Texas still speaking to the press; and I continue to read from the statement he made to the press at that time: Now, the vote on that motion that he be given until August 1 to file his views—that does not hold up reporting it to the Senate. We go ahead and report to the Senate the report which contains the minority views of Senator Longe, and then Senator Wicken- LOoPER has until the 1st of August to file here with this committee his individual views; and it is then up to the committee to decide whether or not the committee will transmit his individual views to the Senate On that motion, Senator FutBnluHt's mo- tion for Senator HicxKcnLoorer’s views by August 1, there were nine voting “aye” and Scnator HICKFNLOOPER voted “present” and Mr Lopce voted “present” The others are those that are named, Senator VANDENBERG and Senator WILEY were nol here, a 9-to-0 vote S» that is the kettle of fish, gentlemen and ladies Question This officially closes the investi- gation, then, Senator? The Crarry .N. Well, yes, it closes it with the exception of our getting Senator Hick- ENLOOPER's report and deciding whether we will transmit it to the Senate or not, Of course, it is up to what the Senate does about closing the report This committee is through with Jt when we file this report and any other matters that go up to the Senate it will then be up to the Senate to determine whether there will be any further proceedings in the matter or not, Question. Will you have anything to rec- ommend? The CuHamman. You haven't heard me say anything about it. Question, No, I ask you, sir. The Cuarrman. I haven't got anything to submit at this time. It depends on develop- ments. Question. Are you considering making recommendations? The CHaIrMAN. No, not yet, JULY 25 Question. Were those the only votes taken, Senator? The CHamman. Yes, those were the only ones. These are the determining votes. We chewed nround on a lot of things, but this is the quintessence of our discussion. Question. ~ Senator, are you considering making recommendations to the Senate? The Cuarrman No, I am not yet. There are some recommendations in this report now, if you want to study that. Let me call the attention of the Sen- ate particularly to the next questions and answels: Question, The committee— Meaning the Senate Foreign Relations Committee— neither approved nor disapproved this re- port, it just received it? The Crarrman, That is all. We did not go into that, because we want to go home by Chrismas Question Did anybody propose that you accept the icpoit or approve the report? The CHainman. No; the motion was to re- ceive the 1eport and transmit it to the Senate. So J will have to do that. I ap- pointed Senator Typincs to report for this committee; he is the chairman of the sub- committee, to report to the Senate, to transmit it to the Senate. I pause to say that clearly, judging from the answer given by the chairman of the committee in response to the ques- tion— The committee neither approved nor dis- approved this report, it just received it? Lhe chairman said: That is all We did not go into that, be- cause we want to go home by Christmas. I read further: Question. Did anybody propose that you accept the report or approve the report? The CHAIRMAN No, the motion was to re- ceive the report and transmit it to the Senate. So I will have to do that— And so forth I return now to the transcript at the point where I stopped reading it a moment ago: Question. Senator, were there not two paragraphs deleted from the report?, The CHarman, Yes; there were two. Do you want that? Question, We have them already. 166, paragraph 18 The CHamMaN. Paragraph 18, the first two paragraphs of subdivision 18. Question. Was that by full committee ap- proval? The Cuamman. Yes, it was unanimous, Nobody objected to that. Senator Typ1ncs did not object to it, and the rest of us did not object to it. It was through an intense desire not to cast any reflections on either one of the Senators, so there was no objection to that. This is a long report, and a fellow cannot remember everything that is in it, you know, offhand. Yes, Mr. President, I am interpolating; it was a long report, and a fellow could not be expected to remember everything that was in it, offhand. I return to the transcript: Question. What do you think of the report, Senator? The CHarmman. Well, I think it is filed, and Iam going to send it to the Senate. Question. Did you say “vile”? The Cuainman I say it was received by the commitiee, and I am instructed to transmit it to the Sonate. Page
1950 I want to read that again. The CHarrman, I say it was received by the committee, and I am instructed to transmit it to the Senate, Remember, this is the chairman speak- ing almost contemporaneously with the event itself, I now continue with the conclusion of the distinguished Senator's press release, which is so characteristic of him that I only wish he were here to enjoy what I know we all would—his humor. He Bays; When a fellow asks me a question like that it reminds me of a man making a politi- cal speech, & man from Tammany over on the East Side, and there were some rough- necks there, some tough ones, and he got up and asked if there were any questions. Someone asked him sume embarrassing questions, and his bunch of thugs just went in and grabbed this fellow, gave him a good stiff kick in the pants, and took him to the stairway and pitched him down, and he bumped and bumped and bumped and finally out on the sidewalk, and then the orator said, “Is there any other gentleman that wants to ask a question?” Are there any other questions? |Laughter.] (Whereupon, at 12:48 p. m., the press con- ference adjourned.) So, Mr. President, this is the docu- ment containing the comments of the chairman of the csmmittee as to what transpired. I shall not trespass much longer on the time of the Senate. This afternoon—it may have been even this morning; I am not sure—the Sena- tor from New Jersey happened to see me somewhere in or about the precincts of the Senate and informed me that action was taken in respect to my letter or my request—I do not recall his exact language to me, at this time, but at any rate, that action had been taken. Sub- sequently I saw the Senator from Texas enter the Chamber, and he said to me, in substance, the same thing, that action had been taken, and that I would hear from the clerk of the committee, I be- lieve he said, or someone from the com- mittee. I have not yet heard. I should not be surprised if Dr. Wilcox is waiting around here to tell me what happened. But suffice it to say, Mr. President, that I have not yet received permission to examine the proceedings of July 18, 1950, with the right on my part to use the information which I shall secure and to bring them to the Senate. Personally, Mr. President, I could well make the point that it may well be as a general rule advisable to require that proceedings of executive sessions shall be given out, and yet, I call to the atten- tion of the Presiding Officer the fact that the concluding portion of this voluminous document entitled “Hearings Before a Subcommittee of the Committee on For- eign Relations, United States Senate,” beginning at page 1471 and running on through to the end of the volume, page 1484—I think I am‘correct in saying; yes, I am—is entitled “Executive Ses- sion.” And so obviously the committee itself saw no objection to giving out, in that instance, what occurred in an execu- tive session. Mr. President, Y am not asking that the Senate Committee on Foreign Rela- XCVI-—-—-690 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE tions establish a general rule that all of its executive sessions shall be made pub- lic. I can understand how that might restrict the freedom of comment that would be made by Members in the execu- tive sessions; I can appreciate that. But, even if it be not always, or perhaps usu- ally advisable to make public the con- tents of an executive session, I submit that in this matter, of such vital im- portance to the Senate, yes, far more, however, to the people of the United States—where, in order to interpret cor- rectly the meaning of the motions that were made and carried, it may not only be advisable, but it may be necessary to know the contents of the transcript, If there are some remarks here or there which the committee deems improper to make public, if someone has made an unwise remark or a hasty remark or an intemperate remark, I am sure there is no Senator who would desire to breach the propricties by using such excerpts. But what I want to find out, and what the Senate wants to know, at least what some of us want to know, and I hope the Senate wants to know, is