2520 amendment. We are reaching out. We do not have any standard, any guide, any yardstick, except what we have here. The President’s board frankly admits that this report constitutes only a par- tial analysis. We are trying to organize an effective agency without knowing what any foundation or other agency is going to do. Now, what is our situation with regard to scientists? ‘The Department of Na- tional Defense advised me, according to their latest figures they have for Russia, those for 1949, and this includes, ap- parently, all higher education, they have a pool of 450,000 specialists and 218,000 engineers, and also 232,000 teachers, doc- tors, and health officers. I understand that some of the latter group probably are scientists. That ought to give us something to pause and think about. How did we stand here? I pointed out yesterday that because of the war we went back from 2,034 graduate Ph. D.’s in 1941 to 833 in 1945. We have come back slowly; 948 in 1946, 1,464 in 1947, 1,947 in 1948, and 2,320 last year. It is expected that this figure will stay about there, because our GI educational pro- gram is diminishing. ‘That is, unless we have this bill as a lew. Turning to those receiving engineering degrees: In 1941, 17,800; in 1949, 45,000; in 1950, an estimate of 50,000. That is encouraging. But consider the esti- mates for 1951 and 1952. A drop of 13,000 in 1951 to 37,000. A drop of an- other 9,000 in 1952 to 28,000. Almost half. How about bachelors of science: 28,000; 1950, 42,000; 1951, 44,000. After that, what? Another trend downward. I repeat, unless we have this bill as a law and an effective foundation functioning. I do not have the information as to what they did in Russia, although I am searching for all I can obtain that is not classified security data. But Soviet Russia went into a 5-year program in 1947, and this is 1949. Under that program the Defense Department said Russia was reported to be producing 140,000 engineers and scientists each year. We are producing 80,320. That is 140,000 against 80,320. If they suc- ceed in Russia, that will be 700,000 by 1952. Unless we act in this body we will have trained a little over half that number—about 400,000. Are we willing to take the awful re- sponsibility of disregarding the meas- ured recommendation of the National Defense Department in its report filed December 30 last: They— The Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force— are also supporting the proposed legislation for a National Science Foundation. 1849, Does anyone dare suggest that General Bradley, General Collins, Admiral Sher- man, General Cates, and General Van- denberg would approve such a flat rec- ommendation without knowing the text of the bill which passed the other body in May 1948 by a vote of 79 to 8, or without knowledge of the contents of this bill as reported by our committee more than 6 months before that report of the Na- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE tional Defense Department? Are we willing to discard the intelligent testi- mony in support of this bill since Dr. Vannevar Bush undertook the difficult task in November 1944 to prepare a re- port on the postwar science program? Does not his brilliant report of July 1945, Science: The Endless Frontier, count as any evidence for us? Are we to brush aside the testimony of Dr. Bronk, presi- dent of Johns Hopkins University, and Chairman of the National Research Council, when he warns us: I need not remind you that certain poten- tial enemies of this country are fully aware of the power of science in their efforts for military strength and military power. And adds: Because of that consideration alone I take it that a National Science Foundation is of the utmost importance to the Nation and to the security of the Nation. I beg that you read the short 312-page statement by Dr. Karl T. Compton at page 112 of the hearings, when he testi- fied as the representative of the National Military Establishment, as Chairman of the Research and Development Board, and as president of M. I. T. Read the searching questions of my colleagues of the subcommittee and his revealing answers. Recall his magnificent record in the war before you close your mind to his advice. Then please read the six-paragraph letter on page 142 of the hearings dated March 30, 1949, and signed by the chair- man of the committee on science legisla- tion of the Engineers Joint Council, in company with scientists from California Institute of Technology, Johns Hopkins University, Carnegie Institute of Tech- nology, University of Nlinois, New York University College of Medicine, Univer- sity of Minnesota, University of Colo- rado, and by Mr. Robert E. Wilson, chairman of the board, Standard Oil Co. of Indiana. Then look at the list inserted by my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Wotverton], on February 27 at pages 2409 and 2410 of scientific or- ganizations, educational and research institutions, national organizations, Gov- ernment officials, and outstanding scien- tists and Americans stated to be in support of this proposal. Among the individuals, I call your attention to the late Gen. Hap Arnold; President Conant, of Harvard; President Doherty, of Carnegie Institute of Technology; Dean Hammond, School of Engineering, the Pennsylvania State College; Dean Saville, of the College of Engineering, New York University; Dr. Oppenheimer, Director of the Manhattan project; Dr. Urey, University of Chicago; Dr. Smyth, Princeton University; of President Day, Cornell University; of Dean Blake, Yale School of Medicine; of Dr. Sinnott, Shef- fleld Scientific School, Yale University; Dr. Stanley, Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research; President Carmichael, Tufts College; of President Stearns, Uni- versity of Colorado; of Chancellor Gus- tavson, University of Nebraska; and of Rev. J. C. S. O'Donnell, president of Notre Dame University. Finally, I hope you will just look at the brief quotation from the unanimous FEBRUARY 28 report and recommendation of the 12 commissioners of the so-called Hoover Commission filed with Congress on March 25, 1949, which I placed in the Recorp for February 27 at pages 2420 and 2421. Does all this overwhelming evidence count as nothing in our serious consider- ation of this problem? We have had two full sessions and undoubtedly will not reach a vote tonight. I hope that what the members of the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee have been trying to do in expressing their sup- port of and their reasons for supporting this legislation will enable each of you to understand this complex and intri- cate problem. I am confident that the bill will pass by a substantial majority. If my efforts have contributed anything toward a decision on the part of any of you which will be satisfactory to you in years to come, I shall be more than repaid. I hope that no one of us will approach the vote, perhaps on next Thursday, without a more complete un- derstanding of the problem and of the solution recommended, so that our votes can reflect our mature and considered judgment as to what I believe to be one of the most challenging and, even, fright- ening situations which has ever con- fronted our Nation. In terms of its se. curity and in terms of its future eco- nomic welfare and development, in terms of the continued improved health of its people, I sincerely hope that al] those of you who have any doubts at this mo- ment can resolve them in favor of this legislation when we discuss it again either tomorrow or on Thursday. Under permission I received in the House, I now include three significant tables for your consideration. I call your particular attention to the marked dif- ference between expenditures in 1947 in the War and Navy Departments for basic research and for applied research and development. I am informed that there is not a very substantial variation in the situation as of this time. Taste II—The national research and devel« opment budget 1947* (excluding atomio energy) {In millions] Expenditures tn 1047 Agency Total Applied Basic research 1. and research dovelop- ment Total_...2...--.------ $1, 160 $110 $1, 050 Federal Government-...-. 625 55 570 Warand Navy Depart- ments .. ...--------- 500 35 465 Other departments._... 125 20 105 Industry_. 450 10 440 University. 4h 8h 10 Other....-. 40 10 30 Total | and Other Navy Total.......--....-.---- $625 $500 $125 Government laboratories. .... 200 100 100 Industrial and university Jaboratories on contracts. ..- 425 400 35 "Bee appendix II for sources of estimates,
1950 TasLe IlI.—National research and develope ment budget for 1957 {In millions] Pro- “ne of 2 1 portion Type of activity Amount of total budget Basle researen..---.---------eee-e> $440 20 Health and redieal research 700 14 Nonmilitary development. 1, 600 44 Military development.-.. 500 22 Federal research expenditures, by agency, fiscal year 1947 [In thousands} ————— Expenditures Agency Percent of Amount total ec | Grand total....-..-..2.-.--- $623, 930 100.0 Navy Department. .... --| 262, 000 42.0 War Department.... 0 -- ~| 237,000 3h 0 Agriculture Department. . . 31, 328 50 Interior Department .------ - 80, 358 4.9 National Advisory Committee for . , Aeronautics... 0 ------ +--+ ee 27, 000 4. 3 Federal Security Agency. 14, 236 21 Commerce Deputinent ..------- 10, 494 17 Federal Loan Agency (RFC)....- 4, 499 3 Ke ssee Valley Authority_...--- 3, (fed aH Veterans! Administration. - 2, 528 4 Federal Works Ageney- 622 ol Smithsonian Institutioa -- 309 Q) Treasury Department - 220 () Federal) Communications Com- mission... -.----- we ares 200 (1) Manitime Commission. ..--...---- 87 (1) 1 Loss than 0 05 percent I also think it would be useful to my colleagues to have before them the sur- vey of research and development units of the Federal Government and I call your attention to the fact that this list is suggestive, not inclusive. Consider the fact that it is reported that approximate- ly 90 percent of the national military defense work in this fleld is let by con- tract rather than done in our Federal laboratories and I am sure you will un- derstand why the committee wanted to provide flexibility so far as our national defense over-all program is concerned: APPENDIX I RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT UNITS OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT? AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT Office of Experiment Stations: Stations in United States, Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico. Bureau of Animal Industry, Bureau of Dairy Industry. Bureau of Plant Industry, Soils, and Agri- cultural Engineering. Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quaran- tine. Bureau of Human Nutrition and Home Economics. Bureau of Agricultural and Industrial Chemistry: Northern Laboratory, Southern Laboratory, Eastern Laboratory, Western Laboratory. Agricultural Research Center (Beltsville). The Forest Service: Forest Products Lab- oratory. Soll Conservation Service. Production and Marketing Administration. Farm Credit Administration. COMMERCE DEPARTMENT National Bureau of Standards. Civil Aeronautics Administration. 1 The difficulties of inclusion and exclusion for any Ist of this type are considerable. The list is suggestive, not definitive. Weather Bureau. Coastal and Geodetic Survey. Office of Technical Services. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Mines, Bureau of Reclamation. Fish and Wildlife Service. Geological Survey. National Park Service. FEDERAL SECURITY AGENCY United States Public Health Service: Na- tional Institute of Health. St. Elizabeths Hospital. Food and Drug Administration. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY Operating Divisions. NAVY DEPARTMENT Office of Naval Research: Planning Divi- sion, Naval Research Laboratory, Special De- vices Center, Underwater Sound Reference Laboratory. Office of Chief, Naval Operations: Naval Observatory, Hydrographic Office, Operational Development and Evaluation. Bureau of Ships: Electronics Division, Re- search and Standards Section, David W. Tay- lor Model Basin, Navy Electronics Laboratory, Naval Engineering Experiment Station, Navy Underwater Sound Laboratory, Navy Code and Signal Laboratory, Naval Boiler and Tur- bine Laboratory, Material Laboratory, Indus- trial Test Laboratory, Navy Mine Counter- measure Station. Bureau of Aeronautics: Engineering Divi- sion, Humm Laboratory, Naval Aeronautics Laboratory, Naval Air Experimental Station, Naval Air Test Center, Naval Air Missile Test Center, Naval Air Material Center. Bureau of Yards and Docks: Planning and Design Department. Bureau of Ordnance: Research and Devel- opment Division, Naval Ordnance Laboratory, Naval Ordnance Development Unit, Naval Ordnance Test Station, Naval Aviation Ord- nance Test Station, Point Mugu Spectat Weapons Center. Bureau of Medicine and Surgery: Research Division, Medical Field Research Laboratory, Medical Research Department, Naval Insti- tute of Tropical Medicine, Naval Medical Re- search Institute. UNITED STATES ARMY TECHNICAL SERVICES Chemical Corps: Edgewood Arsenal, Camp Detrick, Dugway Proving Ground, San Jose project. Medical Department: Army Medical Cen- ter, Army Industrial Hygiene Laboratory, Army Institute of Pathology, Medical De- partment Field Research Laboratory, Medl- cal Nutrition Laboratory, Veterinary Research Laboratory. Ordnance Department: Aberdeen Proving Ground, Detroit Tank Arsenal, Frankford Ar- senal, Picatinny Arsenal, Research and De- velopment, Fort Bliss Suboffice, Research and Development, Pasadena Suboffice, Rock Island Arsenal, Springfield Armory, Submar- ine Mine Depot, Watertown Arsenal, Water- viiet Arsenal, White Sands Proving Grounds. Quartermaster Corps: Climatic Research Laboratory, Jeffersonville Depot, Philadelphia Depot, Quartermaster Food and Container Institute for Armed Forces. Signal Corps: Coles Signal Laboratory, Evans Signal Laboratory, Squier Signal Lab- oratory, Army Electric Standards Agency. Corps of Engineers: A. P. Hill Military Reservation, Wright Field, Yuma _ Test Branch, Fort Churchill, Fort Story, Fort Belvoir. Transportation Corps. NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON AERONAUTICS Langley Memorial Aeronautical Labor- atory. Ames Aeronautical Laboratory. Flight Propulsion Research Laboratory. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE o 2521 SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION Research Divisions. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION Research Division. FEDERAL WORKS AGENCY Public Roads Administration. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Engineering Department. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts has again expired. Mr. PRIEST. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment to the amendment. I have not checked with all members of the subcommittee. I have checked with the members on this side, and as chairman of the subcommittee I am will- ing to accept the Harris amendment limiting the appropriation to $15,000,- 000. I think it is well that we limit the appropriation for the reasons that the genticman from Arkansas stated. Then the Foundation may come back before the Iegislative committee for additional authorizations 3 or 4 years from now, if necessary. I do feel it would be a great mistake to accept the amendment of- fered by my good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. HESELTON]. I feel certain that he is very sincere in offering the amendment, because he is sincere in all the work that he does on the committee. I believe the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Harris] stated one of the very impelling reasons, as I see it, why we should not accept the amend- ment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts, limiting this appropria- tion to $1,000,000. If this Foundation is to do the job that I hope, and I believe the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. HESELTON] hopes it will do, it must at- tract men of high caliber in the realms of scientific education and research throughout this country. We expect that it will do so; that they will be willing to give their time to the Foundation and to give their time to the executive com- mittee of that Foundation toward de- veloping the program. I feel very strong- ly, and I have heard some comments in that respect in the last few days, that if we limit this appropriation initially to $1,000,000, there will not be enough con- fidence in the continuation of the pro- gram to attract the type of men that we want. We passed a bill providing for a Na- tional Science Foundation in the Eight- feth Congress, without any limitation whatsoever on the appropriation. It was a wide-open authorization, such as orig- inally was contained in this bill, that such funds as may be necessary for car- rying out the program of the foundation are hereby authorized to be appropriated. Mr. HESELTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. PRIEST. I yield. Mr. HESELTON, I thank the gentle- man for his kind remarks about my hop- ing that this bill would be enacted. I said I would vote for it, whatever the out- come of this amendment. But fs it not true that in other sections of the bill we provide for transfers, which, as I indi- cated could go to the extent of $15,000,- 000 in the national defense alone, so that
2522 the program could actually ect under wey? Would it not be better for us to take this 1 year at a time and try to get a dcfinite program before our committee and bcfore the House which we under- stand and of which we approve, before we bind ourselves to the $15,000,000 open-end authorization? Mr, BIEMILLER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. PRIEST. I yleld to the genitle- man from Wisconsin. : Mr. BIEMILLER. May I observe that if we are to rely on subsection (h), as the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. HESELTON] is suggesting that funds may only be transferred for the specific pur- pose for which they have previously been appropriated. We have testimony before us on the part cf the military estab- lishment, in the committee hearings, that they do not have funds for the basic re- search, for which the National Science Foundation 1s intended. Mr. PRIEST. I will yield again, and then I would like to have just 1 minute. Mr. HESELTON. That is true, but I do not believe my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Diemi.ter] or my friend, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Prigst], or anybody rcally believes that we are going to be able to get the fellowship and scholarship program un- der way next September. The earliest we can do it, in my opinion, will be the following September, when we will need more money. But no one knows how much. Mr, McCORMACK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. PRIEST. I yield. Mr McCORMACK. I am sorry the gentleman from Tennessee |Mr. Priest! has agreed to accept the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Herais], because I think a limita- tion of $15,000,000 is too low. Yesterday the gentleman said we would level off at about $25,000,000; but in view of the fact that the subcommittee has agrecd to ac- cept it, I naturally will go along. How- ever, I do hope that the amendment of- fered by the gentleman from Massachu- setts [Mr. HESELTON]) and there is no hos- tility about his amendment, because he has evidenced that from the floor—I hope that will not be agreed to, because I think it would have a very crippling effect. I say that descriptively and advisedly, be- cause he has no such intention, I know, although it would have a very crippling effect upon the operation of the National Science Foundation. Reluctantly I will go along with the amendment offered by the gentieman from Arkansas [Mr. Har- RIs}] in view of its acceptance by the Chairman of the Subcommittee. Mr. HESELTON. Will the gentleman yield briefly that I may make a reply to my good friend, the majority leader? Mr. PRIEST. I yield briefly to the gentleman to answer. Mr. HESELTON. Apparently, the majority leader does not recall that the budget carries $1,000,000 for 1951. Mr. McCORMACK. I may say to my friend from Massachusetts that the gen- tleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Mc- Cormack] is aware of it. My recollec- tion is that it was $500,000 for 1950. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Mr. HESELTON. And for 1951 it was $1,600,000. Mr. McCORMACK, Iam aware of the situation, but we are epproaching this from the wrong angle. The effect of my friend’s amendment, if adopted, would be to have the National Science Foundation established for 2 years, the first year at $500,000 and the next at $1,- 000,000; then they would have to come back for additional legislation on the part of the Congress. I believe that is a Situation that should not exist. I rec- ognize the argument that there should be a limitation, but in my opinion if a limitation is put on it should be $25,000,- 000. I will, of course, go along with the $15,000,000, but the further restriction is too much. Mr. PRIEST. Mr. Chairman, I hope very much that the amendment cffered by my friend from Massachusetts to the Harris amendment will be defeated. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Tennessee has expired. Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentle- man’s time be extended for three addi- tional minutes because of the many in- terruptions that have taken place. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts? There was no objection. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Tennessee is recognized for three additional minutes. Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. PRIEST. I yield. Mr. GROSS. We have saved $10,000,- 000 at one stroke by waiting one 24-hour period. I rise to ask the gentleman if it would not be well to adjourn now to see {/f we could not save another $10,- 000.000 at another stroke. Mr. PRIEST. The rentleman refers to the fact, of course, that on yesterday I stated that the ultimate cost was esti- mated to be about $25,000,000. For the time being an amendment has been ac- cepted by the chairman of the subcom- mittee to place a limitation of $15,C00,- 000. The bill will have to come up for consideration again within 3 or 4 years, for review by the committee which re- ports this legislation, review of what the Foundation has done and proposes to do, for the committee to give it a look and decide whether or not we should raise that ceiling, or lower it, or just what should be done. I yield to the author of the pending amendment. Mr. HARRIS. Is it not a fact that in the course of the debate yesterday on this proposed legislation, one of the greatest fears expressed was that there would be no limitation whatsoever? We now propose to place a limitation in the bill for the simple reason that it is ex- pected that the Foundation will have to come back to Congress and give an accounting of their actions. Mr. PRIEST. The gentleman is cor- rect. May I say that as chairman of the subcommittee I accept this action because I believe there ts a very strong feeling on the part of the Members that there should be some sort of limitation. FEBRUARY 28 I took a strong position yesterday on the floor in support of the $25,000,000 and would continue it except that in the in- terest of harmony and in the interest of agreeing with my good friend from Arkansas and others who belleve very strongly that some reasonable limitation should be in the bill, I am willing to ac- cept the Harris amendment; but I do hope we will not accept the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massa- chusetts to the Harris amendment. Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, I offer a preferential motion. The Clerk read as follows: Mr. RANKIN moves that the Committee do now rice and report the bill back to the House with the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken out. Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, this is not only one of the most useless but one of the most dangerous propositions, in my opinion, of its kind that has ever come before the Congress. Instead of creating more foundations, we need to get rid of some foundations that are now being used for proparanda purposes, that are now being used to un- dermine and destroy our Government, as well as to undermine and destroy the American way of Hfe. I know one of the men who has been one of the chief forces behind this thing, Harlow Shapley of Harvard University, I know he belongs to a half dezen or a dozen Communist-front organizations. We had him before the Committee on Un-American Activities and brought that information out. I understand he and his group expect to pick the personnel of this foundation if this bill passes. We know another thing, that a large number of the colleges of America today have on their teaching staffs men draw- ing pay from other sources, and many of them are spreading communistic propa- ganda all the way from Massachusetts probably to Mississippi and from Texas to Maine. Mr. Chairman, this is not the time to set up an organization of this kind. America has made the greatest progress any nation ever saw. How Las that been done? By that independent freedom, if you please, that we now enjoy. Suppose you had this aggregation 80 years ago, Thomas A. Edison, the greatest inventive genius of the ages, could not have got an audience with them. Suppose you had this crowd in com- mand 150 years ago, do you think Eli Whitney, the man who invented the cot- ton gin and revolutionized the irdustry of America, could have got an audience? No. You are taking out of the hands of many of our colleges, out of the hands of our military, out of the hands of our de- fense forces, if you please, the very pow- ers that they need and are turning them over to a gang of professors, many of whom you will find are affiliated with Communist-front organizations. I cannot support this measure under any circumstances, and for that reason I have asked for this time in order that I might give the reasons why I think this measure is dangerous and should be defeated.
