LyoU where he pleases and when he pleases, and no one can tell him to do otherwise. I say that advisedly, Mr. President. I said on yesterday that neither the Taft-Hartley law nor the emergency measure now contemplated, involving seizure of the mines, would put shovels into the hands of the miners if they did not want to work. I believe they would have worked if our Government had seized the mines; I believe that as a patriotic duty the miners would have gone back to work. But I repeat that it is a difficult piece of legislation to drait. A number of persons—some who live in my State and some who live in other sections of the country—have written to me, expressing the opinion that the Taft- Hartley law is the solution to the prob- lem. Of course, Mr. President, everyone know now that it is not the solution to the problem. It utterly failed in the present crisis as a result of the court decision of Judge Kecch. Neither is seizure the solution to the provlem, and that it is a most difficult matter to enact legislation which will be effective in such an emergency as the one we have faced until practically today. A serious study must be made by the Congress to ascer- tain, if possible, a workable solution which will give fair and equitable treat- ment to the laboring man as well as management. THE SITUATION IN CHINA Mr. LEHMAN obtained the floor, Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator from New York yield, to permit me to make an insertion in the Recorp, and to make a statement not exceeding 5 minutes in length? Mr. LEHMAN. I am glad to yield, provided I may have unanimous consent for that purpose, without losing the floor. The VICE PRESIDENT. jection, it 1s so ordered. Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I sk unanimous consent to have printed in the body of the Recorp an editorial entitled ‘‘Mao Returns to China,” ap- pearing in this morning’s New York Times There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the REcorp, as follows: Mao RETURNS TO CHINA Mao Tze-tung, chicftain of the Chinese C: mmunists, is now back in his native land atter his extended pilgrimage to Moscow. EB cause of the fact that he went there to negotiate a treaty most of the emphasis upon his return has been placed, so far, on the question: What did he come back with? It is equally pertinent to ask. What did he come back to? It ts not so easy to make an appraisal of the exact situation, but plainly Mao comes bick to an inflation of the same sort as that which undermined the Nationalist Govern- ment of China. The promise of $60,000,000 a year for five years that he received from the Russians won't help much to halt the al- ready downward spiral of Communist cur- rency. Apparently the policy of forced loans was not enough. The tactics used in forced rice collections and return of theve “lonns” to get more) credit avnrarently won't work when it com?s to money. Without ob- CUNGKESSIONAL KECORD—SENATE A factor in the deteriorating economy, of course, is Nationalist bombardment and blockade. Whatever its cost in other re- spects, it is apparently proving to be more effective in the economic field than many persons had supposed it could have been. Chiang, who was upbraided for the lack of will to resist on the part of his armies, 1s showing more than a little ability to resist and to do real damage with his Navy and his Air Force. At the moment he 1s forcing the Communists to lose ground economically. This 1s a curious and fateful reversal of roles. It is easy to see that the effectiveness of the Chinese Communist movement de- rived to a very considerable extent from the fact that its attack over a long period was not on the field forces of the Nationalist Army but on the basic economy of the Gov- ernment of China itself. The Communists boasted that when that viable economy had been sufficiently undermined the resistance of the Government would fall of its own weight, and events Justified their boast. The situation has now swung around and it is the Communists who must try to establish and sustain a working economy for China. Their present outlook is not bright. At the same time the character of Nation- alist resistance has improved. Chiang, in resuming the Presidency, is simply respond- ing to the logic of forces and events. He has rehabilitated resistance on both Hainan and Formosa. He has at last put the real “lib- erals” and “reformers” into key positions. In place of some of the “liberal” followers of Li Tsung-jen, who came into office on the theory that it was possible to make an honorable peace with the Communists and wound up in Peiping, he has put authority into the hands of such acknowledged leaders as Wang Shih- chieh, K C. Wu, George Yeh, C K. Yen and Oo. K. Yu. In the military field he has the services of skilled and imaginative command- ers such as Chen Cheng, Hsueh Yueh and Sun Li-Jen. Mao's return, in this ight, must be viewed as something short of triumphal. He has won some of his battles in China He may or may not have won his battle in Moscow. He still has an economic and political and military wur on his hands. Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I desire to read, for the information of the Senate, a letter I have received from the State Department. The letter is dated March 3, 1950, and reads as fol- lows: DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, March 3, 1950. The Honorable WILLIAM F ENOWLAND, United States Senate. My Dear SENATOR KNOWLAND The follow- ing information is sent to you in response to your letter of February 18° 1, The Chinese Communists are still de- taining Chicf Smith and Sergeant Bender incommunicado, without explanation. As indicated in previous correspondence on this subject, the United States Government has sent five written requests for their release to Communist authorities at Peiping. In addition, oral and written representations to local Communist authorities have been made by United States diplomatic and con- sular representatives at Nanking, Tsingtao, Tientsin, and Shanghai. These representa- tions have been ignored by the Communist authorities on the pretext that United States representatives in China have no official status. To fully explore every possible means of effecting their release the Department re- quested Capt. David Jones, master of the Flying Arrow, to approach Communist au- thorities at Tsingtao on an unofficial basis, requesting that the men bo allowed to re- turn to the United States aboard his ship. 2799 This approach was also unsuccessful in ob- taining their release, although additional in- formation regarding their welfare was ob- tained. This information was transmitted to you in a memorandum on the Smith- Bender case dated January 31, 1950. The Department has requested the assistance of the British Foreign Office and the Interna- tional Red Cross in establishing a channel of communications with Chief Smith and Sergeant Bender and effecting their release, and 1s in the meantime investigating other avenues of approach to the Chinese Com- munist authorities, 2. General Soule and his staff are still at Shanghal, awaiting transportation to the United States. The Chinese Communist au- thorities granted them exit permits in De- cember, but these authorities have gen- erally refused permission to foreigners in the Shanghai and Nanking areas to depart from China via ports other than Shanghai. Their departure from Shanghai has been de- layed indefinitely due to the Chinese Na- tional Government's endeavor to close that port. 3. All American personnel of the Con- sulate General in Petping have not yet ap- plied for exit permits, according to the De- partment’s latest information. The Consul General in Peiping has reported that local regulations stipulate that an application for an exit permit debars the applicant from re- questing passes for local travel. Therefore, in view of the importance of maintaining contact with the Consulate General in Tien- tsin, especially during this period when the two Consulates General are finalizing their plans for withdrawal, only a limited num- ber of the official personnel at Petping have appHed for exit permits. The remainder of the personnel will apply shortly before the estimated date of departure. It might be noted, in this connection, that four official Americans, including the assistant military attaché, have already received their exit permit and have left Pelping. As requested by you, there 1s given below the text of the shop guaranty used by of- ficial personnel in Ambassador Stuart's party when they left Nanking This shop guar- anty was executed by Second Secretary Ba- con, of the Embassy, as a personal act. “I hereby execute this bond to guarantee that (blank) 1s in truth not involved in any unsettled civil or criminal actions nor disputes involving payment of rents, taxes, or other debts, and that while he ts waite ing for exit (blank) will definitely not com- mit any unlawful act, otherwise, the execu- tor of this bond is willing to be subject to the reserved punishment.” Sincerely yours, Jack K MCcFALL, Asststant Secretury. Mr. President, I merely wish at this time to say that so far as I know it is the only time in the history of United States diplomatic relations with other countries that our diplomatic officials have either been required to sign or have signed a bond of this kind in order to leave a country. I think it a most un- precented action that American officials should have been required to sign sucha bond. I think it a most unusual action that they should have consented to the signing of a bond in that manner. When the camel once gets his nose under the tent, we may find that additional pres- sure will be put on cur people in the fuiucc. I stioll have more to say about this at a latcr date.
2800 ORDER OF BUSINESS Mr. LEHMAN and Mr. IVES addressed the Chair. The VICE PRESIDENT.. The junior Senator from New York ts recognized. Mr. WHERRY rose. Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, the junior Senator from New York will not yleld for the making of any statements at this time. He will yield to unani- mous-consent requests for the introduc- tion of bills or the insertion of material in the Rrcorp. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. LEHMAN. I yield for the pur- pose I have indicated. Mr. WHERRY. I ask the Senator from New York whether he does not believe it fair, inasmuch as the Senator has ylelded for several statements, that those who might like to answer some of those statements should have the same privilege? I should like to have unanimous consenv to make a statement relative to the history of the coal crisis, and I ask the Senator now for that priv- ilege, Mr. LEHMAN. For how long a time? The VICE PRESIDENT. The Sena- tor from New York and all other Sena- tors have control of the floor when they occupy it. They cannot yield—— Mr. WHERRY. Iask unanimous con- sent to be permitted to make a statement that will require not to exceed 10 min- utes. The VICE PRESIDENT. Let the Chair finish his statement, please. The Senator from New York can yield, or not yield, as it suits his pleasure or conven- fence, for any purpose. He cannot yield even for the insertion of matters in the Recorp or for the introduction of bills, except by unanimous consent. He can only yield for a question. After yielding to other Senators, he may discontinue the yielding, if he sees fit to do so. The Senator from New York and all other Senators have complete control of the Senate floor while they occupy it. Does the Senator from New York yield to the Senator from Nebraska? Mr. LEHMAN, The junior Senator has yielded, with the understanding, of course, in every instance, that it was based upon a request for unanimous consent, to permit the insertion of cer- tain material in the Rrecorp. Mr. WHERRY,. Oh. Mr. LEHMAN. It is perfectly obvious that that has not been observed. Mr. WHERRY. That is correct. My. LEHMAN. If it is understood that the junior Senator from New York does not lose his place in connection with the debate on the pending question, I shall of course be very glad to yield to the Senator from Nebraska. Mr. CHAVEZ. Mr. President——. The VICE PRESIDENT. For what purpose does the Senator from New Mexico rise? Mr, CHAVEZ. I thought the Senator from Nebraska requested unanimous consent, Mr. WHERRY, I did. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from New York asks unanimous consent that he may yield to the Senator from Nebraska to make a statement, with- out losing the floor. Is there objection? Mr. CHAVEZ. Reserving the right to object—and I shall not object—I think it unfair to a Senator who is speaking, whether it be the Senator from New York or any other Senator, for another Sen- ator to seek to insert something in the Recorp, and thereby interrupt the Sen- ator having the floor. I say this, not for the sake of any particular Senator, but for the sake of all Senators. I do not object to the request. Mr. WHERRY and Mr. MUNDT ad- dressed the Chair. Mr. WHERRY. I ask unanimous con- sent that the Senator from New York may yield to me in order to permit me to make a statement, without prejudice to his rights to the floor. The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there ob- jection? Mr. MUNDT. Mr, President-—— The VICE PRESIDENT. For what purpose does the Senator from South Dakota rise? Mr. MUNDT. I ask unanimous con- sent that I may make a unanimous-con- sent request. The VICE PRESIDENT. Only one unanimous-consent request can be pend- ing at a time. The question is, is there objection to the request of the Senator from New York that he be allowed to yield to the Senator from Nebraska for the purpose indicated? The Chair hears none. Mr. WHERRY., Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. LEHMAN. The junior Senator from New York, of course, yields, HISTORY OF THE COAL CRISIS Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from New York for his sportsmanship and for the fair play he has accorded the Sena- tor from Nebraska. A few moments ago, I heard from the lips of the majority leader a defense of the inaction of the President in regard to solving the coal strike. I repeat what I said yesterday that, in my humble opinion, had there been a will to settle the strike 2 or 3 months ago, as much could have been accomplished then as was accomplished yesterday, without even suggesting seizure legislation or a great many other kinds of legislation which are now being advocated. I want the Recorp to show that. I also want the Recorp to show the history of the coal crisis, about which Senators have been talking. May 25, 1949, nearly a year ago, at the southern wage conference, the United Mine Workers began a bargain- ing conference at Bluefield, W. Va. June 8, 1949, a “brief stabilizing period of inaction” was proposed for the week of June 13 to 20. June 13, 1949, the captives and the United Mine Workers began a bargain- ing conference at Philadelphia. MARCH 4 June 22, 1949, at the northern wage conference, the United Mine Workers began a bargaining conference at White Sulphur Springs, W. Va. June 30, 1949, nearly a year ago, the 1948 contracts expired. July 6, 1949, the 8-day workweek began. Just think of it, Mr. President, nearly a year ago, 9 months ago, the 8-day workweek began, limiting the pro- duction of soft coal. From September 19 to November 9, 1949, a general cessation of work took place. October 7, 1949, the Federal Media- tion and Conciliation Service entered the situation at a conference of all parties. October 27, 1949, Truman delays, The Baltimore Sun said: President Truman said today that he would invoke the Taft-Hartley law in the steel and coal disputes if either or both created what he regarded as a national emergency. “There is no national emergency as yet,” the Chief Executive told his weekly news con- ference, “and until there is, the national emergencies provision of the law is in- applicable.” The Baltimore Sun, on October 27, 1949, said further: The President made it clear that it would be he who would make the determination as to when and if a national emergency had been created by shortages of coal and steel. October 27, 1949. The coal strike is in its thirty-ninth day. November 17, 1949. Truman delays. The New York Times said: The Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service turned over the coal case to the White House yesterday. The dispute has a history of nearly 6 months, including a 52- day strike, and secms no nearer solution than ever. Mr. Truman implied he was in no hurry to get into the case. He was asked whether he was giving John L. Lewis a chance to work out a settlement before using the Taft-Hart- ley law. The President replied that the emergency for the Taft-Hartley law had not arrived, and that when he got to that bridge he would cross it December 3, 1949. United Mine Work- ers announce signing of contracts with a few operators. December 5, 1949. Three-day week again instituted. December 22, 1949. Truman delays. The Baltimore Sun said: President Truman said today that he would take necessary action if the coal strike short- age reached the emergency stage. However, the President would not venture an opinion on whether the 8-day week John L. Lewis 1s permitting in most of the coal industry is providing enough coal, Even then, Mr. President, requests were coming in that coal be furnished in different sections of the Nation. I proceed with article from the Balti- more Sun: He also would not say whether he consid- ered the short week a sufficiently serious threat to bring the situation within the provisions of the Taft-Hartley Act.