whether this document which was filed here and sent to us as a report adopted by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, or was merely the transmittal of a report of a subcommitice, particularly when I find in the press conference of the distin- guished senior Senator from Texas, the chairman of the committee occurring al- most contemporaneously with the acts, the statement, in the questions and answers that the committee neither ap- proved nor disapproved the report and that he had just received it. Then the chairman said: That is all. We did not go into that, be- cause we want to go home by Christmas. Question. Did anybody propose that you accept the report or approve the report? The CHairmMan. No, the motion was to re- ceive the report and transmit it to the Sen- ate. So I will have ta do that. Then the distinguished Senator says further on in the press conference: I say it was received by the committee and Iam instructed to transmit it to the Senate. So, Mr. President, I say there is no evidence so far as I can see in that tran- script, nor, indeed, do I see any tangible evidence of any real moment or conse- quence, or certainly any conclusive evi- dence, if it be real or consequential, to the effect that the committee intended to approve this report. Here we have the members of the com- mittee, in the testimony I have recited, indicating too clearly even to raise the question, that they were not approving this report. The Senator from New Jer- sey, making the statements which I have quoted, to the general effect that~— I distinctly understood that it was not a report of the Committee on Foreign Rela- tions. I doubt that anyone except the chair- man of the subcommittee had read the re- port. Ido not know that anybody else ever had 2a chance to read it. There was no dis- cussion of its merits (etc., etc.). The statements by the Senator from Iowa, coupled with the statements of 10957 the Senator from Texas when he gives out in his press conference his under- standing, indicate certainly, to put it negatively, that there is substantial doubt as to whether this was ever adopted by the committee. And I am going to put it more affirmatively: I say there is no conclusive—yes, but little, if any, per- suasive—evidence to the effect that it was adopted by the committee. It seems to me that what happened was, just as the Senator from Texas in his press conference indicates, that the document was received by the commit- tee, and he was instructed to transmit it to the Senate. That, to my mind, does not constitute the adoption, the thought- ful, the careful deliberation that should always characterize the adoption of a report by a great committee such as the Committce on Foreign Relations, deal- ing with a subject of such vital moment as this subject which was committed to it and, through it, to its subcommittee. Certainly the Committee on Foreign Re- lations could not be expected to come together, and, without reading the re- port, with only a short consideration of it, without proper deliberation, adopt it. Mr. President, I now come to the end, in these concluding sentences, to the question which I asked, which was, Is it proper that Report No. 2108, Liehty- first Congress, second session, be circu- lated with its cover page containing the words “Report of the Committee on For- eign Relations’’? The distinguished Senator from Ver- mont (Mr. FLanvers] has submitted a resolution setting forth that it does not appear that the Foreign Relations Com- mittee has adopted the report. The reso- lution recites, in one of its whereases: A false impression of the status of this report will be spread abroad by the cover which has been substituted since it has been received by this body. He takes the view, to quote his reso- lution— that said report should be at once with- drawn from distribution until the cover be replaced—~ Namely, the cover which recited that the report was the report of the sub- committee. Mr. President, I say this, in answer to the question which I propounded and about which I have endeavored to ad- dress myself this afternoon, that until all doubt that the report is the report of the full committee shall have been removed, the report should not be circulated as the report of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. I most earnestly sub- mit that the doubt to which I refer can- not be removed until the transcript of the proceedings of the committee on July 18, 1950, shall have been made available to the Senate free of restriction. Mr. DONNELL subsequently said: Mr, President, I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of my remarks on the report on Senate Report 2108, made to- day, there be set forth a letter received subsequently by me today from Dr. Fran- cis O. Wilcox.
10958 There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: UNITED STATES SENATE, CoMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, July 25, 1950. Hon. Forrest C. DONNELL, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. Dear SENATOR DONNELL: The Senate For- eign Relations Committee met this morn- ing, and among other things, considered your request of July 22 relating to the tran~- script of the executive proceedings of the committee for July 18. Your letter of July 22 and my reply of the same date were read into the record The ,committee approved the following motion without a dissenting vote “That Senator DoNNELL be permitted to read the transcript of the executive session of the committee held July 18, 1950, on the game confidential basis as all members of the committee.” It is my understanding that the chairman of the committee and Senator SmitH of New Jersey have already spoken to you about the action taken by the committee If you wish to examine the records of the commit- tee for July 18, or the proceedings relating to other executive sessions, please do not hesitate to let me know We on the com- mittee staff are anxious to do what we can to help the Members ot the Senate in their consideration of problems in the field of for- eign affairs Sincerely yours, Francis O WILCox. MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE—ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED A message from the House of Repre- sentatives, by Mr. Snader, its assistant reading clerk, announced that the Speaker had affixed his signature to the following enrolled bills, and they were signed by the President pro tempore: § 1027, An act for the relief of the Merit Co. 8.1049 An act for the relief of Amy Alexandrovna Taylor and Myrna Taylor; 8 1792. An act for the rellef of Thomas Nicholas Epiphaniades and Wanda Julia Epiphantades; S 2243 An act for the relict of Tevfik Kamil Kutay; 8 2864 An act to authorize certain ad- ministrative expenses for the Department of Justice, and for other purposes, and 8 3937 An act to authorize the President to extend enlistments in the Armed Forces of the United States. PROPOSED UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREE- MENT RELATING TO APPROPRIATION BILL During the delivery of Mr. DonNELL’s speech, Mr. McFARLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator from Missouri yield? Mr. DONNELL. I yield. Mr. McFARLAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after the conclusion of the remarks of the distin- guished Senator from Missouri and the remarks of the distinguished junior Sen- ator from Michigan (Mr. Fercuson], the Senate proceed with the consideration of the appropriation bill for a period of 2 hours, the debate to be limited to 10 min- utes for each Senator, and that debate must be germane. Mr. WHERRY. Reserving the right to object, I did not hear the unanimous- consent request, Mr. President, and I should like very much to know what it is, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. McFARLAND. It is that after the conclusion of the remarks of the dis- tinguished Senator from Missouri and the remarks of the distinguished junior Senator from Michigan, the Senate pro- ceed to the consideration of the pend- ing measure, the appropriation bill, for a period of 2 hours, and that the debate be limited to 10 minutes for each Sena- tor, and that it must be germane. Mr. WHERRY. Reserving the right to object, I was endeavoring to work out a unanimous-consent agreement with the acting majority leader, but I did not know that the Senate would con- tinue for 2 hours. Does that mean that we shall wait until approximately 6 o’clock before the Senators have con- cluded their remarks? Mr. McFARLAND. Let us get in at Jeast 2 hours on the appropriation bill, I think we can take a recess a little after 6 30 o'clock, I do not know how long the Senator from Michigan will speak. I beg of the Senator from Ne- braska not to object to spending 2 hours on the appropriation bill. Mr. WHERRY. Would the Senator from Missouri permit me to ask him how long his speech will take? Mr. DONNELL. Yes; I am perfectly willing that the Senator may do so. I should like to say that yesterday I thought 30 minutes would be sufficient, but it will not be sufficient. I shall take in the neighborhood of 25 minutes more. My judgment is that I shall require 25 or 30 minutes, but I do not promise to limit my remarks to a specific length of time. Mr. WHERRY. I have no objection to working out an agreement with the able acting majority leader. I should like to ask him 1f he will modify his re- quest to give consideration to the appro- priation bill from the time the Senator from Michigan concludes until 7 o’clock. That would give Senators a chance to either get their dinners at home or in the restaurant downstairs. Mr, McFARLAND. Very well. I will modify my request accordingly Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, re- serving the right to object, some Sena- tors who are interested in this subject have asked that a quorum call be had before we enter into any such agreement. Mr. McFARLAND. I hope the Sen- ator will not suggest the absence of a quorum. Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, I did not yield for a quorum call. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous-consent re- quest of the Senator from Arizona, as modified? Mr. MURRAY. I do not wish to ob- ject, but I should like to understand whether the agreement is limited to the time remaining today. As I understand it, it does not refer to any time tomorrow, for example. Mr. McFARLAND. It is limited to 2 hours, and not to go beyond 7 o’clock to- y, Mr. MURRAY. It does not apply to future consideration of the bill. Mr. McFARLAND. Oh, no. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous-consent agreement? JULY 25 Mr WILLIAMS. If we have a quorum call first, I have no objection, Otherwise, I must object. Mr. DCNNELL. I did not yield for a quorum call. I do not yield, Mr. Presi- dent, Mr. McFARLAND. I hope the Sena- tor from Delaware will not insist on a quorum call. Previously only one Sena- tor had objected to an agreement, and he has since then withdrawn his objection. Mr. WILLIAMS. Reserving the right to object, I promised several Senators that I would have a quorum call. Mr. McFARLAND, Wul the Senator kindly consult them first? Mr WILLIAMS. I cannot do that at this time. Mr. McFARLAND. I shall renew my request later. Will the Senator consult them and inform me later? Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes. Mr. McFARLAND subsequently said: Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- sent that the junior Senator from Mich- igan [Mr. Fercvson] be permitted to complete the brief remarks he wishes to make, which I understand will take about 2 minutes, and that then the junior Senator from Nevada [Mr. Ma- LONE] be permitted to proceed for 10 minutes. May I ask the Senator from Nevada if that is a sufficient time? Mr. MALONE. Reserving the right to object, I said “about 10 minutes.” I would not want to be held down to a half-minute more than that. Let us make it whatever time it takes—approx1- mately 10 minutes Mr. McFARLAND Mr. President, I should like to complete my unanimous- consent request. I ask that thereafter the Senate proceed to the consideration of the appropriation bill for a period of 2 hours, and that debate on the amendments thereto be limited to 10 minutes to each Senator, and that all remarks must be germane to the amend- ments. Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, reserv- ing the right to object, I am not going to object to the agreement, but I object to the request in the absence of a quorum, because I think other Members of the Senate are entitled to have a quorum present. My agreement to the request will be dependent upon what I think is @ very good rule or custom of the Senate, namely, to first have a quorum present. Mr. McFARLAND. Mr, President, I am willing to suggest the absence of a quorum, if the Senator will permit the unanimous-consent request to go through. Then we shall have more Sen- ators present when the appropriation bill is being considered. Mr.MORSE. The difficulty with that, Mr. President, is that my suggestion of the absence of a quorum is to assure Senators of an opportunity to be heard if they want to object to the unanimous- consent request. I think there should be a quorum call in advance of any such agreement. I would expect that if I were off the floor. I have had discussions in the past with the minority leader regarding the same point. I think the same courtesy should be extended to other Senatcrs. There- fore I object to the request, unless there
1950 is a quorum call. objection to it. ALERTING THE NATION TO INTERNAL THREATS FROM THE COMMUNIST MOVEMENT Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, last night the President issued a statement calling upon all law-enforcement officers, patriotic organizations, and private citi- zens to report all information relating to espionage, sabotage, and subversive ac- tivities to the nearest office of the FBI. With American forces fighting a war- like operation against Communists in Korea, and in view of the fact that com- munism is an international conspiracy using espionage, sabotage, and subver- sion as weapons of war, there certainly is a “clear and present danger” to the country which demands the utmost vigi- lance. I believe the President is justified in alerting the Nation to these internal threats from the Communist movement. Mr. President, in order that the Senate may not be further delayed, I ask unani- mous consent that a portion of the state- ment I have prepared be printed in the Recorp at this point. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, so ordered. The statement by Mr. follows: With the President calling upon every citi- zen to report information to the FBI, there is a strong possibility that an impossible workload may be saddled on that agency to investigate rumors, spite tip-offs, and sim- jlarly motivated information passed on to the authorities by citizens untrained in rece ognizing true subversion, Nevertheless, in the face of clear and pres- ent danger in which the country now finds itself I do not condemn the alerting of our people—even in the extreme fashion sug- gested by the President, But what I want to know is why the Pres- ident and his administration do not them- selves apply proper methods for rcaching subversive activities before going to less effcc- tive extremes? Even while the President was making his announcement, Communist sub- versives were and still are at work in their familiar attempts to use a front device to undermine the morule of unsuspecting Amer- icans who ought to be firm in our resolve to support the sacrifices we are making in Korea. I speak of the pceace-mobilization petitions which the worker bees of the Com- munist conspiracy are circulating through- out this country. We know these petitions originated with the ptace partisnns spon- sored in Moscow. We know these petitions at a time like this are instruments of psy- chological warfare in the Communist con- spiracy to dominate the world. They are intended to soften up our home population, to create divisions among our people, and to implant the idea in their minds that while Russia seeks peace, America looks to war. This is a grose distortion of the truth, and most informed people know it; but neverthe- less thousands of people are signing these petitions because thcy are misled by this Commurist phony peace front. This is a perfect example of how the Pres!