1950 Mr. CHURCH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. RANKIN. I yield to the gentle- man from Illinois. Mr. CHURCH. This can cost, accord- ing to their own admission, $50,000,000 or more, when it gets through the other body and therefore that much more in taxes. Is not the gentleman familiar with the fact that industry after indus- try, small industry and large industry, throughout the United States is begging for less taxes so that they might be able to do their own research work? Mr. RANKIN. Why, certainly. Here you are just burdening the American people with taxes to set up a dangerous organization that if the American people knew what it is, and what is behind it, would be against it almost to a man. Mr. FULTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. RANKIN. I yield to the gentle- man from Pennsylvania. Mr. FULTON. The gentleman inter- ests me with his comment about Dr. Harlow Shapley. Did the gentleman ask the chairman of the committee just what part he might have had in this matter? Mr. RANKIN. I was already familiar with that, sir, or I would not have brought his name into the discussion. If the gentleman will look at the record, he will find Dr. Shapley is one of the chief supporters behind this proposition, and if the gentleman will go to the records of the Un-American Activities Committee, he will find that Dr. Shapley is a member of some of the most dangerous Commu- nist-front organizations in America. The measure should be defeated. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Mississippi has expired. Mr. PRIEST. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the preferential motion. Mr. Chairman, I would like once and for all time to make a very brief state- ment as to the background of this legis- lation. My friend from Mississippi [Mr. Rankin] mentioned Harlow Shapley, of Harvard University. All I know about the man he mentioned is that he is a member of that faculty, a scientist. The first connection I had with this legislation dates back to the year 1945 shortly after the end of the war, when Dr. Vannevar Bush called me, the dis- tinguished gentleman from Arkansas {Mr. Mi.us], Senator MacNnuson, the gen- tleman from Kentucky, Mr. CHAPMAN, now a Member of the other body, and several others out to his apartment and asked us to go with him into the possi- bilities of the establishment of a National Science Foundation. I never heard of Dr. Shapley and any connection he had with this bill until a few months ago when the claim was made that he was one of the instigators. I might say this, that in all the hearings before the committee—and I have here the hearings held during the last ses- sion of the Congress, and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. BIEMILLER] has a volume of hearings on a previous bill in another session of the Congress, the professor from Harvard has never ap- peared before the committee; he has never signed a communication to the committee expressing any interest what- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE soever in this legislation. Now, I state that as a matter of record. As an Amer- ican citizen he had a right to appear if he wanted to, of course, but he never asked to appear. Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. PRIEST. I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas. Mr. HARRIS. Is it not a fact that this legislation originated with President Roosevelt asking Dr. Vannevar Bush in 1941 to make a thorough and complete study and to report to him and to the Congress as to the need for such legisla- tion, and that a study was under way for about 4 years before the submission of that report in 1945 from which this legislation came? Mr. PRIEST. That is quite correct. And, I might say again to my colleague from Arkansas that his own colleague, the gentleman from Arkansas I[Mr. Miuts] introduced the first National Science Foundation bill that was ever in- troduced in the House of Representatives, and I do not believe that the gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. WILBUR MILLS, knew anything about any pernicious influences at the time. Mr. HARRIS, And based on the re- port that had several years of study, which was submitted. Mr. PRIEST. Exactly. Mr. HESELTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. PRIEST. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts. Mr. HESELTON. I just want to call the attention of the committee to the fact that the National Defense Estab- lishment on December 30, 1949, had this to say in its report: ‘‘They,” meaning the military department ‘‘are also sup- porting the proposed legislation for a National Science Foundation.” We reported this bill 6 months be- fore, on June 14, 1949. Coming from Massachusetts I want to say that there is no shred of evidence—and I do not know this man, Shapley—there is not a shred of evidence that Karl Compton, ex-president of M. I. T. and a sponsor and a witness before our committee, or President Conant of Harvard University, the director of the Sheffield Scientific School at Yale University, and literally scores of others, prominent Americans, including Gen. “Hap” Arnold, of the Air Force, are inclined to support any Communist-inspired legislation in this House. Mr. PRIEST. Or Mr. Forrestal, or the Disabled American Veterans. I could go on and name one after another, that I believe would be convincing. Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, the armed forces throught that this would be set up inside of the armed forces, Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, will the gen- tleman yield? Mr. PRIEST. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia. Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I have had some misgivings about this bill, but I think it due the gentleman now having the floor that it be said of him that he conducted a very fair hearing, a very thorough hearing, and filed a magnifi- 2523 cent report. Mr. Chairman, I am voting for this bill, gambling upon the proposi- tion of Dr. Vannevar Bush being named Director. Mr. PRIEST. I thank my good friend from Georgia. And, I might add, while on the floor, and make it a matter of record, that there is not a person in the country that I would sooner see head of this Foundation than Dr. Vannevar Bush. I join the gentleman in wishing that he might be named head of the Foundation. Mr. BIEMILLER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. PRIEST. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin. Mr. BIEMILLER. I think we also ought to have the record show that among the corporations which appeared before the committee backing the Na- tional Science Foundation were repre- sentatives of such organizations as Standard Oil Co. of Indiana, the Sperry Gyroscope Co., and also the National As- sociation of Manufacturers. Mr. HESELTON. If the gentleman will yield, I should like to mention one more name: The Rev. J. C. 8. O’Donnell, president of Notre Dame University. Mr. JAVITS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. PRIEST. I yield to the gentleman from New York. Mr. JAVITS. May I ask the gentleman whether, in view of the fact that we have heard that an atomic explosion has taken place in the U. 8, 8. R., he can con- ceivably justify such complacency as the movant has shown in his remarks before the committee, we dare not in the in- terests of security or of economic progress be left behind in the onward progress of science of which basic re- search is the Foundation. Mr. PRIEST. I hope, Mr. Chairman, that this preferential motion will be voted down. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the preferential motion offered by the gentleman from Mississippi. The motion was rejected. Mr. PRIEST. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on the Heselton amendment to the Harris amendment close in 10 minutes. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Tennessee? There was no objection. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog- nizes the gentleman from Wisconsin LMr. KEEFE]. Mr. KEEFE. Mr. Chairman, there is @ matter in connection with this pro- posed limitation on appropriations that I think ought to come to the attention of the Congress that has not been dis- cussed by any member of the committee up to date. Regardless of whether or not a maximum limitation is written into this bill, the Congress always has the right and the opportunity to exam- ine into every budgetary estimate that is submitted, which must come annually before the Appropriations Committee, first, and then before the Congress. I can say to you that, in my humble opinion, whether there is a limitation on the amount of ultimate appropriation
2524 in this bill or not, the committee that is formed under the provisions of this bili would have to justify thoroughly any expenditure they might make before the proper Subcommittee on Appropriations, then before the full committee, and fi- nally before the Congress itself. SoIam not too much concerned about the ques- tion of limitation except this: It has been stated repeatedly that the purpose of this bill is to insure the production of trained scientists. Is that correct, Mr. Chairman? Mr. PRIEST. It is to procure the pro- duction of trained scientists plus the conduct of basic research with those we already have. Mr. KEEFE. Plus the conduct of basic research by those who are already scien- tists and those whom you expect to train. We ran against that situation in the programs carried on by the National Institute of Health, and what did we find? We found that you could not in- duce a young man to go into a 6- or ‘-year course of study necesary to pro- vide him with the necessary education to become a trained scientist when he is constantly subjected to the annual whims or caprices of Congress as to whether funds will be provided to carry on that fellowship when originally granted. So the subcommittee of which I am proud to be a member attempted to do something about that, and this Congress supported us when we wrote the legislation in the appropriation bill that would authorize contract authority when this man is selected to take training so that he could be assured that he would not have his training interfered with and cut off at the end of any fiscal year, and that he could go on and complete the training. If you reduce the over-all authoriza- tion to the point where you say that it is $1,000,000, as a psychological matter it would be a great deterrent to the recruit- ment of young men and young women into the field of scientific learning and education to be the ones to carry on this basic research program. I sincerely think while the motive of my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts is good, the psychological effect would be to de- feat one of the very important purposes of this legislation. Mr. WOLVERTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yleld? Mr. KEEFE. I yield. Mr. WOLVERTON. I call to the gen- tleman’s attention the language in para- graph (b) of page 21: Appropriations made pursuant to the au- thority provided tn subsection (a) of this section shall remain available for obligation or expenditure, or for obligation and ex- penditure, for such period or periods as may be specified in the acts making such appro- priations. Mr. KEEFE, I understand that lan- guage is there, and I presume that the hidden meaning behind the language is to take care of the very situation which I have referred to. So that when a fel- lowship is in fact established there will be sufficient funds available extended over a period of years necessary to com- plete the training to enable that trainee to complete his course. If you limit the authority to merely $1,000,000 you are CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE putting a blanket right over the heads of those who might otherwise be induced to go into training. We have had that experience in the training programs in the Public Health Service. I do not think you want to do it here if the purpose of this act or at least the major purpose is to carry on and train scientists. Mr. HESELTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. KEEFE. I yield. Mr. HESELTON. I know that the gentleman understands that we all are working under pressure here. Mr. KEEFE. Yes. Mr. HESELTON. I had hoped that by submitting this amendment I could give others and myself the opportunity to make a decision. The gentleman and my colleagues have been so persuasive I am convinced that $1,000,000 is too little. I am not convinced, however, that $15,- 000,000 is not too much. But under the circumstances, Mr. Chairman, I will ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment. Mr. KEEFE. May I say to my friend my experience on the Committee on Appropriations is that regardless of the amount of the authorization you have a pretty good scrutiny as to what is ulti- mately requested of the Congress. Do you want me to point out one example? You have had a $29,000,000 authorization for appropriations for vocational educa- tion. The Congress, up to date, under all of the pressures that have been ex- erted, has refused to appropriate more than slightly under $20,000,000 for that purpose, although the authority exists and has existed for many years to appro- priate up to $29,000,000. You do have a good secondary check when the appro- priations item comes before the Congress. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin has expired. Mr. HESELTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment I have offered. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts? Mr. CHURCH. Mr. Chairman I ob- ject. Mr. BYRNES of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the pro forma amendment. Mr. Chairman, I presume the real amendment which is now before us for consideration is the amendment of the gentleman from Arkansas, which has in effect been accepted by the commit- tee. I certainly believe it is advisable to have limitations in this bill so far as the expenditure of funds is concerned. I wonder though sometimes how much these limitations actually mean. In my short period of 5 years as a Member of the House of Representatives I have seen cases many times when we have come in with an open-handed proposi- tion and in order to make it more pal- atable to the membership we say, “Well, we will put a limitation on this so that we will be sure to keep it within bounds.” So the limitation is put in. Then within 2 years or so another bill comes in raising that Mmitation. Therefore I appreciate the words of the majority leader when he said that fundamentally this it not a program for just 1 or 2 FEBRUARY 28 years and that basically it is a long- range program. These long-range pro- grams are the ones which worry me the most because I wonder what we are committing future generations to by way of expenditure of funds for Government. I would call the attention of the House to the Recorp of February 22 in which on page 2126 appears a table pre- pared by the Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments of the other body. You will find there listed some 16 programs and the potential cost thercof, new programs or legislation proposed by the President for the fiscal year 1950-51. They set forth the in- itial cost and the astimated annual cost of these programs. It is interesting to note that the esti- mated initial cost of all of them is $7,020,000,000. I suppose maybe in some respects these programs are worth that amount of money, but let us look at what the estimated cost of the programs in full operation is: $25,187,000,000. What we are trying to do in too many of these programs is to sell ourselves on the idea that they are fine and needed and neces- sary, on the basis of the cost, which in no way has a bearing upon the actual cost of the program in full operation. In connection with this particular piece of legislation, I think it is advisable to read what the staff of the Committce on Expenditures in the Executive D2- partmernits in the other body found in connection with the National Science Foundation. They state the initial cost to be $15,000,000, when in full operation the cost will be $100,000,000. But because perhaps many of you may not have avail- able the CoNnGREssIONAL Recorp of Feb- ruary 22, I would like to read hurriediy their findings in connection with this legislation: The President estimated that an appro- priation of $2,500,000 and 812.500,000 of con- tract authority would be required to establish the organization. Sponsors of the legisla- tion creating the NSF find it difficult to fore- cast what the annual expenditure will be after the program gets under way, since there are several important intangibles to be cun- sidered, The estimate of $100,000,000 is ultracon- servative, but was supplied by the Bureau of the Budget as being the most accurate esti- mate that could be procured. The Presi- dent’s Scientific Research Board recom- mended annual appropriations of $50,000,000 for basic research, outside of the Founda- tion’s own laboratories, in the initial stages of the program, and estimates that the total annual cost of this phase of the program would exceed $250,000,000 by 1953. The cx- tent of the scholarship phase will depond on authorizations granted by Congress, und the figures shown in the summary are esti- mated to cover the present proposed prose gram. Including scholarships, research ex- penditures, and other phases of the progr: m, the total will approximate 8350,000,000 annually, So, Mr. Chairman, I wonder what the limitation really will amount to in the long run. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Byrnes] has expired. All time has expired on the Heselton amendment. The question is on the amendment of- fered by the gentleman from Massachu-
1950 setts [Mr. HEsELTON] to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hares]. The amendment to the amendment was rejected. The CHAIRMAN. The question re- curs on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Harris]. The amendment was agreed to. Mr. WADSWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment which is at the desk. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. WapswortTH: On page 2, line 16, after the word “support” insert ‘‘basic.” Mr. WADSWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I have listened with deep interest to the discussion that has taken place this af- ternoon on this bill. I cannot escape the conclusion that amongst its own sup- porters there is very little certainty as to where it goes or what field it covers. Their concepts of it seem to differ very materially. Before discussing the amendment which I have proposed, I cannot resist the temptation to make somewhat of a reply to the statement made by the gen- tleman from Wisconsin [Mr. BIEMILLER], to the effect that the Sperry Gryoscope Co. is in support of this measure. I have here a tclegram addressed to me, dated New York, February 28: I understand Mr. J. Percy Pritst has listed Sperry Gyroscope Co. as supporting H. R. 4846, through my testimony. Have not seen H. R. 4846 or the circular Mr. PrizsT is al- leged to have sent to Members of Congress. My only testimony on science legislation was given more than 4 years ago on behalf of the Aircraft Industries Association and not on behalf of any company. It was very gen- eral in character and was not in support of any bill. Mr. PRIEST. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, may I inquire if the telegram was signed by Mr. R. E. Gil- more? Mr. WADSWORTH. Yes; I should have read that: Signed by Mr. R. E. Gilmore. Mr. PRIEST. Without taking too much of the gentleman’s time, may I say that the gentleman was listed as supporting the legislation in a summary prepared by the committee of witnesses of engineering colleges at one time, al- though not now, on a bill with another number. The number of this bill was changed, for this bill is a clean bill. It was my understanding that he personally did support the legislation. Mr. WADSWORTH. He states very specifically here that he did not. I may say that I have two or three more tele- grams from representatives of institu- tions of one kind or another, whose names are included in the list of sup- porters, who deny that they have ever authorized such inclusion; but I shall not go into that at this moment. Mr. Chairman, the scientists in whom I have the greatest confidence, men like Dr. Vannevar Bush, Dr. Compton, and others, have from the beginning of this entire discussion insisted that the work of this foundation should be devoted to the encouragement of basic research. Quotations have been read to the com- mittee from statements issued by Dr. xCVI——159 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Compton and Dr. Vannevar Bush, and you will note that in those statements only basic research is referred to, and the whole plea is made by those estimable gentlemen that this legislation be passed in order that basic research be encour- aged in this country and saved from Raat might be termed ultimate extinc- on. Mr. FULTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. WADSWORTH. I yield. Mr. FULTON. I might point out to the gentleman that subparagraph (2) of section 2 reads: The Foundation is authorized and directed to initiate and support basic scientific re- search in the mathematical, physical, medi- cal, biological, engineering, and other sciences— The paragraph to which the gentleman refers is simply a limiting provision re- ferring to the Department of Defense research, Mr. WADSWORTH. I understand, 1 am coming tothat. I understand what the paragraph means, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania does not have to tell me about it. Mr. Chairman, the paragraph reads, on line 15, page 2: After consultation with the Secretary of Defense— Just what that means I doubt if any- one knows. Shall the consultation be by telephone, by mail, or in personal con- versation?— After consultation with the Secretary of Defense, to initiate and support scientific re- search in connection with matters relating to the national defense. I emphasize “matters relating to the national defense.” The efforts made by the Military Establishment tn scientific research today are by far the largest of all efforts in that ficld. As I quoted to the committee here yesterday, the armed services alone are spending at the rate of $544,000,000 in thcir research pro- grams. The Atomic Energy Commis- sion, a large measure of whose time is taken up in the interest of national de- fense with the A-bomb and the hydrogen bomb, is spending over $500,000,000 a year, True, this Foundation cannot invade the fleld of the Atomic Energy Com- mission. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York has expired. Mr. WADSWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for five additional minutes. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New York? There was no objection. The CHAIRMAN. The _ gentleman from New York is recognized for five additional minutes. Mr. WADSWORTH. Iam very grate- ful to the Members for giving me this additional time. There {s a separate institution whose headquarters are at Langley Field, Va., I believe, the National Advisory Com- mittee for Aeronautics, They are spending millions and millions of dollars in the field of national defense, and there 2525 are other institutions spending millions of dollars in the same field. Most of their activities are not in the fleld of basic research. But under this para- graph the Foundation can go into the field of applied science in any institution, governmenta! or otherwise, which is en- gaged in trying to assist the national defense. That enormously expands its field, and that particular extension of power is not mentioned to the best of my knowledge and belief in any of the communications of Dr. Vannevar Bush or Dr. Compton. As I tried to emphasize yesterday, this bill goes further than merely basic re= search, and it would not be at all sur- prising to me that if no limitation were placed on it, it would cost over $300,000,- 000 a year. I heve endeavored to find out from Dr. Vannevar Bush and Mr, Pace, Director of the Budget, what money now being expended by the mili- tary services could be transferred to the Foundation and thus no increase in ex- penditures created. I have never been able to get any assurance that there will be any saving at all—none whatsoever, The gate is left wide open here. Can anybody tell me why it would hurt the national defense or hurt the interest of basic research, which admittedly is the chief objective of this bill, to insert the word “basic” in front of the words “scien- tific research” in this paragraph? Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. WADSWORTH. I yicld to the gentleman from Arkansas. Mr. HARRIS. Is it not a fact that Dr. Vannevar Bush was director of the wartime Office of Scientific Research and Development, which was a very active organization during the war? Mr. WADSWORTH. Yes. Mr. HARRIS. Is it not a fact that in the course of the activities of that office they cooperated their organization with the national defense? yr WADSWORTH. I understand that. Mr. HARRIS. And in the interchange of those activities we had the atomic bomb come from it, is that true? Mr. WADSWORTH. My recollection is that the atomic bomb was not devel- oped under the jurisdiction of the Van- nevar Bush organization. Mr. HARRIS. Not at all, but out of this cooperation of the scientific re- search program and the national defense. Mr. WADSWORTH. Yes, but that is a separate organization. Mr. HARRIS. Is it not a fact that if in the case of emergency they had this interchange of activities it certainly might be very helpful? Mr. WADSWORTH. I cannot under- stand why people should say this thing fs solely for basic research and insist on multiplying its field of operations five or six times beyond basic research. Mr. HARRIS. Only in the case of our national defense, Mr. WADSWORTH. It does not say “in the event of an emergency.” For example, the Air Force js experimenting with guided missiles. It may be that part of their experimentation may he termed basic research under the terms