1950 The next date is December 28. The junior Senator from Nebraska, having gone from one end of the country to the other, realized the seriousness of the national emergency which than existed by reason of the coal strike, and the junior Senator from Nebraska is quoted in the Washington Star as saying: “It 18 obvious,” said Senator WHERRY, “that the industrial productivity of this country cannot Icng continue in high gear on the meager trickle of soft coal that is now being mined “Unless the President acts, and acts forth- rightly, there will be a very serious industrial crisis within a few weeks.” Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- sent that all of the Washington Star item of December 28 be made a rart of my remarks at this point. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: WHERnY CALLS TRUMAN NEGLIGENT IN HAN- [LING OF COAL SITUATION—-SENATE GOP Leoaper Hirs BIPARTISAN Policy, DEMANDS ECA SLASH President Truman was charged with “de- plorable negligence” in his handling of the coal situation by Senate Republican Leader Wuenrry on his return to Washington for the coming session of Congress, Senator WHERRY said yesterday the Presi- dent had not used his full power to restore full-time production of coal; that he had refused to invoke the provisions of the Taft- Hartley Act, apparently for political reasons. Senator WHERRY also struck at the present bipartisan foreign policy, and demanded that ECA appropriations at the coming session of Congress be cut at least $1,500,000,000 below the apprcpriations made by the first session of the Eighty-first Congress. He challenged the administration forces to bring the antilynching bill before the Senate during the first week of the session, assert- ing that of all the civil-rights bills it was the easlest to get through the Upper House. SEES INDUSTRIAL EMERGENCY “All the administiation and its leutenants in Congress have done on civil-rights legis- lation,” said Wrerry, “is just to talk about it, promise, promise, and promise " Going further into the coal situation, Sen- ator WHuEuRy said the President’s statement that there is no emergency does not square with statements that have come to him “Tt is obvious,"’ said Senator WHERRY, “that the industrial productivity of this country cannot long continue in high gear on the meager trickle of soft coal that is now being mined. “Unless the President acts, and acts forth- rightly, there will be a very serious industrial crisis within a few weeks.” Senator WHERRY also demanded that the Federal tax structure be given a thorough overhauling, and that the wartime excise taxes be repealed. URGES BALANCED BUDGET “The people want the cost of Government cut drastically,” he said. “And they want the budget balanced. Instead of talking about increasing taxes, to give the spend- thrift Socialists more money to squander, Congress should bring the budget into bal- ance by cutting expenditures to fit the cloth of revenue " The foreign policy of the United States, Senator WHenrry said, should spring from the will of the people. “Before any I‘ne of policy is adopted by the administraticn.” he declared, “it should be presented to the people. The people must CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE have the facts, and, given the facts, they will make the right answer. “In foreign policy the Tiuman adminis- tration has bypassed the people and Con- gress, and especially the Senate. The Con- stitution makes the Senate an integral part of our country’s foreign policy making.” POLICY SHOULD BE DEBATED “Too frequently the administration has gone ahead and made commitments to for- eign governments. Congress has been put in the position of approving these agree- ments or causing great damage to our pres- tige abroad by repudiating them. “Of course, every thinking person \ ants the United States to present a united na- tional front to the world. But before the President commits this country to a policy, Congress and the people should have ample opportunity to debate it and thresh it out. The end result will be a united front” A similar view was expressed recently by Senator VANDENBERG, of Michigan, Republi- can leader in foreign affairs “Every foreign policy must be totally de- bated,” Senator VANDENBERG said, ‘and the loyal opposition is under special obligation to see that this occurs.” He told reporters there should be an “unpartisan’’ foreign policy in which neither party sought politi- cal advantage. He said this would call for frank cooperation and free debate in reach- ing a united front. WANTS FULL ACCOUNTING Senator WHERRyY insisted, too, that the peo- ple must have a full accounting fcr every dollar spent “in the billions upon billions of their money that has been scattered over the world.” “There has not been enough nonpartisan approach in our foreign policy,’’ he con- tinued. “Neither Congress nor the Ameri- can people were consulted in the edminis- tration’s betrayal of China into the hands of the Moscow Communists of China Some day our country and the world may pay dearly for this tragic blunder, this coddling of the Communists. “Congress should take a firm hold on ECA. We should bo thinking of procedures for the transtormation from the present pifts and grants policy out of the pockets of the Ameri- can taxpayer to resumption of private enter- prise.” URGI8 JOINT COMMITTFE “Productivity of the ECA countvics is now above prewar levels. The econcmic prob- lems that ccnfront these countries can be solved only by themselves. A reduction of $1,500,000,000 in the ECA appropriation for the next fiscal year is amply warranted by conditions in the ECA countries and by the deficit of the United States budget.” Senator WHeErry called for the creation of a Joint Committee of the Houce and Senate on Government Expenditures similar to the present Joint Committee on Internal Reve- nue Taxation, with an ample staff At pres- ent, he said, Congress is badly equipped to do an efficient job on appropriations. He ap- proved the idea of a single omnibus appro- priation bill. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, on Jan- uary 11, 1950, Senate Concurrent Reso- lution 68, calling upon the President to use the emergency powers of the Taft- Hartley Act, was introduced by the Sen- ator from Michigan [Mr. Fercuson], the Senator from Ohio [Mr. Tarr], the Sen- ator from Wisconsin [Mr. Wi.ey], the Senator from Missouri (Mr. DonneELL], the Senator from Indiana [Mr. JENNER], the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Martin], the Senator from Iowa [Mr. 2801 HICKENLOOPER], and the Senator from Maine (Mr. BrewsrteER]. On January 12, 1950, Truman delayed while 90,000 workers were out of the pits entirely in spontaneous strikes. I read now from the New York Herald Tribune: Despite an industry estimate that coal stocks at the end of this week will be at their lowest point in 15 years, President Tru- man insisted today that there is still no national emergency in the coal situation. His statement, in reply to a reporter's prees conference question, rejected for the time being demands by coal industry leaders and Members of Congress, including some leading Democrats, that he tnvoke the Taft-Hartloy law’s 80-day injunction provisions for han- dling national-emergency strikes or strike threata. The President was asked: “Have you reached any new decision whether there is an emergency in coal that would warrant using the Taft-Hartley Act?” “There is no national emergency in coal at the present time,” he replied. On January 18, 1950, counsel for the NLRB moved in court to end work stop- pages in support of alleged illegal de- mands in bargaining. January 20, 1950, Truman delays. Washington Post said: The Chief Executive told a White House press conference that he, and he alone, will decide if and when there is an [coal] emer- gency. When the time comes, he will declare an emergency and take whatever rction neces sary, Mr. Truman said. The President also said yesterday that he had nothing whatever to do with the injunc- tion suit filled against Lewis and the UMW by an executive arm of the Government. On January 25, 1950, James Boyd, Di- rector of the Bureau of Mines, told the Senate Labor Committee Unless there is an immedtate resumption of substantially increased coal production, the national economy, health, and welfare is now or soon will be imperiled. On January 27, 1950, the Senate Com- mittee on Labor and Public Welfare postponed indefinitely the considera- tion of Senate Concurrent Resolution 68 asking the President to invoke the Taft- Hartley law. January 31, 1€50, Truman delays. The New York Times said: President Truman moved into the soft- coal dispute today with a proposal that John L. Lewis and the operators call a 70-day truce and submit their arguments to a fact- finding board. He asked for an answer hy 5 p. m. Saturday. Under the truce “normal’’ production of coal would be resumed. This was under- stood to mean a return to the 5-day work- week by the members of the United Mine Workers, headed by Mr. Lewis. The wage scale of the expired union contract would be paid. A board of three would make recom. mendations in 60 days, but the recommene dations would not be binding. On February 4, 1950, a 70-day truce was rejected by Lewis. On February 6, 1950, Mr. Truman in- voked the Taft-Hartley law and 370,000 workers began a Nation-wide work stop- page. The
2802 In my opinion, Mr. President, if that law had been invoked 3 months prior to the time it was invoked, and there had been a will to enforce it, we would not have had the emergency which now exists. I think the American people, to a man, believe that statement. Cn February 9, 1950, acting on chargcs brought by counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, the court directed the union to bargain in good faith. On February 11, 1950, the Taft-Hart- ley fact-finding board submitted its re- port. The court issued a temporary re- straining order for 370,000 miners to re- turn to work forthwith. On March 2, 1950, the court cleared the United Mine Workers of civil and crim- inal contempt charges in failing to re- turn to work following the February 11 restraining order. On March 3, 1850, the President sent a message to Congress requesting mine- seizure authority. On the same day, March 3, the contract terms were reported as agreed to. Mr. President, in concluding my re- marks I ask unanimous consent to in- sert in the Recorp at this point an edito- rial from the New York Herald Tribune of March 4, 1950. I first want to point out one or two paragraphs to which I should like to invite the attention of the Senate. They read as follows: WHERE THE BLAME LIES Whatever the outcome of the coal dispute, the American people will long remember the grim period when they shoveled the last few lumps of coal into their dwindling fires, and President Truman's attitude toward the law which was designed to protect the Nation avainst that predicament The President’s request for new legislation tn the dangerous field of government operation was dramatic, and it was necessary as a last resort But that the Government should be driven to such a step Js an admission of weakness, the elfects of which will plague future labor relations in the United States. There is a law on the statute books calling for a delay in any strike which impcrils the national health or safety—a delay which, under pres- ent circumstances, might well have averted the crisis. There is a President and an ad- ministration, all of whose members have sworn to uphold the laws Yet the strike went on in the teeth of the law, and there was no punishment, while the country stood on the brink of catastrophe. I should like to read the two conclud- ing paragraphs: But the indictment of the Administration goes deeper In season and out of season, President Truman has condemned the Taft- Hartley act. He has promised its repeal and prevented its modification, Even aiter his efforts to dispose ot the law failed In a Con- gress dominated by his own party, he con- tinued to denounce the statute and moved only slowly to enforce it, despite the urgency of the coal threat. In so doing he has given aid, comfort, and actual leadership to those who hated the law because it interfered with their power. That this weakened the law and rendered its enforcement more difficult is obvious. Mr. Truman may believe that he has proved the Taft-Hartley law unworkable. What he has proved is that he was unwill- ing or unable to use it to protect the Nation from its gravest industrial crisis in many CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE years, and that he thereby bears a heavy share of responsibility for the mass unem- ployment, discomfort, and danger which have afflicted the American people. And the people will not forget. There being no objection, the entire editorial was ordered to be printed in the Ercorp, as follows: WHERE THE BLAME Lirs Whatever the outcome of the coal dispute, the American people will long remember the grim period when they shoveled the last few lumps of coal into their dwindling fires, and President Truman’s attitude toward the law which was designed to protect the Nation against that predicament. The Presiaent’s request for new legislation in the dangeious field of Government operation was dramatic, and it was necessary as a last resort But that the Government should be dilven to such a step is an admission of weakniss, the effects of which will plague futu’a labor relations in the United States. ‘There is a law on the statute books calling for a delay in any strike which imperils the national health or safety—a delay which, under prescnt circumstances might well have averted the crisis. There is a Presiden* and un udministration, all of whose members have sworn to uphold the laws. Yet the strike went on in the teeth of the law and there was no punishment, while the country stood on the brink of catastrophe. Mr. Truman's plan for seizing the mines, with its proposal for “impartial boards” to determine “fair and Just compensation” for owners and miners—but not to settle the dispute itself—represents an attempt to evade the plain implications of his accion, How there could be an interim settlement of wages and conditions under Governinent operation which would not prejudice collec- tive bargaining, the President did not state. Instead, he went on to recommend a com- mission to study the long-term needs of the mines, thus placing them in a special cate- gory as a “sick industry,” and, by interence, attempting to justify his reluctant and bungling use of the Taft-Hartley nachinery. Senator Tarr charges that the Govern- ment’s case against the UMW was mis- handled, that evidence which would have satisfied the court was withheld. Affidavits to the effect that local union officials told the strikers that the telegrams of the top leaders did not mean the men must return to work, and others testifying to the use of union goon squads to make tne strike eifcc- tive were, according to the Ohio Senator, not placed before Judge Keech. Whether this was an error of judgment, or deliberate, is not important The Government did not make out the best possible case for a con- tempt citation, and it is responsible to the people for its failure. But the indictment of the administration goes deeper. In season and out of scason, President Truman has condemned the Taft- Hartley Act. He has promised its repeal and prevented its modification Even after his efforts to dispose of the law failed in a Con- gress dominated by his own party, he cone tinued to denounce the statute and moved only slowly to enforce it, despite the urg- ency of the coal threat. In so doing he has given aid, comfort and actual lendership to those who hated the law because it inter. fered with their power. That this weak- ened the law and rendered its enforcement more difficult is obvious. Mr. Truman may believe that he has proved the Taft-Hartley law unworkable, ‘What he has proved is that he was unwill- ing or unable to use it to protect the Nation from its gravest industrial crisis in many years, and that he thereby bears a heavy share of responsibility for the mass unem- Marcu 4 ployment, discomfort and danger which have affiicted the American people. And the people will not forget. DISPLACED PERSONS The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (H. R. 4567) to amend the Displaced Persons Act of 1948. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- ator from New York [Mr. LEHMAN] is entitled to the floor. Mr. IVES. Myr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, I shall continue to show every consideration to my colleagues on the floor of the Sen- ate, but I have oveen waiting 45 minutes while various statements have been made by other Senators, and I cannot yield for any further statement at this time. If any Senator wishes to intro- duce a bill, which will not take more than 2 or 3 minutes, or to insert matters in the REcorD, or to make a correction the junior Senator from New York will yicid, but for no other pu.pose. He makes that statement with great regret, because he wishes to continue to show every con- sideration to his colleagues. Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator from New York yield to mc? Mr. LEHMAN. For what purpose? Mr. EASTLAND. To offer two amend- ments to the bill, and to have them printed and lie on the table. Mr. LEHMAN Is the Senator going to speak on the amendments? Mr. EASTLAND. Not at this time. I will say to the Senator also that I am informed that yesterday I made an in- accurate statement and I should lke to have about half a minute to correct it. Mr. LEHMAN. I yield for that pur- pose. Mr. EASTLAND. I offer two amend- ments to H. R. 4567, and ask that they be printed and lie on the table. The VICE PRESIDENT. The amend- ments will be reccived and printed, and will lie on the table. Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, I am informed that yesterday I stated, dur- ing the debate, that Mr. L’Heureux, Chief of the Visa Division of the State De- partment, came of his own volition be- fore the Committee on the Judiciary and requested veto power ove.’ certain phases of the pending bill. If I made such a statement, it was erroneous. The committee sent for Mr. L’Heurcux, and at the request of the committee, Mr. L’Heureux appeared before the commit- tee, gave us his vicws on the bill, and those views were incorporated in the committee bill. THE COAL CRISIS Mr. IVES. Mr. President, will my col- league yield? Mr, LEHMAN. For what purpose? Mr. IVES. The senior Senator from New York does not like to interrupt his colleague, but he has an important en- gagement, and has a very brief state- ment he would like to make for the Recorp, if his distinguished colleague would be willing to grant him that cour- tesy, with the understanding, of course,
1950 that the junior Senator from New York will retain his right to the floor. Mr. LEHMAN. The junior Senator from New York is very glad to yield to his colleague. Mr. IVES. Mr. President, it seems to me that the critical emergency which now besets the country because of the Serious dispute between the workers and operators in the coal industry has been occasioned by a combination of circum- stances and not exclusively by any single factor or influence. I cite some of these factors and influences: First. The inadequacy of the so-called national-emergency provision in the Taft-Hartley Act. Second. The injection of partisan poli- tics into the midst of efforts to correct the Taft-Hartley Act’s defects by for- mulating new and sound and equitable labor relation~ legislation. Third. The sick coal industry. Fourth. The refusal of both workers and operators to bargain collectively in a spirit of mutual understanding and with @ common purpose, not only to resolve their differences in a friendly manner, but also to recognize and accept their share of responsibility for the general welfare. Fifth. The failure of the Chief Execu- tive, either because of a lack of foresight or because of political expediency, to act promptly in the national interest and to take such measures as have been avail- able to him, which obviously were ncces- sary if the present emergency were to be avoided. The lessons to be derived from this un- happy experience are costly, but they should be profitable. Millions of people, rank and file Americans, have suffered and are suffcring and will still suffer not only inconvenience, but hardship. A sick industry has been made sicker. Our beleaguered economy, which is beset by increasing problems both at home and abroad, has received a serious blow. The national defense itself has been jeopar- dized. The quality of labor relations in the United States has sunk to a new low. And yet, out of this maelstrom of con- flicting interests and emotions, as Ameri- cans we should be able to build better than at any time in the past. If we take to heart the lessons we should have learned, we should be able to discover a remedy for the ills of the coal industry and we should be able to formulate the kind of labor-relations legislation which is essential to sound labor-management relations. The President has recommended the creation of “a commission of in- quiry to make a thorough study of the coal industry, in terms of economic, so- cial, and national security objectives.” I commend this proposal by the President, and I commend also the distinguished junior Senators from Oregon and Illinois and Minnesota who earlier had the fore- sight to make a similar proposal which is already before the Senate in the form of legislation. But these measures are not enough. If this tragic experience has taught us one thing above all others, it has demon- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE strated the utter futility of attempting to formulate sound and equitable labor- relations legislation when in its formula- tion partisan politics is a major factor. It has demonstrated, moreover, that in the administration of Jabor-relations law, no matter how high its quality, partisanship or partisan politics should never be a consideration. It has demon- strated, finally, that in any Jabor-rela- tions law, no matter how justifiable its purpose, there is a limit to legal compulsion. I close these brief remarks by repeat- ing what I have said many times before: The most satisfactory and happiest hu- man relationships are the product not of legal compulsion, but rather of volun- tary determination among human beings to cooperate with one another. Though we may legislate to the end of time, there will never be industrial peace and har- mony without good faith, integrity, a high degree of responsibility, and a real desire to cooperate on the part of all parties concerned. Without this spirit of good will all of the social, economic, and labor laws of man will prove eventu- ally to be in vain. Mr. President, in thanking my distin- guished colleague for his great courtesy, I wish to pay tribute to him for what he did as Governor of the State of New York in working with a Republican leg- islature, regardicss of politics, in an at- tempt to solve the great problems which are inherent in the difficulty with which we are now confronted. I thank him again. DISPLACED PERSONS The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (H. R. 4567) to amend the Dis- placed Persons Act of 1948. Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, one of the anxieties which some Members of the Senate and the public at large have in regard to the pending displaced-per- sons legislation is the question of our national security. The allegation has been made repeatedly that the displaced- persons legislation, as it is presently op- erating and as it is proposed that it op- erate under the minority substitute, would permit large numbers of subver- sive individuals to enter the United States under the guise of displaced per- sons. Of course, if this were true— which it is not and which I propose to show that it is not—we would all have reason for concern. In the present world situation, we must guard ourselves against the introduction into our coun- try of persons bent on destroying our form of government or subverting our way of life. This would apply to all in- dividuals of undemocratic mind, all in- dividuals whose preference is totalitari- anism, authoritarianism, or tyranny. Of course, the top place on this list of undesirables would be occupied by ac- tual agents of foreign governments seek- ing to ferret out our national secrets or to weaken our national strength, Mr. President, I have no doubt that some individuals have entered into our country during the past 10 years who fall into one of the several categories I have 2803 described. But individuals bent or as- signed to such @ course of action would succeed and do succeed in entering our country whether we have displaced-per- sons legislation or not. Even if we sur- round our coun/ry with barriers of steel and fire, some such individuals would doubtless succeed in entering the United States, just as some of our agents are— thank God—penetrating bchind the iron curtain and encouraging the forces of re- sistance there. But, Mr. President, these circum- stances and dangers were well recognized when the original displaced-persons leg- islation was drafted. It was recognized by the supporters of the pending liber- alized legislation. It was recognized and is recognized by those officials who have been and are in charge of administering the displaced-persons program. The Displaced Persons Commission’s security screening system js the most rig- orous ever applied in any immigration program in American history. In addi- tion to all the security protections em- ployed under the normal immigration laws, there are at least seven more and new security protections by American governmental agencies rigorously pro- tecting the security of the United States. They are as follows: First. The FBI makes an individual check on each displaced person before he is admitted to the United States. Second. The Counter Intelligence Corps of the United States Army con- ducts an extensive personal interview and ficld investigation of every displaced person, using all the intelligence re- sources of the United States Army. Mr. JENNER, Mtr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. LEHMAN. The Senator from New York will yield to the Senator from In- diana when he has completed reading the seven categories of unusual protec- tive measures that are taken. Mr. JENNER. Very well. Mr. LEHMAN. Third, Immigration and Naturalization Service conducts two—rather than the normal one—in- spections o1 each displaced person, one a@ precxamination overseas and the other upon arrival, Under the displaced per- sons law, the Immigration Service not only hus a double check, here and over- seas, but the immigration inspector has the full and complete file which is not the case in normal immigration. In this way, the immigration inspector and the consul each make a completely inde- pendent judgment on security. Fourth. The Displaced Persons Com- mission maintains the closest watch on security problems throughout the entire process. The Commission has issued an inflexible instruction that no one who was ever a member of the Communist, Nazi, or Fascist Parties, or of related parties, is admissible into the United States uhder the DP program. This is a more stringent rule than that followed under the normal immigration laws. Fifth. There is a special additional in- vestigation in connection with displaced persons whose country of origin has be-n overrun by the Communists,