~- dent and this administration remain blind to the true nature of subversive activities and how to reach the heart of it. Even while the Executive is looking for reports of in- tended sabotage from untrained private citi- gens, this phony peace mobilization 1s eat- ing at the basic morale of the country and nothing the administration is doing has stopped that form of subversion. It still allows innocent people to be taken in by these fronts. Then I shall have no FERGUSON CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Yet it turns a deaf ear to a proper and legal way to go to the root of Communist subversion in this country. We have tried again and again in Congrets to get the ad- ministration to consider Senate bill 2311 which is the Mundt-Ferguson bill to protect the United States against un-American and subversive activities. Yet the administra- tion leaders in Congress, as well as the exe-u- tive department, resist the pagsage of this needed legislation with the same ficrce deter- mination they have shown in every exposure of subversion, The Justice D2partment explains that Communist subversives will be difficult to expose because they are citizens of the coun- try rather than aliens who can he easily rounded up. Existing laws are inadequate to deal with an insidious movement such as Communist subversion. Federal law enforce- ment cfficers have testified to that effect time and again. The fact that we have had to get at espionage and subversion by the back- handed methods of “perjury” as in the Hiss, Coplon, Marzani, and Remington cases, is ample proof that we do not have laws ade- quate to protect us directly from subversive operations. The main difficulty all the way through is that we have no workable standards of deter- mining what subversive activity is and we have no workable means of identifying sub- versives and the false fronts by which they deceive our people. The correction of these defects in our lnws 1s the heart of the Mundt- Ferguson-Johnston bill to protect our people. The bill 18 aimed to bring professional insti- gators of espionage, sabotage, and subver- sion out Into the open and to make it im- possible for them to recruit Innocent pecple and to gain financial resources to carry on their destructive propaganda. Mr. President, this is not the time to ex- Plain the detailed provisions of this bill. But the President's statement last night alerting the country against subversives and saboteurs shows that it is high time that the adminis- tration give immediate attention to proper ways to get at this menace to our people and our institutions, Recent history has always been a step ahead of this administration. We were surprised at Pearl Harbor. Our po- sition in the Far Eact was foreclosed by Communist China, We were taken of guard at Berlin. Now it 1s Korea. When does th.s administratton propose to wake up and an- tic:pate developments? Must we always be the v.ctims of hostile actions before we pre- pare ourselves? Today, guerrilla forccs are making many of our positions in Korea in- tolerable and causing untold loss of lives to American boys sent to that ailea. Yos- terday, those guerrilla forces were Commu- nist subversives in South Kcrea undermin- ing the country in preparation for the hot war. Are we to wait here at home until our people are divided and our morale broken before we adopt proper and adequate meth- ods to deal with this new form of war behind the Hnes? Mr. FERGUSON. I hope the people’s answer to the President's alert will be: “Yes, Mr. President, we shall report all information we have of subversive ac- tivities, bul meanwhile let us have some protection in law to identify the menace we are locking for and to bring it out in the open.” This is what the Mundt-Fer- guson-Johnston bill (8. 2311) does and it should be immediately considered and passed at this time of clear and present danger. Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. FERGUSON. I yield, Mr. KNOWLAND. I think it fs quite apropos of what the Senator has been saying to read a telegram which I have 10959 just now received. It is signed by Harry Lundeberg, secretary-treasurer of the Sailors Union of the Pacific, and presi- dent of the Seafarers International Union of North America. It is addressed to me and is dated July 25. It reads as follows: San Francisco, Cauir., July 25, 1950. Senator Witniam F, KNOWLAND, Senate Office Building, Washiigton, D.C.: Our country Js in an all-out fight to stop the Communist aggressors in Koica and elee- where in the world. Our Government has called on all Americans to stand by and aid their country in this crists, American boys are being killed daily in Korea fighting for the principles of our great country. On the home tront the tools of Joe Stalin are doling business 05 usual, because of the wishy- washy attitude of various Government bu- reaus. Commies end fellow travelers are still being allowed to sail treely. Some of these weak-kneed shipowners and union and Government bureaus do not seem to have the guts to elimluate these Commie sabo- teurs from the American ships and water- front. Within the past 10 days one of the American President Lines ships, which by the way is Government-owned, carrying troops and vital war material for the fight+ ing front in the Orient left San Francisco with 7 men abroad who had been declared bad security risks by the United States Navy Intelligence. No effort was made to tuke these crumbs off the ship. What we would like to know is how long is the United States Government going to allow this condition to exist? The members of our organization in a meeting last night in San Francisco with over a thourand men assembled went unanl- mously on record to notify the proper au- thorities in Washington, D. C., that if these Commie saboteurs are not eliminated from American ships and watorfronts that we will be forced to refuse to sall the ships in order to protect ourselves, It is up to the United States Government. Do they want loyal American seamen on their ships or do they want Joe Stalin’s American stooges? We request your cooperation in exposing and correcting this dangerous condition, Harry LUNDEBERG, Secretary-Ticasuter, Sailors Union of the Pacific; President, Seafarers International Union of North America. Mr. FERGUSON. I appreciate the Senator’s reading the telegram into the Recorp. because it is most timely and it telis the public very forcibly what is going on. There isaremedy. The ques- tion is asked, “How long shall we wait?” We would not be waiting until now if action had been taken on 8. 2311. Mr. McCARTHY. Myr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. FERGUSON. I shall yield, but I am trying to limit my remarks at this point so that we may proceed with the consideration of the approprition bill. Mr. McCARTHY. The Senator has been a judge, and a very able one, and his thoughts on this subject should be put into the Recorp, In the light of the President’s request that people notify the Bureau of any evidence that they may have of subversives, I should like to ask a question, In view of the reason- ing being followed by the loyalty board and by the Tydings-McMahon commit- tee, that regardless of how much posi- tive evidence is presented that a man is @ member of the Communist Party or an espionage agent, if one does not see him light the fuse, and if witnesses can be
10960 found to testify, “We did not see him light the fuse, and we do not know if he is a member of the party.” does the Senator think it will do any good merely to give the information to the FBI, un- less we have a complete about face by the loyalty board or get a new board composed of people who know something about law. Mr. FERGUSON. I can answer the Senator’s question in this way. The courts for years have considered that positive evidence is stronger than neg- ative evidence. Therefore the loyalty board as a court should consider posi- tive evidence to be stronger than nega- tive evidence. Mr. McCARTHY. If I may ask an- other question: Does he agree with me that it would be impossible to ever get rid of any Communist or espionage agent if he is to be cleared merely by making a search and finding people who are Willing to say, “I do not know that he is a Communist”? Mr. FERGUSON. That is what I had in mind when I referred to negative evi- dence. It is the credibility of the wit- nesses and the knowledge that they have of the particular subject. I yield the floor. EIGHT BILLION DOLLARS WITHOUT RAISING TAXES Mr. MALONE. Mr. President, the junior Senator from Nevada is pointing out today a way to find an additional four billion dollars for the military fund. This is in addition to the four billion dollars pointed out yesterday. This makes eight billion dollars, which is a good start on our expanded military program and which is available without raising the tax rates. MILITARY FUNDS FROM CONGRESS—-NO PROB- LEM—$90,000,000,000 SINCE WORLD WAR II Mr. President, the appropriation of funds necessary for national defense has never been a problem in the Congress, as witnessed by the approximately $90,- 000,000,000 which have been appropriated for military purposes since the close of World War II. TAXPAYER LEAST REGARDED The junior Senator from Nevada is shocked by the lack of interest in Wash- ington in the plight of the American tax- payer. Members of this body talk glibly of passing taxes onto the already over- burdened American workers, the great majority of whom are struggling to buy the necessities of life after paying al- ready high taxes. Washington does not seem to know this. Perhaps it is a secret from Wash- ington residents. We are asked for approximately $10,- 500,000,000 for an expanded military pro- gram because we are at war. WAR MONEY WILL BE RAISED Of course this money must be made available and it will be made available. To the certain knowledge of the junior Senator from Nevada an appropriation asked for by the President for military purposes has never been turned down by the Congress of the United States since the junior Senator from Nevada has been a Member of the Senate. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE START DOMESTIC ECONOMY Has the administration suggested tightening its own belt? Has the ad- ministration offered to curtail any of its peacetime expenditures in order to make up any of the $10,500,000,000? Spend, spend, spend, save nothing, boost the withholding taxes, give no thought to the American taxpayer seems to be the only program understood in Washington. INDIRECT TAXES~ HITS EVERYBODY Mr. President, every citizen is a sub- stantial taxpayer, directly or indirectly, whether he realizes it or not. That is evidenced by the more than 50 indirect taxes on a loaf of bread. A 17-cent loaf of bread shou'’d cost not more than 7 cents if it were not for the indirect taxes. CORPORATIONS INDIRECT TAX-COLLECTING AGENCIES Mr. President, for many years the Congress of the United States had used the corporations as tax-collection agen- cies. The corporations have simply transferred such taxes to their product, the sale of which makes up the taxes to go into the United States Treasury. The people who buy the product, whether it be bread, a suit of clothes, a woman's hat, or any other product, pay the taxes. For e long time the folks were fooled. I doubt that they are fooled now. Are the Members of this body in- terested in saving any money for the taxpayers in their respective States? If so, the junior Senator from Nevada has some suggestions to make. These sug- gestions are intended only for those who want taxes to be no higher than neces- sary and who abhor wasting other peo- ple’s money. FOUR BILLION DOLLARS ECA AND UNIFICATION——20 PERCENT REDUCTION IN DOMESTIC BUDGET The $4,000,000,000 mentioned yester- day can be found by stopping ECA, a peacetime endeavor, and by unifying our military assistance program with our own military program. What was said in yesterday’s debate is not going to be repeated. We shall go on to the addi- tional $4,000,000,000. Three billion dollars has been made available for the peacetime expansion of industry in the 16 European countries, which is already overexpanded for peacetime production. Consequently, it was found that these countries must sell their peacetime products in our country and thus displace our own workmen. The $3,000,000,000 could be transferred immediately. The appropriation has been made. What is the reason, then, that it must be expended in wartime on an already overexpanded peacetime in- dustry? The $3,000,000,000 additional should be made available immediately for national defense. First I should like to read into the Recorp a brief excerpt from an editorial which appeared in this morning’s Wash- ington Times-Herald. It referred to the appropriation of approximately $3,000,- 000,000 to build up the European coun- tries’ civilian peacetime economy and went on to say: Considering the lack of response from these countries when the United Nations JULY 25 asked for troops to help our foot soldiers in Korea, it would be a good thing if we stopped some of our dollars from going abroad next year. There {s no valid reason for putting the people in this country on a wartime basis and still keep gouging them to build up peacetime economy in Europe. We will do enough along this line when we begin spend- ing the ten billions for military purposes. We will increase our imports of tin, rubber, and so forth, and they will get the profits. And beyond that we may expect the administra- tion to siphon off some of the goods as well to increase European munitions production, Therefore, we urge that the civillan foreign aid be cut to a liquidation figure. Mr. President, in the new appropria- tion bill there is an item of $500,000,000 for peacetime public works. In war- time such works are unnecessary, and, in fact, undesirable. Our money and our man-hours should be devoted to the war effort. This $500,000,000 should be transferred to the military program, ex- cept, of course, a relatively minor amount retained for emergency works. The new budget is approximately $42,- 000,000,000; $13,500,000,000 is for the military; $6,000,000,000 for veteran serv- ices and benefits; $5,500,000,000 for inter- est on the public debt; and $17,000,000,- 000 for the civil government, exclusive of the items mentioned. Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- sent to have printed in the Recorp at this point a table showing the exact figures. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Budget, July 1, 1950, to June 30, 1951 Requested for— National defense_....-- $13, 645, 000, 000 Veterans’ services and benefits_....-----... 6, 080, 000, 000 Interest on public debt_.--...----.--.- 6, 625, 000, 000 Remaining............ 17, 189, 000, 000 Total.-...---..--..- 42, 439, 000, 000 Mr. MALONE. Now, Myr. President, I wish to quote from the same editorial, as follows: Last December, Senator Byrp made a pro- posal to save $5,200,000,000 by cutting back Government domestic expenditures to the 1948 level, Byrp’s plan excluded any reductions in defense or any lessening of stockpiling atomic energy, veterans’ aid, foreign aid, or interest on the public debt. The Virginia Senator picked 1948 as a base because it was the soundest postwar year. The budget was balanced in 1948, Govern- ment expenditures were trimmed, and taxes were cut. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOMESTIC PROGRAM In 1948, the Federal Government spent the $6,400,000,000 on its domestic pro- gram. When the distinguished Senator from Virginia recommended his plan, the country was not proceeding into a wartime economy as it is now, it was looking forward to another year in which the Government would be geared to peacetime operations. Now, with the abrupt change to wartime operations, it might be considered logical to make even deeper domestic cuts than those suggested by the distinguished Senator from Virginia. However, in order to
1950 raise the necessary funds, we need not Bo even as far as then suggested. The junior Senator from Nevada proposes that we save 20 percent of the seventeen billion for civil government. That would be approximately three and a half bil- lions saved. EIGHT BILLION DOLLARS OUT OF THE TEN BILLION DOLLARS REQUESTED AVAILABLE Add this three and one-half billion to the half billion saved from peacetime public works and the four billions men- tioned yesterday, which we can save by stopping ECA, and by unifying our mili- tary programs, and we have eight bil- lions for the new military program. Under this plan, Mr. President, we need not load down our taxpayers with additional burdens, Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- sent to have inserted in the Recorp at this point the complete editorial which appeared in the Times-Herald of this morning. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: How To Save 810,000,000,000 Here is a way for Congress to find that $10,000,000,000 Mr. Truman is asking as a down payment on the cost the Nation is called on to pay for the administration's bonehead operations in Korea and elsewhere. This plan does not call for added taxes, It calls for less costly civil government, and it is not dream stuff. Senator Harry FLoop Byrrp, Democrat, of Virginia, is the drafts- man of its principles, Senator Byrp is known from one end of the country to the other as a practical au- thority on government. If he says a thing can be done, it can be done. Therefore, we offer this program for con- sideration in full confidence that any citi- zen can support it who sincerely wants the United States pulled safely through the mis- adventures of the Truman gang without the destruction of our domestic life. Last December, Senator Brrap made a pro- posal to save $5,200,000,000 by cutting back Government domestic expenditures to the 1948 level. Byrop's plan excluded any reductions in defense or any lessening of stockpiling atomic energy, veterans’ aid, foreign aid, or interest on the public debt. The Virginia Senator picked 1948 as a base because it was the soundest postwar year. The budget was balanced in 1948, Govern- ment expenditures were trimmed, and taxes were cut. XIGHTIETH CONGRESS ECONOMICAL It’s also worthy of note that the Repub- lican Eightieth Congress was in power that year and received as its reward for work well done a scathing attack from Truman, who called it the “worst Congress” in our history. In 1948 the Federal Government spent $6,400,000,000 on its domestic programs. In the 1951 budget Truman has asked Congress to give him $11,600,000,000 for the same pro- grams, therefore a return to the 1948 budget would result in the $5,200,000,000 savings. However, when Senator Byrp recommended this plan the country was not proceeding into a wartime economy as it is now. It was looking forward to another year in which the Government would be geared to peace- time operations. Now with the abrupt change to wartime operations it is only logical that we follow up Senator Byron's basic program with even further cuts from the 1948 budget he proposed. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE For example, there were 8200,000,000 in that 1948 budget for work relief. Certainly our increased production demands will wipe out need for any such expenditures. In that budget there were alao $100,000,000 for hous- ing. The President in his message recom- mended knocking out all housing money. There were also in that 1948 budget, §500,- 000,000 for peacetime public works. In ware time such are unnecessary and undestrable. That budget also carried $30,000,000 for agriculture support. That can’t be justified. Another item on which the saving can be made is the $300,000,000 postal deficit which should be wiped out immediately, regardiess of whether we are to operate a peacetime or wartime economy. The Hoover reor- ganization report gives a full blueprint on how to accomplish this. If these cuts were made it would bring the Savings to $6,300,000,000. FOREIGN AID CAN BE CUT Although Brrp did not recommend slash- ing the veterans’ program for his peacetime budget 1t appears that there is sufficient room in the six billions asked by Truman in the 1951 budget to save at least 25 percent or 700,000,000. In that 1951 request, for ex- ample, there are 62,700,000,000 for the vet- erans’ readjustment program. Certainly there will be a considerable cut in such activities as we build up the armed services. Thus, the domestic cuts would save seven billion, And we think that since America must tighten its belt again it would be a good time to look at the foreign-aid program for im- mediate relief. Since the war we have set up approximately 23 foreign-ald programs into which we have poured $35,000,000,000, The 1950 budget carries three and seven- tenths billions to build up Europe's civilian economy over and above the military aid we are giving. Considering the lack of response from these countries when the United Nations asked for troops to help our foot soldiers in Korea, it would be a good thing if wa stopped some of our dollars from going abroad next year. There is no valid reason for putting the people in this country on ea wartime basis and still keep gouging them to build up peacetime economy in Europe. We will do enough along this line when we begin spend- ing the ten billions for military purposes. We will increase our imports of tin, rubber, etc., and they will get the profits. And be- yond that we may expect the administration to siphon off scme of the goods as well to in- crease European munitions production. Therefore, we urge that the civilian for- eign aid be cut to a liquidation figure of 700,000,000. The three billion cut on this item will then bring the total saving to ten billions. This bill produces a complete set- off to the ten billions to be spent. To us it seems that economy is a much sounder method of meeting the increased military costs than burdening the American people with more taxes and more Govern- ment controls. TIME TO TAKE STOCK Mr. MALONE. Mr. President, it is time for the Congress of the United States to take stock. It is time to gather the loose ends of this Government to- gether, furnish the requested national defense fund of ten and one-half billion, but use the available funds before rais- ing taxes. All will agree that the Congress has been liberal with appropriations for na- tional defense, the appropriations hav- ing amounted to $89,124,000,000 since the close of World War II. The junior Senator from Nevada has suggested the source of eight billion, 10961 available to be applied on the ten and one-half billion needed at this time, ac- cording to the President’s request. Ad- ditional funds are available from other sources, The junior Senator from Nevada will have more to say about this subject later. THE WAR IN KOREA—OBLIGATION OF ALL MEMBERS OF UNITED NATIONS TO FURNISH TROOPS Mr. TOBEY. Mr. President, my re- marks this afternoon will be very brief. The United Nations are in a war to win. We will win. In fact, we will win even if the United States has to do the job with its own ground troops alone. Of that, there can be no doubt. Republicans are giving this adminis- tration full support in the Korean crisis. However, the time has come for this country to be realistic. The United States has not unlimited manpower. We are willing to furnish more than our share of arms and muni- tions of war in this fight to halt com- munism, ‘Ve are willing to furnish our share of men, but I am convinced that this administration has not done all it can to secure the cooperation of the other United Nations in furnishing their share of manpower. England, Australia, France, the Phil- ippines, and other countries have large numbers of able-bodied young men who should be trained right now to take their places alongside our valiant soldiers on the Korean front. It is not just or pru- dent for this Nation to bear the whole brunt of the Communist onslaught. I urge the administration to call imme- diately an emergency meeting of the Security Council to discuss means of training their young men forthwith to do their share of the fighting in Korea, and thus make more modest ‘nroads in our supply of reservists and the use of Americans. Trygve Lie’s appeal to the United Na- iions for support should ve followed by vigorous action on the part of the ad- ministration to translate the general de- sires and pious hopes into concrete re- sults in the way of infantry troops and antitank battalions of all nations. Let us make this in fact the fight of all the free world in the United Nations again3t communism, GENERAL APPROPRIATION, 1951 The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (H. R. 7786) making appropri- ations for the support of the Government for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1951, and for other purposes. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will state the next amendment of the Committee on Appropriations. The next amendment was, under the heading “Atomic Energy Commission,” on page 287, line 1, to strike out the fol- lowing proviso: Provided further, That no part of the fore- going appropriation or contract authoriza- tion shall be used in connection with the payment of any contractor or firm of con- tractors engaged under a cost plus a fixed fee contract or contracts at any installation of the Commission, where the fee for commu- nity management ts at a rate in excess of $90,000 per annum, or for the operation of a
10962 transportation system where the fee is at a rate in excess of 845,000 per annum, The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the heading “Civil Service Commission,” on page 287, line 21, after the word “ex- ceed”, to strike out “$50,000” and insert “$80,000,” and on page 288, line 4, after the word “amended”, to strike out “$15,- 261,913” and insert “$15,761.913.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the heading “Commission on Renovation of the Executive Mansion,” on page 291, line 5, after the word “Congress”, to strike out “$20,000” and insert $50,000.