2526 of this bill, if properly interpreted in paragraph 2. That basic research could be taken away from the Air Force but the applied science, the experiments with the missiles that are going on by the hundreds every month, must stay with the Air Force. The same with the Navy’s program, which is exceedingly broad. Their program now contains certain ele- ments of basic research. I have never been able to find from scientists how much basic research is done proportion- ately in these military efforts as com- pared with applied science. I am sure we do not want this body to take charge of applied science in all the military services. My amendment is to clarify the purposes of this bill which are thus far clothed in confusion. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York has again expired. Mr. HINSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Idoso reluctantly, as no Member of this House wants to take on the very able and dis- tinguished gentleman from New York, whose judgment we so highly respect. In connection with his amendment, let me call attention to the fact, first, that the only exception to the general limita- tions to basic research that is contained in the bill is that which relates to the National Defense Establishment. The gentleman from New York would have us place words in subsection (3) on page 2 which would limit the work done for the Secretary of Defense and the Na- tional Defense Establishment to basic research only. I would like to call the attention of the members of the committee to another page, page 19, subsection (h) where it Says: Funds available to any department or agency of the Government for scientific or technical research, or the provision of facili- ties therefor, shall be available for transter, with the approval of the head of the de- partment or agency involved, in whole or in part, to the Foundation for such use as is consistent with the purposes for which such funds were provided, and funds so transferred shall be expendable by the Foundation for the purposes for which the transfer was made— And so forth. Now that, of course, limits the Foundation in expending any funds transferred to it by the National Defense Establishment to the purposes which are intended by the National De- fense Establishment. If the National Defense Establishment intends that any part of the funds shall be used for other purposes than basic research, it will so state. If it intends that the use of the funds transferred to the Foundation by the National Military Establishment shall be exclusively for the purposes of certain basic research, it will so state, and the Foundation has no power whatsoever to utilize those funds for different purposes. Now, I would like to say this: As the gentleman from New York probably is quite well aware, there are certain areas of research which are rather shadowy as between whether or not the subject is one of basic research or whether it be ap- plied research. Such research can be made, for example, into the alloys of metals. There is fundamental research, basic research to be done, in the flow of CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE metals under heat and in compression, in tension, and so forth, in the alloys in which the National Defense Establish- ment is very deeply interested and highly concerned. A part of that research is definitely in the area of basic research. Some of the research in connection therewith is not so definitely in the area of basic research, but nevertheless it is a highly scientific research which is en- gaged in ordinarily in the laboratories of the universities of the United States. As the gentleman well stated, some $540,- 000,000 per annum Is now being expended by the National Military Establishment in its three separate branches for the purpose of research. Gentlemen of this Committee, if there is anything more important to the wel- fare of the United States than the re- search of the National Military Estab- lishment, in the discovery of new basic concepts which will be for the protection of our country, I would like to know what it is. The National Defense Establish- ment, just as any other agency, is limited now by having reached the bottom of the barrel of knowledge in certain vitally im- portant categories. They must go for- ward and find new knowledge with which they may be able to develop new tech- niques for the defense of our country. I think it would be a very great mistake, indeed, not to permit the National De- fense Establishment, if it pleases to do so, and only if it pleases to do so, as is set forth in this bill, to assign to the National Science Foundation such research work as it deems necessary, and to be per- formed outside of the National Military Establishment through its general as- signment of that function as it deems fit. Mr. WADSWORTH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HINSHAW. I yield to the gentle- man from New York. Mr. WADSWORTH. Certainly the gentleman, I think, will not contend that my amendment will handicap the Na- tional Defense Establishment. Mr. HINSHAW. I think it probably would, because the National Defense Es- tablishment, before it could make any transfer of funds for its own purposes would have to make a determination that the funds so transferred were to be used solely and exclusively for and to come within the definition of basic re- search. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California has expired. Mr. HINSHAW. Mr, Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for three additional minutes. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from California? There was no objection, Mr. HESELTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HINSHAW. I yield to the gentle- man from Massachusetts. Mr. HESELTON. I call the attention of the committee to the report made by the President’s board in terms of the di- vision between basic and applied re- search, which the gentleman from New York mentioned a few minutes ago, within the War and Navy Departments in 1947, which is the latest information FEBRUARY 28 Ihave. A total of $500,000,000 was ex- pended in that year, $35,000,000 for basic and $465,000,000 for applied research. Mr. HINSHAW. I thank the gentle- man. That indicates the necessity that these agencies have for going beyond their present fleld of knowledge. Mr. KEATING. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HINSHAW. I yield to the gentle- man from New York. Mr. KEATING. Does not the gentle- man feel that it would be a desirable thing for the National Defense Estab- lishment to be required to determine that it was basic research before they turned over an activity to this fund, which is supposed to be limited to basic research? Mr. HINSHAW. The National De- fense Establishment now has the power and the funds to contract directly for re- search in or along any lines it chooses. The National Military Establishment for its own purposes might like to have a bit of research that was not exactly basic, so to speak, done outside of its own agen- cies in order, perhaps, to obtain a greater degree of a certain kind of security. There are reasons why the National Mil- itary Establishment, for its own pur- poses, might like to have the Founda- tion do certain other research. Mr. KEATING. Does the gentleman contend the security would be greater under this fund than in the National Military Establishment itself? Mr. HINSHAW. The National Mili- tary Establishment makes contracts with universities and with private establish- ments. Whenever it makes a contract with a university those engaged under that contract are well aware that it is a matter of national security. But they may wish to originate or make a con- tribution toward certain research en- deavors, the favorable results of which might well contribute to a _ solution needed in the interest of better defense. It is quite possible that a part or the whole of such research might not come exactly under the definition of basic research, Mr. RICH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HINSHAW. I yield to the gentle- man from Pennsylvania. Mr. RICH. In speaking of the Na- tional Military Establishment and the research they are doing, they can go into most any branch of research that they choose. Mr. HINSHAW. They do actually. Mr. RICH. They can and they do. They are now spending over a half mil- lion dollars a year. The gentleman talks about getting at the bottom of the bar- rel. I say to the Members of the House that you are at the bottom of the barrel financially. Setting up this organization is only going to wreck us. Mr. HINSHAW. That may be true; but in answer to that may I say that it is about time we got some more basic knowledge in the United States so we can proceed to better the life of our people and improve our national defense. Mr. PRIEST. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on the Wadsworth amendment close in 5 min- utes.
1950 Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I would like to talk directly to the amend- ment and would like some time. Mr. PRIEST. Then, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this amendment close in 10 minutes. ; Mr. CHURCH. Mr. Chairman, I ob- ect. Mr. PRIEST. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this amendment close in 15 minutes, with 4 minutes to be reserved for the committee. ; Mr. CHURCH. Mr. Chairman, I ob- ect. Mr. PRIEST. Mr. Chairman, I move that debate on the Wadsworth amend- ment close in 15 minutes. The motion was agreed to. Mr. JENNINGS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word. Mr. Chairman, the thing about this measure which alarms me is it appears to be an unnecessary costly duplication of facilities we already have. One would think we had no scientists and no laboratories and no facilities. I have been laboring under th2 impression in view of what we did in the last World War that we have an industrial system which is the envy and admiration of the world. In the great universities of this country and in connection with great industrial enterprises of the country there are scientists and research is be- ing carried on. There are men able to carry out the very work that is proposed to be carried on by this Foundation. In addition to that it is designed, in my opinion, and if you will read the bill you will see that is what it means, to mushroom and spawn and multiply and increase without end, not only in this country, but all over the world. We have one remedy for all the ills that beset us and that is to spend money and more money--money that we do not have for things we can do without and do not need. That is what we are doing. You talk about getting rid of a bureau or a bureaucrat. When have we gotten rid of a bureau and when have we evcr got- ten rid of a bureaucrat? Few of them die and none of them ever resign. I think there is implicit in this organiza- tion an effort which, if it succeeds, will take over and absorb the agencies and functions which are now being carried on by our universities and great indus- trial enterprises. We built the atomic bomb. How did we do it? Did we have a Foundation of Science? Not at all. The War Department engaged the serv- ices of 1,000 scientists, many of whom never saw Oak Ridge. They did the job. Do we know how to make an airplane? I think we do. At this time those who build our airplanes—transport planes, bombers, fighters, of all kinds—have in- stalled, are maintaining, and using air tunnels in which these planes are tested. We have facilities in which engines and guns may be tested in subzero cold. The Government and private enterprise are maintaining great laboratories and test- ing stations that are the equal if not the superior of any to be found anywhere in the world. By this agency it is proposed to set up an organization world-wide in scope the purpose of which is to foster the inter- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE change of scientific information among scientists in the United States and in foreign countries, The Hisses and the Fuchses attend to the dissernination of our most intimate secrets through their betrayal to foreign enemies and they do it at their own ex- pense. And when Senator McCarthy, of Wisconsin, seeks to further expose dis- loyal elements in the State Department, those who have under their control the evidence that would establish the guilt of those who have been faithless to their trust refuse to permit the Senator pos- session of such evidence in order that he may introduce it against those who are accused. There is such an offense in law as mis- prision of a felony, misprision of treason. What are those who are concealing these facts from the agency doing? If I un- derstand it, they are guilty of misprision of a felony, misprision of treason. We are concerned that the world will not find out what we are doing. I think if this sprawling endless bureaucracy is fastened upoi. the people of this country, no man can foretell what it will finally cost, and I will look upon it as a future harbor and dwelling place for Commu- nists and traitors in our own country and those who come to us from all corn- ers of the world. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr, JENn- ninGs] has expired. Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. The amendment offered by the gentle- man from New York [Mr. WaApswortH] proposes to insert the word “basic” at a certain point on page 2, which would clarify the scope of the bill and the au- thority of the Foundation. I have in my hand a table which was compiled by the Bureau of the Budgct as of January 1950, which lists 26 agencies of the Government which have research development funds. I am not going to take time to read all of the figures in de- tail, but the list ranges from the Atomic Energy Commission to the Treasury De- partment. It includes the proposed Na- tional Science Foundation, for $500,000. The total for this fiscal year 1951, as recommended by the Budget for research development, amounts to $1,317,223,298, If any of you are interested in the table, here it is. In connection with the Atomic Energy Commission, they have a very sizable amount, a total of $300,000,000, for re- search development. Out of that, $23,- 000,000 in 1950 and $18,000,000 in 1951 could almost be classified as basic re- search. Of the $18,000,000 which the Atomic Energy Commission is asking for 1951, approximately 10 percent, or $1,800,000, is available for fellowships. That is for basic scientific research. The balance is for farming out to universities and under various contracts for research, The National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics asks $62,600,000 in cash, and another $15,000,000 in contract authority for research projects and to be farmed out to universities—$777,500. One thing that concerns me about the language is that in addition to the lan- guage on page 19, to which the gentle- 2527 man from California (Mr. HINSHAW] di- rected attention, there is language on page 12 under the heading of General Authority of Foundation, which provides that— The Foundation shall have the authority to enter into contracts or other srrange- ments or modifications thereof for the carry=- iny on, by organizations or individuals in the United States and foreign countries, in- cluding other Government agencies of the United States and of foreign countries, of such bas.- scientific research activities and such scientific research activities 1n con- nection with matters relating to the na- tional defense as the Foundation deems necessary to carry out the purposes of this act. There is no requirement in this sec- tion that the Secretary of Defense should even be consulted. Under the language cited by the gentleman from California (Mr. Hinsuaw], the money could be transferred out of these funds I have cited, a total of $1,300,000,000, which would be expendable by this Foundation upon transfer and without appropria- tion. On its own motion this Founda- tion ought not go into national defense activities unless it does have the con- sent of the agency which is engaged in the applied research. Mr. HINSHAW. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. CASE of South Dakota. I yield. Mr. HINSHAW. The gentleman has referred to some important language on page 12, which of course is merely for the purpose of permitting the Founda- tion to assign work which is, in turn, assigned to it by the national defense establishment. It is not the intention of the committee that in the contracts which they would necessarily make with the university for basic research or any other form of research, that they could go beyond the reasons given for the transfer of funds on page 19. Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Cer- tainly, the language on page 12 is pretty broad; it does not refer to the other part of the act. It seems to be the por- tion of the bill which sets forth the pro- visions of this act governing the author- ity of the Foundation. Mr. HINSHAW. Authority to the Foundation is limited in this case to that given to the National Defense Estab- lishment. Mr. CASE of South Dakota. It does not refer to the National Defense Estab- lishment in this section on page 12. Mr. WADSWORTH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. CASE of South Dakota. I yield. Mr. WADSWORTH. May I call the gentleman’s attention to the fact that the language on page 12 authorizes these contracts to be made with foreign organ- izations and foreign citizens. Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Cer- tainly, the language on page 12 will have to be tightened up if the act is to con- form to the interpretations many have attempted to place on it. Mr. HINSHAW. Iam sure that if the gentleman would draw an amendment to satisfy his idea, the Committee would be glad to accept it, because that certainly is the intention of the Committee.
2528 Mr. CASE of South Dakota. In the meantime, I hope the amendment of- fered by the gentleman from New York is accepted. Mr. FULTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I ask you to scan the act with me for a minute By the lan- guage of section 3, subsection (1) you will notice that the Foundation is author- ized and directed (1) to develop and encourage the pursuit of a national policy for the promotion of basic rescarch and education in the sciences. Subpara- graph (2) states that it is to initiate and support basic scientific research in the mathematical, physical, medical, biolog- ical, enginecring, and other sclences. If you will then go down to subsection (3) which the gentleman from New York wishes to amend, you will note that he is trying to put the word “basic” in a sec- tion which refers to a specific application of the research. Basic, of course, within the act, is defined really as meaning foun- dation work of broad effect, but with no immediate practical application. In the first of the two subparagraphs, therefore, you have basic research, meaning broad research of a foundation character with no practical application. If that is the definition within the first two subdivi- sions, if you try to put it in the third subdvision where you are talking of a practical application, you are illogical, because you are specifically saying that when the research is in connection with matters relating to the national defense that it shall be done after consultation with the Secretary of Defense. As the bill stands now, unrestricted, it provides that the Foundation shall have broad power to consult on research; but, as has been brought out by the gentleman from California, the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York would restrict this bill on the one thing that is the most important—national defense. I therefore hope that the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York will be defeated. In the balance of the time at my dis- posal I wish to ask the chairman of the committee a question. The bill states on page 2, line 25: To foster the interchange c scientific in- formation among scientists in the United States and foreign countries. How is it intended that that shall be done? What method does the bill pro- vide? Mr. HINSHAW. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. FULTON. I yield. Mr. HINSHAW. There are certain scientific publications of general circu- lation such as the publications of the American Association for the Advance- ment of Science, and others that have international exchange between persons who are interested, mostly scientists. The publication of such things and the exchange of such information which is not classified comes under another sec- tion of the bill. It should be encouraged in order to have available to ourselves, for example, certain information which we need from abroad. Mr. FULTON. So it refers, then, only to unclassified information which can CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE be given to any country, whether behind the iron curtain or in front of the iron curtain. Mr. HINSHAW. That is quite correct. Mr. FULTON, But it does not relate in any way to information that is other- wise classified which might be given to a country that might be called one of the Atlantic Pact countries, for cxample? Mr. HINSHAW. The gentleman is thinking of the Atomic Energy Act, is he not? Mr. FULTON. In particular I am thinking of information that would otherwise be classified but might be given to an Atlantic Pact country; such information would not be given to them. There is no attempt under this act to give anything otherwise classified to any country who might be our ally? Mr. HINSHAW. Anything that is class:fied comes under the complete con- trol and authority of the Department of National Defense or under the Atomic Energy Commission, according to exist- ing law. This bill provides for classi- fication and no exchange could be had of classified material or information. Mr. FULTON. I thank the gentleman. Now, referring to page 3, line 12, under subparagraph (7) why does not the com- mittee in this sentence put a limitation as to the number when it says: To establish such special commissions as the Board may from time to time deem necessary for the purposes of this act. That would seem to me to set up un- limited bureaucracy. Mr. HINSHAW. We attempted to place in the bill certain commissions by name. When we started out to do that, we found there were so many interests that wanted to have their own special commissions and that could apply great pressure, that in order to avoid pressure and leave it in the discretion of the scientists themselves as to what commis- sions should be established, we placed it in this way. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania has ex- pired. Mr. PRIEST. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York. Mr. Chairman, I hope the amendment will be defeated. The gentleman from California [Mr. HINSHAW] already has adequately prescnted the argument from the standpoint of the committee as to why this amenament should be defeated. The term “basic” is omitted with refer- ence only to the national defense and to an agreement entered into after con- sultation with the Secretary of Defense. Let me make this statement. Sup- pose, for instance, we were at war, or sup- pose that war was very imminent and it is necessary in this Nation to utilize every possible scientific research organization in the country. I feel it should be pos- sible under a situation such as that for the Secretary of Defense, if he so desires, to request the National Science Founda- tion to engage in certain research and that certainly there should be authority in the act for it to do so without splitting hairs as to whether that research is basic or whether it is not basic, if the security and the safety of the Nation may be at FEBRUARY 28 stake and the Secretary of Defense wants it and the Foundation is able and will- ing to do it. We purposely left out “basic” in this paragraph because of our interest in providing in every possible way for this legislation to advance the programs of the national defense. Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. PRIEST. I yield to the gentle- man from South Dakota. Mr. CASE of South Dakota. In line with what the gentleman said, would there be any objection to including lan- guage on page 12 to make it conform with that which is stated on page 2, to re- quire the approval after consultation with the Secretary of Defense when the Foundation engages in general scientific and research activities? Mr. PRIEST. I certainly would not object to any language, if it is neces- sary, that would require this approval. I believe the gentleman from California set that out in his reply to the gentleman. Mr. HINSHAW. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. PRIEST. I yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. HINSHAW. In reply to the gen- tleman from South Dakota I think it would add to our defense in that partic- ular paragraph and I see no objection to it. Mr. PRIEST. I can see no objection to it because that is the intention of the committee, to make it possible if the na- tional defense so requires to usk this Foundation to do some research which might not be basic. I feel it is tre- mendously important for the Nation’s welfare that such authority be granted in this legislation. Mr. HESELTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. PRIEST. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts. Mr. HESELTON. In connection with the statement made by the gentleman from California, I call attention to the fact that in the third report of the Pres- ident’s Scientific Research Board it is explained that the cost of developments in World War II were switched com- pletely from predominance within our own Government facilities into contracts. There is this language: At present the War and Navy Departments expended over 90 percent of the funds cov- ered in contracts for research and develop= ment, Mr. PRIEST. Mr. Chairman, I hope the amendment will be voted down. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Tennessee has expired. Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present, The CHAIRMAN (after counting). One hundred forty-six Members are present, a quorum. The question is on the amendment of- fered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. WapswortH]. The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. WapswortTH) there were—ayes 57, noes 79. Mr. TABER. Mr. Chairman, I de- mand tellers, Mr.