2804 Sixth There are special laboratories set up for the examination of documents of doubtful authenticity. Seventh. Under the pending bill, an additional protection is provided: Upon arrival, each displaced person must take an oath that he has never been a mem- ber of the Communist Party or of any organization on the Attorney General’s list The Senator from New York will now yield to the Senator from Indiana for a question. Mr. JENNER Mr. President, I know the Senator from New York wants to be fair, but does he not know that there never was a Communist who would make an affidavit that he was a member of the Communist Party? The Senator from New York stands on the floor and tells the Senate and the American people that the FBI makes a check of displaced per- sons. The FBI is a highly respected or- ganization, and the people of America may really be led to believe by what the Senator from New York says, that the FBI makes a check. But why does not the Senator tell the Senate and the American people that all the FBI does is to make a name check, that Js, to see if any of the names of displaced persons secking to come into the United States are on the FBI’s list? The FBI makes no investigation other than the name check. When the Senator from New York says that the Consular Service and immigra- tion authorities prepare the files on dis- placed persons, does he not know that those files are, in fact, prepared by the International Refugee Organization, prepared by displaced persons them- selves; that they are shot through with fraud, and that the immigration au- thorities and the consular officers have no right to go back of such files? Does not the Senator from New York know that the officials the Senator says are trying to protect the Nation’s secu- rity do not even wait for a check from the Berlin Document Center or a check from the Provost Marshal’s Office to see whether any of the displaced persons who are coming to this country, and who are being processed, are Communists? Does not the Senator from New York know that the head of the Displaced Per- sons Commission in Europe testified last night before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary that the Commission is fol- lowing a calculated risk program, and that he admitted to the members of the Senate committee last night that sub- versives and criminals were coming into this country, and that he knew that to be so? The witness said, however, “Don’t worry about that. Such persons can be deported.” Does not the Senator from New York know that, although known criminals have been brought in under the process- ing by the Displaced Persons Commis- sion, there has not been a single de- portation? I know the Senator from New York wants to be fair. That, at least, is some- taing which must be brought out. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. LEHMAN. I think the Senator from New York is very safe in saying that he wishes to be at least as fair in this matter as the Senator from Indiana. The Senator from New York agrees with the Senator from Indiana that an affi- davit by a Communist does not carry much weight. Mr. JENNER. None whatever. Mr. LEHMAN. I believe that mem- bers of the Communist Party, for the purpose of gaining their ends and the ends of their party, would be willing to commit many crimes, including the one outlined by the Senator from Indiana. But I want to make it very clear to the Senator from Indiana that every dis- placed person, before entering this coun- try, is checked by the Counter Intelli- gence Corps of the United States Army and by the FBI. The Senator from New York apparently has much More confi- dence in the great organization known as the FBI than has the Senator from Indiana. In addition to that, no person can come into this country, whether he is a displaced person or qualifies under the normal immigration laws, without a check being made by the consular serv- ice of the United States of America and by the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Mr. JENNER. MT. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. LEHMAN. Not at the moment. Was the Senator from Indiana in the Senate Chamber yesterday when the Senator from New York read into the RecorpD statements by the head of the Immigration and Naturalization Serv- ice and the Chief of the Visa Bureau of the State Department? If he was in this room then he would not question in any way the statements which I have made or the degree of screening which has been made. Mr. JENNER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gra- HAM in the chair). Does the Senator from New York yield to the Senator trom Indiana? Mr. LEHMAN. For a question. Not for @ speech or a statement, but for a question which I will answer. Mr. JENNER. Very well. Does the CIC, when the name of a displaced per- son is referred to it for investigation, wait for the report from the Berlin Doc- ument Center or from the provost mar- shal’s office? Mr. LEHMAN. In reply to that ques- tion, I can say that of 134,000 immigrants admitted thus far to this country under the displaced persons law, only in the case of 70 were the papers representing the investigation of the CIC not ap- pended at the time of the arrival of the immigrant into this country. Let me further state to the Senator— and he should know this—that there have been only three cases out of the 134,000 in which the immigrant has been accused of fraud or moral turpitude and in which proceedings have been taken for his deportation to his native country. MARCH 4 If those cases are as the Senator claims they are, then certainly the Immigration and Naturalization Service or the State Department or the FBI could have taken action and would have taken action against them. Mr. JENNER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. LEHMAN. I yield for a question. Mr. JENNER. It is not what the Sen- ator from Indiana thinks. The Senator from New York was on the floor yester- day, and he heard the evidence sub- mitted, as given by Mr. Alamanza Tripp, the head of the Immigration and Natu- 1alization Service in Europe, who said, as a matter of public record, that of the 134,000 displaced persons who have been brought into this country, at least 30,000 are doubtful security risks. Let me ask a question in regard to the checks. The Senator from New York states that the Counter Intelligence Corps investigates. I ask the Senator, what could the CIC do in the way of in- vestigation, and what does it do, when an applicant comes from Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, or some other country in a similar situation? Representatives of the CIC cannot go into those countries to make checks, and they have no police records to check. So what does the CIC check amount to? Yet those who come from behind the iron curtain may include persons who will threaten the security of our nation. Mr. LEHMAN. I shall be glad to re- ply to that inquiry. The Senator from New York was on the floor yesterday; and he heard more misstatements and more inaccuracies than he ever thought it, possible to be made on the floor of this great deliberative body, the Senate of the United States. Mr. CAIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. LEHMAN. Not at the moment. Statement after statement was read and reread. But when the Senator from New York asked the authority for those statements, he was told that one man or another man came to a hearing and made an informal statement or whis- pered into the ear of this Senator or that Senator; but there was no proof. I asked time and time again, “Give me the proof of this” Mr. JENNER. Mr. Tripp testified at @ public hearing, and his testimony is a matter of public record. He is the one who said there are 30,000 doubtful dis- placed persons in this country. Mr. LEHMAN. Let me point out to the Senator from Indiana that a great point was made by the Senator from Mis- sissippi [Mr. EasTLanp] that the chief of the Visa Division of the State Depart- ment, Mr. L’Heureux, had made certain statements and asked that certain pro- visions be included in the bill. I asked, “Where is the record of that?” Oh, no, Mr. President ; the Senator did not give it. Mr. JENNER. But I have here the record of Mr. Tripp’s testimony, if the Senator from New York wishes to have it. Mr. LEHMAN, I shall be glad to have it, because time after time the Senator from Mississippi told the Senate that no
1950 record of that was kept, but that the wit- ness came to the committee and the com- mittee members talked informally. I even pointed out that it was an unusual procedure for a committee which was supposed to be holding a public hearing. Mr. CAIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. LEHMAN. I yield for a question; yes. Mr. CAIN. The Senator from New York has expressed his own amazement at what he considered to be the stagger- ing number of misstatements made on the floor of the United States Senate yesterday. Because a considerable num- ber of the Members of this body, of whom the Senator from Washington is one, are endeavoring to understand and appre- ciate every facct of this extremely dif- ficult, delicate, and complicated ques- tion, I ask the Senator from New York whether he will be so kind as to state for the benefit of the Recorp, which a number of us will study 1n considering this case, and to outline precisely, in detail, his charges of misinformation and inaccurate statements or inaccurate cx- amples which, according to what the Senator from New York has said in the past few minutes, were given by so many other Senators on the floor of this body yesterday. Mr. LEHMAN. The Senator from New York will be very glad, indeed, to inform the Senator from Washington. The statement was made by the Senator from Mississippi and, I think, by other Senators who have spoken, that the sole authority for the admission of the dis- placed persons into this country rested with the IRO, the International Refugee Organization, and with the Displaced Persons Commission. When I suggested the inaccuracy of that statement, and pointed out that the final authority and power rested with the Immigration and Naturalization Service and with the consular service of the State Depart- ment, my assertions were denied. I had the greatest difficulty, as some of my col- leagues may recall, in obtaining per- mission from the Senator from Missis- sipp1 to insert into the Recorp state- ments made on the authority of the head of the Immigration and Naturalzation Service and the Chief of the Visa Divi- sion of the State Department. I finally obtained that permission, and I inserted that statement into the CONGRESSIONAL Recorp, where any Senator or any mem- ber of the public who has access to the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD can read it, Mr. JENNER, Mr. President, will the Senator yield at this point? Mr. LEHMAN. I yield for a question. Mr. JENNER. I think this is one of the points that is really confusing to all Members of the Senate who have not followed this subject closely: Is it not correct that the Immigration officials and those in charge of the issuance of visas, for the State Department, have jurisdiction over the immigration laws, but not over the Displaccd Tersons Com- mission? There 1s the conflict, it seems to me. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. LEHMAN. Very well; that is a fair question, and it deserves an answer, Mr. JENNER. I think it should be cleared up. Mr. LEHMAN. I will answer that in my speech within the next 10 minutes. Mr. JENNER. Very well. Mr. CAIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for one more question? Mr. LEHMAN. I yield for a question; yes. Mr. CAIN. I simply wish to know whether the reference the Senator from New York has just made to a given ex- ample of what he considers to be an in- accurate statement made yesterday, constitutes his résumé of the many in- accurate statements made yesterday, as he has stated. Mr. LEHMAN. By no means. Mr. CAIN. I thank the Senator. Mr. LEHMAN. But that was the most important one, because it was the thesis of the Senator from Mississippi, namely, that there was not sufficient se- curity. I propose to show in my own words that, in addition to what I have read, displaced persons are going through the most rigorous inspection and check that have ever been carried on in immigration matters in this country. In addition to the seven rigid and new procedures carried on, and to which I Nave already referred, it is not conceiv- able that the Catholic Church, the Fed- eral Council of Churches of Christ in America, the Synagogue Council of America, and all the other major re- ligious groups in the United States would be strongly supporting a program which would permit the infiltration of Commu- nists into the United States. Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Mr, LEHMAN. I yield for a question. Mr. EASTLAND. Ihave just returned to the floor, and I am informed that the Senator from New York has stated that the Senator from Mississippi made numerous inaccurate statements yester- day. I should like to have the Senator from New York list the statements which he says are inaccurate. Mr.LEHMAN. The able Senator from Mississippi will recall that yesterday I refuted beyond any question or beyond any argument his statements that the displaced persons coming into the United States under the Displaced Persons Act were not screened, first, by the Immi- gration and Naturalization Service and, second, by the consular service. I put that into the Recorp. The Senator from Mississippi may go through the Recorp. I said yesterday, in the presence of the Senator from Mississippi and other Sen- ators, that I was willing to rest my case and his case on the Recorp, and that is what I propose to do. I intend now to develop the evidence which will show the extent and the thor- oughness with which the inspection is carried on. Mr, EASTLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. LEHMAN. The Senator from New York will not yield until he has 2805 read more of his statement. The Sen- ator from New York jis doing exactly whet the Senator from Mississippi did yesterday. He wishes to develop his case. Mr. EASTLAND. But the Senator from New York has used my name. Mr. LEHMAN. I certainly used the Senator's name, and I am perfectly will- ing to rest on the record which was made. That is what the CONGRESSIONAL Recorp is for. I have already told the Senator that there were inaccuracies time and time again in the statements made by the Senator in denying that the screening was carried on by the consular service and by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and claiming that the full authority and sole authority rested in the hands of the Displaced Persons Commission. Mr. EASTLAND. Then the Senator from New York desires to rest on a misquotation; is that correct. He mis- quoted me, and I now understand that he wishes to rest on a misquotation. Is that correct? Mr. LEHMAN. The Senator from Mississippi can take the floor at the con- clusion of my remarks and can point out where the Senator from New York misquoted the Senator from Mississippi. Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, I congratulate the Senator from New York, if that is an indication of his fair- ness. Mr. LEHMAN. Does the Senator from Mississippi wish the Senator from New York to read the statement he put into the Recorp yesterday? It will take time to do so, and of course it is quite available to the Senator from Mississippi. Mr. EASTLAND. I have read the statement, but the Senator from New York has just stated that I said the Immigration and Naturalization Service did no screening. What I said was that there was no adequate screening by them; and that they were bound, under the elements that qualify under the Displaced Persons Act, by the deci- sion of the Displaced Persons Commis- sion. I submit that that statement 1s accurate. Mr. LEHMAN. Very well. It is in the ReEcorD, and our colleagues can form their own judgment from what is in the Rec- orp. As I said yesterday, I am very will- ing to rest my case on it. Mr. EASTLAND. Where are the nu- merous statements which the Senator from New York says are inaccurrate? Mr. LEHMAN. The Senate can form its own judgment. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from New York yield to the Senator from Nebraska? Mr. LEHMAN, I yield. Mr. WHERRY. Is my understanding correct that the Senator will comply with the answer he gave to the S:nator from Washington and will place in the Rec- orp the inaccuracies in detail? Mr LFHMAN. No, the Senator from Now Yoik did not say thrt.
2806 Mr. WHERRY. What did the Sena- tor say? Mr. LEHMAN. The junior Senator said he would outline and sketch and describe the procedure that is being fol- lowed from the time an application is made by a displaced person for admis- sion to this country, until he arrives here. The Senator from New York in- tends to do that at this moment. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further, that I may ask a clarifying question? The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from New York yield to the Sen- ator from Nebraska? Mr. LEHMAN. I yield. Mr. WHERRY. I should like to ask the distinguished Senator whether he does not feel that it is imperative, inas- much as some of the hearings are not available, and in view of the fact that he made the charge that there were in- accuracies in the statements not only of the Senator from Mississippi but of other Senators, that he should state what, those inaccuracies are? If we are to make up our minds on what the issue is, it would be most helpful to have the complete viewpoint of the Senator from New York, as well as that of the Sena- tor from Mississippi. Mr. LEHMAN. The Senator from New York has already stated the basic and main inaccuracies, and he put the state- ment in the Recorp yesterday. I refer to the denial by the Senator from Mis- sissippi that the screening was done by the Immigration and Naturalization Service and by the consular service, and his further statement that full authority over displaced persons rested in the hands of the Displaced Persons Commis- sion and the IRO. Those are inaccura- cies, which I pointed out. I put the proof of those inaccuracies into the Record. Beyond that, the Recorp is complete, and every Senator can read it. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, wil: the Senator yield for a further question? Mr. LEHMAN. I yield. Mr. WHERRY. As I understand the distinguished Senator from New York, the inaccuracy which is really basic is the one he has just discussed. J think I understand the Senator’s viewpoint on that particular issue. Will the Senator say it 1s the main point with respect to which misrepresentation has been made, or is there something else that is as vital as that, which the Senator has in his mind at this time? Mr. LEHMAN. The Senator from New York will answer the Senator from Ne- braska by saying that the inaccuracies which have just been pointed out are ex- tremely important, and that they go to the heart of the matter. Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. LEHMAN. In a moment. The Senator from New York will not charac- terize the importance of various state- ments made on the floor, which are in the Recorp. Every Senator has a right to read the ReEcorp and may reach his own conclusions, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. President, if I may answer the question of the Senator from Washing- ton, who asked me about secret methods pursued and the checks that are made, I intend to cover that in my address. Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. LEHMAN. No; if the Senator will permit, I shall not yield at this time. I want to put this material in the Rec- orD, after which I shall be glad, indeed, to yield for as long a time and as fre- quently as the Senator from Mississippi may wish. Mr. EASTLAND. Very well. Mr. LEHMAN. It is not conceivable that the Catholic Church, the Federal Council of Churches of Christ in Amer- ica, the Synagogue Council, and all the major religious groups in the United tates would be supporting a program which. would permit the infiltration of Communists into the United States. After careful study of the whole prob- lem, the special subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee, in a docu- ment known as No. 1507, issued only last month, reported as follows: The number of screening agencies, screen- ing sessions, interrogations, investigations, and checks that a displaced person must puss before reaching the United States is 50 extensive that the chances of a frauculent statement or a forged document to slip through is practically nil. Two specific charges were made on this floor Wednesday. The first is that the CIC’s security screening is curtailed to exclude investigation as to the au- thenticity of documents, with particular reference to alleged date-line frauds. This is not so. I again direct the atten- tion of the Senate to the report of the House Judiciary Subcommittee, where there is reprinted testimony of the CIC's supervising officer overseas. On page 73 of this report you will find a copy of a CIC work sheet, which includes this line: 3. Interrogation of subject. (a) Discrepancies fiom information sted on registration forms. The testimony shows that the CIC in- terviews every single displaced person and conducts a neighborhood check on every single displaced person. In order to learn just exactly what this interview encompasses, I have taken the trouble to study the CIC’s procedure for investigation of immigrants, which was instituted on November of 1948, at the outset of this program. Since this docu- ment is classified and I have not had enough time to request that it be de- classified, I will not put it in the Recorp. However, I am authoritatively informed that the CIC has instructed its agents that in interviewing a displaced person— A. The interrogation must include in- quiry as to items of personal history listed on the registration form. As indi- cated in the above-indicated testimony, the purpose in part is to determine the truth or falsity of such statements, in- cluding, of course, such statements as relate to date lines and entry into the areas in question; and MarRcH 4 B, The displaced person’s documents must be checked to determine whether they are fraudulent or authentic. This CIC procedure should dispose, once and for all, of any claims that no American official checks on the authen- ticity of documents. Certainly no one is better equipped in these two flelds than the Counter Intelligence Corps of the United States Army, the so-called CiC, There has crept into these debates the innuendo, if not the assertion, that the Displaced Persons Commission ignores the security findings of the CIC. I am advised that this is completely untrue. The fact is this: Where the CIC reports that it appears that a person is a mem- ber of or has participated in a movement hostile to the United States or the form of government of the United States, such finding is regarded by the Displaced Per- sons Commission as conclusive, Apart from human errors, the Displaced Per- sons Commission has always rejected every person whom the CIC found to be a possible security risk. This is the Dis- placed Persons Commission’s rule, and has been the instruction to all Displaced Persons Commission employees. Mr. President, we all have been hear- ing and speaking at great length about this displaced-persons program and the displaced-persons legislation. Allcga- tions were made before the Senate Ju- dic.ary Committee about the calculated risks to our national security that we are taking with these displaced persons, and the allegedly loose way in which the program has been administered by the Displaced Persons Commission. I think we may have become lost in a forest of words and symbols. We have heard so much about the DP Commis- sion, the IRO, the INS, and the many other alphabctical agencies that we may have lost sight of the actual individuals involved. We may have lost sight of the physical process—the long and almost endless process, which has been estab- lished to evaluate, screen, and process these displaced persons, It is a long process, and to the indi- viduals involved, no doubt a_heart- breaking one. If we Americans were subjected to any such procedure in order to get a visa to go abroad, or to get any- thing, we would complain—as many of us do anyway—that here is bureaucracy raised to its most maddening degree. Yet we have heard in the Senate, in the course of this debate, that there is not enough bureaucracy, the process is not long or careful enough, that not enough caution and delay are involved. I have prepared a skeleton descrip- tion of the various steps which an indi- vidual in Germany, Austria or Italy has to take in order to come to the United States as a displaced person, and the processes to which his application is subjected. I should like to describe this process to the Senate, so that my colleagues and the country may judge whether the screening process is perfunctory or in- adequate—and please remember that this is a skeletonized description:
1950 First. The DP makes known that he is a candidate for emigration to the United States and requires an assurance by— (a) Registering with a United States voluntary agency; (b) Communicating directly with friends or relatives in the United States; or (c) Registering with IRO for eventual interview by the selection unit of the DP Commission. Second. The DP awaits nomination on an assurance or selection by DP Com- mission. Third, After the necessary assurance is given, the DP is called into the IRO resettlement office for the preparation of his documentation. Fourth. Complete fingerprints of the DP and his family are taken on official provost marshal forms, in duplicate. Fifth. Photographs are prepared for each family member. Sixth, The DP and his family are given preliminary medical examination by IRO doctors. Seventh. A resettlement registration form is prepared, showing vital statistics, date of first entry into one of required areas, employment history, data of dis- placement on persecution, educational background, documents available, dates of first registration with Army, UNRRA or IRO. This 1s signed by the DP. Eighth. The DP returns to his camp or other place of residence to await further call. Meanwhille he is assisted by IRO legal officers in preparing affidavits and translations of documents on vital sta- tistics and civil status required by Tinited States consuls. Ninth. The resettlement 1egistration form 1s checked by the IRO against his original care and maintenance form at the IRO control center, containing in- formation gathered at the time of his original registration. Any discrepan- cies are noted on the registration form. Certification of IRO eligibility 1s then added by the IRO international officer. Tenth. The DP must procure a good- conduct certificate from the camp police chief or, if he 1s an out-of-camp resi- dent, from the German or Itahan or Austrian police authoritics. Eleventh. The IRO forwards the reg- istration form, fingerprints, photo- graphs, good-conduct certificate, medi- cal-examination report, documents on vital statistics, affidavits, and any other pertinent papers, to the DP Commission area Office. Twelfth. The DP Commission officer reviews the entire documentation to de- termine existence of basic qualifications for preliminary determination of eligi- bility. If considered necessary, the DP and his family are called into DP Com- mission ares office for interview. Thirteenth. If all documents and facts comply with the law, the regula- tions and directives, the DP Commission officer makes a notation of preliminary eligibility and the file is forwarded to the Counter Intcllugene: Cons cf the United Statcs Army. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Fourteenth. Simultaneously, pertinent data on the DP is forwarded by the DP Commission to the United States consul for checking against lookout records and other information for special sources. Fifteenth. Simultaneously, a form containing complete data on the DP and his family is forwarded to Washington for submission to and check by the FBI. Sixteenth, In the case of Czechoslo- vakian refugees being considered under section 2 (d) of the act, a similar form is forwarded to the United States consul for an additional special and confiden- tial investigation. Seventeenth. The CIC initiates ivs n- vestigation, which includes— (a) Check against CIC central regis- try files for security and other infor- mation. (b) Check against CIC area registry files for security and other information. I wish to point out, Mr. President, that what I am now reading, starting with (a), which will continue to (j) involves checks which CIC, a highly important branch of the United States Army, makes routinely and intensively on all displaced persons. (c) Check against Berlin Document Center records for information relating to German citizenship, Nazi Party affilia- tions, or miscellaneous Nazi group activi- ties. (d) Check against military govern- ment court records for information on arrests and convictions. (e) Check against German police rec- ords for information on arrests and convictions. (f) Provost marshal analysis of finger- prints for establishing identities against previous applications for visas on crim- inal records. (g) Check against IRO local camp records for information relating to identity und behavior. (h) Interview by United States Army CIC agent with the DP agent with the DP and his family, covering information contained in registration form, cstab- lishment of identity, examination of documents, comparison of fingerprints, and any other information that may be adduced. (1) Interview by United States Army CIC agent with at least three neighbors of the DP, covering identity, bchavior, and general reputation of applicant. (j) Investigation of any leads which may develop. Those are all parts of the CIC pro- cedure. E.ehteenth. The case file is returned to the DP Commission by the CIC with the report of the investigation. Nineteenth. The DP Commission offi- cer, other than the one who determined preliminary eligibility, reviews the entire file, including basic eligibility and inves- tigative report. If all factors are favor- able, he writes a report accordingly. Twentieth. The Commission’s report and entire case file is forwarded to the United States consul for consideration in the DP’s application for a visa. 2807 Twenty-first. Simultaneously, the DP and his family are called for and from the camp or other place of residence to tho resettlement center. Twenty-second. The DP and his fam- ily are given thorough medical exam- inations by the United States Public Health Service, including chest X-rays and serology tests. Twenty-third. The DP and his family are called in b, a United Strtes vice cor- sul for a preliminary examination with respect to existence of appropriate and necessary documents, Twenty-fourth. The DP and his fam- fly are scheduled to reappear before the vice cor sul when f.1l consular examina- tion is made for admissibility under nor- mal immigration laws; the application is signed at this time, and the DP must swear as to the veracity of statements contained in his file. If all is in order, the visa is made out. Twenty-fifth. The DP and his family are scheduled for examination by an in- spector of the Immigration and Natur- alization Service, to whom the visa and entire case file are passed. Twenty-sixth. The Immigration and Naturalization Service inspector reviews the case file and examines applicants for admissibility under normal immigration laws and accuracy of all other factors relating to his immigration under Public Law 774. When approved, the visa is en- dorsed by the exa.nining inspector. Twenty-scventh. The DP and his fam- fly are scheduled for transport to the port of embarkation and are placed on the shipping list for departure. Twenty-eizhth. Prior to embarkation, the DP and his family are given a further, last minute medical cxamination by IRO doctors. Twenty-ninth. Upon arrival at United States port, the DP reccives a United States Public Health Service debarkation check, Thirtieth. Upon arrival at a United States port, the DP receives an Immi- gration and Naturalization debarkation check. I must emphasize that these 30 steps are those which occur when no—I repeat, no—disqualifying, contradictory, or de- rogatory factors or information emerges. When unfavorable evidence does develop, further investigative s.eps are taken and the case is not concluded until all ques- tions are satisfactorily resolved. If any doubt remains, the case is disqualified and the applicant is rejected. I have described the process in areas where the United States Army CIC op- erates. Similar sources of information are used in other arcas and, with minor differences in procedures, the same proc- ess applies. Now, Mr. President, it would be my judgment that I have disposed of the argument that insufficient security screening is provided in the admission of these displaced persons. I would say that every possible effort is being made to screen these applicants and to reject the unworthy or even tho:e regarding whom doubt existcd. Ivoul2 not wans
2808 to tear down this machinery #nd build new and different machinery. If there are any loopholes in the machinery I have described, they are invisible to the eye of the junior Senator from New York. Of course, Government officials and em- ployees are human, and all of us are falli- ble. Some few mistakes may have been made not only in admitting one or two or three individuals, but in hiring one or two or three employees of the Dis- placed Persons Commission, just as mis- takes are made in hiring employees of any Government agency. But let us not confuse this circumstance with any large-scale condemnation of the DP pro- gram or of the DP Commission. Let us see this entire program and undertak- ing in perspective. Let us get on with it. Mr. President, we have testimony from virtually every responsible and reputa- ble relief and civic organization favor- ing the liberalization of the old law through the adoption of the minority substitute. The head of the CIO and the president of the American Federa- tion of Labor have testified that the small number of additional persons who may be admitted under the substitute will in no way adversely affect the labor mar- ket in our country. We have their testi- mony and the testimony of thousands of intelligent and high-minded people that displaced persons, carefully, rigidly, and exhaustively screened, will be a great asset to our country. Mr. President, I know this situation at first hand. I have visited displaced- persons camps. I have met many of these people. I have met them in the camps. I have met them at embarka- tion and debarkation centers. I have met them in this country, where they have taken their places in the economic and social life of our land. A few months ago I was one of the reviewing officers of a great Polish parade, held in New York City. There was in the parade a detachment of approximately 1,000 Polish displaced persons, led by their priests, since they were all Cath- olics. I had seen some of those people in the displaced-persons camps. If I had not scen the same persons, I had seen their fellows, men like them. When I saw them in displaced-persons camps they were cowed; they were fearful; they had hatred in their hearts; they were hopeless. A few months later I saw these men marching up Fifth Avenue in New York, men who had taken their rightful place in the life of their new community and in the life of their church. I cannot describe the differ- ence. Instead of frightened, hopeless, bitter men, these men strode up the ave- nue with confidence, with hope, and with a dignity which anyone could envy, either here or in any other part of the world. These men were proud of being on the road to American citizenship. They were eager to take their place in the community life of their adopted coun- try. When I see these men, and many thousands of others like them, who have come to us from displaced persons camps, and have been transformed into CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE good, sound, loyal, hard-working Amer- icans, Mr. President, I am proud beyond words for the part which I have been privileged to play in the administration of the displaced persons program. I want to see it made possible that others in the category of displaced persons may also have the chance of becoming loyal, hard-working citizens of our country. I now yield to the distinguished Sen- ator from Mississippi. Mr. EASTLAND. The Senator has spoken very movingly of his feeling for displaced persons, for whom I also have the same feeling. I wonder if the Sen- ator’s compassion extends to people of German ethnic origin, who also meet the qualifications prescribed in the bill. Mr. LEHMAN. I can answer the Sen- ator’s question very readily. My parents were German. My father came to this country 102 years ago. Mr. EASTLAND. But the Sena- tor—— Mr. LEHMAN. May I answer the Senator’s question? Mr. EASTLAND. The Dill does not include German nationals. Mr. LEHMAN. My father left Ger- many, together with other rebels against tyranny and oppression, like Car] Schurz and other eminent Germans, because they hated and feared the German re- gime, which at that time was an auto- cratic, repressive, and militaristic re- gime. I would have no objection to the admission of anyone who qualifies under the displaced persons law, and who ac- tively and sincerely fought nazism, just as I fought it, and as I am fighting com- munism and every other form of totali- tarianism. Mr. EASTLAND. The Senator adds “and those who fought nazism.” Mr. LEHMAN. Does the Senator refer to persons who have been called “expellees”? Mr. EASTLAND. Yes. Mr. LEHMAN. I do not know the identity of all of them. Under the terms of the bill, as the Senator knows, Many expellees will be admitted into the United States. Mr. EASTLAND. But not under the substitute. Mr. LEHMAN. I wonder whether the Senator knows that a great number of expellees were responsible, at Icast in part, for the hostilities which com- menced in 1939. I refer particularly to what are known as Sudeten Germans. Mr. EASTLAND. They are not eligi- ble under the committee bill. Mr. LEHMAN. May I answer the question? I refer particularly to the Sudeten Germans, who tried to destroy Czechoslovakia, a great democracy, of which they were citizens. They fought against the country of which they were citizens. They were the ones who helped Hitler overrun and conquer Czecho- slovakia. Mr. EASTLAND. But the Senator—— Mr. LEHMAN. I am answering the Senator's question. At the end of the war, when Czechoslovakia again became a free country, with the help it received from democratic nations of the world, MARCH 4 these people were expelled from Czecho- slovakia. They are among the expellees. Frankly, I have no sympathy for them. They were disloyal to their country. They wanted to be a part of Germany. They supported Hitler and all the beasts who surrounded Hitler. No, I have no sympathy for chem. Mr. EASTLAND, But the Senator does not mean to infer, does he, that those people would be eligible under the bill which the committee reported? Mr, LEHMAN. There are 8,000,000 of them, and I think that some of them would be eligible in the number of 54,000 which has been mentioned. I think some of them, under the definition of the committee bill, would be eligible in competition with the officially defined displaced persons. Mr. EASTLAND. Will the Senator please point to the provisions of the com- mittee bill which would let in people who cooperated with Hitler, as the Senator describes? If it does contain such a pro- vision, we will certainly amend it, but it was not my understanding that It did. Does not the Senator know that many of these persons were in concentration camps established by Hitler before the war was over? Mr. LEHMAN. Certainly the Senator from New York knows that, and certainly such persons would qualify. Mr. EASTLAND. People of German ethnic origin? Then who besides that pass are eligible under the committee 1? Mr. LEHMAN. Of course they would be eligible. The Senator from Missis- sippi refers to people of German ethnic origin; he himself has used that term. I do not believe the Senator claims that under the committce bill people of Ger- man ethnic origin, some of the 8,000,000 would not come into competition with those we know as displaced persons. Mr. EASTLAND. Of course they would come into competition, but no man of German ethnic origin would be disqualified under the committee bill because of his race, as he is now dis- qualified under the IRO constitution. Mr. LEHMAN. These people were dis- placed persons. Mr. EASTLAND. The Senate com- mittee bill further provides that no one who cooperated with Hitler, or with the Nazi movement, is eligible. Mr. LEHMAN. The pcople whom I have described, from Czechoslovakia, who are among the 8,000,000 we have been discussing, are of German ethnic origin, and under the committee bill I think some of them would qualify. Mr. EASTLAND. Does the Senator mean to tell me that the ones who co- operated with Hitler, and were pro- Nazi—— Mr. LEHMAN. They were all pro- Nazi. Mr. EASTLAND. Does the Senator mean that women and children, little children, who were 5 or 6 years old at the time, were pro-Nazi? Mr. LEHMAN, I cannot believe that the Senator does not recall the history
1950 of the rape of Czechoslovakia. It hap- pened only 10 years ago. Mr, EASTLAND, Of course, I do. Mr. LEHMAN. And the Sudeten Ger- mans, who now are in Germany and who compose part of the 8,000,000 expellees. Mr. EASTLAND. But the committee bill provides, as the Senator knows, that any individual who was a member of the Nazi party, or who was pro-Nazi, who cooperated with the Nazis, is not eligible for admission into this country as a dis- placed person. If some persons of Ger- manic blood, who were pro-Nazis, as the Senator said, could get in here, I should like to know under what provisions of the bill. Mr. LEHMAN. I point out to the Sen- ator from Mississippi that he is certainly entitled to his own views and his own preferences. If he thinks the Sudeten Germans and many other persons who were sympathetic and helpful to Hitler and the Nazi cause, and who were harm- ful to the cause of Czechoslovakia and other countries to which they owed al- legiance, should be put on the same plane as the actual displaced persons, that is certainly within his right. But that is where we differ. Mr. EASTLAND. I could charge the Senator, as he did me, with making a misstatement, but I shall not doso. The Senator well knows that there is no pro- vision in the Senate coiimittee bill un- der which any Sudeten German or any- one else who cooperated with the Nazis could come into this country. Mr. LEHMAN. I cannot prove it, that is perfectly obvious, and the Senator cer- tainly has a right to his own opinion and to his own sympathies, but I believe that the Sudeten Germans of Czecl.oslovakia were in the main or almost wholly pro- Nazi. Mr. EASTLAND. Show me a provision in the bill under which they could come into this country. Mr. LEHMAN. Bocaucse they are €x- pellees. The bill, by its definition, places expellees in virtually the same categories as the others. Mr. EASTLAND. Even the substitute permits them to use half the German quota. Mr. LEHMAN. We let them use half the German quota after very, very care- ful screening. But the committee bill permits them to come in under two cate- gories. It permits them to come in un- der the category we have just discussed, and also under the category in competi- tion with the regular displaced persons, as defined in the substitute. Mr. CAIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. EASTLAND. Permit me to con- tinue. Mr. CAIN. Very well. Mr. EASTLAND. Will the Senator from New York point out to me any pro- vision in the committee bill under which a pro-Nazi or any individual who has co- operated with Hitler c-n get into this country? Mr. LEE:MAN. the question. I did not understand CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. EASTLAND. Can the Senator point out a provision of the committee bill under which a pro-Nazi or one who cooperated with Hitler can get into this country? Mr. LEHMAN. I do not thing the Senator will question that an expellee of German ethnic origin could be admitted into this country under his bill. Mr. EASTLAND. The Senator spoke of the system of screening, which he said was adequate. Has the Senator attended any of the meetings of the Subcommittee on Immigration of the Committee on the Judiciary before which testimony was taken from Government employees re- specting the system of screening in Europe? Mr, LEHMAN. Meetings of the sub- committee of the Committee on the Judiciary? Mr. EASTLAND. Yes. Mr. LEHMAN. No, the Senator from New York was never invited to attend any meetings of the subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary. Mr. EASTLAND. As u matter of fact, was not most of that testimony taken before the Senator from New York was a Member of this body? Mr. LEHMAN. I assume that a great deal was taken before that time, yes. I asked the Senator whether it has all been made a matter of public record, and I understood the Senator to say no, that it has not all been a matter of public record. Mr. EASTLAND That is another in- accuracy, Mr. President. I did not make such a statement. I stated I did not know, and I do not know. I am not in charge of the bill, nor am I chairman of the subcommitee. But what I should like to ask the Senator is this: Has he ever attended a meeting of the Immigra- tion Subcommittee at any time when testimony was taken respecting the sys- tem of screening used in the admission of displaced persons to the United States? Mr.LEHMAN. The Senator from New York, of course, has not attended any of those meetings. He could not have at- tended the meetings which were closed, and he never was invited. Mr. EASTLAND. The Senator does not mean to say that the Senate com- mittee meetings were closed. Mr. LEHMAN. Certainly, sessions were held. Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, that is another inaccuracy. It is well known that the Senate committee mectings at which testimony was taken, were open, and newspaper men were present. Mr. LEHMAN. Does the Senator claim there were no meetings held in executive session? Mr. EASTLAND. Of course, there were meetings in executive session. Mr. LEHMAN. Then, why should the Senator presume to accuse me of making an inaccurate statement? Mr. EASTLAND. No; I did not accuse the Senator of making an inaccurate statcment. I said I had been accused of making such a statement. I would not executive 2809 accuse the Senator from New York of deliberately having made misstatements. Mr. LEHMAN. I point out to the Sen- ator from Mississippi that yesterday, in the debate, he made a number of state- ments which he attributed to Mr. L’Heureux, the head of Visa Division of the State Department. The Senator from Mississippi made persuasive state- ments. Mr. EASTLAND. I should like to dis- cuss that feature. But before doing so I should like to have an answer to the previous question I propounded to the Senator from New York. The informa- tion I want is this. The Senator has de- scribed the screening system, and he has said it is adequate at every phase. The Senator stated that he had never been to a meeting of any committee, anywhere, which took testimony bearing on screen- ing of applicants to enter this country as displaced persons. That was the ques- tion I asked the Senator. Is that cor- rect? Mr. LEHMAN. Certainly I have not attended those hearings. Mr, EASTLAND. The Senator—— Mr. LEHMAN. Mnay I answer in my own way? Mr. EASTLAND. Yes. Mr. LEHMAN. Certainly I have not. I could not attend the meetings until I took my sext in the Senate on the 3d of January. Since then I certainly have never been invited to attend any of the mectings. As I understand, some of the meetings at least—and I make the statement based on what the Senator from Mississippi has said—some of the meetings at which it is alleged that very important testimony was taken were executive in character. Mr. EASTLAND. No; the testimony I read, with one exception, that of a formcr Army colonel, was testimony taken in open hearings which the Sen- ator could have attended. But that is beside the point. Will the Senator tell me where he has made a study of the system of screening used in Europe to screen applicants who desired to enter this country as displaced persons? Mr. LEHMAN. I can tell the Senator that very eashy. I visited the camps. Mr. EASTLAND. When was that? Mr. LEHMAN. In June 1949, 7 months ago. I was at the chief resettlement center at Butzbach, and I was in Frank. furt and Kassel. I visited other points there and spoke to representatives of the IRO, which is an international organ- ization, as the Senator pointed out. I spoke to representatives of the Displaced Persors Commission, which is an Ameri- can organization, as the Senator knows. I spoke to representatives of our consular service and I spoke to representatives of our Immigration and Naturalization Service. Their desks were almost adja- cent. One could hand a paper from one desk to another. Of course, I know about that. Mr. EASTLAND. Did the Senator study the system of screening? That was the question. Did the Senator study over there the system of screening?