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the heading “Displaced Persons Commis- sion,” oun page 291, after line 109, to strike out: Displaced Persons Commission: For ex- penses necessary to carry out the provisions of the Displaced Persons Act of 1948 (Public Law 774, approved June 25, 1948), including personal services and rents in the District of Columbia; travel expenses, including travel expenses outside continental United States without regard to the Standardized Govern- ment Travel Regulations, as amended, and the rates of per diem allowances under the Subsistence Expense Act of 1926, as amended; hire of passenger motor vehicles; printing and binding, including printing and binding outside the continental limits of the United States without regard to section 11 of the act of March 1, 1919 (44 U. S.C. 111); services as authorized by section 15 of the act of August 2, 1946 (5 U. B. C. 55a); pay- ment of tort claims pursuant to law (28 U. 8. C. 2672); health service program as authorized by law (5 U.S. C. 150); employ- ment of aliens; and payment of rent in for- eign countries in advance; $455,100: Pro- vided, That allocations may be made from this appropriation by the Commission upon approval by the Bureau of the Budget to any department, agency, corporation, or inde- pendent establishment of the Government for direct expenditure for the purposes of this appropriation, and any such expendi- tures may be made under the specific au- thority herein contained or under the au- thority governing the activities of the de- partment, agency, corporation, or independ- ent establishment to which amounts are allocated: Provided further, That the Com- mission may enter into agreement: with gov- ernmental and private agencies and may make payment in advance or by reimburse- ment for expenses incurred by such agene cies in rendering assistance to the Commis- sion in carrying out the purposes of this act, And in leu thereof, to insert the fol- lowing: Displaced Persons Commission: For ex- penses necessary to carry out the provisions of the Displaced Persons Act of 1948, as amended by the act of June 16, 1950 (Public Law 555), including personal services and rents in the District of Columbia; travel ex- penses without regard to the Standardized Government Travel Regulations, as amend- ed, and the rates of per diem allowances un- der the Subsistence Expense Act of 1926, as amended; purchase (not to exceed three), and hire of passenger motor vehicles; print- ing and binding, including printing and binding outside the continental limits of the United States without regard to section 11 of the act of March 1, 1919 (44 U. 8. ©, 111); expenses incident to the primary and sec- ondary education of American children who are dependents of Government personnel paid from this appropriation and stationed overseas; services as authorized by section CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 18 of the act of August 2, 1946 (5 U. 8. C, 56a); payment of tort claims pursuant to law (28 U. 8S. ©. 2672); health service pro- gram as authorized by law (5 U. 8. C. 150); employment of aliens; and payment of rent in foreign countries In advance; $9,000,000: Provided, That allocations may be made from this appropriation by the Commis- sion upon approval by the Bureau of the Budget to any department, agency, corpo- ration, or independent establishment of the Government for direct oxpenditure for the purposes of this appropriation, and any such exponditures may be made under the spe- cific authority herein contained or under the authority governing the activities of the department, agency, corporation, or inde- pendent establishment to which amounts gre allocated: Provided further, That the Commission may enter into agreements with international, governmental, and private agencies and may make payment in advance or by reimbursement for Sapenses incurred by such agencies in rendering assistance to the Commission in carrying out the pure poses of this act. The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the heading ‘Federal Power Commission,” on page 295, line 11, after the word “exceed”, to strike out $247,500" and insert “$256,500”, and in line 16, after the word “newspapers”, to strike out $3,938,300" and insert “$4,013,300.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the heading “Federal Trade Commission,” on page 296, line 10, after the word “news- papers’, to strike out $3,866,695" and insert “$3,916,695”, and in line 11, after the word “available”, to strike out “to the Bureau of Trade Practice Conferences.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the heading “General Accounting Office,” on page 296, line 21, after the word “else- where”, to strike out “$34,500,000” and insert “$32,689,500.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, on page 297, line 3, after “(28 U, S. C. 2672)”, to in- sert “for newspapers and periodicals (not exceeding $600) .” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the heading “General Services Administra- tion,” on page 297, line 15, after the word “Columbia”, to strike out “$28,000,000” and insert “$22,000,000.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, on page 300, line 17, after the word “binding”, to Strike out “$633,608,240" and insert “$605.000,000”; in line 19, after the word “expended”, to strike out “of which not to exceed $25,000,000 may be expended in accordance with the purposes of said act of July 23, 1946, through purchase contracts negotiated with operators within the United States, its Territories and possessions, and in making advance payments on such contracts to the extent determined to be necessary to the per- formance thereof, and”; and on page 301, line 5, after the word “of”, to strike out “$100,000,000" and insert “$125,000,000.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, on page 302, line 24, after the word “vehicles”, to in- sert a semicolon and “and in addition, the General Services Administration is JULY 25 authorized to enter into contracts in an amount not to exceed $4,000,000 for the purposes of this appropriation”; and on page 303, line 8, after the amendment just above stated, to strike out the colon and the following proviso: Provided, That no part of this appropria- tion shall be available for expenditure on any project until a certificate has been received from the Secretary of Defense that the in- stallation of such facility will be of value in connection with national defense. The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, on page 303, line 12, after the word “expended”, to Strike out “$28,000,000” and insert “$20,- 000,000”, and in line 19, after the word “exceed”, to strike out “$32,000,000” and insert “$27,000,000.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, on page 304, line 2, after “(62 Stat. 1155)”, to strike out “$900,000” and insert “$750,000.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, on page 804, line 12, after the word “books”, to strike out “$60,000” and insert “$52,285.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, on page 304, line 15, after “(58 Stat. 827)”, to strike out “$1,300,000” and insert “$1,- 000,000.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, on page 807, line 12, after the word ‘War’, to strike out “$76,500,000” and insert “$82,. 725,000.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, on page 309, after line 6, to strike out: During the current fiscal year, no part of any money appropriated in this or any other act shall be used during any quarter of such fiscal year to purchase typewriting machines (except bookkeeping and billing machines) at a price which exceeds 90 percent of the lowest net cash price, plus applicable Fed- eral excise taxes, accorded the most-favored customer (other than the Government, the American National Red Cross, and the pur- chasers of typewriting machines for educa- tional purposes only) of the manufacturer of such machines during the 6-month pe- riod immediately preceding such quarter. The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, on page 309, after line 17, to strike out: No part of any money appropriated by this or any other act for any agency of the execu- tive branch of the Government (which shall include all departments, independent estab- lishments, and wholly owned’ Government corporations) shall be used during the cur- rent fiscal year for the purchase within the continental limits of the United States of any typewriting machines (except typewrit- ing machines for veterans under public laws administered by the Veterans’ Administra. tion) unless the Administrator of General Services certifies that he is unable to furnish such agency with suitable typewriting ma- chines out of stock on hand. The Adminis- trator of General Services is authorized and directed at such times os he may determine to be necessary to survey and determine the numbers and kinds of typewriting machines located in the continental HMmits of the United States which are at any time surplus to the requirements of any agency in the executive branch of the Government (which shall include all departments, independent establishments, and wholly owned Govern- ment corporations). Upon such determina-