1950 Tellers were ordered, and the Chair. man appointed as tellers Mr. WADSWORTH and Mr. Priest. The Committee again divided, and the tellers reported that there were—ayes 73, noes 94, So the amendment was rejected. Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Mr. Chair- man, I offer an amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. Smrrn of Vir- ginia: On page 20, line 21, insert a new para- graph as follows: “(1) No person shall be employed by the Foundation and no scholarship shall be awarded to any person by the Foundation unless and until the Federal Bureau of In- vestigation shall have investigated the loyalty of such person and reported to the Foundation such person is loyal to the United States, believes in our system of gov- ernment, and is not and has not at any time been a member of any organization declared subversive by the Attorney General or any organization that teaches or advo- cates the overthrow of our Government by force and violence.” Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Mr. Chair- man, for the benefit of those who were otherwise engaged and did not hear the amendment read, I want to say what it does is to require an FBI investigation as to the loyalty of students to whom these scholarships and fellowships may be given and with respect tc the employees of this Foundation. I have serious mis- givings about the whole bill itself. It isa wide-open proposition. The limitations are very few. There is one thing we all know about this bill. I have listened to the debate today and doubt if any of us know too much about it or what it means or what its implications are. There is one thing we do know about this bill. When this scientific foundation is set up it will have access to the most vital secrets of this Government. Having ac- cess to those secrets, it will be the place where every person of subversive inclina- tion and where every foreign govern- ment, friendly or unfriendly, will have a great deal of curiosity about these secrets. If there is any one place in the Federal Government where we should undertake to protect ourselves, it is in connection with the loyalty of anybody who may be connected with or may have the opportunity to get at those most vital secrets. We know we are now hav- ing litigation involving two people who have betrayed the trust imposed upon them by their government in connection with the most vital secret information. What are we doing about it? I think one of them is getting a tap on the wrist for perjury. I do not think prosecution for perjury is an adequate punishment for treason. However that may be, there is not much use in locking the barn door after the horse is stolen. What I am seeking to do is to lock the door against Com- munists, against fellow-travelers, and against foreign agents, and against any- body who does not believe in our form of government before the horse even gets a chance to be stolen. I cannot see what possible objection anybody can have to this amendment. Mr. FULTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for a question? Mr. SMITH of Virginia. I yield. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Mr. FULTON. I agree with the gentleman. But if you feel it should include anyone having any part in the program, do you not think it should be extended and made broader so that it includes all these organizations and institutions and individuals in the United States or foreign countries who are to take part in the program on re- search even though they are not students? Mr. SMITH of Virginia. I feel I have gone pretty far, and about as far as I could very well go. If you get loyal people in, then those loyal people are going to see that no other disloyal peo- ple can mess around with your secrets. To be frank with you, I just cannot understand why anybody who has read this amendment and understands what this amendment does can object to it. It is going to be said that all employees of the Federal Government are now ex- amined by the FBI. Well, that is just not correct. I have conferred with a member of the Committee on Appropria- tions who has to do with that. All the FBI does now is to receive a list of the names of proposed employees and the fingerprints of such proposed employees. They check them against what they have in their files and if nothing shows up, why, that is all there is to it. It has been suggested that we ought to cut out examining these fellows that we are go- ing to educate through these fellowships. They are going to get from the Federal Government a free education. Will somebody please explain to me why a person who is going to be educated at the expense of the taxpayers of the United States should not be loyal to the people of the United States? Somebody answer that, will you? Mr. DURHAM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. SMITH of Virginia. I yield. Mr. DURHAM. We do not require an investigation of the cadcts at An- napolis or at West Point, do we? Mr. SMITH of Virginia. No. The students at Annapolis and West Point do not have within their future grasp the secrets of the United States which these fellows who are being educated by these fellowships are going to have. That 1s the object of having the fellow- ships—it is to educate the people who go into this organization. Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. SMITH of Virginia. I yield. Mr. RANKIN. The students at An- napolis and West Point are watched and scrutinized for 4 years, and ff there is anything wrong with them they are turned out. Mr. SMITH of Virginia. That is true. Mr. JENNINGS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. SMITH of Virginia. I yield. Mr. JENNINGS. In all the long his- tory of this country has any graduate of Annapolis or West Point ever betrayed his country? Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Not to my knowledge. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Virginia has expired, Mr. PRIEST. Mr. Chairman, I am willing to accept the amendment offered 2529 by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Smita]. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentle- man from Virginia [Mr. SurrH]. The amendment was agreed to. Mr. PRIEST. Mr. Chairman, I wish to inquire how many amendments there are now on the desk. The CHAIRMAN. There are four amendments on the Clerk’s desk. Mr. PRIEST. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise. The motion was agreed to. Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed the chair, Mr. THOomM.2son, Chairman of the Com- mittee of tite Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that Commit- tee, having had under consideration the bill (H. R. 4846) to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to se« cure the national defense; and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon. EXTENSION OF REMARKS Mr PATTERSON asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the Appendix of the Recorp and include a resolution from the Lithuanian-Ameri- can Council in Waterbury, Conn, Mr. RANKIN asked and was given per- mission to extend the remarks he made and include certain excerpts from newse- papers and other publications. Mr. UNDERWOOD asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the ReEcorp in regard to hearings be- fore the House Ways and Means Com- mittee on a graduated tax on tobacco. Mr. DAVENPORT asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the Recorp in two instances and include certain extraneous matter. Mr. JONES of Missouri asked and was givcn permission to extend his remarks in the Recorp and include a newspaper article. Mr. FURCOLO (at the request of Mr, PHILBIN) was granted permission to ex- tend his remarks in the Recorp and in- clude a certain excerpt. Mr. HEFFERNAN asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the Record and include an editorial which appeared in the Brooklyn Daily Eagle. Mr. DELANEY asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the RecorD in two instances; in one to in- clude a protest against the abduction of Greek children, and in the second to in- clude the remarks of Hon. James A. Far- ley. Mr. DAGUE (at the request of Mr. Gavin) was granted permission to extend his remarks in the Recorp and include an editorial. Mr. JENNINGS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his re- marks and include extraneous matter. Mr. HESELTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend the re- marks he made in the Committee of the Whole and include certain statistica’ in- formation and extraneous matter. Mr. ELLIOTT asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the Appendix of the Recorp and include ex- traneous matter.
2530 Mr. BOYKIN asked and was given per- mission to extend his remarks in the Ap- pendix of the Recorp and include a state~ ment on the oil situation. Mr. McCORMACK asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the Appendix of the Recorp and in- clude a letter he wrote to the Secretary of State and enclosures, notwithstanding the fact it exceeds the limit established by the Joint Committee on Printing and will cost $225.50. SPECIAL ORDER GRANTED By unanimous consent, Mr. HorrMan of Michigan was given permission to ad- dress the House for 10 minutes on to- morrow and 10 minutes on March 6, fol- lowing the legislative business of the day. The SPEAKER. Under the previous order of the House the gentlewoman from Massachusetts |[Mrs. RocGers] is recognized for 20 minutes. ADMIRAL DENFELD Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts. Mr, Speaker, I learned that today in Boston Admiral Denfeld, who was ousted as Chief of Naval Operations, left the Navy Department. He left it with the admira- tion of all those in the First Naval Dis- trict and thousands of Americans. A salvo of guns was fired and every honor paid him as befitted a great naval hero. Mr. Speaker, the United States Navy and the personnel of the Navy Depart- ment owe to martyred Admiral Louis Denfeld a debt of gratitude they never can repay. Some of those who did not dare to speak for our naval security will reerct that they did not do so. If additional authorizations and ap- propriations are made to strengthen our very much weakened Navy it will be to Admiral Louis Denfeld and a few naval officers who resigned from the service in protest over what was done to Admiral Denfeld. I understand that larger ap- propriations are being made and that there will be a stronger navy in the Pacific, and that some of the things that Admiral Denfeld felt obliged to recom- mend will be adopted. The fact that the Committee on Armed Services voted 22 to 8 today, as I have been told, that the removal of Admiral Denfeld was an act of reprisal verifies what I believe and what I have said before. ARMS TO ARAB NATIONS Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts. Mr, Speaker, we have been arming other countries I believe to the detriment of our own, and at a time while we have been weakening our own defense. I wish to read into the REcorp a letter I am today sending to the Secretary of State: Hon. Dean ACHFSON, Secretary of State, Washington, D.C. My Dear SEcRETARY ACHESON’ Information has come to me that great quantities of arms, tanks, planes, and submarines are being pur- chased by Egypt and other Arab nations from Great Britain and other European coun- tries. This recent rearmament policy on the part of the Arab nations seems to have taken on a wartime tempo end appears to be much too accelerated a program merely for do- mestic security. The citizens of the little state of Israel are alarmed, as they have just cause to CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE be, in view of this situation. They are fully aware—and have made it known to Ameri- can citizens-—that the Arab leaders bluntly state, in their press and radio, that they are preparing for a second round with the Government of Israel. This is not alto- gether surprising, since the Arab nations have been reluctant to make peace treaties with the Government of Israel. Instead, the actions on the part of the Arab leaders in- dicate that they are intent on waging an- other war of revenge upon Israel. The Government of the United States was the first to recognize the independence of Israel and has been giving financial assist- ance to the little nation. In admitting tens of thousands of Jewish DP’s from Europe, Asia, and Africa, rehabilitating and settling these unfortunate men, women, and chil- dren who seek nothing more than peace and security in the land of their brethren, the Government of Israel has been confronted with un almost impossible task, This little nation needs every dollar to help these im- migrants who are streaming in by the thou- sands daily. They can ill afford the strain on their financial resources to build a mill- tary fortress at this time. Yet, because of the hostile feeling of thelr Arab neighbors, they are being forced to do just that. In view of the policy of our Government, as I see it, to sanction Great Britain's sell- ing of arms, planes, submarines, etc, in unlimited quantities—indirectly with Amer- ican dollars paid by American taxpayers—to the A1xnb nations, it seems to me that Ameri- can citizens in general, and those of the Jewish faith in particular, must be greatly concerned and vexed that our Government is not fully aware of the danger of another outbreak of war in the Middle East region; thereby jeopardizing peace in the world. Mr. Secretary, in your letter to Representa- tive Jacop K. Javits, of New York, you have stated that “Great Britain faithfully ob- served the arms embargo imposed by the Security Council on the shipment of arms to the Palestine area, and now that the em- bargo has been lifted, it has resumed ship- ment of arms in accordance with its treaty obligations to the countries concerned, It should be recalled that the Arab states are but a part of the Middle East area, a region the security of which is of great importance to the west. It is desirable that the coun- tries in this part of the world obtain from reliable and friendly sources such arms as they may need for their legitimate security requirements.” From your statement, it would be apparent that, since Israel, too, is a country in the Middle East area, she should be the recipient of necesary arms for self-defense and secu- rity purposes. There should be a balance of armament amongst the nations of the Middle East area and no discrimination where Israel is concerned. It is my sincere hope that our Government, through your good offices, will take a firm stand, without delay, in stating its views to Great Britain, pointing out that it is un- wise to permit the Arab governments to arm beyond their domestic needs for internal security, As the eve approaches of the second an- niversary of the independence of Israel, our Government should reaffirm its desire to continue assistance to the infant nation so that it may survive and grow, in security and peace. We should extend equal oppor- tunity to Israel so that she may obtain arms and weapons necessary for the security of her people until such time when peace agree- ments will be drawn up between Israel and her neighboring Arab states. An early reply will be deeply appreciated. Very sincerely yours, EviItH NouRsE ROGERS, Member of Congress. Mr. Speaker, from the American point of view I think it is vitally necessary FEBRUARY 28 that the administration and the Secre- tary of State accede to my request. SPECIAL ORDER GRANTED Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to address the House on tomorrow for 10 minutes fol- lowing disposition of matters on the Speaker's desk and at the conclusion of any special orders heretofore entered, EXTENSION OF REMARKS Mr. MACY asked and was given per- mission to extend his remarks in the Recorp and include a poll by the Ameri- can Press Association. Mr. HALLECK (at the request of Mr. Martin of Massachusetts) was given permission to cxtend his remarks in the Recorp in two instances and include extraneous matter. LEAVE OF ABSENCE By unanimous consent, leave of ab- scence was granted as follows: To Mr. HERTER (at the request of Mr. Martin of Massachusetts), indefinitely, on account of illness. To Mr. Ketiey of Pennsylvania (at the request of Mr. EBERHARTER), for an indefinite pcriod, on account of illness. To Mr. Marcantonio (at the request of Mr. Powe ut), for an indefinite period, on account of illness. BILL PRESENTED TO THE PRESIDENT Mrs. NORTON, from the Committee on House Administration, reported that that committee did on this day present to the President, for his approval, a bill of the House of the following title: H R.7220 An act to expedite the rehabill- tation of Federal reclamation projects in certain cases. ADJOURNMENT Mr. BURKE. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn. The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 5 o'clock and 35 minutes p. m.) the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, March 1, 1950, at 12 o’clock noon. EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC. Under clause 2 of rule XXIV, executive communications were taken from the Speaker’s table and referred as follows: 1270. A letter from the Secretary of the Army, transmitting a letter from the Chief of Engineers, United States Army, dated January 26, 1950, submitting a report, to- gether with accompanying papers and an illustration on a review of reports on the White River, Ark., with a view to deter- mining the advisability of improvements of the White River in Arkansas for flood-control drainage, and other purposes in the general vicinity of Des Arc, Ark., requested by @ resolution of the Committee on Public Works, House of Representatives, adopted on April 5, 1949 (H. Doc. No. 485); to the Com- mittee on Public Works and ordered to be printed, with one illustration. 1271. A letter from the Secretary of the Army, transmitting a letter from the Chief of Engineers, United States Army, dated Decem- ber 7, 1949, submitting a report, together with accompanying papers and illustrations, on & preliminary examination and survey of Pocomoke River, Md., from Old Rock Buoy to Williams Point, authorized by the River and Harbor Act approved on March 2, 1945 (H. Doc. No. 486); to the Committee on Pub:
1950 lic Works and ordered to be printed, with three illustrations. 1272. A letter from the Secretary of the Army, transmitting a letter from the Chief of Engineers, United States Army, dated August 29, 1949, submitting a report, to- gether with accompanying papers and an illustration on a preliminary examination and survey of Oswego Harbor, N. Y., author- ized by the River and Harbor Act approved On March 2, 1945 (H. Doc. No. 487); to the Committee on Public Works and ordered to be printed, with one illustration. 1273. A letter from the Secretary of the Army transmitting a letter from the Chief of Engineers, United States Army, dated October 4, 1949, submitting a report, to- gether with accompanying papers and illus- trations, on a review of reports on Westport Harbor and Saugatuck River, Conn., re- quested by a resolution of the Committee on Rivers and Harbors, House of Representa- tives, adopted on February 1, 1946 (H. Doc. No. 488); to the Committee on Public Works and ordered to be printed, with two illus- trations. 1274. A letter from the Secretary of the Army, transmitting a letter from the Chief of Engineers, United States Army, dated July 15, 1949, submitting a report, together with accompanying papers and illustrations, on a preliminary examination and survey of Arkansas River above Pine Bluff, Ark., with special reference to control of caving banks in the vicinity of Hensley bar and the Mc- Fadden place in Jefferson County, Ark., authorized by the Flood Control Act ap- proved on December 22, 1944 (H.Doc. No. 489); to the Committee on Public Works and ordered to be printed, with two illustrations. 1275. A letter from the Secretary of the Army, transmitting a letter from the Chief of Engincers, United States Army, dated August 29, 1949, submitting a report, to- gether with accompanying papers and illus- trations on a cooperative beach erosion con- trol study of the south shore, State of Rhode Island. This investigation was made under the provisions of section 2 of the River and Harbor Act approved on July 8, 1930, as amended and supplemented (H. Doc. No. 490); to the Committee on Public Works and ordered to be printed, with 11 illustrations. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ON PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as follows: Mr RANKIN: Committee on Veterans’ Af- fairs §. 2541. An act to amend the act entitled “An act to establish a Department of Medicine and Surgery in the Veterans’ Administration,” approved January 8, 1946, as amended, to extend the period for which employees may be detailed for training and research, and for other purposes; without amendment (Rept. No. 1717). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union. Mr RANKIN: Committee on Veterans’ Af- fairs H.R. 6632. A bill to extend the au- thority of the Administrator of Veterans’ Affairs to establish and continue offices in the Republic of the Philippines; with an amendment (Rept. No. 1718). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union. Mr. RANKIN: Committee on Veterans’ Af- fairs. H. R. 6874. A bill to liberalize the service pension laws relating to veterans of the war with Spain, the Philippine Insurrec- tion, or the Boxer Rebellion, and their de- pendents; without amendment (Rept. No. 1719). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Mr. RANKIN: Committee on Veterans’ Af- fairs. H.R. 7057. A bill to amend Veterans Regulation No. 1 (a) with respect to the computation of estimated costs of teaching personnel and supplies for instruction in the case of colleges of agriculture and the mechanic arts and other nonprofit educa- tional institutions; without amendment (Rept. No. 1720). Referred to the Commit- tee of the Whole House on the State of the Union. Mr. RANKIN: Committee on Veterans’ Af- fairs. H.R. 7440. A bill to amend Veterans Regulations to establish for persons who served in the armed forces during World War II a further presumption of service connec- tion for active pulmonary tuberculosis; without amendment (Rept. No 1721) Re- ferred to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ON PRIVATE BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as follows: Mr. BYRNE of New York: Committee on the Judictary. 8. 471. An act for the re- lief of Lloyd Gordon Findley and Malcolm Hearne Findley, a minor; without amend- ment (Rept. No. 1694). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House. Mr BYRNE of New York: Committee on the Judiciary § 738. An act for the relief of Ear) B. Hochwalt; without amendment (Rept. No 1695). Referred to the Commit- tee of the Whole House. Mr. BYRNE of New York: Committee on the Judiciary. § 1310. An act for the re- lef of Pierre E. Lefevre; without amendment (Rept No 1696). Referred to the Commit- tee of the Whole House. Mr. BYRNE of New York: Committee on the Judiciary. 8S 1394. An act for the re- lief of Monroe Kelly, rear admiral, United States Navy, retired; without amendment (Rept No. 1697) Referred to the Commit- tee of the Whole House Mr. BYRNE of New York: Committee on the Judiciary. § 1447. An act for the re- lef of John M. Hart; without amendment (Rept. No 1698). Referred to the Commit- tee of the Whole House. Mr BYRNE of New York: Committee on the Judiciary. 8.1737. An act for the re- lief of George M. Vaughan; without amend- ment (Rept. No. 1699). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House. Mr. BYRNE of New York: Committee on the Judiciary. S 1764. An act for the re- lief of George K. Haviland; without amend- ment (Rept. No. 1700). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House. Mr. DENTON. Committee on the Judi- clary. H R. 1124. A bill for the relief of Lee Freddie Lambert; without amendment (Rept. No, 1701). Referred to the Commit- tee of the Whole House. Mr. LANE: Committee on the Judiciary. H. R. 1817. A bill for the relief of Mrs. Rose A. Mongrain; with an amendment (Rept, No, 1702). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House. Mr. LANE’ Committee on the Judiciary. H. R. 2851. A bill for the relief of Car] L. Sexauer; with an amendment (Rept. No. 1708). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House. Mr. JENNINGS: Committee on the Judi- clary. H. R. 8010. A bill for the relief of Walter E. Parks; without amendment (Rept. No. 1704). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House. Mr. DENTON: Committee on the Judiciary. H. R. 3996. A bill for the relief of Dr. J. Carlyle Nagle; without amendment (Rept. 2531 No. 1705). Referred to the Committee of the Whoie House. Mr. DENTON: Committee on the Judiciary. H. R. 4164. A bill for the relief of Norman Otis Pippin; with an amendment (Rept. No. 1706). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House. Mr. JENNINGS: Committee on the Judi- ciary. H. R. 6841. A bill for the relief of Joseph W. Greer; with an amendment (Rept. No. 1707). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House. Mr. LANE: Committee on the Judiciary. H. R. 5380. A bill for the relief of Thomas J. Smith; with an amendment (Rept No. 1708). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House. Mr. GRAHAM: Committee on the Judiciary. H R. 6355. A bill for the relief of Szalom Malek; with an amendment (Rept. No. 1709). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House Mr. FELLOWS: Committee on the Judi- clary. H R. 6581. A bill for the rellef of Deborah Elizabeth Ebel; with an amend- ment (Rept. No. 1710). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House Mr. WALTER: Committee on the Judictary. H R. 6163. A bill for the relief of Dr. Wel Tcheng Liang: without amendment (Rept. No 1711). Referred to ‘he Committee of the Whole House. Mr CHELF: Committee on the Judiciary. H. R. 6656. A bill for the relief of Peter Michael El-Hini; without amendment (Rept. No. 1712). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House, Mr. FELLOWS: Committee on the Judi- Clary. H. R. 6747. A bill for the relief of Helga Holleb; with an amendment (Rept No. 1718). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House. Mr. GRAHAM: Committee on the Judi- ciary. H R. 7256. A bill for the relief of Mieko Nishitsuru; with an amendment (Rept. No. 1714). Referred to the Commit- tee of the Whole House. Mr. CHELF: Committee on the Judiciary. H. R. 7313 A bill for the relief of Lucy Teresa Morris; with an amendment (Rept. No. 1715) Referred to the Committee of the Whole House. Mr. BYRNE of New York Committee on the Judiciary. H. R. 7468. A bill for the re- lief of sundry claimants, and for other pur- poses; without amendment (Rept. No. 1716). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House. PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS Under clause 3 of rule XXII, public bills and resolutions were introduced and severally referred as follows: By Mrs BOSONE: H R.74C2. A bill to reestablish a Civilian Conservation Corps; to provide for the con- servation of natural resources and the de- velopment of human resources through the employment of youthful citizens in the per- formance of useful work, including job training and instruction in good work hab- its; and for other purposes; to the Commit- tee on Education and Labor. By Mrs. DOUGLAS: H.R. 7463. A bill to reestablish a Civilian Conservation Oorps; to provide tor the con- servation of natural resources and the de- velopment of human resources through the employment of youthful citizens in the per- formance of useful work, including Job train- ing and instruction in good work hnbits; and for other purposes; to the Committee on Education and Labor. By Mr. FOGARTY: H.R. 7464. A bill to prevent military per- sonnel from replacing civilians in the De- partment of Defense; to the Committee on Armed Services.
