10010 the Senator from New Hampshire yield yileid. Mr, FERGUSON. Does not the Sena- tor from New Hampshire feel that if the Nationa] Guard as 4 unit, or if the Re- serves, desire more money, they should proceed through the regular channels, and present the matter on a deficiency bill, or a supplemental bill, as is antici- pated being done by the regular services? Mr. BRIDGES. I do; that is the logi- cal course to follow. Mr. FERGUSON. Is it not true that for two services, the Alr Porce and the Navy, the Committee on Appropriations in this bill has given the amount the budget requested, and in the one service gave more, but in the Army $200,000 less? Mr. BRIDGES. That is correct. Mr. THYE. Mr. President, ff the Sen- ator will yield, I have before me the re- port which accompanies H. R. 7786, and if we look the report over we find in the chart on page 286 that the appropriation for the Army National Guard, 1950 act, is $216,000,000; estimated, 1951, $210,700,- 000. The House bill provided $212,- 400,000. The amount recommended by the Senate committee was $210,500,000, or $1,900,000 less than the amount in the House bill. Mr. FERGUSON. Minus $200,000, just te said to the Senator from New Hamp- shire. Mr. BRIDGES. One million nine hun- dred thousand dollars under the House figure, and $200,000 under the Budget Bureau's figure. Mr. THYE. I agree; but the House allowed $212,400,000, and at the time the House passed the bill they did not have confronting them the world situa- tion which faces us today. They cer- tainly were not confronted with the fact that the Regular Army was being called from the shores of the United States, thereby lessening our own national se- curity, and that we are now dependent upon the National Guard to give us the internal security the Nation must have. Mr. FERGUSON and Mr. MAYBANK addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from New Hampshire yield, and if so, to whom? Mr. BRIDGES. I yield first to the Senator from Michigan, and then I shall yield to the Senator from South Carolina. Mr. FERGUEON. I merely desire to make clear that so far as the pending bill is concerned, the appropriation is only $200,000 under the budget estimate. We cannot change the House figure ex- cept as we vote on the Senate bill, and then any amendment would have to go to conference. Is not that correct? Mr. BRIDGES. That is correct. Mr, THYE. I am sure the Senator will agree that any Senator may offer an amendment, and trust and hope that he will be able to convince the Senate that his amendment should prevail. My only reason for entering into a discus- ston with the able juntor Senator from ‘Texas, when he was giving a report as he saw the situation as to our own se- eurity and the world crisis, was ta com- Pliment the able Cenator. I stated at CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE that time that it was my conviction that the National Guard should have more money, and that I hoped and intended to offer an amendment, before the ap- propriation bill was finally passed, trust- ing that I could convince the Senate that we need to appropriate more funds for the National Guard in order to strengthen our own internal security, inasmuch as our troops are leaving our shores and going to foreign service. Iam very thankful to the Committee on Appropriations for affording an op- portunity tomorrow morning to appear before them and present arguments in the committee as to the need to increase the appropriation, both for the National Guard and the wing section of the National Guard. Mr. MAYBANK. Mr. President, will the Senator from New Hampshire yield? Mr. BRIDGES. I yield to the Senator trom South Carolina. Mr. ‘4AYBANK, I merely wish to say that I attended the hearings, and no one has a greater respect for General Walsh than I have, but I finally agreed with the Senator from Michigan that this matter should be handled in a supple- mental bill. The question came up as to whether we should reduce the House ap- propriation. We were interested in the Taber amendment, and that is why we voted in the subcommittee as we did. Mr. THYE. Mr. President, may I have one moment? Mr. BRIDGES. I yield to the Senator. Mr. THYE. I wish to say, in behalf of General Walsh, the President of the National Guard Association, that Gen- eral Walsh did not come to me originally; he was not initiating any action. I called General Walsh in order to get his opinion. Mr. MAYBANK. Mr. President, will the Senator from New Hampshire yield? Mr, BRIDGES. I yield. Mr. MAYBANK. I never have sug- gested that General Walsh would do such a thing. I merely made the statement that some of those interested in the Na- tional Guard came to see me, and that my vote on the subcommittee was in keeping with the House provision rather than the Taber amendment, as the Sen- ator from Michigan stated. Mr. BRIDGES. Mr. President, my only point in raising this question was that I wanted to make sure that the bill was not to be reopened. It was reported to the Senate. I am sure the distin- guished Senator from Minnesota is very sincere in what he says, and he should have a right to present his argument and his case. I think the place for the ap- propriation would be tn the next supple- mental bill. We have not had any re- quest from the National Defense De- partment about this matter. Should they request what the Senator presents, or what the armed services may present, I think the appropriation should come in the supplemental bill which will follow this one shortly. My only point is as to the reapentng of the bill, because if we reopen it as to one appropriation, we will be asked to reopen ft as to a number of others. Mx. MAGNUSON. My. President, I have a very brief statement to make on F 4 g pt al F Lp i pit saci the Senate, who have not been here long as some of the OX! timers, are very that Senators are crowded, that stenog- raphers are sittmg almost on top of each other, with files om top of them. I resent any implication that we safe voting for extra space in troubled times merely because it is wanted. Mr. McKELLAR. Mr. President, may I ask the Senator who seid that? Mr. MAGNUSON. The implication was that we might have done it. Mr. McKELLAR. I made no such implication. Mr. MAGNUSON. I got that implica- tion from some of the debate. Mr. McKELLAR. The Senator cer- tainly did not get it from anything I said, because I know exactly what the situa- tion is, but I do not think this fs the time to remedy that situation. Mr. MAGNUSON. I merely wanted to make the statement that the business of the Senate, of course, is just as much public business at any time as is Pentagon Building business. It is busi- ness which must be taken care of, and during times of national stress it involves communications, letters to answer from people directly involved in any effort we may make at home or abroad. Some of us younger Senators who are in a crowd- ed condition perhaps should not have voted for a new building or for some new space. If some quonset huts were put up on the lot which has been acquired we would be glad to have them, if thereby additional space would be provided. Probably the matter can be remedied without all this discussion about the con- ditions as they are. On behalf of myself and the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Humpurey)} I sub- mit an amendment. I am sure I could get 15 or 20 other Senators to sponsor the amendment if we had time. There are many Senators who have plenty of space. That is well and good. I want them to have plenty of snace. But some of us have a particular problem. I ask for immediate consideration of the amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sranmman in the chair). The amend- ment will be stated for the information of the Senate. The Lzectstative Curr. At the proper place in the bill it 1s proposed to insert the following: The Committee on Rules and Administra- tion ts hereby directed to reexamine and re- allocate all Senate office space toward the end of a more equitable assignment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Com- mittee amendments are now being con- sidered, the Chair will say to the Sen- ator from Washington. It is not in order to consider the Senator's amendment at 8 .
1950 Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, I of- fer it as an amendment to the commit- tee amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no committee amendment pending at this time. The amendment offered by the Senator from Washington on behalf of himself and the Senator from Minnesota may be printed and lie on the table until committee amendments have been dis- posed of. Mr. MAGNUSON. I offer the amend- ment then to appear on page 23, follow- ing line 21. Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, a point of order. The PRESIDING OFFICER. May the Chair state that the same rule as pre- viously stated by the Chair still would apply. Mr. MAGNUSON. Then, Mr. Presi- dent, I submit the amendment and ask that it may be printed and lie on the table. I hope all members of the Com- mittee on Rules and Administration will have the opportunity to fille by the clerk’s desk and read the amendment because it represents a very serious plea on the part of some Senators who have much public business to transact, who are tremendously crowded and have less office space than some Senators who have rooms tucked away all over the Cap- itol and in the Sénate Office Building it- self, The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be received, printed, and will lie on the table. Mr. CHAVEZ and Mr. KNOWLAND addressed the Chair. Mr. MAGNUSON. I now yield the floor, Mr. President. Before doing so, however, I should like to yield to the Senator from New Mexico. Mr. CHAVEZ. Mr. President, along the line suggested by the Senator from the State of Washington I should like to say that the fault is not at all with the Committee on Rules and Adminis- tration. The Senator from the State of Washington is just as correct as he can be. What can those in the Pentagon Building do that is more than the Senate of the United States can do? How can those in the Pentagon Building function adequately unless the Senate of the United States functions adequately? How can Senators be happy and work well unless they work in a happy atmos- phere, with adequate space? How can we do more for the country in the emer- gency which is talked about so much, than by doing something for the Senate of the United States? Where can we do more than we can by providing ade- quate space for the Members of the Senate? Mr. President, it appears that some” want to blame the Committee on Rules and Administration. Let us blame our- selves alone. We do not seem to have enough intestinal fortitude. We are willing to present measures by the wholesale which cost the taxpayers much money, present measures which call for the appropriation in the future of millions upon millions of dollars. But when it comes to the question of doing something for the Senate itself, so its members can properly perform their work for the benefit of the taxpayer we CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE love to talk about, whose: patriotism and loyalty we love to extol, then it is some- thing quite different. I believe the Sen- ator from Washington is correct in the position he has taken. Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, the Senator from Minnesota has asked me to yield to him. I yield to him. Mr. LUCAS, Mr. President, a point of order, Who has the floor? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington still has the oor, Mr. KNOWLAND, I understood the Senator from Washington said he yleld- ed the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. He did s0, but then almost immediately he yielded to the Senator from New Mexico before the Senator from California started to speak. The Chair will recog- nize the Senator from California as soon as the Senator from Washington yields the floor. The Chair is informed that the Sen- tor from Washington has now yielded the floor. The Chair now recognizes the the Senator from California. DEATH OF RAY RICHARDS IN KOREA Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, yesterday news came from Korea of the death of Ray Richards. I had seen Ray Richards when I was in the Far East last November, both in Tokyo and in Seoul. Many Members of the Senafe knew Ray Richards very well as a newspaper man who had had long experience in Washington. Ray Richards made the entire Pacific theater his beat. In the twenties he was with the Associated Press in Los Angeles, going from there to the Honolulu Star Bulletin. Then followed years of news coverage—in Japan for the Japan Ad- vertiser—in China for Shanghai Sunday Post-Mercury and Shanghai Press, be- fore returning to the United States in the mid-thirties, to work first on the San Francisco Examiner and later on the Los Angeles Examiner, During this pe- riod he made one more trip to the Orient covering various stages of Japa- nese aggression in north China. In 1938 he re.urned to the Los Angeles Examiner as day city editor, a position he occupied until he came to Washington shortly after Pear] Harbor, Richards made two surveys of the Near East situation for the Hearst news- papers after the war. In 1946 he visited Greece and Turkey briefly during the height of Communist disturbances in the former country, following which he returned to his duties in Washington. He was a correspondent at the United Nations Conference in San Francisco, and in late 1947 and the first part of 1948 covered the Chinese Communist aggressions in north China. Again he returned to Washington to report efforts in Congress to strengthen our forces in the Pacific. A year ago, convinced the key danger point in the Pacific to Communist attack was South Korea, he joined President Syngman Rhee of the South Korea Re- public, whom he had known for years, as & press adviser, He returned to the role of correspondent for the Hearst newspapers and International News 10011 Service when the Korean Communists invaded and the South Korean Govern- ment fled the capital Seoul. The news dispatches, as I said yes- terday, told how Ray Richards, together with the other foreign war corresponc- ents who are now in Koreas, went out to see for himself and to report to the American people what was happening in that country during the war period, During the period of World War II, Mr. President, many war correspond- ents connected with the newspapers and press associations also gave their lives for their country, in order to keep the American Republic and its people prop- erly informed as to what was going on. While these men are not in the same category as members of our armed services, they nevertheless on numerous occasions have risked their lives in order to acquaint the American people with the facts. I believe the American peo- ple many times get their first informa- tion from the newspapers rather than from their Government, which is some- times a little lax in telling them the cold hard facts of fe. Many of the newspaper correspondents risk their lives. On occasion some of them have to give their lives in the performance of their duties. Ray Richards was one of them, and I know that all his friends, both in the fourth estate and those in the Senate of the United States, will miss him from now on. Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to place in the Recorp following the speech by the Sen- ator from California two telegrams which I sent to the family of Mr. Rich- ards, whom I knew well, for I had worked with him on many occasions, and also to the press, on his passing away. There being no objection, the tele- grams were ordered to be printed in the Recorp, 28 follows: Reports of the death of Ray Richards in Korea come as a distinct shock and give me a sense of persona! loss. 1 knew Ray Richards well. He had & great understand- ing of the Pacific and its needs and prob- lems; we had discussed them many times, It is no surprise to learn he was out there before there was a war on, as he had an in- stinct for activity in the Pacific. After World War II he took the greatest interest in my offorts to insure that we would have American bases in the Pacific. He knew the arguments behind my proposal for establish- ing a naval academy on the west coast and why it was needed He was abreast or ahead of our demands for adequate defenses in Alaska and only a few months ago we were up to our necks in that fight, with Ray working to keep the American public in- formed of the progress. Even more recently he went through another round in the ever- lasting fight for a stronger Pacific, this time on Hawaiian and Alaskan statehood. Few knew China or Japan better, or understood the Pacific as well as did Ray Richards. He died as he lived, well out in front of the fight for American security. Warren G. MAGNUSON, United States Senator. JULY 11, 1980, Mr, Enwarp C. LApPrne, The Hearst Newspapers, Times-Herald Butiding, Washington, D. C.: With deepest regret have just heard re- porte of death of Ray Richards in Korea. On many occasiona during years he served
10012 with Hearst newspapers I had come to know him as vigorous and accurate correspondent whose purpose was to keep public informed on vital public issues. In most recent monthe he was in developing facts regarding Alaskan and Pacific defenses and Hawatien and Alaskan statehood issues here in Washington, D C. His loss will be keenly felt by those of us who knew him personally. Wangen G. MAGNUSON, United States Senator. Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, I wish to assoctate myself completely with the remarks made by the distinguished Sen- ator from California [Mr, KNowLanp]. Of all the newspapermen with whom we associate here, certainty among those who are close friends of mine, I do not know of ary man who did more for the Indian than did Ray Richards. He was one of my dear friends. He was born in Minot, N. Dak., 56 years ago. He was one of the " outstanding citizens of North Da- kota. He was a man of whom the people of North Dakota were inordinately proud. Ray Richards made a thorough study of the Torres-Martinez, Navajo, and Hopi Indians. His death is e distinct loss to those of us who have been trying to better the condition of some 233,000 Indians, I know that as that fight goes on to better their conditions the Indians will realize that one of their very best friends has been taken from them. GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS, 1961 The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (H. R. 7786) making appro- priations for the support of the Govern- ment for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1951, and for other purposes. Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, there are only two more minor amendments to chapter 2 of the bill. I wonder wheth- er they can be considered and acted upon now. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sparkman in the chair). The next amendment of the Committee will be stated, The next amendment was, on page 27, after line 20, to inseri: INDES-DIGEST OF THE FUBLICATIONS OF THE TEMPORARY NATIONAL ECONOMIC COMMITTEE “Salaries and expenses: For expenses neces- sary to enable the Librarian to edit and publish the index-digest «: the publications of the Temporary National Economic Com- mittee, tucluding personal services tn the District of Cotumbta; printing and binding; services as authorized by section 15 of the Act of August 2, 1946 (5 U. S, C. 55a); $18,000, to remain available until expended. Mr. McKELLAR. Mr. President, let us have a clear understanding of what the amendment does. The PRESIDING OFFICER, It is a committee amendment. Mr. McKELLAR. I know that, but I wish to have the amendment go over until tomorrow; I object to its present consideration. NATIONAL COMMISSION ON INTERGOV- ERNMENTAL RELATIONS Mr. BENTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be in- serted in the body .f the Hacoxrp at this point an editorial entitled “Nation and Btate,” which appeared in the Washing- ton Post for July 11, 1950, in connection CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE with the bill (6. 3147), to establish a national commission on intergovern- mental relations. . There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Raconp, as follows: Navion AND State None of the better-government bills draft- ed to carry out recommendations of the Hoover Commisston has more far-reaching intergovernmental relations. came out of the Senate Committee on Ex- ‘ures recently and ts ewatlting action on the fioor. It ts cosponsored by 41 Sensa- tors. There should be no opposition to it, for its purpose ts to sst in motion a long- yange study of that. basic but controversial subject of the relationship between the States and the Federal Government. The study would be made by a temporary bipartisan commission of seven members se- lected by the President on the basis of thelr knowledge and experience in the aphere of intergovernmental relations. Its scope would be broad enough to cover any problem eoncerning the distribution of functions and powers among the Federal, State, and local governments. But let no one suppose that it would be kept in the realm of politi- cal theory. It would deal with such prac- tical and urgent questions as those arising out of grants-in-aid, intergovernmental tax immunities, and the competition of different governments for taxes from the same sources. It would explore the possibility of different governments sharing the receipts from cer- tain taxes now commonly used. In the background is the question of how far the Federal Government should go in absorbing the powers of the States and sup- plying them with revenue. We do not sup- pose that any commission can satisfactorily answer that question. The people will de- termine the division of power between na- tional and local governments in accord with what they believe to be their current interest from decade to decade. But a well-chosen intergovernmental commission can bring to public attention the trends of recent years and point out the sdvantages and dangers of those trends. To our way of thinking the jasue is not whether the national power should be enhanced at the expense of the States or whether the States should reclaim many of the functions they have lost, but how governments can best work together on the national and local levels to advance the general welfare. Accommodation wil] doubt- less be the watehword of the commission if it 4s created, and that will mean accommo- dation of t+ to present-day re- quirements—not the reversion to any out- moded notion as to what Federal-Gtate rela- tions ought to be. RECESS Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I move that the Senate stand in recess until 12 o'clock noon tomorrow. The motion was agreed to; and (at 6 o’clock and 31 minutes p.m.) the Sen- ate took a recess until tomorrow, Thurs- day, July 13, 1950, at 12 o’clock meridian. MOMINATIONS Executive nominations received by the Senate July 12 (legislative day of July 1), 1980: Derory Unrren Srares Srrciat REPRESENTATIVE re Bovrorr ©. Tyler Wood, of the District of Columbia, to be deputy United States special representa- tive in Europe, with the rank of Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary. Jury 12 Pecera, Reaceve Sree Oliver S&S. Powell, of Minneacta, to be a member of the Board of Governors of the FPoderal Reserve System for the unexpired term of 14 years from February 1, 1008, vice Lawrence Clayton, deceased. Caixronzs, Dusats Comminmow Cal, John & Seyboni, Corps of Engineers, to serve as president and member of the California Debris Commission provided for by the act of Congress approved March 1, 1803, entitled “An act to create the Call- fornia Debris Commission and regulate hydraulic mining tn the State of Calffornth,” vice Col. Dwight F. Johna, to be . ‘ Lt. Col. Clarence C. Haug, Corpe of Engi- neers, to serve as member and recretary of the California Debris Commission provided for by the act of Congress approved March 1, 1803, entitled “An act to create the Califor- nia Debris Commission and regulate hydrau- lic mining in the State af California,” vice Cot. Joseph 8. Gortinekt, Corpse of Engincera, to be relieved. Untren Sratss Dissricr JUpGr Thomas H. Roberta, of Rhode Island, to be United States district fudge for the district of Puerto Rico, vice Hon. David Chaves, Jr., resigned. Untrzep STaTes ATTORNEY Thomas A. Uzzell, Jr., to be United States attorney for the western district of North Carolina, vice Devid E. Henderson, resigned. Unrrap STATES MARSITAL Donald A. Draughon, of Puerto Rico, to be United States mershal for the district of Puerto Rico. He is now serving in this office under an appointment which expires July 27, 1950. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WEDNESDAY, JuLy 12, 1950 The House met at 12 o’clock noon, The Chaplain, Rev. Bernard Bras- kamp, D. D., offered the following prayer: O Thou eternal God, whose presence is our shield in the stillness of the night and our strength in the struggles of each new day, may we realize how wonderful it is that in these days of crisis and peril ‘we may enter into communion and coun- sel with the God of all grace and wisdom. We feel that we are engaged in a just and righteous cause but we penitently confess that we are tempted to place all our reliance and confidence in human ingenuity. Thou knowest how prone we are to.continue to live selfishly and com- placently even when others are giving themselves so heroically and sacrifictally in defense of liberty. May this moment of prayer be one of cleansing of hearts and consecration of purpose. Purge us from everything which dwarfs and deadens our capacities for noble and courageous service, Give us 9 strong faith which will inspire us to perform our tasks with a pure and stead- fast devotion. In Christ’s name we pray. Amen. The Journal of the proceedings of yes- terday was read and approved. EXPORT-IMPORT BANK GUARANTIES OF UNITED STATES PRIVATE CAPITAL IN- VESTED ABROAD The SPEAKER, The unfinished busi. ness is the question on the passage of