1950 tion the Administrator of General Services is authorized to direct, upon such notice and in such manner as he may prescribe, the head of any such agency to surrender to the General Services Administration any and all typewriting machines surplus to its require- ments, the costs of packing, shipping, and handling thereof to be charged 10 the gen- eral supply fund. Each such agency shall furnish the Administrator of General Serv- ices such information regarding typewriting machines, wherever located, as he may from time to time request. The General Services Administration is authorized and directed to receive, hold, sell, exchange, or supply to any branch of the Government, including the District of Columbia, typewriting machines surrendered to it hereunder. The Adminis- trator of General Services is authorized to charge each agency to which typewriting ma- chines are supplicd hereunder amounts equal to the fair value thereof, as determined by him, and such amounts shall be credited to the general supply fund. The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the heading “Housing and Home Finance Agency—Ofifice of the Administrator,” on page 311, Mne 22, after the numerals “1049”, to strike out “$4,200,000” and in- sert “$4,900,000”; and on page 312, line 3, after the word “amended”, to insert a colon and the following additional pro- viso: Provided further, That necessary expenses of inspections of projects financed through loans to educational institutions authorized by title IV of the Housing Act of 1950 shall be compensated by such institutions by the payment of fixed fees which in the xggre- gate in relation to the development costs of such projects will cover the costs of ren- dering such services, and expenses for such purpose shall be considered nonadministra- tive, and for the purpose of providing such inspections, the Administrator may utilize any agency and such agency may accept re- imbursement or payment for such services from such institutions or the Administrator, and shall credit such amounts to the appro- priations or funds against which such charges have been made, The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Public Housing Admunistra- tion,” on page 312, line 20, after ‘(42 U.S. C. 1410)”, to strike out “$7,500,600” and insert ‘$9,250 000.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, on page 813, line 15, after the word ‘“‘Administra- tion”, to strike out “$8,750,000” and in- sert “$11,500,000.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the heading “Interstate Commerce Commis- sion,” on page 314, line 13, after the word “binding”, to strike out “$9,889,- 600” and insert “$10,002,600.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, on page 315, line 10, after “(28 U. S. C. 2672)”, to strike out $1,000,000" and insert “$1.016,000.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, on page 315, line 19, after “(28 U. S. C. 2672)”, to strike out “$700,000” and insert “$718,600.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the heading “Motor Carrier Claims Commis- sion—Salaries and expences,” on page 318, line 12, after “(5 U. S. C. 55a)”, to CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE strike out “$175,000” and insert “$227,« The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the heading “National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics,” on page $17, line 4, after the word “all”, to strike out “$40,890,630” and insert “$44,225,630”, and in line 11, after the word “reim- bursement”, to strike out the colon and the following additional proviso: Provided further, That no part of this ap- propriation shall be available for the opera- tion of a fleld office outside the continental or territorial mits of the United States. The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, on page 317, line 24, after the word “of”, to strike Ono ,, $10,000,000” and insert “$12,500,- The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the heading “National Capital Housing Au- thority,” on page 318, line 5, after the word “Act”, to strike out “$35,000” and insert “$39,600”, and in line 7, after the word “monthly”, to insert a colon and the following additional proviso: Provided further, That so long as funds fre available from appropriations for the foregoing purposes, the provisions of section 607 of the Housing Act of 1950 (Public Law 476, 81st Cong.) shall not be effective. The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment. was, under the heading “Philippine War Damage Com- mission,” on page 320, line 18, after the word “Philippines”, to insert “or, in the absence of such finding by such court, the Commission after hearing finds upon evidence that such person was guilty of such collaboration or act of disloyalty.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the heading ‘Securities and Exchange Com- mission,” on page 321, line 11, after “(5 U. 8S. C. 55a)”, to strike out “$6,130,000” and insert “$6,330,000.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the heading “Smithsonian Institution,” on page 322, line 20, after the word “pub- lications”, to strike out $2,606,490" and insert “$2,770,000.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, on page 322, after line 20, to insert: Paleontological investigations: For pay- ments to non-Federal agencies for coopera- tive paleontological investigations in accord- ance with the act of August 15, 1949 (Pub. Law 228), to remain available until expended, $20,000. The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, on page 323, line 25, after the word “proper”, to strike out “$1,159,000” and insert “$1,200,000.” The amendment was agreed to. Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I should like to go kack for a moment to page 282 under the heeding “Independent Offices,” the item “American Battle Monuments Commission.” I am satisfied that I know the answer to the question which I want to put to the chairman of the subcommittee, but I should like to make it a matter of record at the present time. My question is this: Is there any- thing in the section starting on page 282 10963 dealing with the American Battle Mon- uments Commission that would in any way limit any agency of Government which has Jurisdiction over existing bat- tie monuments and battlefields to con- tinue to maintain the battlefield at Balls Bluff, near Leesburg, Va.? Mr. O’MAHONEY. Mr. President, the operations under this appropriation are primarily those which are carried on as the result of World War No. 2. The cemetery to which the Senator refers is, I think, the subject of a bill which was introduced by the Senator from Mary- land |Mr. Typrnas], the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, earlier in the year, and which has been favorably re- ported by the Committee on Interior and insular Affairs and is now on the calen- ar. Mr. MORSE. What does it provide? Mr. O’MAHONEY. It provides for the elimination of certain cemeteries and the extension of others. Mr. MORSE. Is there anything in this appropriation which would give the Government officials who have jurisdic- tion over the battlefield at Balls Bluff an excuse for not continuing to maintain that battlefield? Mr. O'MAHONEY. Oh, no, there is nothing in this bill that would. Mr. MORSE. I simply wanted to know that. Mr. O’MAHONEY. The question the Senator from Oregon raises is wholly a question of legislation. Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I want to take a minute—half a minute, really, to state my position. Mr. O'MAHONEY. I should like to call the altention of the Senator from Oregon to the bill which was reported favorably on Monday by the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, and it is possible that when that is reached upon the call of the calendar the Senator may wish to discuss it. Mr. MORSE. Mr. Presidewut, I shail discuss it for half a minute now. I hope the bill which was reported by the Sen- ator’s committee does not provide for the elimination of the battlefield at Balls Bluff, because if it does the Senator from Oregon will oppose it. He is sure that he will have support from very high Gov- ernment officials outside the Senate. The battlefield of Balls Bluff happens to be the battlefield in which Oliver Wen- dell Holmes was first wounded in the Civil War, and it happens to be the battle- field on which Senator Baker, of Oregon, lost his life. It is a very small battlefield, involving almost a nominal sum for support. I think it would be most unfortunate if the few hundred dollars it takes a year to maintain that great historic monument cannot be supplied by the Congress of ithe United States. I wish to make the ReEcorp now because, while information was given to me privately that this bill did not cover it, yet having found my- self in controversy with some of the Gov- ernment agencies over that battlefield, I wanted the Recorp to be perfectly clear that they could not hide behind any action we take this afternoon in the mat- ter of continuing to maintain the Balls Bluff batticfield as a historic morument.