2532 By Mr. FORAND: H. R. 7465, A bill to make surplus agricul- tural commodities available to Federal, State, and local penal and correctional insti- tutions, to the Committee on Agriculture. By Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan: H R 7466 A bill to protect trade and commerce against interference or restraints by labor organizations; to the Committee on the Judiciary By Mr. KEOGH: H.R. 7467. A bill to extend the benefits provided by title III of the Servicemen’s Re- adjustment Act of 1944, as amended, to cer- tain persons who served as technical ad- visers to the armed forces; to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs By Mr BYRNE of New York: H R 7468 A bill for the relief of sundry claimants, and for other purposes, to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr SABATH: H R.7469 A bill to provide for a tempo- rary diversion of water from Lake Michigan during the coal-shortage emergency, to the Committee on Public Works By Mr H CARL ANDERSEN: H.R 7470. A bill relating to the income- tax treatment of profits from the sale of livestock used for draft, dairy, or breeding purposes; to the Committee on Ways and Means. By Mr BURDICK: H.R. 7471. A bill to grant civil-service em- ployees retirement after 30 years’ service, to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service By Mr. GARY: H R 7472, A bill to create a commission to study the feasibility of Federal participa- tion in the American Negro Progress Ex- position, to the Committee on House Ad- ministration. By Mr McKINNON: H R.7473 A bill to extend the personal rights and duties of the Indians of Cali- fornia, to the Committee on Public Lands. By Mr O'’KONSKI: H.R 7474. A bill to aid the development and maintenance of American-flag shipping on the Great Lakes, and for other purposes, to the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. By Mr. RODINO: H.R. 7475. A bill to repeal the retailers’ excise taxes on luggage, jewelry, furs, and toilet preparations; to repeal the tax on transportation of persons; and to terminate the war tax rates on admissions, telephone, and telegraph; to the Committee on Ways and Means By Mr. ROOSEVELT: H.R. 7476. A bill to provide that aliens who have arrived in the United States shall not be excluded without a hearing, to the Committee on the Judictary By Mr. BONNER: H R. 7477. A bill providing for the convey- ance to the town of Nahant, Mass., of the Fort Ruckman Military Reservation; to the Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments, By Mr. HORAN: H.R. 7478, A bill creating a commission on Federal reimbursement to States and local governments by reason of Federal owner- ship of improved and unimproved real prop- erty; to the Committee on Public Lands. By Mr. PETERSON: H.R. 7479. A bill to authorize the District Court for the Southern District of Florida to hear, determine, and render judgment upon certain claims of the Tampa Shipbulld- ing Realty Corp., without regard to lapse of time; to the Committee on the Judictary. By Mr. DAVIES of New York: H J. Res 428. Joint resolution to amend the National Housing Act, as amended, with respect to mortgage insurance under section 608 of such act; to the Committee on Bank- ing and Currency. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE MEMORIALS Under clause 3 of rule XXII, memo- rials were presented and referred as fol- lows: By the SPEAKER: Memortal of the Legis- lature of the State of Massachusetts, relative to effecting substantial decreases in the next Federal budget and the Federal debt; to the Committee on Ways and Means. Also, memorial of the Legislature of the State of New York, requesting the enactment of H. R. 4458, known as the FEPC bill; to the Committee on Education and Labor. PRIVATE BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS Under clause 1 of rule XXII, private bills and resolutions were introduced and severally referred as follows: By Mr DAVENPORT: H.R. 7480. A bill for the relief of Tullio Caporale, to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr GOODWIN: H.R 7481 A bill for the relief of Chrys- soula Dimitrious Halatsi, to the Committee on the Judiciary By Mr HARE H R 7482. A bill for the relief of John E Cromer; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. HEFFERNAN H R 7483. A bill for the relief of Luciana Caratella, to the Committee on the Judiciary By Mr MARCANTONIO: H R 7484 A bill for the relief of Salvatore Maneri; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr MORTON: H.R. 7485. A biil for the relief of Mrs. Ma- ria Muargarite Noe, to the Committee on the Judiciary By Mr RIBICOFt . H R 7486. A bill for the relief of Muar- guerite Micheline Bidault Barbier; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr RIEHLMAN. H R 7487 A bill for the relief of Louis Cohen, to the Committee on the Judiciary. PETITIONS, ETC. Under clause 1 of rule XXII, petitions and papers were laid on the Clerk’s desk and referred as follows: 1925. By Mr. GOODWIN: Memorial of the Massachusetts Legislature, requesting Con- gress to lower the high cost of food; to the Committee on Agriculture. 1926. Also, memorial of the Massachusctts Legislature, requesting Congress to pass anti- poll-tax legislation; to the Committee on House Administration 1927, Also, memorial of the Massachusetts Legislature, requesting Congress to pass anti- lynching legislation; to the Committee on the Judiciary. 1928. Also, memorial of the Massachusetts Legislature, requesting the President and the Congress to effect substantial decreases in the next Federal budget and the Federal debt; to the Committee on Ways and Means. 1929. By Mr. HESELTON;: Resolutions of the General Court of Massachusetts, memo- rializing the President and the Congress of the United States to effect substantial de- creases in the next Federal budget and the Fedcra] debt; to the Committee on Ways and Means. 1930. By Mr. KEARNEY: Memorial of the Senate and the Assembly of the State of New York, advocating enactment of House bill 4453; to the Committee on Education and Labor 1931. By Mr. MARTIN of Massachusetts: Memorial of the General Court of Massachu- setts, urging the Congress to lower the high cost of food; to the Committee on Agricul- ture. 1932. Also, memorial of the General Court of Massachusetts, urging enactment of anti- poll-tax legislation; to the Committee on House Administration, MARCH 1 1933. Also, memorial of the General Court of Massachusetts, urging enactment of anti- lynching legislation; to the Committee on the Judiciary. 1934. Also, memorial of the General Court of Massachusetts, urging substantial de- creases in the next Federal budget and the Federal debt; t' the Committee on Ways and Means. 1935. By Mr. SHAFER: h-solution of the American Warehousemen’s Association, pro- testing deficit spending and urging reduction of Government spending; to the Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Depart- ments 1936 Also, resolution of the Oll Advisory Board of the State of Michigan, protesting change in the depletion-allowance provisions of the Federal tax laws; to the Committee on Ways and Means. 1937. By the SPEAKER: Petition of Louis P Seltzer, chairman, Assembly of 1,000 Citi- zens of Cleveland, Cleveland, Ohio, relative to the abduction of 28,000 Greek children, and requesting prompt repatriation; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs 1988. Also, petition of John D Coleman, secretary, Pennsylvania Lodge, Fraternal Order of Police, Harrisburg, Pa., stating their opposition to any citizens’ committce, regardless of how formed or appointed, having access to the Federal Bureau of Investigation files, to the Committee on the Judiciary 1939. Also, petition of Buddy Hays and others, Orlando, Fla, requesting passage of House bills 2135 and 2136, known as the Townsend plan, to the Committee on Ways and Means. SENATE WEDNESDAY, Marci 1, 1950 (Legislative day of Wednesday, February 22, 1950) The Senate met at 12 o’clock meridian, on the expiration of the recess. The Chaplain, Rev. Frederick Brown Harris, D. D., offered the following prayer: Our Father God, who art in heaven, and earth, and in all Thy works, we pause in the midst of thronging duties and con- fused issues to commune with Thee, source of all goodness, beauty, and truth. May we know no glory but the supreme satisfaction of rendering to the Nation and to the world our utmost service, un- sullied by base motives of self-interest, as again with the golden gift of a new day we pledge at this white altar of devo- tion to maintain integrity of character, cleanness of hands, and unswerving firmness of purpose in the fulfillment of our high and holy calling as servants of the Republic. Amen. THE JOURNAL On request of Mr. Lucas, and by unani- mous consent, the reading of the Journal of the proceedings of Tuesday, February 28, 1950, was dispensed with. MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT— APPROVAL OF BILL Messages in writing from the Presi- dent of the United States were communi- cated to the Senate by Mr. Miller, one of his secretaries, and he announced that on February 28, 1950, the President had approved and signed the act (S. 1916) for the relief of Edna A. Bauser.
1950 CALL OF THE ROLL Mr. LUCAS. I suggest the absence of @ quorum. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Secre- tary will call the roll. The roll was called, and the following Senators answered to their names: Aiken Hil) Millikin Brewster Hoey Moree Bricker Humphrey Mundt Bridges ‘ Eunt Murray Butler Ives Myers Byrd Jenner Neely Cain Johnson, Colo. O'Conor Chapman Johnson, Tea. Robertson Chavez Johnston,S C Russell Connally Kefaouver Saltonstall Cordon Kerr Schoeppel Darby Kilgore Smith, Maine Donnell Knowland Smith, N. J. Douglas Langer Sparkman Dworshak Leahy Stennis Eastland Lehman Taft Ecton Lodge Taylor Ellender Long Thomas, Okla Ferguson Lucas Thomas, Utah Flanders McCarran Tobey Frear McCarthy Tydings Fulbright McClellan Watkins George McKellar Wherry Green McMahon Wiley Gurney Magnuson Williams Hayden Malone Withers Hendrickson Maybank Mr. MYERS. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. ANDER- son], the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. GraHaM], the Senator from Ari- zona {Mr. McFartann], the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. O’MaHongy], and the Senator from Florida |Mr. PEPPER] are absent on public business. The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. BenTon] is necessarily absent. The Senator from California [Mr. Downey! is absent on official business. The Senator from Iowa [Mr. GIL- LETTE) and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Hotianp! are absent by leave of the Senate on official business. Mr. SALTONSTALL. I announce that the Senator from Indiana [Mr. CAPE- HART] and the Senator from Pennsyl- vania [Mr. Mart1n] are absent on offi- cial business. The Senator from Iowa [Mr. HICKEN- LooPER], the Senator from Missouri {Mr. Kem], the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. THYE], and the Senator from North Da- kota [Mr. Youne! are absent by leave of the Senate. The Senator from Michigan |Mr. Van- DENBERG! is necessarily absent. The VICE PRESIDENT. A quorum is present. SUSPENSION OF DEPORTATION OF CERTAIN ALIENS The VICE PRESIDENT laid before the Senate the amendments of the House of Representatives to the concurrent reso- lution (S. Con. Res. 44) favoring the suspension of deportation of certain aliens, which were, on page 5, to strike out line 20; on page 8, to strike out line 23; on page 9, to strike out line 6; and on page 10, to strike out line 11. Mr. McCARRAN. I move that the Senate concur in the amendments of the House. The motion was agreed to. The VICE PRESIDENT laid before the Senate the amendments of the House of Representatives to the concurrent reso- lution (S. Con. Res. 45) favoring the suspension of deportation of certain CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE aliens, which were, on page 2, to strike out lines 2 and 3, and on page 3, after Hine 2, to insert “A-6369006, Karpman, Itzhak Jakob. A-6643689, Karpman, Estera (nee Goldfinger).” Mr. McCARRAN. I move that the Senate concur in the amendments of the House. The motion was agreed to. TRANSACTION OF ROUTINE BUSINESS Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators be per- mitted to submit petitions and memo- rials, introduce bills and joint resolu- tions, and present routine matters for the REcorpD, without debate. The VICE PRESIDENT. Without ob- jection, it is so ordered. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Nevada {Mr. McCarran] may have a few minutes to present a very im- portant matter. The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there ob- jection? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered. DISPLACED PERSONS The Serate resumed the considera- tion of the bill (H. R. 4567) to amend the Displaced Persons Act of 1948. Mr. McCARRAN. Mr. President, I should like to have the attention of the Senate, as I shall make a request in con- nection with the bill which is now the unfinished business. The bill, as amended, and as it came from the Com- mittee on the Judiciary, contains cer- tain somewhat involved amendments. It may be difficult for Senators who did not hear the explanation I made yester- day, or even for Senators who heard the explanation I made yesterday, fully to understand the purport of the amend- ments. The committce amendments are exceedingly important. I make the sug- gestion, and I should hke to have a stipulation made, that the committee amendments, as contained in the bill which came from the Committee on the Judiciary, be adopted now, for the pur- pose of then sending the bill to the printer and having a clean bill printed with the committee amendments, with the understanding and stipulation that any Senator may offer amendments to the clean bill in any particular, and that the substitute bill may be offcred to the clean bill, when the clean bill is returned from the printer. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr, McCARRAN. I yield. Mr, LUCAS When the Senator from Nevada asks for the adoption of the committee amendments, does that mean that the Senate will adopt the com- mittee amendments en bloc, or if any Senator desires to oppose the committee amendments, will he have the right to do so, and will the Senate have the right to a vote on such amendments when they are presented? Mr, McCARRAN. My thought would be to adopt the committee amendments en bloc as they are, for the purpose of having a clean bill printed and brought back to the Senate, so that then the bill will be before the Senate with the com- mittee amendments adopted, but subject 2533 to amendment by any Senator who may desire to offer an amendment. Mr, LUCAS. Mr. President, I do not quite see the advantage of adopting the committee amendments en bloc with- out discussion as they are respectively reported. As committee amendments are reached they are always subject to debate and amendment. Mr. McCARRAN. They will come up later. When the bill comes back from the printer the Senate will have a clear understanding as to what the commit- tee amendments are, their significance, and everything about them. Then when the amendments are reached each amendment will be subject to discussion and amendment. Mr. FERGUSON. And a vote. Mr. McCARRAN. And a vote. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. McCARRAN. I yield. Mr. WHERRY. All the Senator from Nevada proposes to have done is to clarify the bill itself, so it will be understandable, so it will be a clean bill. When it comes back from the printer every right Senators now have from the parliamentary standpoint will be re- tained. There will be no change in the parliamentary situation, so far as de- gree of amendments is concerned. The Senator's request is simply that so far as concerns the bill as it was reported by the committee with amendmenis, the amendments be adopted and the bill reprinted so that there may be a ciean bill before the Senate. Mr. McCARRAN. Yes. Mr. WHERRY. But after the bill has been returned from the printer Senators will have the same right as they now have to offer amendments, when amendments are in order, and to debate them and vote upon them, just as though we started to consider and act on them now? ti Mr. McCARRAN. That is my suggese on, Mr. WHERRY. I have no objection. Mr. KILGORE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. McCARRAN. I yield. Mr. KILGORE. What the Senator is trying to do is to perfect the bill as it came from the committee, ready for voting and for amendments. Is that correct? Mr. McCARRAN. That is correct. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, with that understanding, the Senator from Tlinois has no objection. The VICE PRESIDENT. Let the Chair state his understanding of the request, because it is somewhat complicated. Under the rule, of course, when a com- mittee amendment once is agreed to, it cannot be amended except by a motion to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to. The Chair understands that the Senator from Ne- vada is requesting unanimous consent that the committee amendments be adopted en bloc and the bill then be re- turned to the printer, to be printed as a clean bill, including in it the committee amendments which will then have been adopted; that any Senator thereafter may move to amend or to strike out any portion or paragraph of the clean bill
2534 which was not in the bill before the com- mittee amendments were adopted, just as could be done if no amendments at all had been adopted, and any Senator then could move to strike out or amend any part or paragraph of the bill. The Sen- ator is in agreement that, as to modifi- cations or amendments, they may be made when the bill is returned from the printer in clean form. Mr. McCARRAN. That is correct. This suggestion is made for the purpose of clarifying the bill, so that Senators may understand it. The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Sen- ator intend to have the amendments printed in italics, as is customary in the case of committee amendments, or as a part of the bill, just as if it had not been amended? Mr, KILGORE. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield to me for a moment, let me say that my understanding is that the bill is to be printed just as any clean bill would be; it would then be printed complete, just as a newly introduced bill would be; and the previous adoption of the amendments, on which there was agreement, would not present any con- flict with respect to any amendments which might then be offered. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, it is a little difficult to understand why it is neces- sary to adopt the committee amendments first, in order to have a clean bill printed. Why could not we take up the amend- ments in the regular order, and either adopt or reject them? In other words, if we agree to the suggested procedure, the burden of proof will be on those who seek to defeat the amendments; it will then be up to some Senator who is inter- ested in having an amendment defeated to move, after the committee amend- ments have been accepted en bloc by the Senate, to strike that amendment from the clean bill. I think it would simply be shifting the burden to Senators who are opposed to certain amendments if the Senate first adopted the committee amendments, with the understanding that later there would be an opportu- nity for Senators to move to strike them out. I do not wish to interfere with the agreement which has been made by the two distinguished Senators; but it seems to me that if the bill is rewritten, so to speak, in order to make a clean bill, in- cluding all the amendments, with the un- derstanding that thereafter they will be taken up for consideration the result will be much the same as if we acted on the amendments in regular course, with this exception. It would be up to Senators who are opposed to the amendments to seek their rejection, while if the bill is left as it is the burden will be upon the proponents to adopt their amendments, where it should be. Mr. CONNALLY. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator will state it.. Mr. CONNALLY. If we adopt the amendments now, either singly or en bloc, when the bill returns as a clean Dill, so-called, if a Senator thereafter offers an amendment to strike out one of the committee amendments, what will the Chair do? CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE The VICE PRESIDENT. Under the unanimous-consent agreement proposed by the Senator from Nevada, the Chair would hold that it would be in order to move to amend any part of the clean bill which had been amended by the adoption of a committee amendment. Mr, CONNALLY. Would not the same purpose be accomplished by having the bill printed as a so-called clean bill, and then having the amendments fought out when the bill comes back from printing? I do not like to have amendments agreed to en bloc in advance, and then be re- quired later to consider them again and act on suggested changes. The VICE PRESIDENT. The amend- ments are ordinarily printed in italics. There is no way to print a clean bill with the amendments in it, so that they would be subject to amendment, if first adopted en bloc, at the Senator's request, without having all of them printed alike. In other words, the Chair would as- sume that the Senator contemplates that the whole bill would then be printed in italics, as a substitute for the language of the pending measure, including the com- mittee amendments; and then it would be in order for any Senator to move to strike out or modify any part of the clean bill, including what had been contained in the committee amendments, and also including any other portion of the bill which a Senator might wish to have the Senate change. Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, re- serving the right to object, let me say that I think the distinguished Senator from Illinois has stated the proposition fairly, namely, that if the committee amendments are first adopted en bloc, a burden of proof will be p’aced upon any Senator who wishes to move to strike out any one of the amendments, and action will have to be taken by the Senate by majority vote. I suggest that we have a clean bill printed, without taking any action now upon the committee amendments. That will leave us in the position that each amendment will be compelled to be acted upon in the regular way, under the reg- ular order. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, how could the bill be printed any differently, may I ask the Senator, than in the form in which we already have it on our desks, if the proposed procedure is followed? Would we achieve anything by carrying out the suggestion which has been made by the Senator from Nevada? Mr. McCARRAN. No one will achieve anything by the adoption of the sugges- tion. In other words, if we adopt the committee amendments now and send the bill with the amendments to the printer, to have a clean bill printed, and subsequently returned to us, with the un- derstanding that at that time the bill will be subject to amendment or to a motion to substitute, we shall have the same proposition, in my judgment. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. McCARRAN, I yield. Mr. LUCAS, Let me say that I cannot quite understand why the Senate should take the suggested action. The bill is now here with the committee amend- ments printed in italics. Those amend- MARCH 1 ments are now sct out in the bill, so that every Senator knows, when he examines the bill, what the committee amend- ments are. If we have a clean bill printed, with the committee amendments first adopted by the Senate, then we shall not know just what the committee amendments are; and it will take some time for Sen- ators to ascertain exactly what the com- mittee amendments are or that they may wish to move to strike out. I do not understand how we are going to obtain any advantage from the pro- posed procedure. I talked to the two able Senators, Mr. McCarran and Mr. Kircore, before we began to debate this matter; and at that time I was under the impression that there was some advantage to be gained by following their suggestion and more or less agreed to their suggestion. But as I have explored the situation, I do nct see where there is an advantage at all to be gained. In fact, I think there is an absolute disadvantage, from the view- point of Senators who scek to defeat some of the committee amendments, because once the committee amendments are adopted en bloc and once the clean bill js printed, there will be trouble for Sen- ators who are opposed to some of the committee amendments which then would have been adopted; in such case, such Senators would find themselves confronted with some difficulty in at- tempting to eliminate from the bill the committee amendments, once they had been adopted. Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. McCARRAN. I yield. Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, will quire whether, if the proposal of the Senator from Nevada is adopted, it would mean that the Senate would then be asked to vote on each of the amend- ments piecemeal, before hearing the de- bate on the entire question? Mr. McCARRAN. No; the debate can be presented on the entire question at any time. Mr. LEHMAN. I know; but what would be the advantage, then, of adopt- ing the Senator’s suggestion? Mr. McCARRAN. The advantage in this case is clarity; to clarify the bill so that Senators who have not been fa- miliar with the question may have the whole question before them, and will not have to be asking, “What does this line mean?” and “What does this line mean?” They will have the whole thing set forth in a clear way before them, in a printed bill. That is the only object of my sug- gestion. Mr. KILGORE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr, McCARRAN. I yield. Mr. KILGORE. Mr. President, I should like to propound a parliamentary inquiry at this point. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator will state it. Mr. KILGORE. If the proposal of the Senator from Nevada is adopted, will we then be placed under the parliamen- tary burden of moving to strike each committee amendment and having that motion adopted by the Senate, once the committee amendment in question has