2810 Mr. LEHMAN. I did not examine each, or any, of the applicants myself. Mr. EASTLAND. Of course, the Scn- ator did not; but I did not ask the Sen- ator that question. I asked him if he studied there the system of screening. Mr. LEHMAN. I hope the Senator will understand that what I have read today into the Recorp—and I trust that it will be convincing—was a statement of the methods, of the procedure followed. Mr. EASTLAND. Did the Senator—— Mr. LEHMAN. May I answer? I de- scribed the great care with which the CIC undertook to screen these people. Now, if some individual member of the CIC fell down on his job, or if some in- dividual member of the consular service fell down on his job, I greatly regret it. But, as I pointed out, Government offi- cials, like other people, are human, and undoubtedly some mistakes have been made. That, however, does not affect the rigidity or the soundness of the screening process, which, in my opinion, goes further than any similar process ever undertaken by this country. Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from New York has not answered my question. I asked him if he studied the system used in Europe to screen applicants? Mr. LEHMAN. I told the Senator that, of course, I studied it. And, what is more, I have also studied the system used by our consular officers and by our Immigration Service. Mr. EASTLAND. Is the information which the distinguished Senator has given to the Senate today based on his study there? Is that information the Senator acquired in Europe as the result of his studies? Mr. LEHMAN. It is certainly based on my knowledge of the system. I can- not give the Senator any assurance that of the many hundreds of officers em- ployed in the various agencies everyone has done his duty, nor can I give the Senator any assurance that every one of 134,000 displaced persons who have becn admitted to this country is going to be a worthy citizen. Mr. EASTLAND. Of course the Sena- tor cannot. But my question was: Is the information which the Senator from New York gave the Senate today based on knowledge he acquired as the result of his study in Europe, or is it based on in- formation received from the Displaced Persons Commission? Mr. LEHMAN. It is based on both, of course, and on information from other agencies. It goes back further than that, because I wish to state with great pride that for 3 years I was Director General of UNRRA, the greatest relief organi- zation in the history of the world, an organization that saved millions of lives, and, by the way, an organization which made more friends for the United States than has any other organization. Mr. EASTLAND. I voted for the UNRRA legislation. Mr. President, the distinguished Sena- tor spoke of the screening at the Berlin Document Center, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. LEHMAN. No, I did not; that is to say, I did not say I had observed it. Mr. EASTLAND. Where did the Sen- ator from New York get the information about the Berlin Document Center? Mr. LEHMAN. I get a great deal of information. I think I try to keep fairly well abreast of the times. Mr. EASTLAND. Where did the Sen- ator from New York get the information about the Berlin Document Center? Mr. LEHMAN. Where did the Sena- tor from New York get the information that George Washington was born on February 22? Mr. EASTLAND, Mr. President, I re- peat, where did the Senator from New York get the information about the forgoming by the Berlin Document Cen- er? Mr. LEHMAN. I said the papers came from the Berlin Document Center. Mr. EASTLAND. Does not the Sena- tor from New York know that the officials did not wait for a report from the Berlin Document Center? Mr. LEHMAN. The Senator from New York does not know that. Mr. EASTLAND. Then does the Sen- ator from New York say that the testi- mony of the officials of the Immigration and Naturalization Service in that re- spect is inaccurate? Mr. LEIIMAN. I do not know to what testimony the Scnator from Mississippi refers. The Senator may have the state- ment of some person stating a conclusion. Mr. EASTLAND. Would the Senator from New York believe Mr. Squadrilli? Mr. LEHMAN. I think Mr. Squadrilli is a reliable man. When was he ex- amined? Mr. EASTLAND. Does the Senator from New York know that Mr. Squadrilli testified last night that they took a cal- culated risk in rushing the applicants on, and in not waiting for a report? Mr. LEHMAN. But were not all those papers then forwarded to the CIC and to the consular service and to the Immi- gration and Naturalization Service, as I stated? That does not mean that they were not processed. Mr. EASTLAND. Does not the Sena- tor from New York know that many per- sons 1n this category have come into the United States? Mr. LEHMAN. I am inclined to doubt that the Senator from Mississippi can show that many of these persons have been admitted into the United States without screening by the Immigration Service. Mr. EASTLAND. That is the testi- mony. Mr. President, did the Senator from New York speak of fingerprinting? Mr. LEHMAN. Certainly I did. Mr. EASTLAND. Docs the Senator from New York know that the man in charge of the fingerprinting in Berlin has testified that it was a joke and that appli- cants were not getting proper screening ~ Mr. LEHMAN. I do not recall that. But as I say, no matter what system is used, there may be men who will fall down on their jobs; it is impossible to MaRrcH 4 prevent that. Furthermore, in every large organization there may be persons who are unworthy of the trust which is reposed in them. Unfortunately we had many cases of that sort in our armed forces and in the Government services. Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, while I was absent from the floor the distin- guished Senator from New York told the distinguishec Scnator from Washington |Mr. Cain] that I made numerous mis- statements and inaccurate statements on yesterday, and I am informed that the Senator from New York said he would list them in the REcorp. Mr. LEHMAN. I wish to correct that; I did not say that. The Senator from Washington asked me, ‘‘Will the Senator list the steps that are taken to screen these people?” My answer was, ‘Yes; I will.” I further said, and I said it several times—and if the Senator misunderstood me or if I misspoke, of course, I wish that corrected—that the statements and rep- resentations made by the Senator from Mississippi and the representations and replies made by the junior Senator from New YorF are in the Recorp; they are a matter of the record which is before the Senate and may be read. Mr. CAIN. Mr. President, will the Senator permit me to make an observa- tion? The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. LANGER in the chair). Does the Senator from New York yield to the Senator from Washington? Mr. LEHMAN. I yield. Mr. CAIN. I wish to make an obser- vation only for the reason that the name of the junior Senator from Washington has been brought into this colloquy. Shortly after the distinguished junior Senator from New York [Mr. LEHMAN] began his statement earlier today, he said, as I recall, that he was literally amazed by the number of inaccurate bits of misinformat‘on which had been of- fered on the floor of the United States Senate yesterday—— Mr. LEHMAN. And Wednesday. Mr. CAIN. The junior Senator from Washington merely rose to ask the junior Senator from New York if he would list, in as much detail as possible, the instances which he considered to be either misinformation or inaccurate statements, for the benefit of the other Members of the Senate. As I recall, I had no colloquy of any kind with the junior Senator from New York in regard to the steps leading to the screening of such persons overseas. Mr. LEHMAN. I understood the Sen- ator from Washington to ask that ques- tion. However, since the question has been raised, I repeat what I have said before, namely, that I think I have pointed out many misstatements and many inac- curacies in statements made on this floor, Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator point out those inaccuracies? Mr. LEHMAN. They are also in the ReEcorpD. I said, and I do not think it can be denied, that on several occasions the
1950 Senator from Mississippi baldly made the statement that the screening of the ap- plicants was inadequate and ineffective and was based on a desire to get as many relief cases into this country as possible. Mr. EASTLAND. I made that state- ment. Mr. LEHMAN. The Senator again made the statement—not once, but a number of times—— Mr. EASTLAND. Will the Senator from New York yield right at this point, to permit me to say that I plead guilty to having made that statement, and I supported it. Mr. LEHMAN. But I contend it to be an inaccuracy. May I continue, inasmuch as the Sen- ator has asked me to state—— Mr. CA'N. I hope the Senator will continuc Mr. LEHMAN. Let me say that the Senator from Mississippi has made the statement several times that the com- plete authority and power connected with the admission of displaced persons into the United States rested with the IRO, which he dubbed an international organization, as it is, of course, and with the Displaced Persons Commission, which was manncd by persons in whom the Sen- ator from Mississippi said he had no con- fidence; and he said that they had the full authority. The junior Senator from New York questioned him, and asked, “Is it not a fact that the final authority for the ad- mission of these persons rests with the Immigration and Naturalization Service and with the consular service?” Mr EASTLAND. Under the immigra- tion laws Mr. LEHMAN. Under the immigra- tion laws Then I read a statement, as the Senator may recall. I am not sure whether the Senator from Washington was on the floor at the time. Mr.CAIN Yes; I was on the floor. Mr. LEHMAN. I read a statement from the head of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and another statement from the head of the Visa Division of the State Department, saying that they not only had authority but that they exercised their authority to pass on these cases; that they never had surrendered it and would not surrender it, and that the only thing they had as- signed to the Displaced Persons Com- mission was a determination and defini- tion as to whether a particular displaced person qualified under the displaced-per- sons law. So I have pointed out what I think are those gross inaccuracies. Beyond that, I refer the Senators to the Recorp. Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, at this point let me say that if the Senator from New York will examine the Recorp, I think he will find that what he said is exactly what the Senator from Missis- sippi has said, namely, that under the immigration law, the determination of eligibility by the Immigration and Nat- uralization Service and by the con- sular service is final, and they can veto; but the de.erminat‘on of the factors un- der the Displaced Persons Act is made CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE by the Displaccd Pzrsons Commission and is final. Is not that an accurate statement? Mr. LEHMAN No; it is not an ac- curate statement, . Mr. EASTLAND. It certainly is ac- curate. Mr. LEHMAN. Let me point out that the Immigration Service has control, and has authority to exclude anyone on the grounds of moral turpitude, subversive qualities, or ill health. Mr. EASTLAND. Does not the S2n- ator from New York know that that is under the general immigration law? Mr. LEHMAN. It makes no differ- ence; these people are screened under the provisions of the gencral immigra- tion law. Mr. EASTLAND. But the factors the distinguished Senator from New York has just mentioned are grounds for ex- clusion, under the general immigration law; and the Senator from Mississippi has always said the Immigration Service has that power. But in regard to eligibility under the displaced persons law, let me ask the Senator whose decision is final. Mr. LEHMAN. What is the question? Mr. EASTLAND. On questions of eli- eibility under the Displaced Persons Act, whose decision is final? Mr. LEHMAN. Let me point out to the Senator from Mississippi that his whole thesis in this debate and the the- sis of some of my other distinguished colleagues—— Mr. JENNER. The S2nator from In- diana is one of them-——. Mr. LEHMAN. Is that this bill per- mits subversives to enter this country. Mr. JENNER. That is correct. Mr. LEHMAN. And that they are not properly screened; that they are persons who would become a subversive danger to this country; or that persons who suffer from moral turpitude will be ad- mitted into this country. I say there is less likelihood, I believe, that such persons will come into this country under the Displaced Persons Act than there is that such persons will come into the United States under the old immigration law, because under the Dis- placed Persons Act there are not only the same standards of admission, but very much greater standards of admis- slon, since the persons are screened by two additional organizations. Mr. EASTLAND. Now, Mr. President, will the Senator from New York answer my question? Mr. LEHMAN. Certainly. Mr. EASTLAND. I ask the Senator, was not the final determination of eligi- bility under the Displaced Persons Act with the Displaced Persons Commission? Mr. LEHMAN. Only the question of whether the applicants were eligible to be considered as displaced persons. Mr. EASTLAND. That is exactly cor- rect. Mr. LEHMAN. No; Ibeg the Senator’s pardon. I think the Senator will find the REcorRD will show that he claimed the de- termination with regard to eligibility, propriety, and safety of allowing the peo- 2811 ple to come into this country rests with the Displaced Persons Commission, or with IRO. Mr. JENNER. What is the difference? Mr. LEHMAN. All the difference in the world. Mr. EASTLAND. Did not the Senator from Mississippi say, to be perfectly frank and fair, that the consular service and the Immigration Service had the power to veto the application of a subversive, but that they did not have the facilities at hand with which to investigate the large number of people making applica- tion, and that they were bound by a file sent to them, a file which originated in IRO, a file made up largcly by displaced persons, and that it went down the line to the consul, and that he was bound largely by the information contained in the file? On that point, the Senator from New York certainly remembers, if he desires to be fair, that the Senator from Mis- sissippi placed in the Recorp the order or regulation promulgated by the Displaced Persons Commission, which gave that power. I placed it in the Recorp yester- day, or the day before If there is a misstatement, it is bound to be based on the order I placed in the Recorp. Mr. LEHMAN. The Senator from New York may say to the Senator from Mis- sissippi, I am glad to have his acknowl- edgment again that the determination with regard to the eligibility of displaced persons to enter this country rests with the Immigration Serv.ce. Mr. EASTLAND, That is under the immigration law. Mr. LEHMAN. It rests with the Im- migration and Naturalization Service, and with the consular officers. Mr, EASTLAND. Under the general immigration law. Mr. LEHMAN. What difference does it make? I fear I have not made myself clear. Mr. EASTLAND. It is not a question of that, as I understand. It is a question of the misstatement or inaccuracy for which I was indicted. I should like to know where it is. Mr. LEHMAN. I pointed it out, but I should like to point out another thing, which apparently the Senator does not realize, namely, that the Displaced Per- sons Commission in Europe makes a de- termination with regard to the status of the applicant as a displaced person, but makes no determination whatever with regard to his eligibility to enter this country. That is a pretty definite state- ment, which I am perfectly willing to stand on. Mr. EASTLAND. The Senator from New York, as I understand, says it is done by the consular service. How can the consular service intelligently pass on an applicant, when adverse reports have been taken from the files? Mr, KILGORE and Mr. JENNER ad- dressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from New York yield: and if so, to whom? Mr, LEHMAN. I yield first to the Senator from West Virginia,
2812 Mr. KILGORE. Mr. President, I may say to the Senator from New York it seems to me we are dwelling on matters of no consequence. It is true that for a short time, and in a few cases, an ad- verse report was withdrawn, but a copy of the report directing its withdrawal was included. I wish to refresh the Sen- ator’s mind on that point. Mr. LEHMAN. That is quite right. Mr. KILGORE. The practice of with- drawing adverse reports was discon- tinued after a short time. I am re- minded of the statement that it applied to many people. The question I ask is, how many? When it is said there were many, I ask, how many? Mr. EASTLAND. The head of the Immirration Service estimated 30,000. Mr. JENNER. That is correct. Mr. KILGORE. Thirty thousand have come into the United States? Mr. EASTLAND. That is, persons who are incligible. That is the estimate. I do not want to be charged with in- accuracy or misstatement. That is the testimony given by Mr. Tripp, who is at the head of the Immigration Burcau in Europe. Mr KILGORE. May I_ inquire whether his statement was, that he was not sure as to their eligibility? Mr. EASTLAND. That is correct— “of doubtful eligibility,” is what he said. Mr. KILGORE He had his doubts. Mr EASTLAND. “Of doubtful eligi- bility,” he said Mr. KILGORE. Is it not also a fact that 1t was admitted last night that be- cause of fraud with respect to the deter- mination of eligibility status, Mr. Tripp and his staff could turn down sn appli- cant and that the consular service could also do so? A great deal was said about fraud, but the final determination of the question of fraud rests with the Immi- gration and Naturalization Service and with the consular service. Mr. EASTLAND. The displaced per- son’s status? Mr. KILGORE. I refer to fraud on the part of a man in obtaining for himself a false status Mr EASTLAND. The Scnator means as a displaced person? Mr. KILGORE Yes Mr. EASTLAND. Of course, they can determine it. Mr. KILGORE Is that the Senator’s expert legal opinion® Mr EASTLAND. Yes, it is my expert legal opinion. It is a correct opinion. I should like to ask the distinguished Senator, what about IRO, which main- tains a leal division for the purpose of getting paroles for convicts, so they can come to the United States as displaced persons? In all the discussion of screen- ing, I have not heard that mentioned. Mr. JENNER Mr. President, will the Senator from New York yield? Mr. LEHMAN I yield Mr. JENNER. I think it might throw some hght on the subject to refer to the statement of Alex E. Squadrilli, the Eu- ropcan coordinator of the Displaced Per- sons Commission, who testificd re: pect- ing the calculated risk policy of the Dis- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE placed Persons Commission. He stated that although reports on applicants are requested from the Berlin Document Center and the piovost marshal’s office, the displaced persons are sent to this country without first receiving the re- ports. Squadrilli commented that the Displaced Persons Commission did not wait for the reports before sending the displaced persons to the United States, because to do so would slow down the program. He admitled he knew of a number of cases of displaced pcrsons being admitted to the United Siatcs on the calculated risk policy, although the files from the Berlin Document Center and the provost marshal's office showed they had criminal records. He justificd the calculated risk policy on the giound that after the criminals had been ad- mitted to the United States, they would be subject to dcportation when the re- ports were received. The fact is, however, that not a single displaced person has as yet been cated for deportation. Mr LEHMAN. Whose statement is that? Mr. JENNER. That is the statement of Mr Alex E Squadrilli, the Europcan Coordinator of the Displaced Pcrsons Commission. Mr, LEHMAN. If the Senator from New York may inyuire of the Senator from Indiana, whose duty does the Sen- ator think it 1s° Is it not the duty of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the colsular service? Mr. JENNER. Of course, it 1s their duty. But why admit criminals as dis- placed persons, 1n the first place? Mr. LELIMAN. What justification has the Senator for saying they are crimi- nals? If they are criminals, would they not have been stopped by the Immirra- tion Service? The Immigration Service has a risht to stop them. Mr. JENNER. Of course. They would not have been stopped, because the Im- migration Service must have the records of the BDC, although the BDC has no interest in even checking them The Berhn Document Centcr has no interest in checking the provost marshal’s rec- ords. All they would have had to do was to send notice here, and it would have been found that those persons were criminals. But they were not interested in that. The whole idea is to rush them over to America, to get 205,000 displaced persons into America before the law ex- pires. That is why the Immigration Service and the consular scrvice cannot find fraud, because the fraud was per- petrated by the IRO, and because there 1s a lack of interest on the part of the Displaced Persons Commission in Eu- rope, in trying to screen out criminals and subversives. Mr. KILGORE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. HEen- pRIcKson in the chair). The Scnator from New York has the floor. Does the Senator yield? Mr. LEHMAN. I yield. Mr KILGORE. Is it not a fact that the duty is specifically cast by the act in force upon the Foreign Service and Marcu 4 the Immigration Service to caforce com- pliance with our immigration laws, and that the duty of the Displaced Persons Commission is to detcrmine whether, according to the records they have, a man comes within the category of a dis- placed person, within the meaning of the definition, and there the responsi- bility and the power of the Commission end? Then, if the man has a criminal record, and the fact is ascertained by the State Department—and the Immi- gration and Naturalization Service have the same right—thcy are the ones who have the power to refuse an application on the ground of a criminal record, Is not that correct? Mr. LEHMAN. I thank the Senator. He has expressed it and explained it very lucidly. I would only add one sentence, that not only have they the power, but they also have the duty. Mr. KILGORE. I thank the Senator. Mr. CAIN rose. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from New York yield to the Senator from Washington? Mr. LEHMAN. I yicld. Mr. CAIN. 1 wish to obtain the floor in my own right. Mr. LEHMAN. Very well. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York yields the floor. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Washington. HOUSING AND RENT ACT OF 1949 Mr. CAIN. Mr. President, as every Member of the Senate undoubtedly knows, the Housing and Rent Act of 1949, Public Law 31, expires on June 30, 1950. The question of whether that law shall be continued for an indefinite period in the future will presumably come before the Senate at some time between now and June 30. Yesterday the majority leader, the Senator from Illinois | Mr. Lucas], and the majority whip, the Sen- ator from Pennsylvania |[Mr. Myers |, in- troduced a bill which would extend Fed- eral rent controls until June 30, 1951, The bill was referred to the Senate Com- mittee on Banking and Currency. Everyone knows that there are mem- bers of this body who believe sincerely that Federal rent controls have served their purpose and outhved their useful- ness, and that there is no good or sound reason for permitting the Federal Gov- ernment to engage further in the man- agement of private property. Those Senators believe that their case will pre- vail, and they are prepared and willing to test the question on the floor of the Scnate at any time. It is deserving of note that the bill to continue Federal rent controls beyond June 30, 1950, has been offered, not by administration spokesmen within the Banking and Currency Committee, but by the majority leader and the majority whip. One would have expected that the chairman of the Senate Banking and Currency Committee, the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. MayBaAnk], or the chairman of the Subcommittee on Hous- ine and Rents, the Senator from Ala- bama [Mr. £parKMAN], would have in-