1950 the bill (H. R. 8083) to amend the Ex- port-I¢hport Bank Act of 1945, as amend- ed (69 Stat. 626, 666; 61 Stat. 130), to vest in the Export-Import Bank of Washington the power to guarantee United States investments abroad. Mr. WOLCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I offer & motion to recommit. The SPEAKER. Is the gentleman op- posed to the bill? Mr. WOLCOTT. I am, Mr. Speaker. The SPEAKER. The Clerk will re- port the motion to recommit. The Clerk read as follows: Mr. Wotcorr moves that the bill H. R. 8083 be recommitted to the Committee on Bank- ing and Ourrency. Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the motion to recommit, The previous question was ordered. The SPEAKER. The question is on the motion to recommit. The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the noes ap- peared to have it. Mr. WOLCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present. The SPEAKER. Evidently a quorum is not present. The Doorkeeper will close the doors, the Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members, and the Clerk will call the roll. The question was taken; and there were—yeas 156, nays 184, answered “present” 1, not voting 89, as follows: [Roll No, 199] CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE YEAS—156 Abernethy Gross Miller, Md. Allen, Calif, Guill Miller, Nebr. Allen, T11. Gwinn Murray, Wis. Andersen, Hagen Nelson H. Carl Hale Nicholson Andresen, Hall, Nixon August H. Leonard W. Norblad Arends Halleck Norrell Auchincloss Hand O'Hara, Minn, Bates, Mass. Harden O’Konski Beall Harvey Passman Bennett, Fla. Hays, Ohio Patterson Bennett, Mich. Herter Philbin Bishop Heselton Phillips, Calif. Blackney Hoeven Potter Boggs, Del. Hoffman, Il. Poulson Bramblett Hoffman, Mich. Rankin Brehm Holmes Reed, Ill Brown, Ohio Hope Reed, N. Y. Burdick Horan Riehlman Burleson Hull Rogers, Mass, Byrnes, Wis. James Sadlak Case,8.Dak, Jentson Bt. George Cavalcante Jenkins Sanborn Clevenger Jensen Saylor Cole, Kans. Jonas Scott, Corbett Judd Hugh D., Jr. Cotton Kean : Scrivner Coudert Kearney Scudder Crawford Keating Secrest Cunningham Kunkel Shafer Curtis Larcado Short Dague LeCompte Simpson, Ml, Davis, Ga. LeFevre Stmpson, Pa. Davis, Wis. Lichtenwalter Smith, Kans, D’Ewart Lodge Smith, Ohio Doiliver Lovre Smith, Wis. Dondero McConnell Stefan Donohue McCulloch Stockman Eaton McDonough Taber Ellsworth McGregor Talle Eiston McMillen, 1], Tauriello Fellows Mack, Wash. Taylor Fenton Macy Tollefson Ford Marcantonio Van Zandt Fulton Martin, Iowa Velde Gamble Martin, Mass. Vorys Golden Merrow Vursell Goodwin Meyer Wadsworth Graham Michener Weichel XCVI——-631 10013 So the motion to recommit was re- jected. The Clerk announced the following pairs: On this vote: Mr. Plumley for, with Mr. Walter against. Mr. Towe for, with Mr. Roosevelt against. Mr. Gavin for, with Mr. Carroll against. Mr. Rich for, with Mr. Mitchell against. Mr. Jackson of California for, with Mr. Miller of California against. Mr. Willlam L. Pfeiffer for, with Mr. Battle against. Mr. Latham for, with Mrs. Norton against. Mr. Mason for, with Mr. Boggs of Louisiana against. Mr. Hardie Scott for, with Mr. Perkins against. Mr. Kearns for, with Mr. Regan against. Mr. Chiperfield for, with Mr. Bolton of Maryland against. Mr. Jennings for, against. Mr. Hinshaw for, with Mr. Burke against. Mr, Anderson of California for, with Mr. Garmatz against. Mr, Gillette for, against. Until further notice: Mr. Breen with Mr. Engel of Michigan, Mr. Sadowski with Mr. Angell. Mr. Tackett with Mr. Barrett of Wyoming. Mr. Frazier with Mrs. Bolton of Ohio. Mr Gilmer with Mr. Edwin Arthur Hall. Mr. Irving with Mr. Hill. Mr. Preston with Mr. Johnson. Mr. Kelley of Pennsylvania with Mr. Keefe, Mr. Zablocki with Mr. Phillips of Tennes- see. Mr. Priest with Mr. Rees. Mr. Hébert with Mr. Werdel. Mr. Larcape changed his vote from “nay” to “yea.” Mr. WuiTrincton changed his vote from “yea” to “nay.” Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I have a live pair with the gentleman from California, Mr. JAcK~ SON. If he were present he would have voted “yea.” I voted “nay.” I withdraw my vote and vote present. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. The doors were opened. The SPEAKER. The question is on the passage of the Dill. Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays. with Mr. Morrison with Mr. Thompson White, Calif. Williams Wolverton Whitten Wilson, Ind. Woodruff Widnall Withrow Wigglesworth Wolcott NAYS-~~184 Abbitt Forand Morgan Addonisio Fugate Morris Albert Furcolo Morton Andrews Gary Moulder Aspinall Gathings Multer Bailey Gorski Murdock Barden Gossett Murphy Baring Granahan Murray, Tenn. Barrett, Pa. Granger Noland Bates, Ky. Grant O'Brien, Tl, Beckworth Green O’Brien, Mich, Bentsen Hardy O'Hara, Tl. Biemiller Harrison O'Neill Blatnik Hart O'Sullivan Bolling Havenner O'Toole Bonner Hays, Ark. Pace Bosone Hedrick Patten Boykin Heffernan Peterson Brown, Ga. Heller Pfeifer, Buchanan Herlong Joseph L. Buckley, Il, Hobbs Poage Burnside Holifield Polk Burton Howell Powell Byrne, N. Y. Huber Price Camp Jackson, Wash, Rains Canfield Jacobs Ramsay Cannon Javits Redden Carlyle Jones, Ala, Rhodes Carnahan Jones, Mo. Ribicoff Case, N. J. Jones, N O. Richards Celler Karst Robeson Chatham Karsten Rodino Chelf Kee Rogers, Fla, Chesney Kelly, N. ¥, Rooney Christopher Kennedy Bagsscer Chudoff Keogh Shelley Clemente Kerr Sheppard Cole, N. ¥. Kilburn Sikes Cooley Ellday Smathers Cox King Smith, Va. Crook Kirwan Spence Crosser Kruse Staggers Davenport Lane Staniey Davies,N.Y. Lanham Steed Dawson Lind Stigler Deane Linehan Bullivan DeGraffenried Lucas Teague Delaney Lynch Thomas Denton McCormack Thornberry Doliinger McGrath Trimble Doughton McGuire Underwood Douglas McKinnon Wagner Doyle McSweeney Walsh Durham Mack, Il. Welch Eberharter Madden Whitaker Elliott Magee Whittington Engle, Calif. Mahon Wier Feighan Mansfield Wilson, Tex. Fernandez Marsalis Woodhouse Fisher Marshall Yates Flood Miles Young Fogarty Mills ANSWERED “PRESENT''—1 Miner, Calif. NOT VOTING—89 Allen, La. Gregory Plumley Anderson, Calif,Hall, Preston Angell Edwin Arthur Priest Barrett, Wyo. Hare Quinn Battle Harris Rabaut Boggs, La. Hébert Rees Bolton, Md. Hill Regan Bolton, Ohio Hinshaw Rich Breen Irving Rivers Brooks Jackson, Calif, Roosevelt Bryson Jennings Sabath Buckley, N.¥. Johnson Sadowski Bulwinkle Kearns Scott, Hardie Burke Keefe Sims Carroll Kelley, Pa. Sutton Chiperfield Klein Tackett Colmer Latham Thompson Combs Lyle Towe Cooper McCarthy Vinson Davis, Tenn. McMillan, 8.C, Walter Dingell Mason Werdel Engel, Mich, Mitchell Wheeler Evins Monroney White, Idaho Fallon Morrison Wickersham Frazier Norton Willis Garmats Patman Wilson, Okla, Gavin Perkins Winstead Gillette Pfeiffer, Wood Gilmer WillamE. Zablock! Gordon Phillips, Tenn, Gore Pickett The yeas and nays were ordered. The question was taken; and there were—yeas 195, nays 151, answered “present” 1, not voting 83, as follows: [Roll No. 200} YEAS—-195 Abbitt Burke Crosser Addonizio Burnside Davenport Albert Burton Davies, N ¥, Andrews Byrne, N. Y. Dawson Aspinall Camp Deane Balley Canfield DeGraffenried Barden Cannon Delaney Baring Carlyle Denton Barrett, Pa. Carnahan Dollinger Bates, Ky. Case, N. J. Doughton Battle Celler Douglas Beckworth Chatham Doyle Bentsen Chelf Durham Biemiller Chesney Eberharter Blatnik Christopher Elliott Boggs, Del, Chudo Engle, Calif Bolling Clemente Fallon Bolton, Md. Cole, N. ¥. Feighan Bonner Cooley Fernandes Bosone Corbett Fisher Boykin Coudert Flood Brown, Ga. Cox Fogarty Buchanan Crook Forand
Fugate Kruse Poage Fulton Lane Polk Furcolo Lanham Powell Garmatz Lind Price Gary Linehan Rains Gathings Lodge Ramsay Gorski Lucas Redden Gossett Lynch Rhodes Granahan McCarthy Ribicoff Granger McCormack Richards Grant McGrath Rodino Green McGulre Rogers, Fia. Handy McKinnon Rooney Harrison McSweeney Sasacer Hart Mack, Ql. Shelley Havenner Madden Sheppard Hays, Ark. Magee Sikes Hedrick Mahon Smathers Heffernan Mansfield Smith, Va. Holler Marsalis Bpence Herlong Marshall Staggers Hobbs Miles Stanley Holifield Mills Steed Howell Morgan Stigler Huber Morris Sullivan Jackson, Wash. Morton Teague Jacobs Moulder Thomas Javits Multer Thornberry Jones, Ala. Murdock Trimble Jones, Mo. Murphy Underwood Jones, N.C. Murray, Tenn. Wagner Judd Noland Walsh Karet O'Brien, Tl. Welch Karsten O’Brien, Mich. Whitaker Kee O'Hara, 111. Whittington Kelly, N. ¥. O'Neill Wier Kennedy O'Sullivan Wilson, Tex, Keogh O'Toole Woodhouse Kerr Pace Yates Kilburn Patten Young Kilday Peterson Zablock! King Pfeifer, Kirwan Joseph L. NAYS—151 Abernethy Halleck Philbin Allen, Calif, Hand Phillips, Calif. Allen, I. Harden Potter Andersen, Harvoy Poulson H. Carl Hays, Ohio Rankin Andresen, Herter Reed, Ill. August H. Heselton Reed, N. Y. Arends Hoeven Riehlman Auchincloss Hoffman,Tll. Robeson Bates, Mass. Hoffman, Mich. Rogers, Mass. Beall Holmes Sadlak Bennett, Fla. Hope St. George Bennett, Mich. Horan Sanborn Bishop Hull Saylor Blackney James Scott, Bramblett Jenison Hugh D., Jr. Brehm Jenkins Scrivner Brown, Ohio Jensen Scudder Burdick Jonas Secrest Burleson Kean Shafer Byrnes, Wis. Kearney Short Case, 8. Dak. Keating Simpson, Il. Cavalcante Kunkel Simpson, Pa. Clevenger Larcade Smith, Kans, Cole, Kans. LeCompte Smith, Ohio Cotton LeFevre Smith, Wis, Crawford Lichtenwalter Stefan Cunningham  Lovre Stockman Curtis McConnell Taber Dague McCulloch Talle Davis, Ga. McDonough Tauriello Davis, Wis. McGregor * Taylor D'Ewart McMillen, Tl, Tollefson Dolliver Mack, Wash, Van Zandt Dondero Macy Veide Donohue Marcantonio  Vorys Eaton Martin, Iowa Vursell Elleworth Martin, Mass. Wadsworth Elston Merrow Weitchel Fellows Meyer White, Calif, Fenton Michener Whitten Ford Miller, Md. Widnall Gamble Milter, Nebr. Wigglesworth Golden Murray, Wis. Williams Goodwin Nelson Wilson, Ind. Graham Nicholson Withrow Gross Nixon Wolcott Guill Norblad Wolverton Gwinn Norrell Woodruff Hagen O'Hara, Minn. Hale O’Konski Hall, Passman Leonard W. Patterson ANSWERED “PRESENT’—J Miller, Calif, NOT VOTING—83 Allen, La. Angell Boggs, La. Anderson, Calif. Barrett, Wyo. Bolton, Ohio CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Breen Hill Quinn Brooks Hinshaw Rabaut Bryson Irving Rees Buckley, Til. Jackson, Callff, Regan Buckley, N.Y. Jennings Rich Bulwinkle Johnson Rivers Carroll Kearns Roosevelt Chiperfleld Keefe Sabath Colmer Kelley, Pa, Sadowski Combs Klein Scott, Hardie Cooper Latham Sims Davis,Tenn. Lyle Sutton Dingell McMillan, 8. C. Tackett Engel, Mich. Mason Thompson Evins Mitchell Towe Frazier Monroney Vinson Gavin Morrison Walter Gillette Norton Werdel Gilmer Patman Wheeler Gordon Perkins White, Idaho Gore Pfeiffer, Wickersham Gregory Willlam L. Willis Hall, Phillips, Tenn, Wilson, Okla. Edwin Arthur Pickett Winstead Hare Plumley ‘Wood Harris Preston Hébert Priest So the bill was passed. The Clerk announced the following pairs: On this vote: Mr. Walter for, with Mr. Plumley against. Mr. Roosevelt for, with Mr. Towe against. Mr. Carroll for, with Mr. Gavin against, Mr. Mitchell for, with Mr. Rich against. Mr. Miller of California for, with Mr. Jack- son of California against. Mr, Boggs of Louisiana for, with Mr, Wil- liam L. Pfeiffer against. Mr. Perkins for, with Mr. Latham against. Mr. Regan for, with Mr. Mason against. Mr. Morrison for, with Mr. Hardie Scott against. Mr. Thompson for, with Mr. Kearns against. Mr. Breen for, with Mr. Chiperfield against. Mr. Gilmer for, with Mr. Jennings against. Mr. Gordon for, with Mr. Hinshaw against. Mr. Klein for, with Mr. Anderson of Cali- fornia against. Mr, Irving for, with Mr, Gillette against, Until further notice: Mr. Winstead with Mr. Werdel. Mr. Sadowski with Mr. Engel of Michigan, Mr. Frazier with Mr. Rees. Mr. Dingell with Mr. Phillips of Tennes- Bee. Mr. Hébert with Mr. Keefe. Mr, Willis with Mrs. Bolton of Ohio. Mr. Priest with Mr. Edwin Arthur Hall. Mr, Rabaut with Mr. Hill. Mr. Harris with Mr. Johnson. Mr. Patman with Mr. Barrett of Wyoming. Mr. Wickersham with Mr. Angell. Mr. MILLER of California. Mr, Speaker, I have a live pair with the gen- tleman from California, Mr. Jackson, If he were here he would have voted “nay.” I voted “yea.” I withdraw my vote and vote “present.” The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have five legislative days in which to extend their remarks on the bill just passed. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Ken- tucky? There was no objection. FISH HATCHERY IN THE STATE OF KENTUCKY Mr. HART. Mr. Speaker, I ask unan- imous consent that the proceedings JULY 12 whereby the bill (H. R. 8766) to estab- lish rearing ponds and a fish hatchery in the State of Kentucky was passed, be vacated, and that the bill be laid on the table. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New Jersey? There was no objection. SPECIAL ORDER GRANTED Mr. SIKES asked and was given per- mission to address the House for 1 hour on Wednesday next, following the legis- lative program and any special orders heretofore entered. THE KOREAN CRISIS Mr. POTTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Michigan? There was no objection. Mr. POTTER. Mr. Speaker, Members of Congress are operating in a vacuum as far as the Korean crisis is concerned. The only information we of the Congress have on the Korean situation is what we read in the public press and hear over the radio. We are informed that the action in Korea is not war but rather police action under the auspices of the United Nations. I am sure the boys who are fighting there consider, and know, they are at war. I am sure they must have several questions they would like answered, If this is action on the part of the United Nations to protect South Korea, where are the troops from other par- ticipating countries of the United Na- tions? We need ground troops and equipment, and we need these promptly. Other members of the United Nations, according to the press, are letting the United States furnish all ground troops. They have offered sympathy and advice and have adopted resolutions. You can- not establish a road block with sym- pathy. You cannot shell an enemy posi- tion with advice, and you certainly can- not counterattack with a resolution. I demand that the President of the United States appear before a joint ses- sion of the Congress and report to us why men are sent into Korea without sufficient arms and reinforcements and why our allies of the United Nations are not participating in the ground fighting. MILITARY INFORMATION Mr. HAYS of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks, The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Ohio? There was no objection. Mr. HAYS of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, yes- terday I was amazed anc. shocked to read on the front page of one of the Washington papers that a specified num- ber of troops, a list of the equipment, the name of the ship, the date and hour of the sailing, and the place th? ship sailed from, were detailed in a story. It seems to me that if the Department of Defense continues stupidly to make this informa-
1950 tion available the newspapers should re- frain from publishing it, because in view of the uncertain international situation it seems more than possible that the lives of these troops we are shipping abroad might be endangered by such informa- tion’s being made public. Mr. REED of New York. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HAYS of Ohio. I yield. Mr. REED of New York. I agree with the gentleman wholeheartedly. There are spies all over the world and all over this Nation. We are furnishing the in- formation. They could just as well withdraw their spies, because informa- tion will be published of everything we propose to do. Mr. HAYS of Ohio. I agree with the gentleman. They would not need a spy to find that out. Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HAYS of Ohio. I yield to the gen- tleman from Massachusetts. Mr. McCORMACK. If the Defense Department made the release, I agree with the gentleman, but is the gentle- man sure the Defense Department made it, or did some newspaper get it and carry it? Mr. HAYS of Ohio. I am not sure, but I do think the Defense Department should issue an order that such infor- mation should not be printed. Mr.McCORMACK. Iremember in the early days of World War II we had broken the Japanese code, and one of the prominent newspapers of this coun- try carried that news, giving valuable information to the Japs. One of their reporters was with the fleet, and after he came back to the continental United States the paper carried a story by him giving the news to the enemy that our Intelligence had broken the Japanese code. I have often wondered why the matter was never prosecuted, because it was the most damnable thing that ever happened from the American angle dur- ing the war. That paper was the Chicago Tribune. Mr. HAYS of Ohio. I agree with the majority floor leader that that incident was one of the worst that could possibly have happened or that did happen during World War Il. I am merely interested that such incidents do not occur again, and as I stated before, I do not know whether the Department of Defense made this available, but the story car- ried a Washington date line, and it would be hard for me to know where else a mewspaper could get such information about a ship sailing from the west coast. I reiterate that whoever makes this in- formation public, the newspapers as a patriotic duty should refrain from pub- Hshing it, especially giving details as to days, hours, and numbers of troops. NEWSP4PER PUBLICITY ON MOVEMENT OF AMERICAN TROOPS Mr. LANE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unani- mous consent to address the House for 1 minute. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Mas- sachusetis? There was no objection, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE My. LANE. Myr. Speaker, I join with the previous speakers in reference to the newspaper publicity given to the move- ment of our troops in the last few days from San Francisco to the Orient. I also notice, Mr. Speaker, that the Mill- tary Sea Transport Service announced yesterday it has chartered 16 cargo ships up to the present time to help transport men and supplies to the Korean war zone, In another place, Mr. Speaker, I read with much surprise that we are now go- ing to experiment with our new equip- ment and new military devices in the Korean war, all of which gives out in- forniation to those who are not friendly us, Mr. Speaker, I feel there should be some secrecy with reference to our plans in order that our boys may be protected. Today I sent the following telegram to the Secretary of Defense: Strongly protest publicizing troop move- ments to Korean front as contained in news stories of yesterday that 1,350 officers and men from Camp Stoneman were scheduled to sail. Story gives exact time of sailing and name of ship. Newspapers carried informa- tion on secret weapons, chartering of ships for war transport, and other military move- ments. I personally feel it is high time to impose secrecy for protection of our men. SALARY OF THE DOORKEEPER Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, I Offer a resolution (H. Res. 693) and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration. The Clerk read the resolution, as follows: Resolved, That effective July 1, 1950, the salary of the Doorkeeper of the House of Representatives shall be at the annual rate of $11,000 plus the increased compensation provided for the elected officers of the Senate and House of Representatives by title 1, sub- section (d) of the “Second Suppiemental Appropriation Act, 1950,” approved October 28, 1949, and there is hereby authorized to be paid out of the contingent fund of the House, until otherwise provided by law, the neces- sary additional amount to equalize the Door- keeper's present gross salary with that of his new gross rate as provided herein. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. McCormack] ? There was no objection. The resolution was agreed to. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. EXTENSION OF REMARKS Mr. ELLIOTT asked and was given permission to extend his remarks and include an address by Senator Spark- man, of Alabama. Mr. LANE asked and was given per- mission to extend his remarks and in- clude an address entitled “Milestones Marking the Downfall of Poland,” not- withstanding the fact that it will exceed two pages of the Recorp and ts estimated by the Public Printer to cost $225.50. Mr. DONOHUE asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in two instances and include extraneous matter. Mr. PHILBIN asked and was given permission to extend his remarks and include excerpts, 10015 Mr. MULTER asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in four instances and include extraneous matter. Mr. WOLVERTON asked and was given permission to extend his remarks on H. R. 8746. Mr. WOLVERTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks in the Recorp and include speeches by Vice President BarkLry and others, notwithstanding the fact that it will exceed the amount authorized for printing under the rules. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New Jersey? There was no objection. Mr. JUDD asked and was given per~ mission to extend his remarks and in- clude an article entitled “Issue in China,” notwithstanding the fact that it will exceed two pages of the Recorp and is estimated by the Public Printer to cost $205. . Mr. COLE of New York asked and was given permission to extend his re- marks in two instances, Mr. SMITH of Wisconsin asked and was given permission to extend his re- marks in two instances and include two articles. Mr. WEICHEL asked and was given permission to extend his remarks and include extraneous matter. Mr. JENKINS asked and was given permission to extend his remarks and include an address delivered last night by former President Hoover. Mr. HOPE asked and was given per-~ mission to extend his remarks and in- clude extraneous matter. Mr. GAMBLE asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in two instances and include editorials and news releases. Mr. CANFIELD asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in two instances and in each to include news- paper editorials. Mr. ENGLE of California and Mr. TAURIELLO asked and were given per- mission to extend their remarks, each to include an editorial. Mr. JENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend my re- marks in the Appendix of the Rrcorp and include a monthly statement by Mr, H. J, Stuhlmiller, president of the Bank of Ottumwa, Iowa, who, when he issues the monthly statement of the bank, gen- erally says something which jis valuable to his people and to the Nation. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Iowa? There was no objection. Mr. MILLER of Nebraska asked and was given permission to extend his re- marks and include a speech. NATIONAL SECURITY Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H. R. 7439) to protect the national security of the United States by permitting the sum- mary suspension of employment of civil- fan officers and employees of various