1950 been adopted, before an amendment to the amendment can be offered and voted upon? That is the point which worries me; in short, the situation in regard to an amendment subsequently offered, which would be in conflict with a com- mittee amendment which previously had been adopted in perfecting the bill. The VICE PRESIDENT. If the pro- posal of the Senator from Nevada is agreed to, the Chair would feel that it would mean that all the committee amendments would be, in a sense, voted on and adopted en bloc; that any Sen- ator might thereafter, by identifying the lanruage of the amendment as it was reported from the committee, move to strike it out; but it would be neces- sary for such Senator to do so, because otherwise the amendment already hav- ing been adopted, although as a part of a set of amendments, it would remain in the bill unless some Senator moved, and the Senate thereafter agreed, to strike that lanruage from the new bill or the clean bill. Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. McCARRAN. I yield. Mr. SALTONSTALL, As I see the sit- uation, if the suggestion of the Senator from Nevada is adopted, those of us who may be in favor of the House provisions, rather than the committee amendment provisions, would have to submit amend- ments and would have to have them printed as amendments to the new lan- guage, even thouch that language might not as of that time have been adopted. I personally favor the substitute bill and hope to vote for it, but if it should be defeated I should then prefer certain of the provisions of the House bill to the committee bill, and if they were out of print we would have to reprint them and submit them by way of amendments to the committce amendments, if I am cor- rect in my understanding. Mr. McCARRAN. Mr. President, I think the matter is becoming more in- volved as a result of the discussion. It was very simple, a little while ago, and it would be simple if it were to go through as the Senator from West Virginia and I had agreed. I now withdraw the sug- gestion. TRANSACTION OF ROUTINE BUSINESS Mr. MCMAHON. Mr. President—— The VICE PRESIDENT. Under unan- imous consent agreement entered on re- quest of the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Lucas], the Chair will recognize Sena- tors who desire to print matters in the Recorp, introduce bills, or present other routine matters before recognizing the Senator from Connecticut. PETITIONS Petitions, etc., were presented and re- ferred as indicated: By Mr. LODGE (for himself and Mr. SALTONSTALL) : Resolutions of the General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; to the Committee on Finance: “Resolutions memorializing the President and the Congress of the United States to effect substantial decreases in the next Federal budget and the Federal) debt “Resolved, That the General Court of Mas- sachusetts hereby urges the President and CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE the Congress of the United States to effect & substantial decrease in the next Federal budget and to lessen the Federal debt; and be it further “Resolved, That copies of these resolutions be transmitted forthwith by the State secre- tary to the President of the United States, to the Presiding Officer of each branch of Congress, and to the Members thereof from this Commonwealth. “In house of representatives, adopted, Feb- ruary 14, 1950. “LAWRENCE R. GROVE, “Clerk. “In senate, adopted, in concurrence, Feb- ruary 20, 1950. “Irvine N. HAYDEN, “Clerk.” By Mr. GREEN: A resolution of the General Assembly of the State of Rhode Island; to the Committee on Finance: “Resolution requesting the Senators from Rhode Island in the Congress of the United States to endorse and endeavor to have enacted into law H. R. 6000, to extend and improve the Federal old-age and survivors insurance system “Whereas a bill (H. R. 6000) which has already been endorsed by the House of Representatives in the Congress of the United States is one which ts of the keenest interest to Rhode Islanders, namely the measure entitled ‘An act to extend and !m- prove the Federal old-age and survivors insurance system, so as to include certain self-employed persons and other miscel- laneous groups under coverage, to raise both the amount of bencfits and the rate of con- tributions, and to amend the public assist- ance and child-welfare provisions of the Social Security Act, by Mberalizing Federal participation tn the cost of public assist- ance’: Now, therefore, be it “Resolved, That the Senators from Rhode Island in the Congress of the United States are carnestly urged to endorse and endeavor to have enacted into law said H. R. 6000 so as to extend and improve the Federal Old- Age and Survivors Insurance System as in- dicated in the purposes of this act, and the Secretary of State ts hereby directed to transmit to the Senators from Rhode Island in said Congress duly certified copies of this resolution.” TRAIN AND BUS FARE FOR ENLISTED MEN ON FURLOUGH Mr. LODGE. Mr. President, on be- half of my colleague, the senior Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. SALTONSTALL] and myself, I present for appropriate reference, and ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Recorp, a resolution adopted by the Board of Aldermen of the city of Chelsea, Mass., relating to train and bus fare for enlisted men on furlough. There being no objection, the resolu- tion was referred to the Committee on Armed Services, and ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Whereas our country is spending billions of dollars to aid European and Asiatic countries; and Whercas men in the service now are forced to pay full railroad rates to reach their homes on furloughs. Now, therefore, Congressman LANE and Senators SALTONSTALL and Longs are requested to initlate legislation for the Government to pay one-half of the train fare for enlisted men who have occasion to use trains and buses during furloughs. Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be sent to President of the United States, Sec- retary of the Armed Services, Congressman Lanc, and Senatora SALTONSTALL and Lovar. 2585 REPORT OF A COMMITTEE The following report of a committee was submitted: By Mr. HUNT, from the Committes on the District of Columbia: H.R. 4408. A bill to amend the act ap- proved May 27, 1924, entitled “An act to fix the salaries of officers and members of the Metropolitan Police force, United States Park Police force, and the Fire Department of the District of Columbia,” so as to grant rights to members of the United States Park Police force commensurate with the rights granted to members of Metropolitan Police force as to time off from duty; without amendment (Rept. No. 1320). BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTION INTRODUCED Bills and a joint resolution were intro- duced, read the first time, and by unani- mous consent, the second time, and re- ferred as follows: By Mr. DOUGLAS: 8 3150. A bill for the relief of Murle P, Sigioltzakis; to the Committee on the Judicle ary. By Mr. TAFT: 8 3151. A bill for the relief of Mary Frances Yoshinaga; to the Committee on the Judici- ary. By Mr. TAYLOR (for himself, Mr. Downey, Mr. CAPEHART, and Mr, CaIN): 8.3152. A bill to provide for the coinage of a 7'4%4-cent piece and a 2%4-cent piece; to the Committee on Banking and Currency. By Mr. IVES: 8.3163 A bill to confer Jurisdiction upon the District Court for the Northern District of Tiinois to hear and determine the claims of the Aetna Insurance Co. and others; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. CORDON (for himself and Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina): 8.3154. A bill to authorize the Commis- sioners of the District of Columbia to appoint to the District Boxing Commission a retired member of the Metropolitan Police force of the District of Columbia; to the Committee on the District of Columbia By Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado: 8.8155. A bill tor the relief of Marie Loutse Shiraki, to the Committee on the Judictary. 8 3156. A bill for the relief of Orange Hay- ward Scott; to the Committee on Finance. By Mr. McCARRAN: S 3157. A bill for the relief of Mrs. Carl E. Ainsworth; to the Committee on the Judici- ary. By Mr. FERGUSON (for Mr. VANDEN- BERG) : 8.38158 A bill for the relief of Dr. Lorna Wan-Hsi Feng; to the Committee on the Judiciary. (Mr. HUNT (for himself, Mr. O’MAHONEY, Mr. DworsHaxk, and Mr. Taytor) introduced Senate bill 3159, granting the consent and approval of Congress to a compact entered into by the States of Idaho and Wyoming relating to the waters of the Snake River, which was passed, and appears under a separate heading.) (Mr. HUMPHREY (for himself, Mr. Morse, and Mr. Doveras), introduced Senate Joint Resolution 157, to establish a Special Bi- partisan Coal Commission, which was re- ferred to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, and appears under a separate heading.) SPECIAL BIPARTISAN COAL COMMISSION Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I send to the desk a joint resolution, and I ask unanimous consent to make a very brief comment, not exceeding 5 to 7 min- utes, in reference to the subject,
2536 The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there ob- jection? The Chair hears none, and the Senator from Minnesota may proceed. Mr, HUMPHREY. Mr. President, on behalf of the junior Senator from Ore- gon |Mr, Morse], the junior Senator from Illinois [Mr. Douctas], and myself, I introduce for appropriate reference a joint resolution to establish a special bi- partisan coal commission. This proposal is not an attempt to deal in any way with the current labor-management dispute within the coal industry. It is offered rather as a contribution toward the pre- vention of future disputes; it is offered in the realization that the present dis- put is but one of a series through which the people of the United States have suffered; and it is offered in the realiza- tion that our country cannot afford in the future the recurring coal crises we have had in the past. The coal industry is a sick industry. To an important extent the current coal crisis is a symptom of deep, underlying economic crises within that industry, and a symptom, too, of basic problems arising from technological displacement and the development of substitute fuels. I am sure most of us would agree that it is an oversimplification of the problem to think that any one labor leader is the cause of our present difficulties in the coalindustry. Problems would exist and would cause eruptions of some kind with- in the industry, no matter who the head of the United Mine Workers of America might be. Unless we take steps to deal directly with the underlying economic problems in the coal industry, we will have difficulty in that industry in future years, no matter how the present crisis may be resolved. We, the sponsors of the joint resolution, therefore propose to establish a special bipartisan coal com- mission to bring to the Congress a con- crete program to deal with economics of the coal industry. I repeat, the proposal for this commis- sion in no way bears upon the present dispute. The purpose of the bipartisan commission would be to “study and in- vestigate the economic problems and prospects of the American coal industry with a view to determining what policies and programs by Government, business, labor, and others would most effectively contribute toward meeting America’s needs for coal and coal products, pro- viding a rising standard of living for the employees in the coal industry, adjusting to the problems raised by technological change and substitute fuels, and pre- venting or alleviating labor-management conflicts in the coal industry.” The Commission proposed in the joint resolution is modeled after the Hoover Commission—six members to be ap- pointed by the President; six by the Vice President, three of whom shall be Sen- ators; and six by the Speaker of the House, three of whom shall be Repre- sentatives. Three of the President’s six appointees would be the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, the Secretary of the Interior, and the Secre- tary of Labor. The Commission would be expected to work promptly. Its final report would be required in January 1951. It would CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE then be continued in existence for no more than 90 days, during which time its staff could be maintained for the pur- pose of congressional testimony or de- veloping answers to questions which might be raised concerning its recom- mendations. The Commission would then cease to exist. The joint resolution provides for a modest appropriation of $250,000. If the joint resolution is acted upon promptly, the best brains in America can be mobilized for the purpose of bring- ing before the Congress, the President, and the public a concrete set of recom- mendations for maintaining labor peace, a healthy coal industry, and an adequate supply of coal and coal products. Mr. President, it is my considered judgment that this industry can no longer be permitted to continue in its present situation without seriously threatening the economic and industrial well-being not only of the United States but of the entire world. Mr. ROBERTSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. HUMPHREY. I requested unani- mous consent only to introduce the joint resolution. But I shall yield. Mr. ROBERTSON. The Senator from Minnesota is bound to know that with- out any expense to the Congress the Committee on Banking and Currency spent a month and a half last summer taking a thousand pages of testimony on every phase of the coal situation. We found out what the situation was. But we also found out that we could not get the coal to the consumer without a change in the law. The Senator from Virginia, therefore, proposed such a change. What information does the Senator think the Commission would obtain that we do not already have in the printed records of that investiga- tion? Mr. HUMPHREY. I do not know; but I may say I am sure if the Commission is established, it will be more than pleased to have the information which the Sen- ator’s committee was able to obtain. I am not taking sides on the issue. I am simply saying that, in view of the catas- trophe now facing the country, some- thing needs to be done. I am willing to judge the Senator's program or bill on the basis of its own merits, as I would request him to do on the request for a special commission. Mr. ROBERTSON. I appreciate the consideration the Senator from Minne- sota is going to give to my bill. The joint resolution (S, J. Res. 157) to establish a Special Bipartisan Coal Commission, introduced by Mr. Hum- PHREY (for himself, Mr, Morsg, and Mr. DovucG.as), was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on In- terior and Insular Affairs. CONSTRUCTION AND REPAIR OF CERTAIN PUBLIC WORKS—AMENDMENT Mr. CORDON submitted an amend- ment intended to be proposed by him to the bill (H. R, 5472) authorizing the con- struction, repair, and preservation of certain public works on rivers and har- bors for navigation, flood control, and for other purposes, which was ordered to lie on the table and to be printed. MaRrcH 1 THE RISE OR SUNSET OF PEACE—AD- DRESS BY SENATOR MORSE [Mr. MORSE asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorgp an address en- titled ‘The Rise or Sunset of Peace,” de- livered by him before the American Associa- tion of School Administrators, National Edu- cation Association, at Atlantic City, N. J., on February 26, 1950, which appears in the Appendix. ] GOD, MAN, AND THE HYDROGEN BOMB—~ ADDRESS BY SENATOR HUMPHREY [Mr. HUMPHREY asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorp an address on the subject God, Man, and the Hydrogen Bomb, delivered by him at the Washington Cathedral, Washington, D. C., February 22, 1950, which appears in the Appendtx.] THE EXTRA BUSHEL—ADDRESS BY THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE {Mr. HUMPHREY asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorp an address on the subject The Extra Bushel, delivered by Hon, Charles F. Brannan, Secretary of Agri- culture, before the National Farm Institute, at Des Moines, Iowa, February 18, 1950, which appears in the Appendix.] TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY FINAN- CIAL STATEMENT {Mr. McKELLAR asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorp a financiul statement of the Tennessee Valley Authority, which appears in the Appendix ] UNITED WORLD FEDERALISTS—LETTER FROM REV. PHILIP 8. MOORE [Mr. THOMAS of Utah asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorp a letter regarding United World Federalists, ad- dressed to him by Rev Philip 8S Moore, C. 8. C., dean of the Graduate School of the Unti- versity of Notre Dame, which appears in the Appendix. ] ABOLITION OF RENT CONTROL—EDITORI- AL FROM WASHINGTON EVENING STAR [Mr. CAIN asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorp an editorial en- titled “Not a Federal Problem,” relating to rent control, published in the Washington Evening Star of February 28, 1950, which appears in the Appendix.] APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE UNITED STATES COAST GUARD RESERVE [Mr. CAIN asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorp an editorial entitled “Neglecting Security of Nation’s Seaports,” published in the Seattle Times of December 19, 1949, and an article entitled “Harbors Called Open to Alien Ships With Smuggled A-bombs,” written by George Fielding Eliot and published in the Washington Star of February 12, 1950, which appear in the Ap- pendix.] THE TRUE MEANING OF SECURITY— ARTICLE FROM THE NATIONAL LUTHERAN [Mr. WILEY asked and obtained leave to have printed in the REecorp an article entitled “The True Meaning of Security,” from the National Lutheran, which appears in the Ap- pendix. ] IT’S ONLY MONEY—EDITORIAL FROM THE WASHINGTON NEWS {Mr. LUCAS asked and obtained leave to have printed in the REcorp an editorial en- titled “It’s Only Money,” published in the Washington News of February 28, 1950, which appears in the Appendix.] DISPLACED PERSONS Mr. McCARRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record certain newspaper articles, let-