1950 troduced the bill to continue Federal rent controls, but they did no such thing. The Senator from South Carolina has publicly stated that he had no intention of introducing such a bill, and so far as I know, the Senator from Alabama has said nothing. The State of Alabama, by the way, is to be decontrolled on May 31, 1950, as a result of action taken by its State government. All of this is to suggest that the administration is faced with another awkward situation. In his state of the Union message the Prcsi- dent of the United States promised con- tinuing Federal rent controls and its leaders in the Senate must make some pretense of fulfilling this political prom- ise. Thoughtful persons everywhere, Mr. President, will be interested to observe that the administration has been unable to get its representatives on the Banking and Currency Committee to offer a pro- posal to continue Federal controls. The members of the Banking and Currency Committee are students of this question of Federal property management. Many Senators on the committee voted most reluctantly a year ago to continue Fed- eral rent controls It is obvious that some of them can see no present reasons of any kind to continue the Federal rent law. The admimustration, however, pos- sesses no such hesitancy. It is clearly much less interested in economics and facts than it is in politics. I have never heard it said that either the majority leader or the majority whip is an au- thority or student of the rent-control question. What they do know 1s what every other American knows, and that is that there are many more tenants than there are landlords. This knowl- edge, in my opinion, will not result in continuing Federal rent controls as it did a year ago I have made this observation, Mr. President, because of my desire to assist in focusing public attention on this question of the management of private property by political procedures and agents of the Federal Government. On Saturday, February 25, the Senate Appropriations Committee thought it proper to deny a large part of a defi- ciency appropriations request by the Housing Expediter. I have no desire to argue the merits of this action at the moment, but I do want to suggest that the action was taken, at least in part, because the Housing Expediter and those of his staff who were with him when he testified did not accurately or objective- ly provide the committee with the re- sults of decontrol 1n various communi- ties and States throughout the Nation. Frem reading the testimony offered by the Housing Expediter and his asso- ciates I gained the impression that those who testifled assumed that the Senators who listened knew almost nothing about the operation of the Office of the Housing Expediter or about the Federal rent- control problem. Any impartial and reasonably intelligent reader of the tes- timony will begin to become convinced that the Housing Expediter and his office have a far greater resard for maintain- ing their jobs in perpetuity than they XCVI——177 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE have for removing the Federal Govern- ment from the control of private prop- erty at the earliest possible moment. ‘Ihe Housing Expeditcr is now feverish- ly rushing around the corridors of our Congress in an effort to find those who will support his request for additional deficiency sums. If, finally, he does not secure from the Congress what he might reasonably need to opcrate his office un- til the rent Jaw expires on June 30 of this year, he will have only himself to blame. Hc saw fit, when before the Ap- propriations Committee, not to be fac- tual and accurate, when accuracy and a disclosure of the complete truth would have better served his own purpose. I want to press this point of prejudice, self-interest, and perpetuating Federal controls a bit further. In this morning’s Times-Herald I read the following news item on page 3. Its title is “Round Table To Debate Rent Control in District of Columbia.” The item is brief, and states: Whether rent control should be continued in the District will be discussed on the District Round Table on radio station WWDC at 10 p m Sunday Participants in the forum will be Representative Miller, Re- publican, of Nebraska; William Barr, deputy adniinistrator of the national office of the expediter of rent control, and Rufus Lusk, president of the Washington Taxpayers As- sociation. As soon as I read this article I imme- diately began to telephone throughout the District to have someone tell me why an agent of the Office of the Hous- ing Expediter was going to discuss whether rent controls should or should not be continued in the District of Co- lumbia. Every Senator knows that the District has it own rent-control law, and this law, like the Federal Jaw, has a termination date of June 30, 1950. I was told by those who sponsor the program, the junior bar section of the Bar Asso- ciation of the District of Columbia, that Mr. Barr, the Federal rent arent, would appear on the program to explain what had taken place in those areas through- out the land which have been decon- trolled in recent months. Has one any right, Mr. President, to expect that an agent of the Housing Expcditer will be any more factual or accurate than was the Housing Expediter when he so suc- cessfully defeated his own purpose when he recently appeared before the Senate Appropriations Committee in support of a deficiency request? One can only con- clude that Mr. Barr will only use the inaccurate information which was em- ployed by his superior. I want someone to tell me what con- ceivable interest the Office of the Hous- ing Expediter can have in whether or not rent controls are continued in the District of Columbia. The Housing Ex- pediter and his staff are *ederal agents. The administrator of rent control in the District of Columbia can be accu- rately thought of as being a local agent in the sense that he udministers and has jurisdiction over a local or municipal situation, 2813 If anyone jis qualified to know what is taking place within the District of Co- lumbia, it ought to be Mr. Robert Cogs- well, the District of Columbia rent ad- ministrator. One would think that Mr. Cogswell, rather than a Federal agent, should be on that program tomorrow night. Was he invited, and if he was, why did he reject the invitation? Fortunately, Mr President, it happens that Mr. Cogswell is a man who under- stands his job and its responsibilities, and he is a man of principle and char- acter Mr. Corswell was invited to take part in the program, but he rejected the invitation, as he ought to have done. He said that his job was to administer the law and not to lobby for or against its continuance unless or until he was called to offer his views to the appropri- ate committees of the Congress We can well afford to compliment Mr. Cogswell for his understanding of the true relationship between executive agents and legislative bodies. Without prejudice, as a person, to Mr. William G. Barr, special assistant to the Housing Expediter, I want to point out and make very clear that he has no right of any kind to participate in the radio program to which I have referred. Tf he does so he will be completely guilty, to my mind at least, of coming under the provisions of title 18, Public Law 772, of the Eightieth Congress, second session, section 1913. This law provides that ‘‘no member of the executive branch shall attempt to influence in any manner a Member of the Congress to favor or op- pose by vote or otherwise any legislation or appropriation by Congress, whether before or after the introduction of any bill or resolution proposing such legis- lation or appropriation.” Mr. President, I should like at this time, or at any time in the future, to have any Member of this body or of the House of Representatives stand up and deny that that is the law of the land and that it should be observed. It is being broken, as we all know, by agents of the executive branch of the Govern- ment, 365 days out of every year. If Mr. Barr takes part in the radio program tomorrow night, he will simply be lobbying for the continuation of the Fedcral rent law and the District of Co- lumbia rent law. He will use the prestige of what ought to be a high office, at least an office which our people could respect, to influence legislation which is the con- cern, not of the Office of the Housing Ex- pediter, but of the Congress of the United States. If Mr. Barr understood his responsibility, as Mr. Cogswell, the local agent, understands his, Mr. Barr would have been the first to appreciate and then decline the invitation to talk about a question which is none of his official business, Mr. President, as an individual Sena- tor I am far too busy to worry further at this time about whether Mr. Barr does or does not appear on tomorrow night's program. As an individual I expect to listen to that program; I want to go to hear it, if time permits me to do so; at I hope that any statements made by
2814 anyone on the program will be accurate. If the statements are taken out of offi- cial Government documents, they had better be accurate. If Mr. Barr, an ad- ministrative assistant to the Housing Expediter, is on the program, and if he uses the information which the Housing Expediter used before the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate last week, which resulted in the Housing Expediter not getting what he asked for, I shall be privileged to draw that to the attention of this body. Should Mr. Barr, however, see fit to relate what obviously are the facts, which the Housing Expediter, Mr. Barr’s employer and superior, did not use, I shall likewise be pleased to call the contradictions to the attention of the Senate of the United States. It would hardly be proper, but under these circumstances it might be consid- ered to be absolutely necessary, for the Housing Expediter to say one thing be- fore the Senate Committee on Appropri- ations and for the Housing Expediter’s special assistant to say quite another thing on the same subject to those who listen to this local radio program tomor- row night. Mr. President, the Office of the Hous- ing Expediter has been charged by the past several Congresses, at least by the several in which I have been privileged to sit, with removing the Federal Gov- ernment from the management of pri- vate property just as soon as that is pos- sible. All their energy, their concentra- tion, their loyalty, and their efforts should be directed to this end. Until their mission has been achieved, it seems to me there is neither time, excuse, nor reason for any agent of the Housing Ex- pediter addressing himself to a District of Columbia problem, with which the Of- fice of the Federal Housing Expediter has no remote connection or legitimate interest. CONGRESS MUST ACT TO PREVENT RE- CURRENCE OF STRIKE PARALYSIS Mr. WILEY. Mr. President, with the announcement of the agreement be- tween the coal negotiators, the Nation has heaved a sigh of relief. Thus, once again, by the mere whim of one labor- union big shot and a few men across the conference table, America has been spared a complete national paralysis. Now, the Democratic administration will undoubtedly urge everybody to for- get the whole thing until the next big national crisis looms, In my 11% years in the Senate, I have seen these off- again, on-again national stoppages, but never has the Democratic administra- tion had the guts to come forward with permanent legislation for the statute books to prevent the public welfare from being crucified time and again. The ad- ministration hopes that the public will sit back in complacency and will not re- member how close it came to economic disaster. But, Mr. President, I, for one, will do everything I can in order to seek a permanent solution to this problem— a solution that will be fair to the inter- ests of both labor, management, and, most important of all, the general public. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE It is quite clear that the Taft-Hartley law, far from being a decisive weapon against strikes such as this, can be sabo- taged by those who maladminister it. Thus, the President invoked the Taft- Hartley law too late to do any real good. Then when the contempt case was pre- sented in the courts, Department of Jus- tice attorneys miserably failed in their responsibility to present the affidavits about the union complacency. In other words, Mr. President, the basic problem that we face is: No single law which the Congress has written thus far is fool- proof against a national paralysis be- cause the administration can and has maladministered the statute. I submit, therefore, that those of my colleagues on the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare should con- sider amendments to the Taft-Hartley law in connection with the injunction provision, to tighten that provision and to make it more foolproof against those who want to violate it in letter and in spirit. America will no longer tolerate these off-again, on-again lynchings of the public welfare. We are sick of being thrown from the frying pan into the fire. We demand a permanent solution to strikes in key industries in which the national health, welfare, and safety 1s involved. Let not our people forget the closing of their schools, the shutting down of their factories, the reduction of railroad operations, the shivering patients in the hospitals. Let not our people forget that five times the Government has seized the coal mines. Let not our peo- ple forget that the President has used the Taft-Hartley law eight times, al- though he has repeatedly asked that this vital law be repealed. The administration wants the people to forget these facts, but it is the job of the Republican Part: and all independ- ent-minded citizens to repeat them again and again so that the national interests will not again be endangered. John L. Lewis pulled off his strikes at will during the Second World War. Dare we allow this situation to recur in the event of world war III with atomic bombs falling on America? Has any individual in the administration thought of the terrible possibilitics of national suicide by allowing this sort of situation to occur again? The master minds in the Communist Kremlin must be rubbing their hands with glee. How delightful they must think it would be for them to begin an atomic war on America when, let us say, another coal strike is on, our railroads are shut down, and 1 or 2 days’ fuel is left in our factories. Do not the ad- ministration leaders recognize that even if such a strike were called off in the event of an atomic attack, it takes lit- erally weeks and weeks before the fuel stock piles in our factories can be re- plenished and before the railroads can resume full operations. The adminis- tration has been tampering with na- tional suicide, and I say it is time for the Congress—for members of both political MARCH 4 parties—to have the guts to end this de- plorable tottering on the brink of dis- aster. TRIBUTES TO THE VICE PRESIDENT ON THE THIRTY-SEVENTH ANNIVERSARY OF HIS SERVICE IN 1HE CONGRESS Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, the Senate has been discussing a very con- troversial issue, namely, the question of displaced persons. As usual, on both sides of the aisle there have beer. some very forceful arguments presented on an issue which is far reaching. We have such issue. before us very often. Dur- ing my service here we have debated some questions which to my mind have meant much to the future life of Amer- ica and the world. The question of displaced persons, al- though it is a very serious one, brings to my mind one who now is in our midst and who is anything but a displuccd person. I refer to our distinguished and beloved Vice President, ALBEN W. BaRKLEY. He became a Member of Congress 37 years ago today. He has served in the House of Representatives and in the Senate, and is now serving as Vice President. I should like to say, in a very serious, but also humorous vein, that he was pretty well screened when he came from the State of Kentucky, and certainly he has been screened many times since then. I believe no one gets a more thor- ough screening than a man in public life, particularly in the legislative branch of the Government Every time he has made an invasion, first, as a Representa- tive from his district in Kentucky, then as a Senator of long years of service, and finally as Vice President of the United States, he has been well received. Not only has he been successful in his legis- lative invasion but he has been most successful in his invasion recently of the State of Missouri in his domestic rela- tions, when he brought a little of the spirit of St. Louis back to Washington. So, Mr. President, on this thirty- seventh anniversary, to the day, of the Vice President’s arrival here, first as a Representative and then as a Senator, I wish to extend to him, having served with him when he was majority leader in the Senate and since he has been Vice President, my wholehearted felicitations and congratulations on his 37 years of very valuable service, and I know that in that statement I speak the sentiments of every Senator on both sides of the aisle. In concluding, Mr. President, I should like to say that I am glad there has been long continuity in the service of the dis- tinguished Presiding Officer of the Sen- ate and when 1952 rolls around, if the next Vice President must be a Democrat, we would prefer to have ALBEN W, BaRkK- ley, of Kentucky, return in that capacity. Applause. } Mr. GEORGE. Mr. President, the years since March 4, 1913, have covered a long period as we measure time. It was in 1913 that we laid the foundations of all estimates of property values so far as income-tax purposes were concerned, That made that year pcculiarly sig- nificant in my mind.
1950 But there is a happy side to the pic- ture. During these 37 years there has served in the two Chambers of the Con- gress a man who has always been a most loyal partisan, yet without bitter- ness and without gulle, an upstanding American in public service. Many things have happened since March 4, 1913. Two great wars have been fought. The soldiers of this Na- tion have marched away to fight in for- eign lands, and in the Second World War in almost all the areas of the earth where men were called upon to fight. The distinguished Vice President of the United States lived through those wars as a public servant. He knew all the heartaches which men in public life were called upon to hear in those eventful years, and all the difficult decisions they had to make in 1917 and again in 1941. Mr. President, it is a happy circum- stance that this distinguished public servant has lived to enjoy the good will, the confidence, the esteem, and the love of his colleagues on both sides of the aisle, in all parties, during this long period of his distinguished service. There were in this body on March 4, 1927, when the distinguished Vice Pres- ident became a Member of the Senate, only two men who are here today, the senior Senator from Tennessee !{Mr. MCKELLarR! and the senior Senator from Georgia, the present speaker. Time and politics have taken a great toll of the Members of this body since March 4, 1927. Particulerly has that been true of both parties in the Congress since March 4, 1913. Many things have occurred in the world. It is doubtful whether in all the history of mankind so many great events, s0 Many world-shaking events, have oc- curred as have taken place within that period of time. Yet, here is the Vice President, in good health, and, as always, in a happy frame of mind, because he has never borne malice against anyone in or out of public life. He has disagreed, but disagreements do not always amount to a division or dispute upon any essential or controlling principle. He has differed, of course, in politics, because that has been the his- tory of American politics, and properly so; but always without malice and al- ways without guile the distinguished Vice President, who now has the honor to preside over this body, during all this long period of time has lived a life worthy of a great American statesman and pub- lic servant. I am very happy to be here now—and I hope the Vice President will be here many years after I have departed this scene—to attest not only my own per- sonal feeling but what I believe to he the feeling of all Americans everywhere, regardless of party. Certainly no one entertains for the Vice President any- thing but that profound respect which is due to a good public servant who has borne his part in many a hard battle, but without malice, and always relying upon the worthiness and justice of his cause, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I would not want this day to dass without adding a word to what has already so ably been said by the Senator from Ne- braska [Mr. WHERRY] and the Senator from Georgia [Mr. Grorce]. I believe I am the only Member of this body who is a@ second generation Member, who has served in either the House or the Senate with the distinguished Presiding Officer. It so happened that my father served in the House of Representatives with the distinguished Vice President of the United States. One of my earliest recol- lections is of the very high regard in which my father held the distinguished Vice President during the years he served with him in the House of Representatives. When I came to the Senate I had al- ready formed a very high regard for our distinguished Presiding Officer. He was then occupying the position of majority leader. I know of no majority leader who carried a heavier burden than he did in the months immediately following the close of the great World War, when a change had taken place in the national administration. While debates on the floor of the Senate were sometimes tense, always at the close of the discussion Sen- ator BARKLEY, by some appropriate story or some felicitous remark, relieved the tenseness, so that when the time for ad- journment came the Membcrs of the Senate left the Chamber with that sense of fellowship for which this body has been known throughout the years. Mr. President, I wanted to make these few remarks in paying my own high per- sonal respects to one who I think is not only an outstanding public servant but one of the great Americans of this period. Mr. LONG. Mr. President, I cannot recall the day when the Vice President came to Congress. I was born 5 ycars thereafter. Ican say, however, that dur- ing the brief period of my service in the Senate I have had some occasion to ob- serve the great qualities of leadership of the present Vice President of the United States. I recall well that when the statue of my father was dedicated in the Capitol building the then majority leader, now the Vice President of the United States, delivered an address in which he bespok2 his admiration for a man with whom he had frequently disagreed, but who stood forth and fought for what he believed was a righteous cause. The fairness and impartiality of the Vice President have always been typified by such events, and over the years, long before I came to the United States Senate, in my estimation he had reached the highest possible stature. As one who was born after the Vice President of the United States com- menced his service in the Conrress, I certainly hope that those of us who fol- low after him may be able to live up to the great traditions he has developed and the fine example of American states- manship he has established. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, this is a historic day in the Congress of the United States. Over the long period of time this 2815 R-public has been in existence, few men have served continuously for 37 years in the Congress of the United States. Few men, if any, have given more of their time and effort in the promotion of the ideals of the Republic than has the dis- tinguished Vice President, to whom we do honor upon this occasion. When I first came to the Sanate some 11 years ago, the present Vice President of the United States was then the ma- jority leader of this deliberative body. Like all neophytes who come here and do not have a clear understanding of par- liamentary procedure and the various questions which come before the Senate from time to time, it was necessary for me to seek advice and counsel. I sought that advice and counsel from the then majority leader, Senator B/RKLey, of Kentucky No one was ever more char- itable, more kind, more constructive than was he. As I sta.id here today as the majority leader of this great deliberative body, the only one of its kind now in existence in the world, I believe I am more conscious of the burdensome problems which were on Senator BarKLey’s shoulders than I realized when I was simply a Member without any particular responsibilities on the floor of the Senate. To one sit- ting on the side lines, he seemed to per- form his work rather easily. It was, of course, easy for him to carry the heavy burden of work that rested upon him, because of his familiarity with parlia- mentary procedure, because of his vast experience in legislative work, and be- cause of his profound knowledge of the rich traditions of America from the time of the founding fathers. Mr. President, I have always looked upon the Vice President as one who was the champion of oppressed humanity, as one who believed that this Government of ours was a moving thing, not one that was static but one that constantly kept pace with the march of events. Mr. President, it has becn my great privilege and pleasure to serve with the Vice President since I have been in the Sonate. He has been of great inspira- tion to me, and I know he has been of great inspiration to other Senators who have served with him, whether they were Democrats or Republicans. He has been and is eminently fair. He has attempted to mete out justice, both as majority leader and as Vice President, believin::, as the great Senator from Georgia said, in charity for all and malice toward none. Mr. President, in the years to com2 may you continue to work for justice and peace, may you preserve faith in your country, may you continue to have good health, may you live long and enjoy unbounded prosperity. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair will ask the indulgence of the Members of the Senate to make a brief response to the very generous remarks which somewhat took the Chair by surprise. I had not recalled today that this was the thirty-seventh anniversary of my