10016 departments and agencies of the Gov- ernment, and for other purposes. The motion was agreed to. Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the con- sideration of the bill H. R. 7439, with Mr, Reppen in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. By unanimous consent, the first read- ing of the bill was dispensed with. Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 18 minutes. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the bill under consideration, H. R. 7439, is to protect the national security of the United States by providing that the heads of certain sensitive Government departments and agencies may suspend or terminate the employment of civilian officers and employees when such action is deemed necessary in the judgment of the head of such department or agency. The bill provides that the Secretaries of State, Defense, Army, Navy, Air Force, and Treasury—in the case of the Coast Guard—and the heads of the Atomic Energy Commission, National Security Resources Board, and the National Ad- visory Committee for Aeronautics, may suspend without pay any civilian officer or employee when such action is deemed necessary in the interest of national se- curity. Any suspended employee may be ter- minated by the department or agency head whenever he finds that such em- ployee’s termination is necessary or ad- visable in the interest of national se- curity, provided such employee has re- ceived (a) a written statement of charges against the employee, (b) a reasonable opportunity to answer such charges and submit evidence, (c) a hearing upon the employee’s request, (d) a review of the case by the head of the department or agency, and (e) a written statement of the final decision. This legislation was introduced at thc request of the Secretary of Defense. It has the unqualified endorsement of the departments and agencies included in the bill, has the approval of the Bureau of the Budget, and is in accord with the program of the President. The bill makes permanent present tem- porary legislative authority under which the Secretaries of State, Defense, Army, Navy, and Air Force may suspend or re- move civilian employees whenever such action is necessary or advisable in the interest of national security. The bill also grants similar permanent authority to the Atomic Energy Commission, the Secretary of the Treasury—for the Coast Guard, the National Security Resources Board, and the National Advisory Com- mittee for Aeronautics. The Secretary of State is empowered to remove employees in the Department of State who are security risks under section 104 of the State, Justice, Com- merce Appropriation Act for fiscal year 1950. The Secretary of Defense has sim- llar authority provided him under sec- tion 630 of the Appropriation Act for fis- cal year 1950 for the Military Establish- ment. The Sescrevaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force are granted this au- thority on a temporary basis under sec- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE tion $3 of Public Law 808, Seventy- seventh Congress. The Atomic Energy Commission is granted such authority under section 12 (a) (4) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1946. The bill merely adds to the security provisions of existing law three addi- tional groups of employees in three sen- sitive agencies—the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, National Se- curity Resources Board, and the Coast Guard, under the Treasury Department. The committee conducted extensive hearings with respect to this legisla- tion, and in testimony before the Com- mittee the Honorable Dan A. Kimball, Under Secretary of the Navy, speaking for the Secretaries of Defense, Army, Navy, and Air Force, stated: The Department considers it to be neces- sary for adequate protection of the national security that the Secretary of Defense and the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force shall have the power to remove an em- ployee in their respective Departments from his employment when he is found to be a serious risk to national security. A single act of a disloyal person and a single act of an indiscreet employee can do equal damage to our securty in one of these sensitive depart- ments. Representatives of Federal employee and veterans’ organizations generally endorsed the provisions of the bill. Rep- resentatives of some of these organiza- tions made the reservation that there should be an appropriate appellate ap- peals procedure provided for those em- ployees who are suspended or separated as security risks. In the judgment of the committee, the bill provides an adequate appeals procedure for such employees and grants them appeals rights to which they are not now entitled under present law. In addition, in contradistinction to the separation of an employee charged with disloyalty, employees separated as security risks from the agencies covered by the bill are entitled to seek and accept employment with nonsensitive Govern- ment departments, after approval of the Civil Service Commission. Testimony by the representatives of the Department of Defense established the fact that since the enactment of Public Law 808, which was approved De- cember 17, 1942, which is the present temporary authority for the Military Es- tablishment to suspend and remove secu- rity risks, there have been only 375 em- ployees removed from the Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force on the grounds that such employees were se- curity risks. This is less than an aver- age of 54 persons removed a year in the Military Establishment where the aver- age annual employment has been over a million civilians during this 7-year period. It is clear that the present au- thority to remove security risks is not abused by the Military Establishment. Since July 1946, the Department of State has had similar authority con- tained in its appropriation acts, and only three such summary removals have been made by the Secretary of State under the authority in the 4-year period. With respect to the Atomic Energy Commission, since the enactment of the Atomic Energy Act in 1946 only two em- ployees of the Commission have been dismissed on security grounds. JULY 12 This legislation will not involve addi- tional Federal expenditures. In my judgment, prompt action is required on this legislation because the omnibus ap- propriations bill for fiscal year 1951 was not approved by July 1, and certain of the departments having authority to deal with the dismissal of security risks under 1950 appropriations acts, such as the Department of State and the Office of the Secretary of Defense, are now un- able to take action with respect to these security matters. I have received a letter from Hon. Louis Johnson, the Secretary of Defense, dated July 7, 1950, which urges the Con- gress to approve this legislation, without amendment, as soon as possible. In testimony before our committee, the American Legion stated its official posi- tion as follows: We in the American Legion feel that the Federal Government has a first obligation to protect itself against all security risks in sensitive sectors. To ..o this it must have the essential legal instruments. H. R. 7439 would provide one of them. We urge you to favorably recommend H. R. 7439 and re- store to agency heads a needed measure of protecting our security. In so doing, you will also aid in restoring a sagging public confidence in our Federal agencies. I urge the Members to support this legisation because it is an essential meas- ure for the protection of our Govern- ment at a time when the American peo- ple can ill afford to have persons on the Federal payroll in sensitive departments and agencies who are security risks, THe SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, Washington, July 7, 1950. Hon. Tom Murray, Chairman, Post Office and Civil Service Committee, House of Representatives. My Dear Mr. Cratrman: I read in a@ re- cent issue of the ConGRESSIONAL Rrcorp that a rule has been granted on H. R. 7439, and I am hopeful that this bill will be passed by the House of Representatives at the earli- est possible time. The fundamental purpose of the bill, as you know, is to provide a summary procedure to safeguard the so-called sensitive agencies of Government from individuals who are poor security risks. The authority provided in this bill is essential if we are to fulfill the important responsibility of safeguarding classified military information against un- authorized disclosure. We consider the bill an important measure, for which there ex- ists a continuing and urgent need not only in wartime but in time of peace. The Department of Defense is most up- prectative of the careful consideration given to H. R. 7489 by you and by the Post Office and Civil Service Committee. You will re- call the lengthy testimony which pointed out the problems faced by the Department of Defense with regard to the safeguarding of classified military information and the necessity for summary power to suspend civilian employees who are poor security risks. The proposed authority would make permanent for a number of sensitive agen- cies of Government the temporary authority provided for the War Department and the Navy Department by Congress in Public Law 808 of the Seventy-seventh Congress, It has been brought to my attention that an amendment has been proposed to H. R. 7439 as approved by your committee, which would place an appeal from the decision of a@ department head in the Civil Service Com- mission. You will recall the extensive tes- timony taken by your committee on the subject of an appeal and the views of the
1950 Department of Defense that such 8 provi- sion would strip the responsible officials of Government of the authority necessary to carry out their responsibilities. I am most appreciative of your efforts in behalf of the national defense and strongly urge that the House of Representatives give favorable consideration to H. R. 7439 as approved by your committee. We can ill afford the consequences of the unauthorized dilsclosure of claastfied information by any- one who may be a poor security risk. With kind regards, I am, Sincerely yours, Lovis JOHNSON. Mr. COX. Who wrote that letter? Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. The Honorable Louis Johnson, Secretary of the Department of Defense. Mr, Chairman, I want the Members to distinguish between the loyalty proce- dure and this bill. Employees who are charged with being disloyal to our Gov- ernment are already covered by execu- tive order of our President and we have a loyalty board to determine such cases, This bill is designed to get rid of the undesirables who may be bad security risks, who although they may be thor- oughly loyal are still bad security risks. For instance, an employee who is work- ing in some highly sensitive agency doing very confidential, secret defense work and who goes out and gets too much liquor may unintentionally or unwittingly, be- cause of his condition, confide to some- one who may be a subversive, secret mili- tary information about the character of work he is doing in that department. He is, by his conduct, a bad security risk and should be discharged. It also covers the sex perverts who may be under obligation to someone and who* may be working in highly sensitive agen- cies and who may become bad security risks. It is also to protect such agencies against employees who may be loyal.but who may be too loquacious and too gar- rulous and talk too much about the con- fidential work they are doing. Those are the purposes for which this bill was drawn. It covers employees who are inherently disloyal to our Govern- ment, and also I would get rid of em- ployees who because of their conduct or because of their actions, although not disloyal, unintentionally may divulge secrets of our Government if they are working in highly sensitive agencies. Mr. PATTERSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr, MURRAY of Tennessee. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut. Mr. PATTERSON. What kind of a board are they going to set up to hear these cases? How are they going to do that? Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. This bill provides, first, that the employee who is suspended shall receive a written state- ment of the charges; second, reasonable opportunty to answer such charges and submit evidence; third, a hearing upon the employee's request; fourth, a review of the case by the head of the depart- ment or agency and, fifth, a written statement of the final decision. Mr. PATTERSON. Is that by the head of the department? Does that consti- tute just one man, say the Secretary? CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Mr, MURRAY of Tennessee. That is correct. If an employee 1s doing highly sensitive work under the Secretary of the Army his final appeal would go to the Secretary of the Army who would make the final decision. Mr. EBERHARTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee, I yleid to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. Mr. EBERHARTER. The only appeal is to the dismissing officer? Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. To the head of the department or agency. Mr. EBERHARTER. The head of the agency with which he is working has sole control over whether he shall be dis- missed? Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. Yes. Mr. EBERHARTER, So there is no appeal really. Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. They have no appeal today to an independent appeal board and yet conditions are far more serious and critical now than when this bill was introduced by me. Does the gentleman want to give to employees rights they do not have today? Mr. EBERHARTER. They have the right of appeal. Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. Oh, no, they do not when they ai 2 discharged as bad security risks by the heads of defense agencies. Mr, EBERHARTER. Under the civil service. Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. No; the gentleman is entirely wrong about that when it comes to discharging employees in defense agencies as bad security risks by the heads of the defense agencies. Mr. EBERHARTER. This supersedes all the civil-service laws. Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. They do not have the right of appeal today. They have no appeal. They have no right of appeal, for instance, under the Atomic Energy Act, or under Public Law 808 of the Seventy-seventh Congress, which is still in effect today. Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. I yield to the gentleman from California, Mr. HOLIFIELD. What the gentle- man says is true in many of these cases, they do not have an appeal but be- cause they do not have an appeal at the present time is that any justification for giving them a phony appeal which means that the agency head who fires them reviews the cause of the firing? If you are going to give them an appeal why do you not give them a real appeal? Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. I am disappointed in the gentleman from Cali- fornia who is a member of the Joint Com- mittee of Congress on Atomic Energy. Suppose we had someone in the Atomic Energy Commission doing highly sensi- tive, secret work, although loyal, who goes out and gets drunk and tells some subversive about the nature of the highly secret work that he is doing, then would you force the Atomic Energy Commission to go before some independent board and divulge the character of the sensi- tive work which he is doing or tell why the employee is a bad security risk? T pannot agree with the gentleman at all, 10017 Mr. HOLIFTELD. The gentleman puts me in a false light. Mr, COX. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr, MURRAY of Tennessee. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia. Mr. COX. Are the boys of the coun- try that are called for the defense of the flag given the right of appeal as to whether they shall abide by the re- sults of the agency inducting them into the service? If not, should not the peo- ple in charge of our Army affairs be vested with the right to remove at least one bad security risk? Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. Cer- tainly, the gentleman is entirely correct. Mr. EBERHARTER. There is an ap- peal from the draft board. Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. Of course, we want to have an appeal to on independent board by employees who are not doing sensitive work and who are not doing highly secret defense work, but employees doing highly secret work in our defense agencies are in a differ- ent category. This 15 a serious matter, and you should not vote for an amend- ment which would force these heads of the various defense agencies to divulge the kind and character of work that the employees are doing when it is highly secret or why they are bad se- curity risks or why they should be dis- charged in the interest of our national security. Mr, EBERHARTER. If we listen to the observation of my good friend, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Cox], he feels maybe perhaps we should substi- tute martial law for civil law. Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. Oh, no. Mr, COX. I think it is just piddling to talk about amending this bill by arm- ing the individual with the right of ap- peal at a time when the whole world is in a state of peril approaching panic, and a great committee of this House comes forth with a bill in response to a request that comes from people in charge of the armed forces, you understand, having as its purpose the removing of bad security risks in the Government, we are con- fronted with this sort of a thing of try- ing to destroy the effect of the legisla- tion by providing some broad appeal. Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. In con- clusion I want to say that I take my stand with the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Navy and the members of the Atomic Energy Commission and the other agen- cies covered by this bill against any pro- posed amendment to force these agencies go before an outside, independent agency of Government for appeal and review of their judgment as to why an employee is a bad security risk. This is @ most critical matter and I urge my colleagues to stand behind our Secretary of our Defense Department in whom I have the greatest trust and confidence in this hour of peril. Mr, EBERHARTER. Did the Justice Department ask for this bill? Mr, MURRAY of Tennessee. The Jus- tice Department is not included in this ill, Mr. EBERHARTER. Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. not a sensitive agency. Of course not. That is