1950 ters, and resolutions pertaining to the subject of displaced persons. There being no objection, the news- Paper articles, letters, and resolutions were ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: [From the Daily Banner and Cambridge Record of February 9, 1950] Some WortHy ONES WILL SUFFER In submitting its resignation, the special committee appointed by Governor Lane to direct the displaced persons settlement in Anne Arundel County declares that “bitter disillusion” is one of the factors that caused the committee to resign and declare that its members could no longer conscientiously participate in the program. The action is of particular interest in Dor- chester County where it seems that the DP resettlement was working out better than in some counties. However, the program in this State has resulted in persistent com- plaint, much of it being directed at the in- adequate screening of personnel abroad. Here as elsewhere it was with high hopes that people who had been homelcss would have their highest aims in life completely met if a home and an occupation were pro- vided for them. The Anne Arundel com- mittee said that it had felt that in giving asylum to the oppressed new opportunities would be given for people desperately in need of them. “It has been our experience,” the commit- tee reported, “that while some are giving a high degree of satisfaction, many who have had extraordinarily fine replucements have not only been unqualified for the work they had represented themselves capable of doing, but have proved themselves devoid of grati- tude or a sense of moral obligation.” Some of the sense of disappointment that the Anne Arundel committee felt has been experienced by some of the Dorchester County people, too. Among some of the displaced persons here there seemed to be considerable unrest and dissatisfaction at times that was hard to explain as a result of benefiting from living conditions which were immeasurably superior to those which displaced persons said they had encountered in concentration camps. That outsido influences were re- sponsible for some of the dissatisfaction is @ possibility. However, if the displaced per- sons had been properly sercened they would hardly have been readily influenced by forces of unrest. For those displaced persons who have bene- fited from the opportunities presented to them, it 1s unfortunate that some of thetr number should cast discredit upon a program from which they derive such great benefit. [From the Chicago Daily Tribune of Feb- ruery 15, 1950] RussH or 3,500 To Jomv DP's Totp PRrosers— Fraup mm 85 Percent or Cases BARED (By William Moore) WasHINcTON, February 14.—The story of a sudden attempt of 3,500 aliens to qualify as displaced persons was told to a Senate Judi- ciary Subcommittee on DP’s today by a Dis- placed Persons Commission executive the subcommittee had subpenaed from Munich. The official, Donald Main, said that of 700 of their applications so tar studied, the Army Counterintelligence Corps reports ‘“‘conclu- sive evidence of fraud,” in 35 to 50 percent, and that fraud ts suspected in many of the others. FAKE DOCUMENT MILLS Other major developments of,a day in which Main told his story of the DP’s being sent to this country were: 1. He testified that fake-documents mils are operating in 10 German towns that he named, and that 100 of 300 applicants known CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE to have obtained such documents in one town have been admitted to the United States. 2 He said he was pressured by Alexander Squadrilli, DP coordinator in Germany, to admit a man who had declared himself as anticapitalist. Main said he barred the ap- plicant, but that the applicant’s case has now been reinstated. ‘ 8. He said that of the six DP area chiefs tn Germany, three came from welfare ore ganizations that are helping DP’s get into this country, and named them. He said Squadrilli’s deputy, Benjamin Caplan, also came from one of the welfare organizations. RECORDS REMOVED 4. Main said Squadrilli ordered the ataff to remove from the files the records of ap- plicants once rejected, so that the casos could go by Mr. Tripp, the immigration offl- cial who had the final veto. 5. Main said there is no way to weed out Communists and other subversives from the DP’s, and said membership in one organiza- tion, conservatively estimated by counter- intelligence to be 40 percent Communist, is no bar to entering this country. 6. He testifled that he was overruled by higher officials on 25 to 50 percent of the cases he rejected before the arrival in Ger- many of Senator McCarran, Democrat, of Nevada, Judiciary Committee chairman and critic of overimmigration. Main said, how- ever, that the let-up which tollowed might also be attributed to the simultaneous ar- rival of Chairman Ugo Carusi, of the DPC. EXAMINATIONS NOT THOROUGH 7. Main charged that the counterintelll- gence exuminations of applicants are not thorough, and urged that American citizens, not other DP’s, make the reports on which are based the recommendations for accept- ance of the International Refugee Organiza- tion, through which the DP’s come to the DPC. 8. Senator Donnet., Republican, of Mis- souri, subcommittee chairman, and Richard Arens, subcommittee staff director, ques- tioned whether the DPC has usurped major powers oi the immigration officials. Main, an immigration official on loan to the DPC, is senior officer of its Munich district, one of the six DP districts in Germany. He testified that within 3 weeks last Sep- tember his district received 1,700 applica- tions, the bulk of them from the Hebrew Immigrants Ald Society and the United Serv- ice for New Americans. The applcations represented 3,500 persons, he said, since they were made in the names of heads of families. The great number of applications, he said, “aroused our suspicion.” “The sponsor agencies,” he explained, “had previously said their work would be over in October. About the same time, one agency thought hope of amending the DP Act—to advance the date on which aliens could qual- ify as DP’s—had been ended. It was appar- ent to me that these people had refrained from filing previously because they had come in—into DP zones—later. The cut-off date was December 22, 1945, and they were ineligi- ble, but they were hoping for a change in the cut-off datc. “About 25 to 30 appeals came in from per- sons who had previously been rejected be- cause their original applications had said they were not in the eligibility zones before the cut-off date. These applications now said they had been in the zones but had not thought they had been there long enough to mention it.” EVIDENCE OF FRAUD Main said the 1,700 applications were turned over to the counterintelligence, and that it has reported on 700 of them, that 85 to 60 percent are fraudulent. That is, he said, “conclusive evidence” of fraud has been found in these and fraud is suspected in many of the others. 2537 Senator Fxacuson, Republican of Michi- gan, said Main was leaving the impression that charity organizations are drumming up business. Main responded: “I did not intend to charge the agencies with conspiracy to get these people in illegally.” Of his five counterparts In Germany, Main said that Gertrude Ruskin, Augusta Mayer- son, and Michael Basheim had formerly been aMlinted with agencies helping immfgrants. Coordinator Squadrilli had been in the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration, Main said, and Squadrilli’s deputy, Caplan, came from one of the vol- untary organizations aiding tmmigrants. THE MEISENBAUM CASE “Do you remember the Meisenbaum case?” asked Arens. “Yes,” said Main. “That was one that cume back from counterintelligence with a Classified {secret for security reasons] report that the applicant had said and repeated that he was anti-Fascist, anti-Communist, and anticapitalist. Counterintelligence re- ported that he had apparently been in a movement hostile to the United States" Main said he rejected the applicant and got a letter from Squadrilli, in Frankfort, that “we had no business rejecting him,” and proposing another tnterview. He didn’t say to approve the application, but we took his letter to mean that. Main said he rejected the applicant in defiance of his superior and wrote a letter demanding to know what Squadrilli meant, but got no answer. Main said he under- stands the case Is now pending again before counterintelligence, TELLS OF COOLNESS He frankly stated that there is unfriend- liness between him and Squadrilli, and told of informing McCarran, on MCCARRAN’S Visit, of orders from Squadrilli to take rejected ap- plications from the files. Carusi learned of this order and became angry at a staff meet- ing, Main said, and Squadrilli said the order had been meant to bypass Tripp. {From the Chicago Daily Tribune of February 16, 1950] 80,000 rn Untrep SraTEs AS FAKE DP’s, PROBERS TOLD—CRIMINALS SLIP IN, OFFICIAL SAYS (By William Moore) WasHINGTON, February 15.—Thirty thou- sand of the 135,000 aliens admitted to this country under the displaced-persons law may not be bona fide DP’s, the American immigration chief for Europe said today. The official is Almanzo Tripp, an Immi- gration Service vetoran. A Displaced Persons Commission em- ployee, who said he was demoted for refus- ing to admit 80 members of the Polish guard he deemed bad risks, said that in one case, speed in the admission of an alien was asked in the name of the White House on behalf of a close relative of the applicant. Tripp told a Senate Judiciary Subcommit- tee investigating DP’s that: 1. The burden of proof is not on the ap- plicant to show that he is not a Commu- nist or subversive, but ts on the Govern- ment to show that he is, under DPC regu- lations, and that he stopped the entrance of 200 members of Hitler's SS or elite guard, with their families, after they had been ap- proved by DPC. PARDON FOR CONVICTS 2. One thousand aliens denied admission as DP’s under the Truman directive that preceded the DP law have now been admit- ted, and there is evidence that many of them falsified their place of residence to qualify. 8. The International Refugee Organization maintains a legal branch to get pardons for convicts so that they may be eligible to enter the United States.
2538 4. Of 96 persons, mostly convicts, whose fingerprints Tripp has recently received, 33 already have entered this country, and 11 of them are probably deportable. FINGERPRINTS IGNORED 5. fingerprint records in the Berlin docu- ment center and the American provost mar- shal’s office are ignored in examination of applicants, although they are available. DPC actually sends for them, he explained, but takes a calculated risk and OK’s the applications without waiting to receive the fingerprint records. 6. Tripp has campaigned unsuccessfully to have criminals and the physically handi- capped weeded out of the applicants. 7. Under orders to accept the eligibility certification of the IRO and the DPC, he has had to improvise to protect American secu- rity and try to bar undesirables by passive resistance. 8. If applicants were rejected when it is quite apparent something is wrong, this country would be taking a long step toward safeguarding its citizens. MURDER ADMITTED 9. One agency that sponsors DP'’s con- cealed the fact that 1 of the 2,000 it got ad- mitted was a murderer, and when the crime was disclosed the agency’s woman repre- sentative said the murder was only a politie eal offense. 10. Tripp has been told that an effort is being made to get him for barring unde- sirables, and two very truthful persons have told him that Alexander Squadrilli, Ameri- can DPC coordinator tn Europe, have s0- Ucited them to complain against Tripp. Tripp also said the immigration service can do the DP job better and with a smaller staff than the DPC, a statement that brought questions from Senator DoNNELL, Republi- can, of Missouri, and Richard Arens, sub- committee staff chief, regarding the advisa- bility of supplanting the DPC with the im- migration service. WHOLESALE FRAUD Telling of the 30,000 whose status as bona fide DP’s is in question. Tripp said these were doubtful date-line cases. The DP law requires that applicants must have been in Germany, Italy, or Austria by December 1945 to qualify, and witnesses have told of wholesale fraud in applications by persons who arrived later. Tripp said 44,000 aliens were brought in under the Truman directive. At least 1,000 who were rejected because they had not been in the required areas before the deadline, and perhaps thousands, Tripp said, have been brought in under the DP law. They have come in with applications claiming residence in the proper places at the proper times, he said, and have been accepted. This he said, indicates untruth- fulness that should invalidate their claims of the right to come here. Tripp said the immigration and DP laws both place the burden of proof on the appli- cant to show that he is not subversive. But, he explained, the DPC has reversed the obli- gation. Finding that criminal records were delay- ing the cases of some applicants, Tripp said, the IRO set up a legal office to procure par- dons. He said that a DPC employee became interested in some of the cases and com- plained to the IRO, which sent representa- tives to Tripp’s headquarters to clean things up. He testified that the fingerprint records are of especial value because they would reveal both crime and Nazi activities. The fingerprints of 96 persons from the DP camp at Bremen fell into his hands recently, he said, and although the records would have barred them, 33 had already satled to the United States, 11 of them bearing records for which they could be deported. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Tripp said the woman who sought to have @ murderer admitted was representing the Tolstol Foundation, an organization help- ing DP’s. “I chided her for concealing the murder,” he said, “but she told me it was justifiable because it was a political crime.” FORCED TO BACK DOWN Tripp said one of the six DPC senior offi- cers in Germany, a woman, showed a great interest in a number of cases before him, and insisted on admission of an applicant whose own brother, in New Jersey, had cer- tifled that the applicant was in the Russian army at the cut-off date, and who had been rejected under the Truman directive. The burden of proof was on him, Tripp said, and not on the DPC, and he had to back down and admit the applicant. He said representatives of two sponsor organizations had told him Squadrilli had solicited them to denounce him, when asked about reports that an effort is being made to “get” him He said these representatives are very truthful persons. Telling of the fake papers with which he has to cope, he mentioned that 400 persons had registered from one address. None of them, he said, had ever lived there. WHITE HOUSE REQUEST The DPC employee who told of the White House request was Frank B. Vaughan, Jr. He said his superior telephoned from Frank- furt, Germany, that the White House wanted speedy action, and that sometimes applica- tions bore the notation that Harry N. Rosen- feld, one of the DPC commissioners, wanted the applications speeded. Vaughan said that Gertrude Ruskin, one of the six DPC area senior officers in Ger- many, sought a pardon for a prospective DP. He explained that this man had been con- victed of stealing 14 eggs, but explained that food theft was a serious crime in Germany at the time of the offense. Vaughan said DPC workers in Germany might as well remain in the United States, since they don't investigate the applicants DPC recommends. Tripp had explained earlier that the investigations are made by other DP's working for IRO and that DPO accepts IRO certification. [From the Washington (D C.) Evening Star of February 25, 1950) SENATOR JENNER CALLS INSIDE STory or DP ProgRAM SHOCKING Senator JENNER, Republican, of Indiana, yesterday declared Americans would be utterly shocked if they knew the inside story of the displaced-persons program. The Senator, presiding at a Senate Judi- ciary Subcommittee hearing, charged “fraud- ulent papers—forged papers” are used to get some of these people into the country. He said some of them are masters of fraud and deception.” He asked how any Government agency can check on these immigrants when they sud- denly leave farms here with no trace of them kept. Senator JENNzER said there is no satisfac- tory screening of DP'’s in Europe. Investi- gators of the Displaced Persons Commission abroad cannot see many of the DP’s to inter- view them, he declared, adding that the In- ternational Refugee Organization is inter- ested in getting these people rushed to America. Senator Fercuson, Republican, of Mich- igan, pointed out that Americans who sponsor the DP’s feel morally obligated to see they do not become public charges. DOZEN FARM WITNESSES The hearing was on a Dill to raise the DP quota from 208,000 to 820,000 and to extend the program another year, MarcH 1 The subcommittee heard nearly a dozen farm witnesses from Maryland and Virginia. Some said the DP’s are working out satis- factorily, while others testified the DP’s are not farmers but have said they were because that is the easiest way to get into the coun- try. Some DP's were branded as “ungrate- ful” and “money mad.” Former Governor Tuck, of Virginia, was among those who had unpleasant experi- ences with DP's walking out, according to L. M. Walker, Jr., State commissioner of agriculture. Mr. Walker is chairman of the Virginia Displuced Persons Committee. R. H. Hudgins, county agent of Appomattox County, said he believed there are spies among these people. He said some praise Europe and criticize America and say they want to go back to Russia. He pointed out that this country is producing surplus food and said the country does not need foreign labor to help swell the surplus. M. B. Rowe, administrative assistant of the Virginia Agriculture Department, testified that some DP’s have expressed the opinion that the farmers should divide up their property and give them half. TWO-THIRDS SATISFACTORY Mr. Rowe said there are 118 DP families settled in Virginia through his office and 29 have left. He said about two-thirds of them are proving fairly satisfactory so far, but we do not know what to expect from one day to the next. Mr. Rowe declared the basic difficulty in the whole program is selection and the peo- ple doing the selecting abroad are not quali- fied to chooso farm people. J.C. Varkentine of Beaverdam, Va, a farm- er, said he came to the United States in 1923 from the Ukraine. He said DP’s trom 18 to 35 years old who have come from Russia have no sense of responsibility. He said that some, educated under the Stalin system in which the state owns all property, have come to regard property as being without value. Others who testified were Benjamin Wat- kins III; Charles B. Lynch; and J. Irving King; who all resigned as members of the Anne Arundel County (Md.) Displaced Per- sons Committee. They said they were dis- gusted with the program because of so many nonfarmers being supplied and confusion in the program LANE LETTER READ Oden A. Sansbury, Friendship, Md., farmer, Anne Arundel County Agent Stanley E. Day, Lawrence Mistr of Richmond and F. C. Nuck- ols, member of the Virginia State Board of Agriculture, also testified. Edward M. O’Connor, one of the three dis- placed persons commissioners, questioned the witnesses. He read a letter from Gov. Lane of Maryland, who said 80 percent of the farm- ers were satisfied with DP’s. Mr. O’Connor told Senator Fercuson he had no break-down of DP figures dealing with farmers only, said his commission is concerned about DP’s leav- ing farms, but declared between 80 and 85 percent of DP’s are proving satisfactory. Mr. Nuckols testified he was satisfied with the DP's he had received on his farm, but agreed & poor screening job is being done abroad. He said in view of the testimony of his colleagues, he was not sure how long he would remain satisNed with the DP’s. Many witnesses said the DP’s quit on short notice. MisHAWAKA, IND., February 24, 1950. Senator Patrick McCarran, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. Deak SENATOR McCarran: I am deeply grateful for your stand on the displaced per- sons problem. My experience with displaced persons ig that they want a great deal and appreciate very little. They have been a dis- appointment and I think that a great many other sponsors feel the same way. From the
1950 talk of some of these displaced persons, I have gathered that many undesirables have easily entered the country by paying a sum of money. It is my hope that they are more carefully screened in the future. Sincerely yours, Mrs. M. Vercsra. Ban Jose, Carir., February 21, 1950. United States Senator Pat McCarRan, Judictary Committee Chairman, Washington, D. C. Dear Senator: I have your letter of recent date containing a copy of your speech before the United States Senate on the displaced persons situation and the immigration legis- lation to date. This statement and information was read to the members of Unity Council, No. 39, Jr. O. U. A. M. on a recent date. In view of the critical situation today re- gards these hordes of misplaced persons and immigrants coming to our shores, the council wishes to inform you that we believe all immigration and displaced persons should be stopped now from entering the United States or any of our possessions. Further that the United States Senate and House of Representatives should enact very strict laws and regulations in the future. We must protect our American citizens and prevent any further unemployment, eco- nomic and social unrest, this is very danger- ous to the future welfare of our people. We are going through a serious crisis and many people are fearful of the future of our Nation. Your true patriotic spirit In warning your fellow Americans and endeavors toward a more sane administration of these laws are to be commended. Thank you for your sin- cere efforts in this matter. Very sincerely yours, F. L. Mourcn, Recording Secretary. NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS, MARINE Corps LEAGUE, Havelock, N.C., January 19, 1950. The Honorable Pat McCaRRAN, United States Senator, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. Dear SENATOR McCarran: It has been my pleasure to read your statement on the dis- placed-persons movement in the United States contained in the prepared statement, Displaced Persons: Facts Versus Fiction, which you made before the United States Senate on Friday, January 6, 1950. We are grateful to you for such bold dis- closure of the threat which endangers the very existence of the United States and seems to be ignored by our people. Such state- ments as you have made to enlighten us will do much to prevent the entry of undesirable aliens through strengthening of our present immigration laws at the demand of our citizens, The southeastern division, Marine Corps League, is very interested in this subversive movement and will do all within its power to prevent the passage of H. R. 4567 in the United States Senate. We will appreciate a list of the sponsors of this resolution and a list of the organizations supporting the res- olution. We will have a southeastern conference of all detachments in this division of the Ma- rine Corps League and the national vice commandant of the southeastern division intends to bring up this issue before the conference with regard to the threat of the displaced-persons movement. ‘The confer- ence will be held in Daytona Beach, Fla., in April of this year. Thanking you again for your statement and your patriotic attitude on this important issue. Most sincerely, Vian, V. HARTON. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Wiu.uMm E. Tare Craprer, No. 17, DUsaABLED AMERICAN VETERANS, North Charleston, §.C., February 13, 1950. Senator McCarran, . Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. Dear SENATOR McCakRan: The William E. Tate Chapter, No. 17, Department of South Carolina, Disabled American Veterans, appre- ciates and extends to you our sincere appre- ciation for your efforts to reduce the liber- alized displaced-person quota of immigrants to this country. The courage, honesty, and patriotism req- uisite for your stand on this question, in face of highly organized active minority and international partisanship is fully realized. The chapter wishes to convey to you its offer of support to the full limit of its char- ter, prestige, and covenant. Your good leadership is very much appre- ciated. Very truly yours, Epwarp F.. TOPPING, Adjutant. VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS or THE Unirep STaTEs, InGLEwoop Post No. 2122, Inglewood, Calif., January 7, 1950. The Honorable Pat McCarran, Senator from Nevada, Washington, D. C. Dear 81k: In pursuance of action taken at a regular meeting of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Inglewood Post No. 2122, Inglewood, Calif., I wish to express the sincere apprecia- tion of our members for your position on H. R. 4567 (displaced persons) bill coming before the Senate. If only all Senators and Congressmen could see the true picture of unemployment, these measures would never get to the floor of either house. Enclosed is a copy of a letter sent to Sena- tors WiILLIAM F. KNOWLAND and SHERIDAN Downey, of the State of California Again I wish to thank you, and hope thie Pill is defeated. I have the honor to remain, Very truly yours, L. H. BruGMANN, Commander. NATIONAL Society, DAUCHTERS oF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION, Ashland, Kans., February 10, 1950. Senator Par McCarran, Senate of the United States, Washington, D. C. My Dear SENATOR: I am indebted to you for the several copies of your statement on dis- placed persons. Thank you very much for your generosity which makes it possible for me to provide every member of the resolutions committee of the Daughters of the American Revolution with a copy. In April the DAR will meet in its annual meeting and will reaffirm its stand on dis- placed persons, I feel sure. Your splendid explanation of the situation will help make this a certainty. I enclose a copy of our resolutions as passed at our annual conti- nental congress a year ago, 1949, in which you will find our policy on immigration and other topics of the day. It is fortunate that we have you, Senator, to plead for the rights of the American people. Cordially, DoroTHy BERRYMAN SHReEwvDER. IMMIGRATION Resolved, That the fifty-eighth continental congress of the National Society, Daughters of the American Revolution reaffirm the res- olution on immigration adopted by the fifty- veo continental congress of 1048, name- 8 2539 “Whereas the economic, social and spiritual mind of the United States is under increas- ing pressures and conflicts, and there is growing evidence of a determined effort by foreign blocs to break down our immigra- tion laws; and “whereas the immigration laws of 1924, now threatened with change, have restricted immigration to a quota system allocating @ definite number to each nationality men- tioned, such allocation not to be interchange- able among quotas; “Resolved, That for the purpose of protect- ing the interest of all our citizens, and particularly our veterans, and for the pur- pose of excluding foreign elements imbued with political ideologies wholly at varlance with our constitutional system of govern- ment, the National Soctety, Daughters of the American Revolution urge upon the Congress that no immigration over and above the present quota system shall be permitted into the United States, either by special leg- islation, unused quotas, or Executive order.” — Tur Greens CoUNTY AMERICAN LEGION, DEPARTMENT OF NEW YORK, Palenville, N. ¥., January 30, 1950. BENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. GENTLEMEN: Enclosed ig a copy of a reso- lution approved by this organization in ses- sion at Cairo, N. Y., on January 27, 1960. Any consideration you can give this reso- lution will be deeply appreciated. Yours very truly, Witson OC. Epwarps, County Adjutant. Whereas laws recently enacted by the Con- gress of the United States making !t possible, and inviting the importation of displaced persons from foreign countries; and Whereas the importation of such displaced persons is sponsored by certain monied parties for the purpose of obtaining cheap labor; and Whereas there is no labor shortage in these United States at this time; and Whereas these displaced persons arriving in this country in Jarge numbers are filling jobs that can and should be filled by American labor; and Whereas these displaced persons are being furnished housing units that are greatly needed by our own countrymen and their families; and Whereas a large portion of the labor sup- ply of this country consists of veterans, who have fought to defend this country in times of world conflict; and Whereas the importation of these displaced persons is depriving American veterans and laborers of employment and housing that is rightfully theirs; and Whereas American veterans and laborers have already been replaced by such displaced persons in this area; and Whereas there is the danger of the infiltra- tion of Communists into this country with these quotas: Be it therefore Resolved, That Boehm-Dodd Post No. 1604, the American Legion, Department of New York, protest the importation of such foreign labor, that is now, and as time goes on, Will deprive more American veterans and labor of securing proper employment and housing in their native land; and be it further Resolved, That this resolution be made part of the minutes of this meeting and copies thereof forwarded to the American Legion of Greene County, and through chan- nels to the department convention of the American Legion; Assemblyman William E. Brady; State Senator Arthur Wicks; Member
2540 of Congress Jay LeFevre, and United States Senator Irvine M. Ives. Rarmonp W. HEIDo, Commander, JosernH A. GREEN, Adjutant. Approved by the Greene County American Legion, at a meeting held at Cairo, N. ¥., on January 27, 1950. Joun L. Cass, County Commander. Witson C Epwarbs, County Adjutant. UNITED BROTHERHOOD, CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, Las Vegas, Nev., February 17, 1950. Benator Par McCarran, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. Dear SeNaTor: Your statement on dis- placed persons, Facts Versus Fiction, has been brought before carpenters local 1780 and thoroughly discussed And I wish to say that we are in favor of your statement. We believe as a labor organization that each displaced person or refugee, immigrant, or whatever you wish to call them, coming into the United States is going to have to be employed, therefore replacing one of our own people, of which we know today that there are too many of our own people with- out work, We might say further that we believe you are correct in your statement that the most Communist and other subversive organiza- tions of the United States are of foreign stock or of persons married to foreign stock. And we, as the members of the A. F. of L., are definitely and wholeheartedly against such organizations, especially since our hands have been tied from expelling such persons from our union by the Taft-Hartley law. We are also in receipt of a communication from farm laborers and stocK-ranch em- ployees who are being replaced with cheap Mexican and Basque or Spanish labor, We understand in our own State of Nevada, a Movement is now on foot to bring in several thousand Basque sheepherders into the sheep-growing industry in Nevada. And we are definitely opposed to importing these people. We hope, Senator, that this an- sewers your question as to just how the car- penters of local 1780, Las Vegas, Nev., feel about the question of displaced persons or any type of immigration. Thanking you for all past and anticipated future cooperation, I am, Respectfully yours, J. H MANKINS, Secretary-Manager, Carpenters Local No. 1780. BarRNetr Post No. 123, -THE AMERICAN LEGION, Norwood, Ohio, February 21, 1950. The Honorable Pat McCarran, United States Senate, Washington, D C. Dear SENATOR: Enclosed is a copy of a reso- lution adopted by the Leland M. Barnett Post 123, the American Legion, Norwood, Ohio, at its last regular meeting in strong opposition to the enactment of House Reso- lution No, 4567 into law. We are of the firm opinion that to pass this resolution would most seriously jeop- ardize the welfare, health, peace, and secu- rity of each and every American. Therefore, we earnestly request that you vote against this resolution when it comes up for con- sideration in the Senate. In your acknowledgment of the receipt of our resolution, we would like, if possible, to have your thinking on this matter, Thank you. Very truly yours, D. JaMzes DurRNING, Adjutant. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE ADHERE TO ExtsTINa Laws AND QuorAs FOR IMMIGRATION AND DISPLACED PERSONS Whereas according to Government reports, there are more than 4,000,000 unemployed persons in the United States, which number includes a large number of war veterans and & number of recent college graduates who have been unable to secure employment upon graduation, and which number of unem- Ployed is gradually increasing, which, along with other factors, is creating a buge relief problem and burden; and Whereas a large number of our college students are developing a futility complex at the thought that a large number of them may not be able to find employment upon their graduation under existing conditions; and Whereas such unfortunate circumstances and conditions tend to create hopeless Gespair in the minds and bodies of those affected thereby, attention being invited to the following letter published in the Janu- ary 18, 1950, edition of the Cincinnati Post, @ daily newspaper of Cincinnati, Ohio: “WANTS SANCTUARY “(By D. H., Cincinnati) “May I have your help in finding a genuine Communist? If I can discover such a man, I have a favor to ask of him. Perhaps he would be willing to aid me in emigrating to Russia. I am without knowledge of the en- try requirements, and I lack even the money for travel fare This is asking a good deal, I must admit, but the benefactor will be re- Paid in full, somehow. “You may wonder why I should wish to become a Russian citizen. Well, the explana- tion is simple enough. In Russia there is freedom. There is the greatest of all personal freedoms, which is the freedom to earn one’s bread. Even in a Soviet slave-labor camp, a man is accorded the liberty to work. “This is not true of America. Here the problem of unemployment is ignored We ask for work, for some means of livelihood, and we are laughed at or spat upon, denied even the right to existence which is inherent slavery. “I'am tired of enforced idleness. I am strong of body and sound of mind, and I am weary of rusting away in disuse. Thus I come, like a DP in reverse, seeking to escape the oppression of America for sanctuary in Russia’; and Whereas since the end of World War II there has been a tremendous increase in the influx of people from all over the world, both legally and illegally, there being no near con- ception as to the number of illegal allen entrants in this country at this time, it being thought by some that the number may be in excess of 1,000,000, and in addition there- to are a large number who were admitted during the war years presumably on a temporary basis, who have overstayed their periods of admission and are now seeking to remain here permanently; and Whereas the American Legion, at its recent thirty-first national convention, compre- hending and foreseeing the dire results of further immigration on the citizens of the United States, adopted resolution No. 654, which reads as follows. “Now, therefore, be it “Resolved, That the American Legion in national convention assembled in Philadel- phia, Pa., August 29, 30, $1, and September 1, 1949, demand of our Government heads that they strictly adhere to the existing laws now in force applying to displaced persons rather than place any additional burden on the people of America by increasing the quotas of immigration; and be it further “Resolved, That we take steps to curtail as far as possible, any further immigration to this county at the present’; and Whereas strong pressure groups are seek- ing to break down the barriers on immigra- tion, and to that end have succeeded in have Marcy 1 ing passed House Resolution No. 4567, de- signed to admit 115,000 more displaced per- sons than under existing law, a large number of whom were not considered displaced per- sons as of December 31, 1945, being more than 4 months following the cessation of hostilities of World War II, and which resolution, or any similar legislation, if enacted into law. would most seriously affect the welfare, health, peace, and security of the good citi- zens of the United States of America: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That Leland M. Barnett, post No. 123, the American Legion, of Norwood, Ohto, at its regular meeting on February 7, 1950, go on record as being strongly opposed to the enactment of House Resolution No. 4567, or any similar legislation, into law; and demand that present immigration laws in force be strictly adhered to and followed; be it further Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the two Senators from Ohio, Hon. Ropert A. Tart, and Hon. Joun W. Bricker, with the urgent request that they do all possible to prevent the enactment of House Resolution No. 4567, or any similar leg- islation, into law; that a copy thereof be for- warded to Hon. Pat McCarran, Senator from Nevada, and chairman of the Senate Judi- ciliary Committee; and such further distribu- tion as may be deemed advisable. [From the Washington Post of February 17, 1950] FBI PROBING SOME UNITED STATES BACKERS OF DP SECURITY RISKS FRANKFURT, GERMANY, February 16.—An American official said today the Federal Bu- reau of Investigation is checking on some Americans who have volunteered to assist displaced persons considered to be security risks. Alex E Squadrilli, United States Displaced Persons Commission coordinator for Europe, said about 600 displaced person risks huve been kept in Europe. Most are suspected Communists. Squadrilii said he knew of FBI reports sent here on “about a dozen” Americans who offered to sponsor persons for immigration to the United States. As many as 500 other displaced persons may have reached the United States through a fraudulent scheme now being investigated, he said. Six Ger- man Officials are being prosecuted. HANNAH-CROSMAN Post, No, 2233, VETERANS OF FOREIGN WaRSs OF THE UNITED STATES, Ocean Grove, N. J, February 25, 1950. Hon. Parrick McCarran, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DeaR SENATOR McCarRAN: Our organiza- tion, Hannah-Crosman Post, No, 2238, Vet- erans of Foreign Wars of the United States, Ocean Grove, N. J., is on record as favoring your fight to have House Rule 4567 defeated as our organization believes that the further entry of displaced persons should be strictly limited or entirely stopped if necessary to safeguard our American way of life, which apparently many of these so-called displaced persons do not favor, being 1n some cases active in organizations opposed to our Gov- ernment. We are also writing to Senators H. ALEXx- ANDER SMITH and ROBERT HENDRICKSON, Sen- ators from New Jersey, telling them of our opposition to this House rule, Sincerely yours, RICHARD M. BorvEN, Adjutant, Acting. ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS TAKEN ON HOOVER REPORTS Mr. McCLELLAN. Mr. President, as chairman of the Committee on Expendi- tures in the Executive Departments, have
1950 ing jurisdiction of reorganization bills and plans, generally speaking, to imple- ment the Hoover Commission recom- mendations, I have constantly tried to keep the Senate informed with reference to the progress being made with refer- ence to the controversies which arise re- garding the reorganization measures. Iam submitting for the information of the Senate a letter received from Frank Pace, Jr., Director of the Bureau of the Budget, addressed to the Senate Com- mittee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments, reporting on progress made in the executive branch on Hoover Com- mission recommendations to be effectu- ated through administrative actions. Under a digest made by the Bureau of the Budget on September 30, 1949, it was estimated that 122 separate acti- vating steps would be required to fully implement this phase of the Hoover Commission program. In the report just released, the Direc- tor of the Bureau of the Budget esti- mates that of 91 specific steps required for implementation by administrative action without the need for prior sub- stantive or appropriation legislation, 25 have already been completed and 38 partially completed; 7 are still under study, and no action has been taken on 21. Of the latter, 6 must be held in abeyance awaiting reorganization action. The digest also indicated that recom- mendations of the Hoover Commission which could be effectuated by reorgani- zation plans required a total of 82 sep- arate steps. The attached report states that of this number, 13 have been com- pleted and 14 have been partially com- pleted, with 2 being disapproved by the Senate under Reorganization Plan 1 of 1949. No action has been taken on 49 of these steps, which it is understood are now being considered by the President with a view to submitting additional re- organization plans to Congress within the next few days for implementation of at least part of these recommendations, The Director of the Bureau of the Budget pointed out in his report that 29 administrative steps and 4 reorganiza- tion steps are dependent upon prior sub- stantive or appropriation legislation, and that two administrative steps are de- pendent upon action by the General Accounting Office. These have been omitted from the above tabulation. Examples of these instances on which no action has been taken due to other contingent steps include (a) recom- mendations in the report on medical activities provide that the UMA should give constant attention to necessary measures for national defense, and (b) medical and other personnel for the UMA should be on a career service basis. Both of these recommendations are con- tingent on the recommendation to create a United Medical Administration. Another example—that the proposal to create an Accountant General in the Treasury Department would require that the Accountant General should produce financial reports for the President, the XCVI——160 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Congress, and the public—cannot be effectuated unless an Accountant Gen- eral is created. There are other areas in which ad- ministrative action is dependent on appropriations, including the specific recommendations that ‘department heads should be provided with adequate assistance,” in the report on general management, and that “Cabinet level and other interagency committees in the area of foreign affairs should be assisted by special institutional aids in the Exec- utive office,” in the report on foreign affairs. I ask unanimous consent to have the letter from the Director of the Bureau of the Budget printed at this point in the REcorp. There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, BUREAU OF THE BUDGET, Washington, D. C., February 27, 1950. Hon. JoHN L. MCCLELLAN, Chairman, Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. My Dear SENATOR MCCLELLAN: As re- quested in your letter of January 28, 1 am transmitting a report of progress to date in the executive branch on Hoover Commis- sion recommendations that may be carried out through administrative actions. All reorganization steps which have been com- pleted are also shown, whether carried out through reorganization plans or legislation. This report ts based on steps set forth in the Digest of Recommendations of the Com- mission—Classified by Possible Methods of Effectuation, dated September 30, 1949. This digest shows 29 administrative steps and 4 reorganization steps as dependent on prior substantive or appropriation legislation. It also shows 2 administrative steps as depend- ent upon action by the General Accounting Office. These steps have been excluded from the attached report. Of the remaining 91 administrative steps which can be carried out by the executive branch, some action has been taken on ap- proximately 77 percent; 27.4 percent have been completely implemented; and about 6 percent must await completion of some re- organization action. The attached state- ment by the President, which was released at a recent press conference, gives more de- tailed information about some of the work under way in the executive branch. Of the remaining 78 reorganization steps, action has been completed on 16.6 percent and partially completed on an additional 17.9 percent. A revised report will be sub- mitted to show the effect of any reorganiza- tion plans which the President may submit to the Congress within the next few weeks. These additional points should be made, Since the digest is an analysis of the several reports of the Commission, a number of du- plications exist. If duplication were elim- inated, there would be 16 fewer reorganiza- tion steps and 4 fewer administrative steps shown. This duplication accounts for 26 percent of the reorganization steps which are reported as having no action taken. Your committee is providing a valuable service in publishing these reports, and I shall be happy to cooperate with you in any possible way. @incerely yours, Franx Pace, Jr., Director, 2541 Progress on tmplementing Hoover Commts- sion recommendation which can be care ried out through administrative actions or reorganization plans, Feb. 14, 1950 Administrative actions: Completed .....-.------~-------- ee 25 Partially completed ! 33 Study under way----....-------- ~ 7 No action taken (6 must await reor- ganization action) --..--.-.--.-- ai Total .-.--..-....--.----- a 91 ao Reorganization plans: Completed ._.---..---...--..-.---. 13 Partially completed !..-..-..----.- 14 Disapproved by Senate..-.-.-.-... 2 No action.....-.~...-------------- 4 Total....-..----..-----.------- 18 1In most cases these recommendations ree quire the same steps in many different agen- cies; these steps have been completed in some agencies but not in all. In other cases ac- tions to carry out the recommendations are in progress but are not yet completed. Mr. McCLELLAN. Mr. President, for the information of the Senate and the Congress, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Recorp a press re- lease by the President of the United States, dated January 17, 1950, with ref- erence to certain aspects of the reorgani- zation program, which is based upon the report submitted to him by the Bureau of the Budget. There being no objection, the release was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: The President today (January 17, 1950) made public the following report which had been prepared by the Bureau of the Budget at his request and presented to the Presi- dent and to the President's Advisory Com- mittee on Management Improvement. The report Hsts a number of the high points in the management improvement program of the executive branch for 1950. The Prest- dent indicated that he had given his approval and strong support to the proposed actions as significant steps in the right direction. “REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT ON MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENT ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE Ex- ECUTIVE BRANCH or THE GOVERNMENT “On July 29, 1949, Executive Order 10072 was issued calling upon the heads of depart- ments and agencies to prepare programs for the systematic improvement of management and operations throughout the Federal Gov- ernment. These programs were submitted with the budget estimates for the fiscal year 1951, and were reviewed in the Bureau of the Budget as part of the budget process. “The actions listed in this report have been selected to serve as specific examples of management improvement efforts in the departments and agencies. Many other similar actions not described in this report are under way or proposed. “The report is divided into three types of actions: (1) certain investigations recom- mended by the Hoover Commission; (2) management improvement activities of Gov- ernment-wide application in which central management agencies, such as the Bureau of the Budget, the Civil Service Commission and the General Services Administration, will exercise leadership; and (3) manage- ment-improvement activities in individual agencies for which agency heads are respon- sible. “The steps outlined in this report repre- sent affirmative action on most of the recom- mendations of the Hoover Commission which