2816 entrance into the House of Representa- tives until our thoughtful, efficient, and beloved Secretary, Leslie Biffle, reminded me of it a while ago. When the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. WuHerry] began his remarks, I was really in truth and in fact physically a displaced person, because I was seated on the floor of the Senate, where I so frequently sit, and which I enjoy doing. But I was not the possessor even at that time of a displaced heart, because I always enjoy reminiscing about events which took place during my service on the floor as a Member of the Senate. I really love to resume a seat there now and then and sit down by Members of the Senate on both sides and talk about anything that comes into our minds, Sometimes I perpetrate a story upon them. Which reminds me of the fact that Abraham Lincoln was the greatest story teller who ever held public office in the history of the United States. There is a very amusing and lovable story about him when he was practicing law in Springfield, Ill. Judge David Da- vis, whom he later appointed to the Su- preme Court of the United States, was the presiding judge of the court. Mr. Lincoln was not engaged in the trial of the case that was pending, but was seated over in one corner of the courtroom telling stories to a group of lawyers and friends. They were so amused at the stories that they were disturbing the court. Finally Judge Davis rapped on the bench, and said, “Mr. Lincoln, there can be only one court held in this court- house, and I think I am going to hold it.” Whereupon the group disbanded, and quiet was restored. A few minutes later Judge Davis called up to the bench one of the participants in the previous disorder in the courtroom, and leaned over and whispered to him, “What was that story Lincoln was tell- ing?” [Laughter.] Since the Members of the Senate have 2en so generous and kind as to recall that this is the thirty-seventh anniver- sary of the beginning of my service in the Congress, I have been thinking of what has happened since I entered the Congress of the United States as a young man. When I entered the House of Representatives, I was approximately the same age that the Senator from Louisiana was when he entered the Sen- ate. Today there is in the House of Rep- resentatives only one man who entered the House with me at that time, and that is the Speaker, Sam Raysurn, of Texas. Only two Members of the House who were there when I came, are still in the House. One is the Honorable Rospgrt L. Dovucuron, of North Carolina; the other is the Honorable ApoLtPH SaBatH, of Illi- nols. As the Senator from Georgia [Mr. GeorcE] has said, many things have transpired during those 37 years, which constitute approximately a generation. Two world wars, into which we were un- willingly drawn, have been fought. Tragic aftermaths of those two wars fol- lowed, as of course frequently happens after wars. Our position in the world has changed. During that period cur Nation has grown in population by al- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE most 300 percent. Cur wealth has in- creased by about 400 percent. During those 37 years, our position and influence and responsibility among the other na- tions of the world have increased to an extent far greater than it would have been possible to have foretold at the beginning of that period. Political par- ties have changed. Administrations have changed. I have served, in one capacity or an- other, under every President from Wood- row Wilson to Harry S. Truman. I had the pleasure, of course, while serving in either the House or the Senate, of en- gaging in many controversies affecting our domestic affairs and our interna- tional relationships. Many changes in viewpoint and in many of the basic con- ceptions of the relationship of the Gov- ernment to the people and of the people to the Government have taken place dur- ing those 37 years. I am happy to say that, without regard to the political party in power or the identity of the ad- ministration in control of the Govern- ment at any particular time, nothing which has taken place has weakened my faith in the fundamental honesty of the American people and the basic founda- tions of the sort of democracy and the sort of Government under which we live. I do not believe that any economic changes, any political changes, or any social changes which may take place in this great Republic, either in the near future or in the distant future, will oper- ate to change the high regard and re- spect which the American people have for thelr Government and for their po- litical and social institutions. Not only during another 37 years, but during the centuries that are to come, I believe we shall continue as a democratic Na- tion, a Nation in which Lincoln called a government of, by, and for the people, and what Jefferson referred to as a government in which there should be equal rights to all and exclusive privi- leges to none, will be maintained. It is my fervent and profound hope and prayer that the influence of our country and of our Government and of our peo- ple upon the other nations and peoples of the world will be so effective and so profound that before any of us here have “shuffled off this mortal coil,” we may see all over the world democracy, free- dom, liberty, and self-government in which all the people, without regard to race, color, creed, or national origin, may not only be permitted to participate, but which they may control for their own welfare. That is real democracy, that is real self-government, that is real lib- erty, and in my judgment democracy and liberty are interchangeable terms. Let me thank all the Senators who have been so gracious as to remember this anniversary and to speak so kindly about me in relation to it. I feel a deep sense of humility. I have an abiding affection for every Member of the Sen- ate, and always have had, without regard to any political differences, without re- gard to geographical locations, without regard to our economic views, without regard to our religious affiliations, Re- gardless of any differences we nay have along any of these lines, I am sure the respect, admiration, and affection I now MARCH 4 have for the Members of the Senate will never diminish, and that statement ap- plies with equal force to the entire Gov- ernment of the United States and all its branches. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, before to- day’s session closes, I wish to say that I am sure all Members of the Senate deep- ly appreciate what the distinguished Vice President has just said, and all of us know what affection he has for all Mem- bers of the Senate. Iam very happy that this is the thirty- seventh anniversary of the distinguished Vice President’s coming to the Congress. I am happy about it for many reasons. The last one I happened to think of while I was listening just now to the Vice Presi- dent is that the observance of this anni- versary gives him an opportunity to make a@ speech in the Senate. Frequently he has told me that he would like to leave the rostrum and come down to the floor of the Senate and address the Members of the Senate and the country. I know that as he presides over the Senate he fre- quently observes the majority leader and other Members of the Senate miss points which he always caught so ably when he was serving as majority leader of the Senate. Sol am glad the Vice President has had this opportunity to make a speech. Iam sure he appreciates the opportunity, too, because up until this time he has not made a speech in the Senate since he has been Vice President. The VICE PRESIDENT. I thank the Senator from Illinois for his reference to me; but, in reply, I wish to say that I have never observed the Senator from Illinois miss any points. To the contrary, he thinks of points that I never thought of during the time when I served in the posi- tion in which he now serves so ably. Mr.WHERRY, Mr. President, if I may say a word at this time, I should like to point out that I try to help the majority leader think of those points. I do so as often as I can, for I do not want him to miss any of them. [Laughter.] Mr. LUCAS. Of course the Senator from Nebraska is always very cooperative. The VICE PRESIDENT. Of course whenever either the majority leader or the minority leader wishes to confer with the Chair on such matters, he is always at liberty to do so. Mr. LUCAS. That happens frequent- ly, so far as the Senator from Illinois is concerned. MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE A message from the House of Repre- sentatives, by Mr. Maurer, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House insisted upon its amendment to the bill (S. 2734) to promote the rehabilitation of the Navajo and Hopi Tribes of In- dians and a better utilization of the re- sources of the Navajo and Hopi Indian Reservations, and for other purposes, dis- agreed to by the Senate; agreed to the conference asked by the Senate on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon, and that Mr. Morris, Mr. Mur- pock, Mr. WuirTe of Idaho, Mr. LEMKE, and Mr. D'Ewart were appointed man- agers on the part of the House at the conference,
1950 ENROLLED BILL SIGNED The message also announced that the Speaker had affixed his signature to the enrolled bill (S. 204) for the relief of Eugenio Maisterrena Barreneche, and it was signed by the Vice President. RECESS Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I now move that the Senate stand in recess until Monday next, at 12 o'clock noon. The motion was agreed to; and (at 3 o'clock and 33 minutes p. m.), under the order previously entered, the Sen- ate took a recess until Monday, March 6, 1950, at 12 o’clock meridian. NOMINATIONS Executive nominations received by the Senate March 4 (legislative day of Feb- ruary 22), 1950: UNITED NATIONS RELIEF AND WORKS AGENCY FOR PALESTINE REFUGEES IN THE NEAR EAST John B Blandford, Jr., of Virginia, to be the representative of the United States of America on the Advisory Commission of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East. IN THE NAVY . Vice Adm. Russell S. Berkey, United States Navy, to have the grade, rank, pay, and al- lowances of a vice admiral while serving as Chief of Information, Navy Department. In THE Coast GUARD The following two officers of the United States Coast Guard for promotion to the rank of rear admiral: Capt. Arthur G Hall Capt. Norman H. Leslie HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Saturvay, Marcu 4, 1950 The House met at 12 o’clock noon. The Chaplain, Rev. Bernard Braskamp, D. D,, offered the following prayer: O Thou infinite and eternal God, in whom we find the meaning and majesty of life, we are again approaching Thy throne compelled by many needs which Thou alone canst supply. We pray that we may be men of vision and of valor, richly endowed with clarity of mind and courage of heart to meet and match the challenge of difficult problems, great responsibilities, and glorious opportunities. May we bear testimony to men and nations everywhere that, as citizens of this Republic, we are mindful of one an- other’s welfare and that in our com- mon remembrance we are eager to carry one another’s burdens and so fulfill the law of Christ. May Thy name be glorified. Amen. The Journal of the proceedings of yes- terday was read and approved. NAVAJO AND HOPI INDIANS Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (S, 2734) to pro- mote the rehabilitation of the Navajo and Hopi Tribes of Indians and a better utilization of the resources of the Navajo and Hopi Indian Reservations, and for CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE other purposes, with a House amendment thereto, insist on the House amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate. The SPEAKER, Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Flor- ida? [After a pause.] The Chair hears none, and appoints the following con- ferees: Messrs. Morris, MURDOCK, WHITE of Idaho, LemxKsE, and D’Ewart. EXTENSION OF REMARKS Mr. DOYLE asked and was given per- mission to extend his remarks in the RecorpD and include extraneous matter. EXPLAINS MISSING ROLL CALL Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unan- imous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Cali- fornia? There was no objection. Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, on yes- terday when the roll call was had on the Alaska statehood bill, I was recorded as not voting. That is correct. How- ever, I wish to state that had I been here, I would have voted “aye.” My reason for not being here was that I was making a public service radio platter in the radio room in another building, and I received no notice of the roll call. This is one of a very few number of times that I was absent on roll call in my 4 years in the House. It was certainly not intentional or deliberate. The radio station platter which I was making was on a public service program of the radio station. I wish to make it perfectly clear, therefore, that it was not a political radio speech nor a partisan speech, and it was essential that it be made on yesterday. If, however, I had known or had any reason to believe that there would be a roll-call vote at about the same hour, I would have made arrangements for some other hour during the day. Frankly, I would rather have missed the privilege of making the public service redio talk at all than to have missed the roll-call vote. For, Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, I believe my record of votes in the almost 4 years I have been here representing the great Eighteenth Con- gressional District of my native State of California will reveal my vigilant atti- tude toward bcing present here on the floor at least when any voting is called for. CONGRATULATES PRISIDENT TRUMAN ON COAL BTRIKE SETTLEMENT AND AGAINST NATIONALI- ZATION OF MINES Mr. Speaker, I wish at this time to compliment the President of the United States upon the valiant, tenacious, and considerate, and yet firm, manner in which he and his distinguished associ- ates handled the Federal Government portion of the miserable coal strike which was this morning announced as settled. More than once in this House I have made it clear that I favor the use of Government controls and compulsory regulations as little as possible in the field of labor-management or, Mr, Speak- er, in most any field of human rela- 2817 tionships or endeavor. It is as clear as crystal to me that there is the most possible freedom of speech, of action, of thinking, of enterprise, where there is the least need for Government control or regulation. Certainly the message from the Presi- dent of the United States to us yester- day, which was read to us, should have made it clear to us and to the Nation that he as our President, representing all the people of the Nation, did not ask for congressional action until it became clear to him that the Nation's welfare required that soft-coal production should be resumed at once. In fact, he said as much. And he said that ‘t should be resumed at once “in order to prevent human suffering and disastrous eco- nomic dislocation.” Furthermore, he told us frankly in his message: Since the union and the operators have failed to resume production and since re- course to the courts has so far proved in- effective, it is now my plain duty to propose further action Therefore, I recommend that the Congress enact legislation author- izing the Government to take over the coal mines and operate them as a public service. But, Mr. Speakcr, taking such step, as necessary as the President says it 1s, would again mean Government control of the production of a natural resource. I am not criticizing the President, Mr. Speaker. I say again I compliment him on the settlement. Collective bargain- ing and good faith is the very basis of enduring, constructive, and lasting labor relationships between labor and man- agement. Apparently the President had evidence that constrained him to also say in his message to us: We have arrived at the present impasse because both the operators and the union have failed, month after month, to make the efforts in genuine bargaining which could result in a mutually satisfactory settlement. They have been unwilling or unable to lay aside their charges and countercharges, mod- erate their fixed positions, and undertake scrious negotintion in a spirit of accommo- dution and mutual understanding. And, then, further quoting the Presi- dcnt’s message, he made it clear to those critics of his and of the political party of which he is the leader that the Federal Government was not desirous, either di- rectly or indirectly, of getting into the field which is called nationalization by the critics of the Democratic Party. The President said: I am not requesting this legislation as a means of settling the issues in dispute be- tween the operators and the union. They will have to settle their differences through their own collective bargaining, just as though Government operation were not in effect. I do not propose to substitute the Government's representatives for the private operators at the bargaining table. It will not be our purpose to establish wages, hours, or working conditions which would bind either the operators or the miners upon re- sumption of private operations. And, finally, he said: This is the real chullenge of the present situation. It is a test of our ability to finda way to achieve adequate prediction of a raw material basic to our national life, while pre- serving the fundamental valucs of our free
2818 institutions. Both our friends and our de- tractors in the rest of the world are watch- ing to see how our democratic society will meet this challenge. SPECIAL ORDER GRANTED Mr. MADDEN asked and was given permissior. to address the House for 5 minutes today at the conclusion of the regular order of business. EXTENSION OF REMARKS Mr. FLOOD asked and was given per- mission to extend his remarks in the Recorp and include a statement. Mr. MANSFIELD asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the Recorp in two instances and include in one an article by Hal Boyle, of the As- sociated Press, and in the other a state- ment by George Burger, vice president of the National Federation of Independ- ent Business, made before the Commit- tee on the Judiciary. Mr. JENSEN asked and was given per- mission to extend his remarks in the Recorp and include a report by Gerald Bogan at the National Farm Institute convention at Des Moines, Iowa, re- cently. THE BRITISH CABINET Mr. FOOD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unan- imous consent to address the House for 1 minute. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Penn- sylvania? There was no objection. Mr. FLOOD. Mr. Speaker, while it is directly no concern of the United States as to the manner in which the British Cabinet is selected or the members there- of, for many reasons too numerous to mention in less than 1 minute, we have material indirect concern. To discover that the War Minister of the British Cabinet, John Strachey, made this state- ment in the British press yesterday, is sufficient to alarm and prompt me to at least direct attention to 1t. I quote: It has always been public knowledge that I supported the Communist doctiine in the years which preceded the last war. Mr. Attlee and Mr. Strachey disclose this belief has been recanted 1n recent years. Mr. Strachey is to have charge of the tightening up of British security as a result of the Fuchs incident. The fact that the British have a “red face” be- cause of the Fuchs scandal is no reason to substitute a Red War Munister. I have consistently supported all aid to Britain; yes, and fought for it in com- mittee and on the floor. Under our pro- cedure Mr. Strachey would be declared a security risk. The British make it diffi- cult to help them. MINE OPERATORS PROLONGED STRIKE BY USING TAFT-HARTLEY ACT AS CLUB ~ OVER MINERS Mr. PRICE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unan- imous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Illinois? There was no objection. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Mr. PRICE. Mr. Speaker, I join the gentleman from California [Mr. DoyLE] in extending sincere congratulations and compliments to the President of the United States upon the dignified, sensi- ble, courageous, and intelligent manner in which he acted in the recent coal sit- uation. In my personal opinion, that situation was prolonged for several months due to the Taft-Hartley Act. I have been of the opinion since the start that the mine operators of this country used this act, conceived as it was in the Eightieth Congress, as a punitive meas- ure against labor, as a club in the hope that they could drive the miners back into the pits and back to work. The coal miners sought negotiations last summer for a new contract, but as a result of the Taft-Hartley Act there has been no honest collective bargaining on the part of the operators in this situ- ation. There can be no question that the Taft-Hartley Act has been the cause of chaos and confusion in the coal 1n- dustry as in other mdustries. It should be repealed. I commend the President for refus- ing to be stampeded by the Republican creators of the Taft-Hartley Act. TREATMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES OF FOREIGN NATIONS Mr. RIVERS’ Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks, The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from South Carolina? There was no objection. Mr. RIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I am to- day introducing a bill which will make it a penal offense for anybody in the State Department, the Department of Defense, or any other department of the Government to give to the representa- tives of foreign nations any more rights, privileges, or autonomies than our rep- resentatives get. I think what we ought to do to these babies is give them a little tit for tat. You let them have their phones tapped and have an FBI agent shadow them everywhere they go, just as they are doing to our people. When we have given them a little taste of this medicine, as they are doing to our boys in the curtain countries and in the Cominform countries, they may have a little change of heart. When they throw one of our Navy captains off a fast- moving train, let us toss a few of theirs off. Let us give them a little dose of the Rivers medicine. This world would be a much better place in which to live. THE POLICY PAID OFF Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from South Dakota? There was no objection. Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr. Speaker, everyone has heard of the Irish- man who said he would give $10,000 if he knew the place he was going to die. When he was asked why he said, “Well, because I would never go near the place.” _MARCH 4 I have an Irish friend who, at the end of a year, when his accident insurance policy ran out, said, ‘If I had only known I was not going to have any accident during the year, I would never have spent the money on that insurance policy.” Personally I never waste any time re- gretting the money I pay for insurance, and I am sure the Members of the House will have no regrets over the inconven- jience that may have been caused them by having the insurance that the House would be in session today so that if it had been necessary for us to take action in connection with the coal strike, the country would know that we were here on the job, ready and available. We kept the pressure on, and the policy paid off. APOLOGY ACCEPTED Mr.McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Mas- sachusetts? There was no objection. Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting to note the apology that the gentleman from South Dakota makes to the House. That is the sum and sub- stance of his remarks. He is apologizing for the arbitrary position he took yester- day when he knew that Monday was the earliest anything could be done in the House, and insisted on his position even after being served notice by the leader- ship that there would be no business to- day. He insisted on the House meeting today. The apology is completely in order. Although the gentleman should have thought of that and he had all the evidence to realize the situation last night—as I say, hv should have thought of that yesterday, instead of thinking of it today. Nevertheless, when one makes an apology, all decent-minded people ac- cept it in the spirit in which it is made. The SPEAKER. The time of the gen- tleman from Massachusetts has expired. SPECIAL ORDER GRANTED Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan asked and was given permission to address the House for 10 minutes today following the disposition of business on the Speak- er’s desk and the conclusion of special orders heretofore granted. THE COAL STRIKE Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to ad- dress the House for 1 minute and revise and extend my remarks. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Mich- lgan? There was no objection. Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. I yield. Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from South Dakota stands on what he did, and per- sonally, I believe that the membership of the House, generally, is glad of the fact that the Recorp will show the Con- gress was in session today, on this Satur- day, ready to act if the efforts to con- Mr.