10018 Mr. SADLAK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr, MURRAY of Tennessee. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. SADLAK. As I interpret the state- ment madé by the gentleman, he is agreeing with my philosophy that if there is a question of the security risk of a Fed- eral employee, then it should be resolved in favor of the Government. Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee, Abso- lutely. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Tennessee has expired. Mr. HAGEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 minutes. The gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Rees] offered an amendment in the com- mittee which would set up a separate appeal board by the Civil Service Com- mission, which most of the Members on our side suppcrted with some help on the other side. However, we lost it in the committee by one vote. I believe there will be an attempt made later to amend the bill by offering the amendment to provide for a separate appeal to the Civil Service Commission by dismisssed em- ployees who may, in some cases, be dis- missed arbitrarily without cause by a su- perior of the agency who may or may not happen to like the employee. So as a& matter of protection for the employee, in my opinion, it should be set up aside, apart, and separate from the agency in which the employee himself may be em- ployed. There is a need, more so now than at the time we considered this bill, to sus- pend from the service people who may be Gangerous to the operations of our Gov- ernment at home and abroad. This bill, if amended, should be approved by the House. Another amendment may be offered, I understand, to include the Department of Commerce, which in my opinion does have a great deal to do with the ship- ment of important war materials and other materials throughout the world both by the Federal Government and by private enterprise. Mr. GOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HAGEN. Iyield to the gentleman from Kentucky. Mr. GOLDEN. Is it not true that every member of this committee favors the enactment of this law, realizing that there is a great emergency and that we should act promptly? Mr. HAGEN. Yes. Mr. GOLDEN. The only difference is whether or not there should be an amendment concerning an appeal? Mr. HAGEN., The gentleman has stated the case correctly. There is no opposition in the committee to the bill itself. Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. Mr, Chairman. will the gentleman yield? Mr. HAGEN. I yield. Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. Is it not true that all these agencies except three, the National Security Resources Board, the Coast Guard of the Treasury, and the National Advisory Committee for Aero- nautics now have this temporary au- thority? Under the present law these employees if discharged as poor security risks do not have the right of appeal; so CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE you are trying to give the employees something they do not have now. Mr. HAGEN. If it is wrong at the present time we should not continue the wrong. I believe in protecting an em- ployee. If he is guilty he will be found guilty, and he will be dismissed imme- diately regardless. If he should be in- nocent and wrongly dismissed, he will have the opportunity by this impartial board to state his case. If he is found not guilty, he will be reinstated with pay for the time he missed. There is no danger in providing safeguards for the employee against persons who may take advantage of others in the department whom they may personally dislike or for some reason want to get rid of, maybe so they can put a friend in the job. Appearing before our committee were members of the veterans’ organizations and various Government-employee or- ganizations, in fact, many organizations which were for this bill and see the need for its immediate passage. Most of these groups, including some veterans’ organizations, strongly asked for a bet- ter appeal provision in the bill. I appeal to you that this bill, if amend- ed, be passed today so that it can go over to the Senate for immediate considera- tion and action. Mr. EBERHARTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HAGEN. I yield to the gentle- man from Pennsylvania. Mr. EBERHARTER. The word “in- discreetness” was used in the report. What do you mean by “indiscreetness’”’? Is there any definition in the bill as to what indiscreetness is? That is one of the reasons that would justify a dis- missal, What is meant by “indiscreet- ness,” I should like to know. Mr. HAGEN. I would not attempt to answer the gentleman exactly. There are various ways whereby a person can be dismissed or charged with certain things which will lead to his dismissal. We are pot spelling it out completely in this ill, Mr. EBERHARTER. While one man might think something was indiscreet, a thousand other people might not think it was indiscreet. Mr. HAGEN, A person may or may not be right in the charges he makes against an employee. That is why I personally favor an appeal opportunity to protect the employee beyond any pos- sibility that he might be dismissed un- fairly and improperly. That is the rea- son the organizations, which appeared before our committee, while they support the bill, did suggest an appeal, or that a change be made in the bill to provide a greater opportunity for the employee to appeal from any dismissal that might be made. Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HAGEN. I yield to the gentleman from California, Mr. HOLIFIELD. I am in favor of a bill of this type if the proper appeal method is provided. I am glad to hear the gentlemen say that an amendment will be offered along that line. If the proper kind of an appeal set-up is put into the bill, I shall certainly vote for the bill, JULY 12 Mr. CANFIELD. Mr, Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr, HAGEN. I yield to the gentle- man from New Jersey. Mr. CANFIELD. Will the gentleman tell us if the Recorp shows how many employees have been dismissed from sen- sitive agencies under existing law and regulations? Mr. HAGEN. I believe there are be- tween 300 and 400 employees who have been dismissed under present laws or orders of the President. I think it was about 375 employees. Mr. CANFIELD. Was it the testi- mony of those who appeared before the committee in behalf of these agencies that they suspect there are many others who ought to be dismissed? Mr. HAGEN. Witnesses from the various departments and agencies of the Government, and there were many, and they all favor the bill, indicated that was true. There issome danger. There are men and women in the various depart- ments doing important work who may be too talkative or for some other rea- son may be dangerous to have in the work that they are doing, and who either should be dismissed or transferred to other departments, Furthermore, if they are dismissed they have an opportunity under this bill to get employment elsewhere in the Gov- ernment, Mr. CANFIELD. But I take it they are not talking in terms of a few—they are talking in terms really of a consid- erable number, is that not so? Mr. HAGEN. There may be many, but I would not be in a position to know, e Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HAGEN. I yield. Mr. CRAWFORD. Will the gentle- man refer to the language at the bot- tom of page 3 where the language is as follows: That any person whose employment is so suspended or terminated under the authore ity of this act may, in the discretion of the agency head concerned, be reinstated or restored to duty, and if so reinstated or restored shall be allowed compensation for all or any part of the period of such suse pension or termination in an amount not to exceed the difference between the amount such person would normally have earned during the period of such suspension or termination, at the rate he was receiving on the date of suspension or termination, Suppose I were a person who was dis- missed and shortly after being dismissed I took a job and possibly made as much or 50 percent as much as I was drawing, Suppose my case drags along, let us say, for a year, and at the end of the year I am reinstated. What compensation would I get? Mr. HAGEN. If I understand the bill, and if I am wrong I would appreci- ate being corrected, you would be com- pensated for the loss of pay that you suffered because of the change of em- ployment. In other words, if you lost $2,000 in that period of time while your appeal was being considered, you would be compensated for that amount. Mr. CRAWFORD. I think that would be fair, but this language says “shall be allowed compensation in an amount not to exceed the difference between the
1950 amount such person would normally have earned.” Mr. HAGEN. Of course, if a person is improperly dismissed he should not be made to suffer financially. Mr. CRAWFORD. But to have earned it and to normally have earned it would be two different propositions, Mr. HAGEN. He normally would have earned it if he had stayed on the job from which he had been dismissed. That is the interpretation of that, I would say. Mr. CRAWFORD. on that language. Mr. HAGEN. As to any opposition that may develop to the bill because of the lack of a proper method of appeal, I can point out to you a letter which I personally received, as well as members of the committee, from Thomas G. Walters, operations director of the Gov- ernment Employees’ Council of the American Federation of Labor. This is what he says: H. R. 7439 should be amended to provide an employee charged under the provisions of this resolution should have the right as @ last resort to an appeal to an outside or independent appeals board. I understand that the gentleman from California [Mr. Mriier! will offer an amendment along that line. We on our side of the committee generally sup- ported the idea in committee and for the most part we expect to support such an amendment. Mr. JAVITS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HAGEN. I yield. Mr. JAVITS. Why was the committee against something that seems so logical and so fair? Mr. HAGEN. For various reasons I guess. Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. Mr, Chairman, if the gentlemen will yield, I will tell the gentleman why. Secretary of Defense Johnson and others who head the defense agencies, are vigorously against the amendment. We followed the advice of the defense heads. This is emergency legislation. Mr. JAVITS. Is it not a fact, Mr, Chairman, that we have to use our own heads, and that is what we are here for, and if it is fair to us then we ought to do it? Mr. HAGEN. It is always a fact that the bureaucrats and the heads of de- partments and agencies want to have as much authority as they can get, and that is why they favor such a provision as this. Mr. CAVALCANTE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HAGEN. I yield. Mr. CAVALCANTE, There is some confusion in my mind caused by the bill. Apparently this bill is intended to give these department heads the authority to suspend certain officers and employees when they deem it necessary or advisable in the interest of the national security, Then on page 4 of the bill there is this proviso, “that the termination of em- ployment herein provided shall not affect the right of such officer or employee to seek or accept employment in any other department or agency of the Govern- ment,’ I am still not clear CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE If the employment of an employee or officer has been terminated because it is necessary to the national security, by one department or agency, what is meant by that proviso in the bill? Would he be any safer in any other department or agency? Mr. HAGEN. Oh, yes; there are other agencies and departments which do not deal with national defense. However, that only points up the necessity for an outside appeal board, because he might have been improperly discharged or dis- missed by some department or agency head. Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chair- man, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HAGEN. I yield. Mr. MILLER of California. We must remember that we are dealing with se- curity risks and not disloyalty. Where disloyalty enters into it, none of us has any sympathy with a disloyal person, but many Members of this House, measured by various standards, might be a security risk. It is not a question of disloyalty. A man who might take a drink and talk too much would not be a good security risk, He might be a good mechanic whose services might be used in some other part of the country, and no stigma of disloyalty attaches. Mr. FURCOLO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HAGEN. I yield. Mr. FURCOLO. If an employee is im- properly discharged, he has a right of action to get back a certain amount of money, the amount he would have earned, for what period of time? Mr. HAGEN. Indefinitely, I believe. Mr. FURCOLO. If an employee is im- properly discharged, he then has a right of action to get a certain amount of money, but I would like to know for what length of time. Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. It is in- definite. Mr. HAGEN. It may be indefinite. In other words, during the period of the appealtime. Any appeal would naturally be decided within a year, no doubt. Mr. FURCOLO. But it does not say that in there. Mr. HAGEN. That is true, it does not. But certainly an appeal would be decided within a reasonable period of time. Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HAGEN., I yield. Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Does the gentleman not think if an appeal is allowed it ought to be concluded very quickly? Mr. HAGEN. I think an employee is entitled to immediate consideration of his appeal, so that he himself, if he is guilty, would get out of the service en- tirely or at least have an opportunity to look for another job; and if he ts not guilty, he should have a chance to get a job and to work on the Job and be free me worry and concern of losing his ob. The gentleman is absolutely right, The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Hacen] has again expired. Mr. REES. Mr. Chairman, the dis- tunguished chairman of the Post Office 10019 and Civil Service Committee, Hon. Tom Morray, has given a full, complete, and able explanation of H. R. 7439, which is under consideration today. His presen- tation has covered the principal provi- sions of the bill, and as ranking minority member of the Post Office and Civil Serv- ics Committee I shall support the meas- ure because I believe its enactment is of extreme importance to the security of our country, particularly in the light of recent developments in the Far East. The bill provides that the Secretaries of State, Defense, Army, Navy, Air Force, and Treasury—in the case of the Coast Guard—and the heads of the Atomic Energy Commission, National Security Resources Board, and the National Ad- visory Committee for Aeronautics may suspend without pay any civilian officer or employee when such action is deemed necessary in the interest of national se- curity. The bill makes permanent present temporary legislative authority under which the Secretaries of State, Defense, Army, Navy, and Air Force may suspend or remove civilian employees whenever such action is necessary or advisable in the interest of national security. The bill also grants similar permanent au- thority to the Atomic Energy Commis- sion, the Secretary of the Treasury—for the Coast Guard—the National Security Resources Board, and the National Ad- visory Committee for Aeronautics. The Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force today are empowered to suspend or remove security risks under Public Law 808, Seventy-seventh Con- gress, which is temporary legislation, The Secretary of State was empowered to remove security risks under section 104 of the State, Justice, Commerce Ap- propriation Act for fiscal year 1950, which expired July 1, 1950. The Secre- tary of Defense had similar authority provided him under section 630 of the appropriation act of 1950 for the Mili- tary Establishment, which also expired at the end of the fiscal year 1950. In view of the fact thut the large ma- jority of the agencies covered by the bill have only temporary authority to deal with these sccurity matters, I believe it is appropriate for the Congress to ap- prove this legislation. During the hearings on this legislation certain witnesses stated that the legisla- tion should contain provisions providing for an adequate appeal to make certain that no civilian employee was dismissed arbitrarily without sufficient evidence that such employee was a security risk. These views were taken into considera- tion, and the bill provides the following rights for employees who are suspended as security risks but before their termina- tion; First. A written statement of the charges against the employee shall be stated as specifically as security con- siderations permit; Second. A reasonable opportunity to answer such charges and to submit affi- davits; Third. A hearing at the employee’s re- quest by a duly constituted department or agency authority; Fourth. A review of the case by the agency head or some official designated
10020 by him before a decision adverse to the employee is rendered; and Fifth. A written statement of the final decision to the employee by the depart- ment or agency head. Similar legislation was approved by the House Post Office and Civil Service Committee during the Eightieth Con- gress, and in my judgment, this legis- lation is as necessary today as it was then. It is my understanding that the bill has the unqualified endorsement of all of the departments and agencies, includ- ing the Bureau of the Budget. In addition, the employee and veter- ans’ organizations generally endorsed the provisions of the bill. In a statement by Mr. James F. Green, chairman of the national Americanism commission of the American Legion, before the House Post Office and Civil Service Committee, the American Legion er.dorsed this as a de- sir..ble bill, Mr. Green stated: Thus the provisions of H. R. 7439 would allow peculiarly sensitive national agencies to protect themselves without delay against em- ployees who might jeopardize their opera- tions and endanger in a degree our national security. At the same time the measure pro- vides for a waiting period, a reasonable state- ment of charges, and an opportunity for em- ployee appeal before discharge. Certainly this is a measure of guarded precaution not of autocracy. One of the most important provisions of the legislation allows employees sep- arated as security risks from the agencies covered by the bill to be employed by nonsensitive Government agencies upon the approval of the Civil Service Commis- sion. I believe the Congress should be care- ful in the enactment of legislation of this type, but in view of the testimony pre- sented the committee and statements by the chairman of our committee as to the small number of security risks that have been separated from the departments and agencies covered by the bill, I believe that such authority has been exercised with a degree of care. The Federal Government has a loyalty program which is administered under Executive Order 9835 of March 21, 1947. In my judgment, this loyalty program of the President should have the sanction of Congress in legislation as well as con- gressional approval for the authority to dismiss security risks. I have urged the enactment of the leg- {slation which would legalize and make more secure the President's loyalty pro- gram, but I am pleased to observe that the administration sees fit to request the Congress to enact legislation of this na- ture involving security risk cases, While this subject is under considera- tion, I wish to make the observation that the loyalty program of the President has failed largely because of the fact that it does not have the sanction legislatively of the Congress. I have seen newspaper accounts to the fact that the President is considering the appointment of a board to review the operation of the loyalty program to determine how it can be im- proved. From time to time during the past 4 years on the floor of this House I have pointed out the failures of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE President’s loyalty program and why it is completely inadequate to meet the needs of our people. In my judgment, if the executive branch would submit to the Congress pro- posed legislation, or take some action on the legislation which I introduced sev- eral years ago with respect to the hand- ling of loyalty cases in the Government, many of the problems and shortcomings of the present loyalty program would disappear. With respect to the legislation under consideration, I feel that it is proper for the Congress to consider it and provide the policy under which the security mat- ters may be handled. I approve the pro- visions of the bill and trust the Members will support it. Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gen- tleman from California {[Mr. MILLER]. Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chair- man, the way this debate is going, I think we are losing sight of the differ- ence between disloyalty and security. We are not dealing with disloyalty, Let me cite an example that I happen to know, which may point this up. A general who commanded a division to which I was attached in World War I would go into churches in Tacoma and speak on Sundays, Orders came late in the week for this division to move out the following Wednesday. This order was highly confidential. The command- ing officer, a two-star general, went into the pulpit of a church the following Sunday and started his remarks by tell- inz the people that he was sorry he would no longer have the priivlege of addressing them again because the divi- sion had been ordered to move to France. He was immediately relieved and sent to the Philippines, which was the limbo for poor security risks within the Army itself. Security risks are not limited to any group. I am for this bill, We do need legislation of this type. We have been working under temporary legislation, but let me also point out to you that disloyal persons, persons guilty of trea- son to their Government, have a right of appeal to the Civil Service Commis- sion, under Executive order of the Presi- dent. I propose to offer an amendment, which is a wishy-washy amendment, to give those people, who may be poor se- curity zvisks but whose loyalty cannot be questioned, the right of some appeal away from the agency that acts as judge, jury, and prosecutor. The amendment is very weak. It was never offered in the committee because I was away, frankly, getting myself elected to the next Congress at the time the bill was finally considered, The amendment provides—and it is printed in the Recornp—that there shall be an appeal to the Civil Service Com- mission. If the Commission finds that the man has been wrongfully discharged, it will so report to the head of the agency; and if the Commission recommends that the appellant be reinstated and such agency head, after consideration of such recommendation, determines that JULY 12 such reinstatement would be fair to him he may reinstate. Mr, JAVITS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for a question? Mr. MILLER of California, Ina min- ute or two. The thing that we are trying to do Is to take arbitrary power away from bureau- crats who want to grab power and pro- vide some break in the chain that is go- ing to bring to the attention of the head of the agency in which they work the conditions that exist and to make sure that they do have something of a normal right that we would accord any man when we take away from him his right toa job. This is important because it is his job and he has worked at it, and as long as he is loyal we are going to try to give him some protection. This other is a bad way of doing it. Let me tell you why I want this adopt- ed. The agencies of the Government who have had absolute authority dur- ing the war, such as the Army and the Navy, and now the Air Force and the rest of them, got very fat. They still want to exercise that authority; they do not want any restraint placed upon them. I now yield to the gentleman from New York. Mr. JAVITS. My question is: Is it not & fact that under the gentleman's amendment the man is not suspended, is not suspended summarily by the head of the agency. The only thing is that ap- peal comes on actual termination which, in view of the fact that it would be on a question of loyalty is practically a death sentence insofar as the economic future of that employee is concerned. Mr. MILLER of California. There is no loyalty in this bill at all; we are talk- ing about security, not loyalty. But so far as security is concerned it would bea death sentence, and it is still a death sen- tence under my amendment, because all that my amendment does is to allow the Civil Service Commission to review the findings. Mr. JAVITS. The employee could be immediately suspended without any re- view; is that right? Mr. MILLER of California. He would be suspended—no; under the provisions of the bill he has certain rights that are given to him. They must file charges, but it is not within the agency itself, This would provide a chance to take it outside of the agency. Mr. JAVITS. Perhaps I did not make myself clear. The agency could sus- pend, could summarily terminate his employment. Mr. MILLER of California. That is right. Mr, FURCOLO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MILLER of California. I yield. Mr. FURCOLO. On page 8 of the bill, beginning in line 16, I find this provi- sion: That any person whose employment is so suspended or terminated under the authority of this act may, in ths discretion of the agency head concerned, be relnstated or re- stored to duty. In other words, is it a fact that under this bill as now written, even assuming