1950 clude the coal strike had not been suc- cessful. Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. The gentleman means if we had a chance to do that—anc you were not apologizing, were you? Mr. CASE of South Dakota. No, not in the least; by being in position to act, we kept the pressure on. Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. I did not think you were, and did not so understand it. The SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman from Michigan has expired. EXTENSION OF REMARKS Mr. DONDERO asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the Recorp and to include an editorial. Mr. GAMBLE asked and was given per- mission to extend his remarks in the Recorp and include a statement by the New York State Housing Commissioner, notwithstanding the fact that it exceeds the limit fixed by the Joint Committee on Printing, and is estimated by the Pub- lic Printer to cost $191.34. Mr. MEYER asked and was given per- mission to extend his remarks in the ReEcorpD and include an editorial. MEMBERS COMPLETING 25 YEARS OF SERVICE Mr. LECOMPTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Iowa? There was no objection. Mr. LECOMPTE. Mr. Speaker, many Members of the House have had long, distinguished careers as Members of the House of Representatives. My atten- tion was called to the fact that in the earlier days the new Congress convened on the 4th of March, and that some Members have today completed exactly 25 years of useful service. The Sixty- ninth Congress convened on the fourth day of March, 1925. Of the group who came to that Congress six are here to- day. I want to mention the names of those who today have served their coun- try exactly 25 years, and I shall read them in alphabetical order. The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Cox], the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Eaton], the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. JEnK1ns], the gentleman from Mas- sachusetts |Mr. MarTIn!, the gentle- woman from New Jersey [Mrs. Norton], and the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. WHITTINGTON], The gentlewoman from Massachusetts {Mrs. Rocers] came to the Congress just a few weeks later, as the result of a va- cancy. These folks all have served their coun- try well. Mr. Speaker, of course, the very dis- tinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr, SasaTH], and others, have served many years longer, but I mention those Mem- bers who happen to have exactly 25 years of service today and I hope they will put in many more years of equally useful service in the House of Repre- sentatives, where they are all loved and respected by their colleagues. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE BPECIAL ORDER GRANTED Mr. HESELTON asked and was grant- ed permission to address the House for 80 minutes on Tuesday next, following the legislative business of the day and pny other special orders heretofore en- ered, WASTE AT RATE OF $100 A MINUTE Mr. HESELTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks and include some statistical matter. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentieman from Mas- sachusetts? There was no objection. Mr. HESELTON. Mr. Speaker, on February 13, 1950, I reported on the of- ficial commodity inventories of the Com- modity Credit Corporation of 10 items which apparently could be utilized as surplus edible food. This was as of De- cember 31, 1949. The total amount ap- proximated 277,480 tons of surplus food commodities at a total cost of about $265,000,000. It was exclusive of the 50,- 000,000 bushels of surplus edible potatoes involved in the order of destruction which fortunately appears not to have been carried out to any substantial de- gree. There are some very significant statis- tics in the hearings before the Subcom- mittee on Appropriations for the Depart- ment of Agriculture which have been released this weck. This afternoon I want to call your particular attention to the table begin- ning at page 1418 of those hearings starting with average monthly storage rates paid on commodities owned and, more especially the carrying charges on price-support commodities, fiscal year 1949 and first half of fiscal year 1950. There is a notation explaining that— Carrying charges include transportation costs, warehouse charges, and other costs associated with the commodity including cost of sacks used, sacking charges, cooper- age, weighing and inspection fees, recon- signment costs, etc., which are charged to inventory. Storage charges paid or accrued on loan collateral while under loan is charged to the cost of the commodities so acquired and any costs incurred directly pursuant to purchase arrangements are in- cluded in the purchase cost. I have taken the carrying charges for the hst of commodities I previously re- ported on so that we might have before us the total cost of those charges, with the exception of canned Mexican meat and I do not find the carrying charges on that item listed in the hearings be- fore the Subcommittee on Appropria- tions. Then I call your attention to the statistics in the same hearings as to the use made of these and other products in the school-lunch program which we find at pages 1499 and 1500. While many other surplus food products are used, there is no indication that butter, edi- ble dried beans, edible pried peas, rice, or turkeys have been distributed under that program. I do not know the rea- son for this but shall attempt to lo- cate it. 2819 For my present purpose I want to emphasize that in the first half of this fiscal year we have apparently paid a total of $10,786,209 for carrying charges on these commodities. Judging by some of the startling increases over the cost of these carrying charges for the full year fiscal 1948, the total for fiscal 1949 will run very substantially in excess of the totals for fiscal 1948. This should focus attention on the resolutions introduced by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Corsett], the gentleman from New York (Mr. Kear- 1nG], the gentleman from Pennsylvania {Mr. Huex D. Scort, JRr.], and myself on February 2, 1950, and supported by 24 others of our colleagues. May I refer to the Recorp on February 20, 1950, at page 2000. Let me quote the last sentence from those resolutions: The Secretary of Agriculture and the Com- modity Credit Corporation may advance as against handling and transportation costs in making delivery up to the equivalent of 6 months’ storage costs on any such commodi- ties turned over. If these carrying charges on these items have continued at that rate during the first half of the fiscal year, they are run- ning in excess of approximately »60,000 a day for a completely useless waste of public funds. From the date of the in- troduction of these resolutions, there is an accumulated waste which I am con- vinced will finally be in the order of $2,- 000,000. Yor every day lost in trying to get action on these resolutions the tax- paycrs will foot the bill to the tune of better than $60,000. Putting it another way, every hour’s delay means a com- plete waste of Federal funds at the rate of better than $2,700 an hour, or more than $100 each minute. I anticipate that someone will most certainly come forward with the argu- ment that there have been net gains over the entire period of substantial amounts. For instance, that since October 17, 1933, when the price-support program for do- mestic cotton began, there is a net gain of $236,359,485, or, again, that on the price-support program on basic com- modities that there has been a net gain in that period of $69,993,162. Of course it will be hoped by such an argument to indicate that a $100-a-minute loss in these specific carrying charges is a minor item and undoubtedly will be absorbed by net gains. However, it will overlook the fact that the Commodity Credit Cor- poration’s own analysis of the program shows net losses from October 17, 1933, through December 31, 1949, including the wartime consumer subsidy program, of $2,101,850,443 for $2,242,642,877. And of even more importance any such argument entirely overlooks the fact that these carrying charges are a completely unwarranted and unnecessary cost to the taxpayer even though other parts of the program may well be justified upon fur- ther examination of the facts. Iam glad to report that I have received an en- couraging letter from the chairman on
2820 the House Committee on Agriculture un- der date of March 2 reading as follows: Hon, JoHN W. HESELTON, House o{ Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR Coutkacur: Your letter of February 27, with regard to the various bills relating to surplus commodities has been received. I have already requested a report from the Department of Agriculture, and I hope that hearings may be held at some time in the near future. Cordially yours, Haroip D. Coo.ry. I am today sending a letter to the Sec- retary of Agriculture which I am quoting for the information of my colleagues: Hon CHARLES F. BRANNAN, Secretary of Agriculture, Washington, D C. Dear Mr SECRETARY: I am enclosing a copy of the remarks which I have placed in to- day's Recorp Chairman Coovry’s letter re- fers to H R 7135,H R 7136,H R. 7137, and H R 7138. These were identical resolutions filed on February 2, 1950, and, as you will ncte, were supported by 24 others of our colleagues. In view of the very substantial apparent accumulated and continuing waste of public funds involved in this procedure, I am sure that you will see to it personally that the report of the Department is promptly filed with the House Committee on Agriculture. I would appreciate the courtesy of having ycu send to each of the authors of these resolutions copies of that report. Sincerely yours, JOHN W. HESELTON, I was much interested in the memo- randum from the Administrator of Pro- duction and Marketing to Members of Congress which I received Thursday. I think it would be useful to have it, the statement on domestic avallability of commodities dated February 27, 1950, and the very simple order form which can be used for requesting section 416 commodities in the Recorp. This 1s in sharp and pleasant contrast to the in- volved mass of red tape which sur- rounded the distribution of section 32 commodities, and which I placed in the Recorp February 20 at page 2000. I have written Mr. Trigg today to in- quire when other food commodities in surplus may be declared available and hope to have his advice early next week. I have also asked him if anything is be- ing done to simplify the procedure under section 32 commodities. Again I wish to point out the very ob- vious inequities so far as a great many communities are concerned in requiring ther. to pay transportation and other incidental costs from points of storage located some distance away. I submit that only through the enactment of the resolutions I have mentioned can this inequity be eliminated. The statement and enclosures are as follows: UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, PRODUCTION AND MARKETING ADMINISTRATION, Washington, D.C., February 28, 1950. Members of Congress of the United States. From: Administrator. Subject: Domestic availability of commodi- ties under section 416 of the Agricultural Act of 1949. To assist you in answering the many in- quiries you are undounicdly receiving con- To: CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE cerning the donations of food as authorized by section 416 of the Agricultural Act of 1949 we have prepared the enclosed state- ment for your use. Irish potatoes, dried eggs, and nonfat dry milk solids are, as of this date, available for distribution under section 416. The enclosed statement describes the groups eligible to receive these foods, how eligible recipients may order them, and the costs which must Fr. borne by the recipient. Eligible groups which request your assist- @nce in placing orders for commodities should be referred to the area office of our Food Distribution Programs Branch serving your State. The area offices are in daily com- munication with the State agencies handling the distribution of section 416 commodities and thus can be of maximum assistance to groups wishing to participate in the program. The addresses of these area offices are shown at the close of the attached statement. RALPH S. TRIGG. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, PRODUCTION AND MARKETING ADMINISTRATION, February 27, 1950, STATEMENT ON DOMESTIC AVAILABILITY OF COMMODITIES UNDER SECTION 416 OF THE AGRICULTURAL AcT OF 1949 Section 416 of the Agricultural Act of 1949 provides the United States Department of Agriculture with authority to donate to needy groups in this country certain food products acquired by the Department under its price-support operations. This statement summarizes what commod- ities are available, who may obtain them, how they may be obtained, minimum con- ditions to be met by the receiving agency, and where additional inquiries may be dl- rected. COMMODITIES AVAILABLE Food stocks that may be made available are those for which no market outlet in normal trade channels is foreseen during their storable life, thus exposing them to the danger of deterioration and spoilage. Such commodities will be donated at the point of storage, and beyond that point, all expenses incidental to handling, transportation, and repackaging must be borne by the receiving organization, As of this date, February 27, 1950, three commodities—potatoes, dried eggs, and non- fat dry milk solids—have been declared avail- able to designated groups. Potatoes were so declared on January 17, and are obtain- able at purchase points in approximately 20 States. The other two items were an- nounced February 8 as obtainable at storage points in a large number of cities throughout the country. WHO MAY OBTAIN THESE FOODS All three of the foods announced to date are available to schools for lunch programs, and to the Bureau of Indian Affairs and State and local public welfare agencies for the assistance of needy Indians and other needy persons. In addition, private welfare organizations engaged exclusively in welfare work are eligible to receive potatoes for the needy families assisted by them. Patriotic and fraternal or service organi- zations, which are not basically devoted to welfare work, even though they maintain well established welfare units, are not in themselves eligible for section 416 foods. However, the groups or individuals normally assisted by the organization may become eligible upon certification as needy persons by the accredited public welfare agency. Such regulations on the receipt and distri- bution of commodities by private welfare groups are necessary in order to assure that commodities reach only needy persons as specified in the act, and in order that dupli- MARCH 4 cate distribution be avoided in any city or local area. State Departments of Public Welfare can in most cases Clear up questions of eligibility concerning needy groups or families. In- quiries also may be directed to the appropri- ate area Offices of the Food Distribution Pro- grams Branch of the Department's Produc- tion and Marketing Administration. Ad- adresses of the latter offices are listed at the close of this statement. NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY Foods offered under section 416 are an- nounced through the press and radio serv- ices, by fleld offices of the Department's Production and Marketing Administration, and by cooperating State agencies. Each offitial announcement describes the food offered, discloses its location, tndicates the size and type of containers, and gives other pertinent details. Each announce- ment also indicates the minimum and maxi- mum quantities which may be ordered, and whether the commodity will be available for an extended period of time Avallable commodities will be located in warehouses or other storage places in variour parts of the United States. The foods offered will have been thoroughly inspected by au- thorized USDA personnel and will be in good condition. The Department’s inspec- tion will assure wholesomeness of all prod: ucts offered. HOW TO OBTAIN AVAILABL | FOODS Any agency or organization wishing to ob- tain foods available under the program may make application to the State agency acting as distributing agent for section 416 foods, or to the area office of the Food Distribution Programs Branch. No special forms are needed for the application. The applying organization, if eligible, will receive a single- sheet “Order Form” This is the only form required It 1s all-inclusive and covers all matters relating to the order and acceptance of the foods. Only a few conditions need be met to obtain these ivoods. The applying agency must agree to limit its distribution of the foods obtained to eligible persons, and to see that all necessary precautions are taken to keep the donated food from entering nor- mal channels of trade Also the agency must agree not to reduce its expenditures for food because of the receipt of the donated commodities. Each order which includes these provisions covers only a single delivery of a specific quantity of a commodity. When an agency is informed that a commadity is available on a continuous basis, the agency may re- order this food item without subsequent notice of its availability. SHIPPING CHARGES The receiving agency, as specified in the act, must pay handling and transportation charges, including special charges for heat- ing or refrigeration, if needed, from the point of storage or availability. Information con- cerning the cost of transporting commodl- ties may be obtained from local transpor- tation companics. Receiving agenctes having their own trucks may, in most cases, pick up and transport section 416 foods if they wish to do so. PACKAGING Most section 416 commodities will be available only in large containers. Any repackaging that is necessary must be done by the receiving agency. Repackaging, of course, must be carried out in full compli- ance with State and local sanitation laws. AREA OFFICES, FOOD DISTRIBUTION PROGRAMS BRANCH, PRODUCTION AND MARKETING AD- MINISTRATION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Northeast area, 641 Washington Street, N Y¥; Connecticut, District of Columbia, Delaware, Mainc, Ma:sxchusetts, Maryland,
1950 New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Penn- sylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Vir- ginia. For metropolitan area, New York City, 90 Church Street. Midwest area, 623 South Wabash Avenue, Chicago: Illinois, Indiana, Iowe, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, North Dakota, Nebras- ka, Ohio, South Dakota, Wisconsin. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Western area, 30 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco: Arizona, California, Idaho, Mon- tana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, Wyoming. Southwest area, 101 Norman Building, Dallas: Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas, Louisi- ana, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Texas. 2821 Southeast area, 449 West Peachtree Street NE, Atlanta: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Ken- tucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia. Honolulu, T. H., 418 Dillingham Building: Hawai. San Juan, P. R., P. O. Box 4849: Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands. UNrrep STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, PRODUCTION AND MARKETING ADMINISTRATION ORDER FOR SECTION 416 COMMODITY i 1 State 2. Agency order No. 3 Name of commodity 4 Quantity (number and size units): 5. Origin of commodity 6. Consignee 7. Via §. Send colloct wire notice of shipment to (Fill in only if desired) 9. Number of persons and quantity for commodities requested ee ee ee ee meee en ee nee enn e nen eewenes Number persons Quantity (Name) Sle) ds eer snmoner corse soc sencreesorooroeo"" (street and number). Institutions....000.22----- | oe ee eee cece eee ne [open cern en cece ene ceneneeccce CN i es en soowereeneeeeeeres (city) eee State) |) Welfate. cee eeeeeeeeeee |eceeecceceesececcececcneccecs:|eocecececececeeceeececencsceee a A The undorsigned, belng duly authorized to act for and on behalf of the helow-named agency, hereby requests and agrees to accept the commodity under the terms and con- ditions on the reverse hereof, and in the quantity and at the orlgin shown above under the terms and conditions of allocation No, ..- 22 eeeeeeeaes seen cece nee eee 10. Name of agency. ..------------- --- o-oo nen ree en een ne nn tenn en nen nner en econ enn n nen e enn neem ener n ene n enn e rn ence mene nent e ween memes eee neers cennneecnwennnees 11, Agency representative’s signature ......-.------------ cee 13 Approved for USDA—CCC. TITIS SPACE FOR USDA~-CCC ONLY 14 Date. ~— 15 Order void if undelivered by: Sa nn ee UE nv npr ann nnn gE enema The agency ordering the commodity spect- fled on the face hereof agrees to the follow- ing terms and conditions regarding its re- ceipt, handling, distribution, and/or use. 1, Expenditures for tood will not be reduced because of receipt of such food commodities. 2. The commodity will only be distributed to eligible participants for their consumption and will not be sold, traded, or otherwise disposed of. 83. All costs incurred subsequent to the transfer of title at the CCC point of storage will be promptly paid upon proper presenta- tion by claimants. Such costs will include, but are not neces.arily limited to the cost of transportation, special protective services, and handling charges. 4. Assumes entire responsibility for the adequate handling, storing, repackaging, distribution, and/or use of the commodity so that it will, insofar as practicable, be con- sumed by eligible participants. The SPEAKER, The time of the gen- tleman from Massachusetts has expired. EXTENSION OF REMARKS Mr. JENNINGS asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the Appendix of the Recorp. . Mr. MASON asked and was given per- mission to extend his remarks in the Recorp and include an article by David Lawrence. THE COAL SITUALION Mr. MILLER of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to ad- dress the House for 1 minute and to re- vise and extend my remarks. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Nebraska? There was no objection. Mr. MILLER of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, personally I am glad that the House is meeting today. We folks from the Midwest, 1,500 miles from Washing- ton, like to stay here at work. The work completed to date is not very imposing. I listened very intently to the colloquy between the gentleman from Massachu- setts [Mr. McCormack! and the gentle- man from South Dakota [Mr. Case]. I must confess it reminded me of a patient I was treating at one time for cancer of the stomach, and he came to me com- plaining about a pimple on his nose. We ought to hold a meeting. There is work to be done. Let the leadership hasten the job so Members of Congress can go home and give the country a rest. HON. FRANCIS CASE Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to ad- Gress the House for 1 minute and to re- vise and extend my remarks, The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Massachusetts? There was no objection. Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, although I am here today at considerable personal sacrifice, I am ex- tremely glad that the gentleman from South Dakota {[Mr. Casr] insisted that we come here. The feeling has been so very intense because nothing was done about the coal strike that I, for one, am very glad to be here in case something could have been done. There has not only been great discomfort because of lack of coal but illness and real suffering. I understand the gentleman from South Dakota [Mr. CASE] a week or more ago had introduced a bill that might have settled the coal strike if action had been taken. I would like to commend him for his tireless work since he has become a Member of this Congress, I was a Mem- ber when he first came here. Step by step he has progressed in usefulness un- til he has reached great stature in the House. He spent endless time in study- ing parliamentary procedure until he has become an expert parliamentarian, and he has been a very valuable member of the Committee on Appropriations. He is highly respected for his great integrity and sincerity, and he has been very helpful whenever he could be. He has been deeply interested in all veterans’ and other problems in which I am espe- cially concerned. The SPEAKER. The time of the gentlewoman from Massachusetts has expired, THE COAL STRIKE Mr. SABATH., Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 1 minute, and to revise and extend my re- marks.