1950 & person is improperly discharged he has absolutely no right of action to get his pay or the difference between the pay he was receiving and what he may be earn- ing in new employment unless they re- store him to duty? The fact is he is just out of luck completely. Mr. MILLER of California. He would be out of luck. Mr. FURCOLO. Does the gentleman think that is a fair situation? Mr. MILLER of California. I do not; and that is why I have offered this amendment, Let me point out to you in the discussion of the difference be- tween loyalty and disloyalty that the Under Secretary of the Navy said that even amongst those loyal to the United States there were many security risks. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California has expired. Mr, HAGEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman from California 2 min- utes. Mr. CANFIELD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MILLER of California. I yield. Mr. CANFIELD. I wonder if the gen- tleman who sponsors this amendment would be good enough to comment on this expression used by the Secretary of Defense, Mr. Johnson, in writing to the chairman of this committee: You will recall the extensive testimony taken by your committee on the subject and the views of the Department of Defense that such a provision would strip the re- sponsible officials of the Government of the Cuthority necessary to carry out their re- sponsibility. Would the gentleman care to comment on that statement? Mr. MILLER of California. Yes; I will comment on that. The Secretary of Defense apparently has never seen my amendment. It does not strip in any way the head of the agency from taking action, He takes action under the pro- visions of this bill, The man can then go to the Civil Service Commission on appeal. If the Civil Service Commis- sion finds for the man that does not re- instate him. It recommends his rein- statement back to the head of the agency. If the head of the agency is still satisfied there are reasons why he should not be reinstated he does not have to reinstate him. So no one is stripped of anything. That is why I say this is a milk-and- water amendment. Mr. STEFAN, Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr, MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska. Mr. STEFAN. The amendment to be offered by the gentleman makes this bill similar to the McCarran amendment which we have in the appropriation bill for the State, Justice. and Commerce Departments, section 104 I think it is. Mr. MILLER of California, I am not familiar with that. Mr, YATES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. YATES. What rights under exist- ing civil-service law does the head of a department have? Do they not have the right to suspend for security reasons? CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Mr. MILLER of California. That power expired on the first of the month in an appropriation bill and they do not have any right at this time. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California has expired. Mr. HAGEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman two additional minutes, Mr. CAVALCANTE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. CAVALCANTE. Suppose the em- ployee involved is from an agency that is dealing with some very technical mat- ters. AS an example, let us say the agency is engaged in the construction of submarines. Who would be in better position to know whether this employee is a bad risk, the head of the agency or department or some outside overlord commission which the gentleman has suggested should be set up to hear the case? Mr. MILLER of California. I have not suggested that any overlord commis- sion be set up to hear the case. If a man is charged with any crime he goes before a judge. Why does the police officer sentence him for the crime? I am not a lawyer, the gentleman is. That is what we have here. You have the one agency judge, jury, and prosecu- tor, but we go to someone who is sup- posed to be without prejudice and who gives the man a fair trial. To me this is merely an American way of doing business and one of the things I want to preserve. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California has expired. Mr. HAGEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Cali- fornia |[Mr. Ho.rrte.p],. Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Chairman, this bill is a dangerous bill unless it is prop- erly amended and the reason I make that statement is because we have a so- called loyalty order and in that loyalty order we have & means of appeal. We set up an independent board of appeal appointed by the President. If a person is charged with disloyalty he does have the right of appeal under the loyalty procedure order. What are you doing here? ‘You are widening the field for discharging an employee, to include a vague term called a “security risk,” not disloyalty, but a security risk. Now, what is a security risk? Well, the Under Secretary of Navy, Mr. Kimball, said it might be due to a pérson’s associations, to his affiliations, to his habits or to some indiscreetness, Who is going to judge whether a man’s habits are good or bad? Who is going to judge whether a man is discreet or not? What are the standards of that judg- ment? So here in effect you give to the head of the agency or his subordinates the right to fire an individual for security risk reasons without giving that man an appeal. It says in the bill that he has en appeal, but he can only appeal to the head of the agency which fires him. I submit that is not the proper kind of an impartial appeal that a man needs if his job is being taken away from him. 10021 The Veterans of Forelgn Wars, the Disabled American Veterans, the Amer- ican Federation of Labor, the National Federation of Federal Employees, the American Federation of Government Employees, and other organizations ap- peared before the committee asking for an independent board of appeal. That is what the amendment proposed by the gentleman from California (Mr. Mrzisr] effects to do. Now, I intend to vote for the gentleman's amendment, because, if the gentleman’s amendment carries, it will provide some protection to the indi- vidual. Remember that when this bill is passed, you do not have to charge a man with disloyalty any more; your dis- loyalty procedures are out the window. You do not have to go through the pres- ent disloyalty procedure; all you have got to do is to say he is a bad security risk, and you do not have to use dis- loyalty procedure any more, and I chal- lenge the gentleman to deny it. Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HOLIFIELD. I yield to the gen- tleman from Tennessee. Mr, MURRAY of Tennessee. Is the gentleman still a member of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy? Mr. HOLIFIELD. I am. Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. All right. I have in my hand a letter—— Mr. HOLIFIELD, I know, I have read the letter, and they say they have no ob- jection to it. Of course, they do not, because they come under their own act and they have thelr own procedure. _ Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. They strongly and violently oppose an appeal to an outside independent board. Does the gentleman agree with the Joint Com. mittee on Atomic Energy? Mr. HOLIFIELD. The Atomic Energy Commission has its own procedure set up by law and they use the loyalty pro- cedure appeals board, and under this bill there is no outside independent ap- peal board allowed. Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HOLIFIELD. I yield to the gen- tleman from Iowa. Mr. GROSS. Does not the gentle- man from California agree with me that in the public mind, if a person is charged as a bad security risk, a stigma akin to disloyalty attaches to him? Mr. HOLIFIELD. The gentleman is absolutely right. It is laughable to read the provisions of the bill, If a man is discharged as a bad security risk, he has the right to seek or accept employment. Of course, if you are fired from your job, you have a right to go out and look for a job, and you have a right to starve if you do not get a job. And take this re- view: A review of his case by the agency head or some official designated by him before a final decision is made. In other words, the man that fires him may be the official that is designated to review his case. I say you are stepping into a wide field. I am for security, There may be some Government employees who are bad security risks and who are dis- loyal, but I am not for giving any agency head or any of his subordinate officials
10022 the opportunity to use his own discre- tionary judgment as to whether a man is discreet or not and not give the employee the right of proper appeal on that case. The agency head or one of his subordi- nates might see a man take two cock- tails at a cocktail party and he might decide, in his own mind, that he was in- discreet. Maybe he was _ indiscreet; maybe he was not. Maybe a man could carry 10 cocktalls and still keep his mouth shut, I do not know, but when you have @ variable standard to decide whether a man is indiscreet or rot, I am telling you, my friends, you are getting into the fleld of thought control, if I know anything about it. Mr. JONAS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HOLIFIELD. I yield to the gen- tleman from Illinois. Mr. JONAS. I understand the gentle- man is saying that he is in favor of the amendment proposed by the gentleman from California. Mr. HOLIPIELD. I am in favor of it. I shall offer an amendment as a substi- tute to his, if I have the opportunity. My amendment goes a little bit further. If my amendment is defeated, I shall vote for the amendment proposed by the gen- tleman from California, because I think it is a good amendment. Mr. JONAS. I hope so, because the word “appeal” in his amendment is a misnomer. He would be compelled to ap- peal to a board which originally preferred the charges, and after the appeal is over, there is no mandatory process in the Commission to make the judgment final. Mr. HOLIFIELD. That is true. But, the Miller amendment gives the right of review to an independent board. My amendment goes further than the gen- tleman’s amendment. Mr. JONAS. Does not the gentleman believe in the proposition where the juris- diction of making the judgment final is vested in the appeals board? Mr. HOLIFIELD. My amendment will make that possible. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California has expired. Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gen- tleman from Texas |Mr. BENTSEN]. Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of or- der, on the Korean war. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas? There was no objection. Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I speak to you of a subject which may well result in a third world war or a lasting peace. This battle in Korea has been called a lot of fancy names in the past 3 weeks. Some have said it is merely a police action, but try telling a GI in the foxholes of Korea that he is just a cop on his beat. Ask the wives and mothers of those who are fighting in Korea to- day, they will tell you there is just one three-letter word for it—war. It is time we face up to reality, time we ad- mit we have a small war on our hands, one we want to end as quickly as pos. sible to avoid a world-wide conflagra- on. ° CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE The seriousness of this situation is difficult to overemphasize. With each new day our newspapers tell of Ameri- can men retreating, of our troops out- numbered and outgunned. Our forces are on a peninsula surrounded by water on three sides and by the enemy on the fourth—an enemy with a force we have underestimated, Korean allies whose strength we have overestimated. A North Korean Army with approximately 200,000 well-trained men attacking us. Tanks double the size of our own, thrown against our outnumbered troops. At least 150,000 Chinese Communists in the vicinity of the Korean border prepared to join the North Koreans if we continue to suffer defeat at their hands. The soldiers in Korea have done a magnificent job when you consider their lack of fighting equipment. Our logis- tics problem is most complex. The dis- tances involved are tremendous. Our enemies have a relatively simple prob- Jem of supply by merely transporting on overland routes. It takes no stretch of the imagination to realize this could de- velop into another Bataan, What can we do to end this war now? My suggestion may result in my be- ing labelled an alarmist or an extremist, but if it should result in an earlier end to this warfare and the saving of Ameri- can lives, as I believe it will, then I mind not the labels. I propose our Com- mander in Chief, the President of the United States, advise the commander of the North Korean armies to withdraw his troops to the north side of the thirty- eighth parallel within 1 week, or use that week to evacuate a named list of principal North Korean cities which would be subjected to atomic attack by our Air Force. There are those who will recoil in hor- ror and condemn such action but to those I say it is deserving of these people who are so morally wrong as to attack peaceful neighbors in the dead of night, those who will accept the surrender of American boys, tie their hands behind them and then brutally murder them. To those who will speak and write against this suggested action I ask why not do it now rather than 6 months from now wishing we had done it. This war is past the wrist-slapping stage. This is not a time for wishful thinking. The President made a brave move when he sent our American forces to Korea. Now we are faced with the next step. If we lose South Korea after the steps we have now taken our Nation will have suffered its severest set-back in its fight against communism. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that we could lose South Korea if the troops of Communist China join the affray and we refuse to use all the weapons at our command. We are fighting this battle with one hand tied behind us. Let us use every- thing we can to end this war now. Should this war in Korea continue, we can expect it to hearten Communist sat- ellites throughout the world. We can expect similar trouble in Yugoslavia, Iran, and Formosa, from the Huks in the Philippines and an intensified attack by the Communist forces in Indochina. JULY 12 Should this war in Korea continue, this great and powerful nation can find itself fighting a war of containment all over the world, draining us of manpower and resources. Communist Russia, during our struggles, can continue to let her satellites take the losses while building her own atomic stockpile until that fate- ful day when the men in the Kremlin decide that they are strong enough and we are weak enough, Better to let those who would destroy free nations know that the United States stands ready to use full military might to stop aggres- sion. That the atomic bomb awaits those who would violate the peace of free men. The CHAIRMAN. All time has ex- pired. The Clerk will read the bill for amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Be it enacted, etc., That, notwithstanding the provisions of section 6 of the act of August 24, 1912 (37 Stat. 555), as amended (5 U. 8. C. 652), or the provisions of any other law, the Secretary of State; the Secretary of Defense; the Secretary of the Army; the Sec- retary of the Navy; the Secretary o! the Air Force; the Secretary of the Treasury; Atomic Energy Commission; the Chairman, National Security Resources Board; or the Director, National Advisory Committee for Aeronau- tics, may, in his absolute discretion and when dcemed necessary in the interest of national security, suspend, without pay, any civilian officer or employee of the De- partment of State (including the Foreign Service of the United States), Department of Defense, Department of the Army, Depart- ment of the Navy, Department of the Air Force, Coast Guard, Atomic Energy Commis- sion, National Security Resources Board, or National Advisory Committee for Aeronau- tics, respectively, or of their several field services: Provided, That to the extent that such agency head determines that the inter- ests of the national security permit, the em- ployee concerned shall be notified of the rea- sons for his suspension and within 30 days after such notification any such person shall have an opportunity to submit any state- ments or affidavits to the cfficial designated by the head of the agency concerned to show why he should be reingtated or restored to duty. The agency head conccrned may, fol- lowing such investigation and review as he deems necessary, terminate the employment of such suspended civilian officer or em- ployee whenever he shall determine such termination necessary or advisable in the interest of the national security of the United States, and such determination by the agency head concerned shall be conclu- sive and final: Provided further, That any employee having a permanent or indefinite appointment, and having completed his pro. bationary or trial period, who is a citizen of the United States whose employment 18 sus- pended under the authority of this act, shall be given after his suspension and before his employment is terminated under the au- thority of this act, (1) a written statement of the charges against him, which shall be stated as specifically as security considera- tions permit; (2) a rersonable opportunity to answer such charges and to submit affi- davits; (3) a hearing, at the employee's re- quest, by a duly constituted agency au- thority for this purpose; (4) a review of his case by the agency head, or some official designated by him, before a decision adverse to the employee is made final; and (5) a written statement of the decision of the agency head: Provided further, That any person whose employment is so suspended or terminated under the authority of this act may, in the discretion of the agency head concerned, be reinstated or restored to duty,
1950 and {f so reinstated or restored shall be al- lowed compensation for all or any part of the period of such suspension or termination in an amount not to exceed the difference between the amount such person would nor- mally have earned during the period of such suspension or termination, at the rate he was receiving on the date of suspension or termi- nation, as appropriate, and the interim net earnings of such person: Provided further, That the termination of employment herein provided shall not affect the right of such officer or employee to seek or accept employ- ment in any other department or agency of the Government: Provided further, That the head of any department or agency con- sidering the appointment of any person whose employment has been terminated un- der the provisions of this act shall make such appointment only after consultation with the Civil Service Commission, which agency shall have the authority to determine whether any such person ig eligible for em- ployment by any other agency or department of the Government. Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. Mrmr of Cali- fornia; Page 1, line 3, after “That”, insert “(a).” On page 2, line 25, after “shall”, insert & comma and the following: “except as pro- vided in subsection (b).” On page 4, after line 12, insert the follow- in . g: “(b) (1) Any person whose employment 1s terminated under authority of subsection (a) shall have the right to appeal to the Civil Service Commission from the adverse decision of the agency head concerned. Such appeal shall be made tn writing within a rea- sonable time after such termination of em- ployment and may be accompanied by such affidavits as the appellant may desire to sub- mit. The appellant shall be given the op- portunity to appear before the Commission, either in person or through a designated rep- resentative, in accordance with rules and reg- ulations prescribed by the Commission. After investigation and consideration of the evidence submitted, the Commission shall (A) submit its findings and recommenda- tions to the agency head concerned, and (B) send copies of such findings and recommen- dations to the appellant or to his designated representative, If the Commission recom- mends that the appellant be reinstated and such agency head determines, after consider- ation of such recommendation, that such re- instatement would be fair and reasonable and not against the public interest, he shall reinstate the appellant and allow him com- pensation as provided in subsection (a) for all or any part of the period of his suspen- sion and separation from the service. (2) The Civil Service Commission shall submit to the President and to the Congress an annual report with respect to the activi- ties of the Commission under this Act, and shall include in such report a statement in- dicating the extent to which the several agency heads have complied with the recom- mendations of the Commission, submitted pureuant to paragraph (1) of this subsection, for the reinstatement of dismissed officers and employees.” Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, this is the amendment that has been previously discussed. All the amendment does is to break the chain within the agency by which the suspen- sion can be made, and provide for a re- view by the Civil Service Commission, which then submits its findings to the head of the agency. If, after a reex- amination, the head of the agency deter- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE mines that the man should be reinstated, it may reinstate him. The trouble is, particularly in the lower levels, that caprice and personalities enter into these dismissals and people are discharged, The thing that we call security is a broad charge. A man can be discriminated against, and he has no right to bring his appeal even to the head of his agency, other than the theoretical passing on the findings of the agency. In this way the Civil Service Commis- sion reviews it and reports it back to the agency. The Civil Service Commission also reports to the President and to the Congress, which allows us to act as judge as to whether they get along very well. Mr. JONAS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MILLER of California. I yield. Mr. JONAS. I am somewhat in sym- pathy with your amendment, but when you speak of “agency,” is the agency that ultimately reviews the finding of the Civil Service Board the same agency that originally stands as accuser of the party charged with the offense? Mr. MILLER of California. That would be true. Mr. JONAS. Then, where is the effec- tiveness of your appeal? It is just an idle gesture, Mr. MILLER of California. No. It is not an idle gesture. The agency js the one for which the man works. For in- stance, it might be the Department of the Army. Mr. JONAS. But the appeal goes back to the accuser. In other words, a man is accused, and he is tried and he loses, and he appeals. Then the Civil Service Commission says, “This finding is im- proper. We rule that he should be re- instated.” There are no mandatory powers in your amendment, and the agency says, “Oh, no. We do not agree with the Civil Service Commission.” So you leave your man exactly where you have him. Mr. MILLER of California. I agree with you. I said it was a weak amend- ment in that respect, but you have got the question of security. We must not Jose sight of the fact that we are dealing with a sensitive agency. The agency may be right in suspending him and may have confidential information that it should not disclose. In that case, they can justify it to themselves. This at least gives some chance of bringing it out into the open, and it is not hidden under that shell of high confidence. . Mr. JONAS. Will the gentleman yield further? Mr, MILLER of California. I yield. Mr. JONAS. My point is this: You use the word “appeal,” which has a very definite meaning in legal jurisprudence. Here you use the word “appeal” as though it has the same meaning in this proceeding. Yet, when you get through, it Js a nonentity. Mr. MILLER of California. I am not a lawyer. Perhaps I should have used the word “review,” and then the Civil Service Commission has the right to re- view and to determine whether there are any safeguards that the head of the agency himself may not know about, and 10028 that he may be quick to correct when it is called to his attention by this out- side agency. Mr. JONAS. That is a better word. Mr, DONDERO. Mr, Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MILLER of California, I yield. Mr. DONDERO. In reporting back to the Congress you do not intend by your amendment that the Congress shall be- come a board of review? I think all you mean is that they shall report to Con- gress about making known what their findings were? Mr. MILLER of California. That is right, and the Congress then, having this information before it, as in all of these reports, if we find a great discrep- ancy, could take the necessary action to correct it. I believe that this safeguards the United States Government. I want again to stress the fact that we are deal- ing not with loyalty but with security; and I may say I would like to criticize the Department of the Army right now because in the hearings before our com- mittee it was brought out that the De- partment of the Army had not invoked the President's present loyalty board and use of standards of loyalty in dismissing people, but had sent them all out under the guise of security. That allows dis- loyal people to be reinstated in places in the Government where they should never be reinstated. Any man who fs disloyal and is convicted of disloyalty by the loy- alty board ought never to be eligible for further Government employment. Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I offer a substitute for the Miller amend- ment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. HoLmrig.p as a substitute for the amendment offered by Mr. Mriier of California: On page 3, line 12, after the number “4”, strike out the words down to and including the word “final” in line 14, and insert in lieu thereof the fol- lowing language: “An independent board of review is hereby authorized, to be known as the security review board. The security review board shall be composed of three members to be appointed by the President under such regulations and tenure of office as he deems advisable. Any employee sus- pended under the terma of this act shall be entitled upon request to a review by the security review board. No employee shall have his employment terminated under the terms of this act unless the decision of the soour ty review board is adverse to said em- ployee.” Mr, HOLIFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I want to make it very plain that this amendment of mine does not prevent the head of any agency from suspending an employee who is charged with being a security risk; he can be suspended. The bill provides that, and my amendment does not change that. I want to say further that I am in favor of the Miller amendment but I want to say that my amendment goes further and I want to explain to you why it goes further. In section 3 of the bill the President js given authority to include, in the terms of this act, all executive agencies. So this applies potentially to every execu- tive agency, not only the sensitive ones.
10024 We must keep that in mind in the first place. In the second place, there is no dis- tinction made in the bill between so- called sensitive employees, that is, em- ployees who have access to confidential and secret information, and the regular employees. In many instances 75 or 80 percent of the department's employees, those in clerical position and those run- ning elevators and doing janitor work and manual work are not what would be called sensitive employees and are not in positions where they could be security risks. Passage of this bill would obviate the necessity of using the loyalty procedure and any department of the Government could dismiss any employee if the agency head or his subordinates want to. That is the same procedure which the Army has been using and which the gentleman from California [Mr. MIn.er) just finished condemning. The Navy and the Air Force are using the loyalty procedure method giving the employee the right to appeal for a hearing before an independ- ent board. The Army has not; the Army has been dismissing its employees, making no charges, but just summarily dismissing them. Such persons could be reemployed in other agencies of the Gov- ernment. Finally, the reason my amendment goes further than the Miller amendment and makes it mandatory for the head of an agency to accept the appeal board’s de- cision is because we are dealing in very indefinite terms. The term “security risk” has no definition. It is so vague and fuzzy that any Federal employee’s job can be jeopardized. Because the reasons for dismissal are not defined clearly, we should be more anxious than ever to protect the employee from arbitrary and ciscriminatory actions. The Under Sec- retary said it might be according to a man’s associations, to his affiliations, to his habits, or because he was indiscreet. So because we are going so much further and entering into a fleld which goes far beyond loyalty or disloyalty, I say that the amendment should go beyond that and that the employee should be given the protection of an independent review board. That is why my amendment is offered in the terms of a substitute. I hope the committee will support my amendment. However, as I said before, if it is voted down I intend to vote for the amendment offered by the gentleman from California {Mr. Mruuer]. Mr. POWELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word. Mr. Chairman, these two amend- ments which have been offered will give some ray of hope to this bill so that those of us who do not want to destroy the civil-service system and at the same time want to do everything to see that our Government is protected from within will be able to vote for this bill. If either of these amendments are passed I personally will vote for this bill, but without them I cannot, because the bill as it is now constituted, without the amendments, marks the end of the civil- service system which, to me, is one of the foundation stones of our American democratic way of life. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE If this bill had come up, say, 2 or 8 months ago, it would not have had a ghost of a chance of passage. Now that we are in the midst of war, some of us are stampeded by hysteria. We are will- ing to do anything, of course, to back up on the home front our men abroad; but I do not believe it wise that in the proc- ess we give up any of the fundamentals of our democratic way of life. The civil service system to me is one of these fun- damental elements. You cannot defeat communism by giving up democracy, I have been thinking what would hap- pen if this bill in its present form would be applied say to our own House of Rep- resentatives. They say that some of the poor security risks are those who drink, gamble, or gossip or have the wrong acquaintances. Some days we might not be able to raise a quorum if this bill was applied here. If we can pass either of the amend- ments offered by the gentleman from California, which will guarantee that men and women in civil service have a right to review, not through people who fire them but through the Civil Service Commission or an impartial board, we have held onto something basic, we will be able to salvage our civil-service sys- tem and at the same time give protection from within. Now we are at war. American lives are being lost. I do not approve of the way this Korean situation was handled. We are at war without approval of Con- gress. But I am an American, and this is “my country-—-right or wrong.” I ab- hor war. Mr. Truman has committed us without our consent. But there can be no turning back now. I will, there- fore, do everything to back up our fight- ing men, but I will fight even harder to make this a more democratic country and will not let war hysteria stampede me into voting for this bill in present form. Mrs, ST. GEORGE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Miller amend- ment. I supported this amendment in committee and I propose to support it again now. The reason is that it seems to me we must be particularly careful at this time not to be led away by any hysteria due to the war situation that we are now in. I yield to no one in my anxiety about security risks in our Government; how- ever, I do feel that it has always been the American way, American jurisprudence in fact, to give everyone the right of appeal. I am not so favorably impressed by the Holifield amendment, although that also has great merit, for the simple rea- son that it builds up and sets up another board. It seems to me that the Civil Service Commission is the one that should be able to review these cases, I would like also to point out, and I hope the gentleman from California (Mr. MILLER] will correct me if I am wrong, that under his amendment a bad secu- rity risk can be instantly dismissed by the head of the department and he will therefore no longer be a menace or danger in that department, that only after that and while he is under dismissal can he appeal to the Civil Service Com- JULY 12 mission for review. The Civil Service Commission can then, in its wisdom, exonerate him and possibly place him in another department of Government which would probably be a far better thing, because human nature being what it is, it is not very easy to send a dis- missed employee back under the same agency head. I earnestly hope this House will weigh the merits of this amendment and will realize the importance of not allowing any one individual in an agency or the head of an agency to act as prosecutor, judge, and jury. It seems to me that is a very dangerous precedent, and I am a little afraid that, owing to the fact that the war clouds are around us, that we are all anxious for the security of our Na- tion, and quite rightly so, we may be carried away into doing something that we may regret for a long time afterwards. It seems to me that this bill would be far more acceptable and easier of passage if it contains this amendment. Mr. KEATING. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield? Mrs. ST. GEORGE. I yield to the gen- tleman from New York. Mr. KEATING. I think the comments of the gentlewoman from New York have been very helpful to us in trying to make it clear what we should do on this amendment. As I understand, if an em- ployee were later exonerated by the Civil Service Commission, he could be returned to another agency, but do I understand not to the agency where he had previ- ously been employed? Mrs. ST. GEORGE. No; that would be entirely optional. He could go back to that agency. Mr. KEATING. To that agency? Mrs. ST. GEORGE. Yes; he could be exonerated and returned and put right back in the position from which he had been dismissed. Mr. KEATING. In the discretion of the Civil Service Commission? Mr:;. ST. GEORGE. Yes; in conjunc- tion with the agency head. The Civil Service Commission would recommend this to the agency head, and as I read this amendment, if the agency head, in spite of that, said “No; this man is a bad security risk; I know certain things about him that makes it impossible for him to be reemployed in this agency,” he might then possibly be placed in an- other agency. Mr. KEATING. The agency would not be required to take him back. Mrs, ST. GEORGE. No. Mr. KEATING. Then he could be placed in another agency if that agency head were willing to take him. Mrs. ST. GEORGE. That is correct. Mr. KEATING. And if he were exonerated in that way and were taken back, are there any provisions in the amendment or the bill to provide for his compensation? Mrs, ST, GEORGE. I understand that he would be compensated then. In other words, he would be completely exonerated. The reason for the change in agency in some instances is that a man might be a bad security risk in one agency and he would be perfectly all right in another. In other words, as my dis-
1950 tinguished colleague from New York {Mr. PoweEt.] pointed out, there are some people who may take a few too many cocktails and do things that might be very dangerous in what is known as a sensitive agency, and yet they could be put in another agency where this, shall we say, slight weakness, might not affect them so seriously. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from New York has expired. Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word. Mr, Chairman, the advocates of these amendments, intending to scuttle this emergency measure that comes to us from the Secretary of Defense, seem to have learned nothing from what has taken place in Korea. Let us make no mistake about this. We know exactly what we are doing. We know why the amendments are proposed. We know that their adoption would mean the con- tinuation of the policy of appeasement which we have been following for a num- ber of years, and which is responsible for the plight in which the world finds it- self. Korea has exposed a military weak- ness that is embarrassing to every citi- zen of this country who has a concern for the safety of the Nation. Mr. Chairman, and my fellow col- leagues, I can think of nothing that would embarrass those in charge and re- sponsible for national defense so much as would the adoption of either of the amendments now before the committee. They ought to be voted down. They ought to be voted down because their adoption is not in the interest of security. Mr. SHORT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. COX. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. SHORT. I am sure we all have high admiration for both the ability and the courage of the very able gentle- woman from New York, who has made what under normal peacetime conditions would be a very strong statement for these amendments. However, I think on second thought the gentlewoman will agree with us, and certainly the gentle- man from Georgia, who is a very able lawyer, will agree that the unauthorized disclosure of classified information of top-secret character by anyone who may be a poor security risk is fraught with dire if not fatal consequences at this time, Mr. COX. I thank the gentleman. Mr. MORRIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MORRIS. I yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. HOLIFIELD. I should like to say, Mr. Chairman, that I resent the fact that the gentleman from Georgia accuses the gentleman from California (Mr. MriuzR] and me of trying to scuttle this bill. That implies that we have offered our amend- ments in bad faith and that we are not in support of the bill) We have both previously stated to the House that we ‘were for the bili, and that we were merely exercising our right as Members to try to improve it. I think the gentleman CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE from Georgia owes an apology to the gentleman from California and me for saying that. Mr. COX. If the gentleman will yield, these amendments present a case where the line might be drawn between the sheep and the goats. Mr. MORRIS. Mr. Chairman, the test of real leadership comes at times like this. We all know there is tension at this time. It is incumbent upon us, who are supposed to be the leaders in our Nation, to use good common sense and justice in the carrying out of our duties. In my judgment, this is a good bill, provided these amendments, either the Miller or Holifield amendment, are in- corporated in it. All of us want our Nation to be secure. All of us want to give the heads of the various depart- ments mentioned in the bill the right to fire people who are disloyal or who are poor security risks. We certainly are of one accord as to that. On the other hand, if these or similar amendments are not adopted, under the cloak of patri- otism, under the guise of acting patriot- ically, gave injustices may occur. Some people no doubt will take advantage of the situation and great individual injus- tices will occur. Our liberties may be in Jeopardy. There is no question about it. This is not the way to legislate, as I view it. Yes, we want those who are not good security risks to be dismissed from the service. We certainly want disloyal people to be dismissed. But let us give people who are just charged with being disloyal, just charged with being security risks, a fair hearing. We do not sentence a horse thief without giving him first a fair trial. We in America have always believed that people are entitled to a fair hearing. Certainly there cannot be anything wrong, and we cannot be injuring our society in any way, and we cannot be jeopardizing the defense of our Nation by acting demo- cratically and by acting in the best tra- ditions of our country by giving people who are charged with doing something wrong an opportunity to be heard. Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MORRIS. I yield. Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. This bill provides for a hearing by the head of the agency or the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of the Army or Navy. Do you think that the Secretary of De- fense can be required to go before the Civil Service Commission and disclose high secrets and military information and that the Civil Service Commission should be the overlord and the judge over the Secretary of Defense or the Sec- retary of the Army as to whether or not @ person is a bad security risk? Mr. MORRIS. Certainly I think the Secretary of Defense or any head of any department mentioned in the bill ought to have the right to summarily discharge an employee. Certainly he ought to have the right to do that. They should be forced to quit immediately. But after they have quit, they stil! ought to hav> the right to go somewhere and be heard so as to determine whether or not the action was arbitrary and unjust. Why, 10025 we would no more think of giving some- body here, even the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the right to treat us that way than we would of flying. Would we? Of course we would not. You know we would not let any man determine ‘vhether or not we were bal security risks by siving them such power. Then why should we not do unto others as we would have them do unto us? That principle cannot be safely forsaken in a democracy. Mr. CORBETT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word. Mr. Chairman, I believe in the consid- eration of these two amendments, and in the consideration of this particular piece of legislation we have gone to very great extremes to get away from the real situa- tion. Understand, and I repeat, we are dealing here not with people who are disloyal. We are dealing with people who are simply regarded as those who might let some information leak out. The situation is this: the head of the agency can dismiss the employee who is regarded as a security risk. That takes him out of any sensitive position until such time, under these amendments, that he might be entirely cleared of any charges. We have here it seems a very plain fact, that the head of the agency could remove anybody by simply label- ing him as a bad security risk. How can we, in this country, be talking about free- dom and the rights of men and yet give someone the power to destroy a man's employment, not merely for the time be- ing, but to label him for all time as hav- ing been a poor security risk? The pub- lic generally and other possible employ- ers are not going to draw a fine line between a security risk and a disloyal person. Now, let us think for a moment, in the hope of getting some reason here. The amendment of the gentleman from Cali- fornia [Mr. Hou1F1£vp] is regarded as too extreme by some. I believe, and as we worked on it in committee, that we could very properly turn down the substitute and pass the amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. MILLER] and we would have a sane and sensible bill which would allow a fellow American citizen the right to at least have his case reviewed and have an opportunity to be vindicated, Mr, KILDAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. CORBETT. I yield. ’ Mr. KILDAY. I wanted to ask the gentleman if he regarded a disloyal per- son as being a poor security risk? Mr. CORBETT. Oh, a disloyal per- son—— Mr. KILDAY. Do you regard him as &@ poor security risk? Mr. CORBETT. A disloyal person is @ poor security risk, but they are covered under other legislation that provides for their immediate dismissal. Mr. KILDAY. But they would also be covered under this legislation, inasmuch as it refers to poor security risks. Mr. CORBETT. This resolution does not have to do with the people who would be accused of disloyal action. I would go as far as the gentleman or any other Member would go in punishing them.
10026 As a matter of fact, dismissal is not a sufficient punishment. But we are deal- ing here with security risks, and I think we ought to be careful that we do not give one individual the right to label another one as a poor security risk. Mr. JAVITS. Mr, Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. CORBETT. I yield. Mr. JAVITS. Is it not a fact that all these amendments are trying to do is to save a man’s economic life? Is that not the simple issue? The individual per- son is given a right of appeal and the Government is not jeopardized at all. Mr. CORBETT. That is exactly true. We are affording to the poor individual who is dismissed a right to have a review. Mr. JAVITS. And when we pass these amendments, it is for the benefit of the individual's protection of his own civil rights? Mr. CORBETT. Yes, sir. Mr. MORRIS. Mr. Chairman. will the gentleman yield? Mr, CORBETT. I yield. Mr. MORRIS. Without this amend- ment, would this bill not in fact be in the nature of a dictatorship set up in our own Government by certain agencies? Mr. CORBETT. We would be setting up dozens of them in every agency. Mr. MORRIS. And we are opposed to dictatorships, are we not—you and I? Mr. CORBETT. We certainly are. Mr. MORRIS. Then why should we set it up in our own midst? Mr. CORBETT. The most precious right a man has is his good name. We are threatening it without a right of appeal. Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. CORBETT. I yield. Mr. HOLIFIELD. The principle we are following in setting up an independ- ent appeal board is the same as we fol- lowed under the Loyalty Procedure Act, and the same as that followed in the civil service? Mr. CORBETT. That is right, and this amendment in no way endangers the force of the bill. The CHAIRMAN. ‘The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Cor- BETT] has expired. Mr. KILDAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I ask unanimous consent to revise and ex- tend my remarks, The CHAIRMAN, Without objection, it is so ordered. There was no objection, Mr. KILDAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Miller and Holifield amendments. Thirty years ago I was a civil-service employee. I still hold my reinstatement rights. In those days we did not feel that we had a deed to the job. We did not feel that we owned those jobs, nor did we feel that there existed among the rights of American citizens the right to work for the Government. Of course, that was before this idea came up that everybody had a right to work for the Government. I do not regard it as a right. I regard it as a privilege and a high privilege. This bill applies only to the very sensi- tive agencies, It gives the head of a CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE department the power on final hearing to dismiss a person who is regarded as a poor security risk. If he is going to have to go to some other agency and deliver to that agency information with refer- ence to the very delicate subject in- volved, and if he is going to have to ex- plain to that independent agency the im- plications which come from that infor- mation, how are you going to remove such an employee? Now, you are talking about an appeal, There is an appeal provided to the head of the agency. That means a man in the Department of the Army could go to the Secretary of the Army, a man in the Navy to the Secretary of the Navy, and in the Air Force to the Secretary of the Air Force, and so on. Do you not regard that as considerable protection? You grant to those officers powers far broader than these. They have today the actual decision for the drafting of men into the service. Of course, it comes in the name of the President when it is invoked, but when the quotas come up they come from these Secretaries. So you are going to say that the man who has the power to say that the sons of American parents shall go into the service, shall go into combat, is not to be trusted in passing upon whether a man is a poor security risk. You have grant- ed him those additional powers, and I do not see why you would hesitate to say that appeal to him is not proper pro- tection. The gentleman from California [Mr. MILLER] stated that at the lower levels they were subjected to vindictive and ca- pricious actions; but when you get to the higher levels, when you get to Wash- ington, when you get all the way up to the top of the department you appeal to a@ man who has far greater powers than those in the lower levels. He certainly would not act capriciously with the in- dividual involved. Why should you worry about giving him this additional jurisdiction? Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for a correction? Mr. KILDAY. Very briefly. Mr. HOLIFIELD. Article 4 on page 3 contains this clause: “By the agency head or some official designated by him.” So the gentleman’s argument does not pertain solely to the agency head, for we see that he may delegate his authority. Mr. KILDAY. Very well. Of course, the agency head has the power to dele- gate some of his duties and to designate others to act in his place in certain mat- ters, A great deal has been said in the last few months with reference to the failure of the heads of executive agencies to clean up their agencies. That has been going on now for months; I imagine it has had more headlines than any other one subject in the past few months. Here in this bill we give the agency heads the power and authcrity to clean up their own departments, yet we find an attempt made to throw a road block in their way. You would make their actions subject to appeal to the Civil Service Commission. You are not going to permit the agency head to clean up his agency and then you are going to criticize him for not doing so. JULY 12 Mr. CORBETT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. KILDAY. I yield. Mr. CORBETT. The gentleman calls this reference to the Civil Service Com- mission a road block. I wonder if the gentleman would tell us what danger he sees in providing the right of appeal or review? Mr. KILDAY. I want to say that it constitutes a very considerable delay in the operation of the law. Mr. CORBETT. Oh, no, no. Mr. KILDAY. I understand your question. The man is suspended, but when the employer starts out to dismiss a@ man, if you have this provision in the legislation under which he is acting, then he knows that after he has taken that action it is going through the agency concerncd, then he is going to have to take all the time necessary to get all the information, confidential information from the department over to the Civil Service Commission in order to sustain his case. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas has expired. Mr. CHELF, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Texas may proceed for 5 additional minutes. This is a very important mat- ter and all of us want to hear more about this. Mr. CORBETT. Mr. Chairman, re- serving the right to object, there have been a number of people heard on both sides of this question. Does the gen- tleman think that more time ought to be given to the opposition? Mr. CHELF. I do not think that too much time can be devoted to a matter of this importance. That is my answer. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Kentucky? There was no objection. Mr. KEATING. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. KILDAY. I yield. Mr. KEATING. AsI read this amend- ment, and I shall be very happy to be enlightened if I am wrong, but as I read it and as I understood the gentlewoman from New York, if the Commission dis- agrees with the agency head and feels that he acted improperly, the Commis- sion has no power even under the Miller amendment—I am not speaking of the amendment offered by the gertleman from California [Mr. Ho.ir1eLp]—under the Miller amendment the Commission has no power to force the agency head to take him back, which I agree is cor- rect and should be; but it does provide simply some review of possible arbitrary action on the part of an agency head. Does the gentleman see any harm in it if I correctly interpret it? Mr. KILDAY. I think that the in- terpretation of the gentleman is correct. Under the Miller amendment it goes back from the Civil Service Commission to the agency head. But what I am try- ing to make clear is that when you re- Hieve a man on the ground that he is a poor security risk it involves only the very critical functions of government, the very delicate things involved in our Government; and if the man who is charged with the obligation of dismissing
1950 & person knows that he has got to go to the Civil Service Commission and take over there all the classified information and submit it to the Civil Service Com-~ mission he is going to be reluctant to doit. He is going to find himself in some instances confronted with Executive orders which will prohibit him from taking to the Civil Service Commission the very things upon which he acted in relieving the employee. Mr. KEATING. As I understand it, the agency head under this amendment would not be required to present any evidence at all. He could and might under certain circumstances feel he should still maintain his position of absolute refusal. Mr. KILDAY. I do not think the gentleman would put himself in the position of saying that we are going to pass a bill giving a man the right of _appeal, then the head of the agency is not going to in good faith submit to the Civil Service Commission the evidence upon which he acted. Mr. BROWN of Ohio. will the gentleman yield? Mr. KILDAY. Iyield to the gentleman from Ohio Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I, too, am greatly concerned over this amendment. It was my experience as 2 member of the Hoover Commission in studying person- nel problems in the Federal Government that too often whenever an executive head of one of the agencies or depart- ments endeavored to discharge or get rid of some employee an appeal was taken and immediately it was the depart- mental head or supervisor who was placed on trial for many months rather than the unsatisfactory employee. We want to protect the decent employee, yes, but also we want to protect these men that we are going to hold responsi- ble in time of war or great danger for the operation of the Federal Govern- ment and the security of our Nation in peace. Mr. KILDAY. I thank the gentleman. There can be no question but when a man in charge of employees now in the Federal Government attempts to elim- inate a man, he goes on trial. He is the defendant from then on. It has been stated this does not involve disloyalty cases. It does involve disloy. alty cases. You are going to give the disloyal person the right to appeal under these amendments. Mr. HOLIFIELD. They have that right now. Mr. KILDAY. I understand the gen- tleman is‘attempting here to draw a dis- tinction between the provisions of loy- alty law and this bill, but I do not care how you try to construe it, so long as dis- loyalty constitutes a poor risk the dis- loyalty cases can come under this pro- vision. It would be so much more to the benefit of the employee for his superior to proceed under this provision rather than charging him with disloyalty and even though he could proceed under the disloyalty provision he could proceed under this bill. There can be no ques- tion about the legal construction of the two laws. Mr, MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. Chairman, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Mr. KILDAY. I yield to the gentle- man from California. Mr. MILLER of California. I would like to call to the gentleman's attention the fact that you have the present loy- alty order presently in the Department of Defense, the Department of the Navy, and the Department of the Air Force and you can proceed against disloyal people under the provisions of that law. Mr. KILDAY. I do not yield further. I understand all of the loyalty provi- sions. I submit that legally the disloyal person can be proceeded against under this provision, if adopted. There would be two avenues that the employer could follow. He could take either one of them. It would be far more charitable for him in all but the most flagrant cases to proceed under the provisions of this rather than under the other law and he would do so. Mr. Chairman, in these times it Js ridiculous to find men cor.tend here that poor security risks are entitled to so much consideration. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas has expired. Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on the pending amendment and all amendments thereto close in 10 minutes, the last 5 minutes to be reserved to me. ; Mr. HAGEN. Mr. Chairman, I ob- ect. Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 15 minutes, and that I be given the last 5 minutes. The motion was agreed to. Mr. HUBER. Mr. Chairman, a point of order. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it. Mr. HUBER. Is it not a violation of the rules of the House to allocate time so that one Member has more time than another Member? The CHAIRMAN, The Chair will ad- vise the gentleman that it is too late to raise that point at this time. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. McCartHy]. (Mr. MARSHALL, Mr. MILLER of California, and Mr. FURCOLO asked and were given permission to yield the time allotted them to Mr. McCartry.) Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, there are one or two remarks in the statement by the gentleman from Texas that I think need to be clarified. I be- lieve that he left the impression that there were only a few Federal employees affected by this proposed legislation. The actual number of employees in the agen- cies involved, included in this bill, amounts to about 800,000 Federal em- ployees. If you eliminate the postal em- ployees this bill will affect directly about three-fourths of all our Federal em- ployees. In effect then it bears upon almost all of the civilian employees of the Federal Government. The gentle- man also made the statement which came up in our committee also, namely, that Government employees had no rights in their jobs: that Government employment was a privilege. I think we agree that Government employment is 10027 @ privilege, but there are certain rights which Government employees do have and which should be recognized. It is very clear to me that no citizen has the right to say, “You must give me a Fed- eral job” when no job exists, but when @ man does take a Federal job, when he serves in it faithfully and loyally and over a period of time according to the Civil Service regulations, he does pos- sess certain rights, and I think that the Congress should recognize the existence of those rights as its moral responsibil- ity to sustain them. I intend to offer, after the vote on this amendment and the substitute, an- other amendment unless one of these is adopted, It is not my intention in any way to interfere with the security provi- sions of this bill, but I do believe that we can provide all that is necessary in the way of security and at the same time protect the rights of the Government employees, The effect of my amendment will be this: That if the man is dismissed under the authority of this particular piece of legislation, he can appeal to the Civil Service Commission, the Civil Serv- ice Commission will do one of two things: They will examine his case, and they will decide (a) either that this man is unqualified to hold a Government posi- tion of any kind, and if so, he will be stricken from the Civil Service register; or (b) if they find that that is not the case, they shall then give that individual preference for reemployment in a non- sensitive agency or department. Thus, if he is fired from the Army because he is a bad security risk, that dismissal will hold. The Civil Service Commission can- not come back to the Army and say, ‘““‘We do not think this man is a security risk; you have to take him back and reemploy him. The Commission will stand by the decision of the Department of the Army or the Atomic Commission, or whatever other agency rules,” But if the Commis- sion finds this man is qualified to hold a civil-service position, he shall be given preference for reemployment in a de- partment or agency which is not listed as sensitive. I think that is the least we can do in the way of insuring the rights of the Federal employees and in the way of preserving the Civil Service System. It has taken 20 or 30 or 40 years to build up this system on a nonpartisan, scien- tific basis. Unless we take this action, we will have practically destroyed the Civil Bervice System as it bears upon the employment of about three-fourths of the present civilian employees of the Government. I ask you to keep that in mind as you vote on the Miller and Holi- ficld amendments. The amendment I propose will do nothing to interfere in any way with the security provisions of this bill, but it will provide some security for the present employees of the Federal Government. Mr. KEATING. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. McCARTHY. I yield to the gen- tleman from New York. Mr. KEATING. I should like to get clearly in mind the distinction between the Holifield and the Miller amendments, The gentleman is a member of the com- mittee, and no doubt can clarify this point.
10028 Am I correct, that under the Miller amendment, if the Commission disagrees with the agency head and feels that he acted improperly in discharging the man, the Commission may recommend that he be reinstated, but the agency head is not required to reinstate him? Mr. McCARTHY. Neither of the two amendments was considered in the com- mittee, as I recall, but that is the in- terpretation that has been given to the Miller amendment: whereas the Holi- fleld amendment would require the rein- statement of the man in the job from which he was dismissed. Mr. KEATING. So that is the funda- mental distinction between the Miller amendment and the Holifield amend- ment, as the gentleman understands it? Mr. McCARTHY. Yes. I propose that a man not be returned to the de- partment from which he was dismissed but be given preference for reemploy- ment in a department or agency which is not listed as sensitive. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog- nizes the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. HacEn]. Mr. HAGEN. Mr. Chairman, first of all I want to point out that I am oppos- ing the Holifield amendment because I do not want to set up another board, an- other commission, another agency. It is estimated that only a few employees a@ month, on the average, would be af- fected by this legislation. There may be more later, but not any great number. So I do not think there is a need for this special board. It can be handled by the Civil Service Commission. If we do not adopt the Miller amend- ment, which I strongly favor, we are say- ing just this: In the case of persons ac- cused of disloyalty, you have an appeal to the Loyalty Board, which is a separate agency outside their own agency. But what may happen to a good American citizen, and ofttimes a veteran, he may be a veteran with a family who may be charged with and dismissed for what we call “a bad security risk.” It may not be justified at all. Yet you deny him the right of appeal to an impartial board or agency although disloyal persons are given that right. What will this de- mocracy come to if you allow things like that to develop? I say we must adopt the Miller amend- ment to give justice to these people who may be improperly or unfairly accused as security risks. So let us adopt the Miller amendment, then pass this bill, which is of course necessary at this time. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog- nizes the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Gross], Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the committee I am support- ing the Miller amendment and am op- posed to the Holifield amendment. I think the gentleman from Minnesota who has just spoken has very well stated my position on the amendments and on the bill. I support the argument that certain agencies of government ought to have authority to separate immediately from Government service those who are con- sidered poor security risks. But I am opposed, as a matter of principle and deep personal conviction, the prohibi- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE tion contained in this bill which denies to an individual the right of appeal to a disinterested agency. It is a mockery to say to a Government employee that he or she is given the right to appeal when that appeal must be made to the agency head or some sub- ordinate within the agency from which the individual was fired. What is a security risk? There is no definition in this bill, It is asserted by the proponents of this measure that “as- sociation” and “indiscretion” may be reasons for the dismissal of employees under the provisions of this proposed act. Those terms are so vague that they can be translated into a thousand differ- ent meanings. To those in Congress who decry against the grasping for power by the bu- reaucrats, I say to you that when you deny a Government employee the right to an appeal before an impartial body you have placed almost unlimited power in the hands of a few persons and you have made a travesty of protection un- der civ.l service. And, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask what provision has been made in this measure to apply the security risk test to the heads of these various agencies and their immediate subordi- nates? Mr. Chairman, I do not propose to be- come a party to empire building within agencies; to setting aside civil service, to placing the stigma of a poor security risk and disloyalty upon any person without the right of a genuine appeal. This bill, without the Miller amend- ment, is destructive of human rights and liberty. Unless the Miller amend- ment is adopted I shall find it difficult if not impossible to vote for the bill. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog- nizes the gentleman from Texas |Mr. THORNBERRY J. Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, this is one amendment on which I feel very strongly. AS amember of the com- mittee which considered this bill, I op- posed an amendment similar to the ones offered by the gentlemen from California [Myr. MILLER and Mr. Howirre.p)]. It was defeated by the committee. We are not concerned in the consideration of this bill with finding a way to make it easy for poor security risks to continue their employment with the Government of the United States. We are concerned in this bill with trying to make it possi- ble for those officials to whom we have entrusted the administration of our im- portant defense agencies during a se- rious crisis in this Nation’s history to eliminate security risks without having to go to the Civil Service Commission and go through a lot of red tape on appeals. I hesitate to refer to any service I may have rendered, but I observed in my service in the Armed Forces of this coun- try that one of the greatest dangers we faced was poor security risks, against which we had no remedy. Let us have confidence. We have to trust somebody. Let us trust the Secre- tary of National Defense and the Secre- tary of the Army and the Navy and the Air Force, and the head of the Atomic Energy Commission, and at least say to JULY 12 them, “We are taking the chance that you will deal justly with these poor se- curity risks in behalf of the American boys who are now going out to die on foreign soil.” Let us not be tying the arms of men behind their backs by try- ing to make it easy for poor security risks. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog- nizes the gentleman from Tennessee | Mr. Morray] to close debate on the pending amendments. Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to both the Holifield and the Miller amendments. I might say in opening that the Miller amendment was considered by our com- mittee and was rejected by our com- mittee. This is a most serious situation and I insist that these two amendments weaken and impair the bill, and if either amendment is adopted I am going to ask for a roll call vote not only on the amendment, but also on the bill. These amendments are opposed by our defense agency heads from our Secretary of De- fense on down. Our country is facing a serious, ® most serious, international crisis. Are we going to say to the Secre- tary of War and the Secretary of the Navy, and the Secretary of the Air Force, “Well, it is true that you have given this employee a fair hearing. It is true you have passed carefully upon the charges. It is true that you have found the em- ployee to be a bad security risk, and yet you must go before the Civil Service Commission so that that Commission can substitute its judgment for your judgment as to who is or is not a bad security risk, Do you not have enough confidence in the Secretary of Defense and the Secre- tary of the Army and the Secretary of the Navy and these other defense heads to let them pass finally upon these se- curity risks? Why, since 1942 the Sec- retary of the Army, the Secretary of the Navy, and the Secretary of the Air Force have had the same power that this bill gives them. They have had the right to remove bad security risks, and the em- ployee has had no right to appeal to any independent board. At this moment, are you going to let an employee who is removed as a bad security risk go to an independent board like the Civil Service Commission and let that independent board reverse the judgment of your Sec- retary of Defense and say to the Secre- tary of Defense, “‘We know you are quali- fied. Weknow you heard this case. We know it is a serious situation involving highly classified and secret military in- formation but we say that your judg- ment is bad and we have decided that you have erred in saying that this man is a bad security risk, and we reverse you, and you must put this employee back doing highly secret defense work even though you have found him to be a bad security risk. I appeal to you to vote down these amendments. Mr. DURHAM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. I yield. Mr. DURHAM. I call the attention of the gentleman to the fact that every- body seems to be afraid about the opera- tion of this act. Since 1946 we have
1950 been operating the Atomic Energy Com- mission with practically the identical leg- islation as the gentleman has pointed out, and only two people have been put out because of disloyalty. I see no rea- s50n why in the world these people in es- sential positions should not be removed and be removed without any hearing be- cause if they are not loyal to the Gov- ernment, they should be put out at once, I hope the committee will vote down these amendments, Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. That is true. The Secretary of the Army and the Navy and the Air Force have had this authority since 1942, and only 375 em- ployees have been removed as bad se- curity risks. Mr. KEATING. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. I yield. Mr. KEATING. I note on pages 53 and 54 of the record that the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the Disabled Amer- ican Veterans both favor an amendment similar to the Miller ameniment. I wonder if the gentleman would care to comment on that? Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. I will say that the American Legion testified for this bill and did not support the amendment. Mr. KEATING. They did not say that they were against the amendment, did they? Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. This is not an employee bill, This is a bill in the interest of national security and the preservation of our defense. I take my stand with the heads of our defense agencies and I am willing to trust the good judgment of our Secretary of De- fense—Navy and Army—and other de- fense heads about discharging these poor security risks. The ultimate responsi- bility for the preservation of security is vested in the heads of these defense agencies and their decision with ref- erence to a bad security risk should not be subject to the review by a nonsensitive board like the Civil Service Commission. An independent board is not in a position to pass adequately upon bad security risks in our defense agencies and the final authority should be vested in the heads of our defense agencies to remove employees who are bad security risks. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the substitute amendment offered by the gentleman from California {[Mr. Ho.r- FIELD] to the amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr, MILLER]. The substitute amendment was re- jected. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentle- man from California [Mr, MILLER], The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. MILLER of California) , there were—ayes 94, noes 94, Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chair- man, I demand tellers. Tellers were ordered; and the Chair- man appointed as tellers Mr. Murray of Tennessee and Mr, Miter of Cali- fornia. The Committee again divided; and the tellers reported that there were— ayes 96, noes 102. So the amendment was rejected. XOVI——632 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. Brown of Ohio: On page 1, line 6, after the word “State”, insert the words “Secretary of Commerce”; and on page 2, line 7, after the word “State”, insert the words “Department of Commerce.” Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. Mr, Chairman, I accept the amendment. Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I should like to explain, if I may, very briefly what this amendment does. This amendment simply adds to the list of Government agencies and agency heads who will have the authority un- der vke bill to suspend for security rea- sons, the Secretary of Commerce and the Department of Commerce. The Sec- retary of Commerce, Hon. Charles Saw- yer, happens to be from Ohio. I have known Charlie Sawyer for many years. He is a great American. He ran into a very difficult and perplexing situation not long ago when he was compelled to take back into his Department a man by the name of William Remington, whom he had suspended originally as the basis of his own studies of Mr. Remington's activities and investigations by the Un- American Activities Committee of the House and a special Senate committee. However, one of the loyalty or appeal boards cleared Remington and ordered him reinstated. New evidence was dis- covered and presented by the Un-Ameri- can Activities Committee, and Mr. Saw- yer again suspended Mr. Remington. He also suspended a man namcd Lee, a native-born Russian, I believe. Both men were holding very important po- sitions. Myr. Sawyer was immediately threat- ened by suitsin court. In fact, I under- stand the cases were filed. Then sud- denly the grand jury in New York in- dicted Mr. Remington for perjury in denying he had been a Communist and was, therefore, a poor security risk. The Department of Commerce, I may add, does deal with the allocation of vari- ous strategic materials and products and equipment we need in time of war. The gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. MILLER] and myself have consulted with the committee chairman [Mr. Murray], who, I am happy to say, has accepted the amendment, so I am offering this amendment on behalf of both the gen- tleman from Nebraska [Mr. MILER] and myself. May I conclude by saying I am per- fectly willing to trust Charlie Sawyer, a great Democrat and a patriotic Ameri- can from Ohio, he has served his coun- try in time of war, with the power to discharge employees or to suspend em- ployees in his department. He will not abuse the power granted him. Mr. CLEVENGER. Mr, Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. BROWN of Ohio. TI yield with pleasure to the gentleman from Ohio. Mr. CLEVENGER. I may say to the gentleman from Ohio that the hearings on the Commerce Department disclose that there are 32 of these gentlemen who were certified by the board and who were regarded as security risks, A per- usal of the hearings will show that they were put in positions where they are 10029 likely to do as little damage as possible, but I do not like that sort of stuff around and so far as I am concerned I am for the gentleman's amendment. It is long past due. Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I thank the gentleman for I, too, believe the Sec- retary of Commerce should have the power to suspend. Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota. Mr. McCARTHY. As a matter of in- formation, and the gentleman may know this, section 3 of the act provides that the President may from time to time if he deems it necessary include certain other departments and agencies, Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Yes; but I feel Congress should specifically include the Department of Commerce. I am sure Mr. Sawyer will exercise this au- thority wisely and will not abuse it, Certainly it is necessary, because the Department of Commerce, after all, is the procurement department for much of our war matériel. I appreciate the gentleman's statement, however. Mr. JENSEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. JENSEN. Did not our able col- league from New York [Mr. Rooney] make a statement on the floor of this House to the effect that the Commerce Department was honeycombed with Communists? Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I do not re- member, but I presume if he felt that way he did make such statement, and evidently, has such information, as the gentleman from Iowa has pointed out. Mr. JENSEN. Iam sure he did make that statement. Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I thank the gentleman. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the pending amendment, The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. Lucas to the amendment offered by Mr. Brown of Ohio: After the word “Commerce” in each in- stance, add the words “Department of Justice.” Mr, LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I think it just as important to include the De- partment of Justice under this law as to include the Department of Commerce, It was in the Department of Justice that Miss Judith Coplon was working at the time she was disclosing Government se- crets. The Department of Justice han- dies all of our vital secrets when they try people who are charged with sub- versive activities. Iam perfectly willing to trust J. How- ard McGrath with this power, for cer- tainly no one would believe that he would abuse it. I hope the Members will join me in supporting this amendment. Mr, BROWN of Ohio, Mr. Chairman, I should be happy to accept the amend- ment, The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas {Mr. Lucas] to the amend- ment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr, Brown],
10030 The amendment to the amendment was agreed to. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Brown], as amended, The amendment was agreed to. Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. McCarrHy: On page 4, line 1, after the words “Provided fur- ther”, atrike out everything up to the word “Provided” in line 5, and insert instead the following: “Any person whose employment is terminated under authority of this act shall have the right to appeal to the Civil Service Commission. Such appeal shall be made in writing within a reasonable time after such termination of employment and May be accompanied by such affidavits as the appellant may desire to submit. The appellant shall be given the opportunity to appear before the Commission, either in person or through a representative, accord- ing to the rules and regulations prescribed by the Commission. After investigation and consideration the Commission shall (A) either remove the person from civil-service registers as unqualified for Government em- ployment (B) if its findings do not warrant such action grant to the appellant prefer- ence for reemployment in a nonsensitive agency or department.” Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. Chairman, a point of order. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it. Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that that amendment has already been voted on. That amendment ts practically the Miller amendment, which the House re- jected. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is pre- pared to rule. The amendment offered by the gen- tleman from Minnesota [Mr. McCarty] goes to a different part of the bill and affects a different portion of it than the amendment already voted on. The pcint of order is overruled. Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment proposes what I discussed in the 6 minutes given me when the other amendments were before the House. The effect of this amendment will in no way interfere with the security objectives of this legislation. The departments will still retain the same authority that they have in the original bill. The only ap- peal for a man dismissed as a security risk will be an appeal within the de- partment or agency itself, but after a man is suspended or dismissed by the Department of the Army or the Navy or the Atomic Energy Commission or any other agency, he then appeals to the Civil Service Commission, but not for reinstatement in that department or agency. The Civil Service Commission will make one of two rulings: They will ex- amine him and decide whether he is qualified for Government employment outside of the sensitive agencies. If they find he is not qualified, they will take him from the Civil Service Register. If they find he is qualified they will give him preference for reemployment in a nonsensitive agency. Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, under the gentleman’s amendment will Mr. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE the order of the Commission be manda- tory? Mr. McCARTHY. Yes. Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. Does not the gentleman think that is un- constitutional? Mr. McCARTHY. I do not think so. We give preference now under Civil Service regulations, and this will pro- vide for the same kind of preference in reemployment. Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. McCARTHY. I yield to the gen- tleman from Mississippi. Mr. WILLIAMS. Under the gentle- man’s amendment, when a man is found to be a bad security risk, you are giving priority to him, as I understand, for re- employment in some other agency. Mr. McCARTHY. If security is not a consideration; that is right. Mr. WILLIAMS. Are you not in that case rewarding the man for being irre- sponsible and for being a bad security risk? Mr. McCARTHY. Weare not, because the Civil Service Commission has de- cided that he is capable and qualified for the job in a nonsensitive agency. He might have been working on a secret airplane engine, so we give him a job in a garage. Mr. WILLIAMS. Is that not a re- ward for doing those things? Mr. McCARTHY. No; it is not. It is just recognition of the people who are qualified under civil service. They have certain rights as far as transfer is con- cerned in agencies of the Government. Mr. JENSEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. McCARTHY. I yield to the gen- tleman from Iowa. Mr. JENSEN. Does the gentleman think that a man who drinks to excess and does some other things is qualified to be a member of the Civil Service Commission? Mr. McCARTHY. The Civil Service Commission will examine the facts of the case; and if they say he drinks to ex- cess, they do not have to qualify him for further employment; but if they find that he does not drink to excess, they can recommend him for employment in a nonsensitive job. Mr. JENSEN. If a man is a bad secu- rity risk in one department of Govern- ment, then certainly he must be a bad security risk in any branch of the Gov- ernment. Mr. McCARTHY. I think it is clear he might be a bad security risk in con- nection with secrets applying to a new aircraft engine, but he could fix a Chev- rolet truck. That is clear, I think. Mr. JENSEN. The gentleman knows we are doing our very level best nowa- days to clean a bunch of no-goods out of Government, and folks that are sub- versive and bad security risks, and Ict us, for heaven's sake, not say to a fel- low, “Now, even though you are very bad, we are going to keep you on the payroll of the taxpayers of America.” Mr. McCARTHY. Let me make this point: I asked the Department of the Army this question: “If you have an Army man and a civilian doing the same thing, and you find both of them can- JULY 12 not be trusted, for the same reason, what do you do with the Army man?” They said, “Under certain circumstances, we give him an honorable discharge or transfer him to another job.” “What do you do about the civilian?” “Well, under the security proceedings, we fire him as a bad security risk.” So the civilian comes out under a cloud, but the Army man who is trans- ferred from the job for the same reason is given an honorable discharge. I do not think that is fair to the civilian employees of the Federal Government. Mr. HOBBS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. McCARTHY. I yield to the gen- tleman from Alabama. Mr. HOBBS. Has the gentleman given due consideration to the provision of a reasonable time within which the appeal should be taken? Mr. McCARTHY. I think that would be adequately covered in the proceed- ings in the case of the original suspen- sion and under the wording of my amendment. I do not think that is par- ticularly pertinent to the problem. Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. McCARTHY. I yield to the gen- tleman from Mississippi. Mr. WILLIAMS. Is the gentleman in- tending to say through this amendment that once a man is certified as a perma- nent civil-service employee he cannot be fired for any reason—that he has a vested right in his job? Mr. McCARTHY. Not at all. After this man {is suspended as a security risk by any agency or department, he is reex- amined by the Civil Service Commission. H. R. 7439 has been presented as a bill to “protect the national security of the United States by permitting the sum- mary suspension of employment of civil- ian officers and employees of various de- partments and agencies of the Govern- ment, and for other purposes.” To protect the national security is cer- tainly a laudable objective. And if per- mission for summary suspension of civil-~ jan employees in sensitive jobs is nec- essary to accomplish this objective, then such permission should be granted. It is granted in this measure. There is another problem involved in the consideration of this bill, namely, the effect of this bill upon those, who are dismissed under its terms, as bad security risks. Unfortunately the Federal em- ployee is not generally in good standing, He has been subjected to widespread at- tack as generally incompetent and un- necessary, if not worse. There seems to prevail an idea that the Government employee is something which is in mirac- ulous manner created out of nothing, when a Government job exists, or when he is accepted for an existing job; and that when that job no longer exists, or when the employee is removed from it, that he, the Government employee, somehow ceases to exist; that all of his personal needs, that all of his obligations to his family, to his creditors terminate also. That he, somehow, when his file ecard is removed from the active files goes into a state of suspended animation. Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention to propose any weakening of the security
1950 provisions of this measure, but only to propose that we here proceed with pru- dence, careful that the methods which we adopt are not to extreme; that the medication we administer is not more potent than is demanded by the disease, I believe that the bill as written pre- sents a serious threat to the rights of civilian employees of the Federal Gov- ernment, the great majority of whom are loyal and also good security risks. This was testified to by Capt. A. S. Mc- Dill, director of legislation for the United States Navy who testified that during the course of the war, when the Navy employed nearly three-fourths of a mil- lion civilian employees, only 244 had been dismissed as bad security risks, and that since the war only nine additional employees had been dismissed. ‘Testi- mony of the other branches of the armed services showed similarly small numbers of dismissals, In the committee hearings on this measure it was argued that Government employees have no rights in their jobs, That Government employment is a priv- ilege, That no Government employee has a vested right in his job, This is, I think, a very sweeping, and dangerous charge. I will, of course, agree that no one person has a right to demand a civil- service job of the Government where no job exists, or to demand as his particular right a job which does already exist, un- less he qualifies for it under the law, This is a wholly different problem from that affecting the person who already has a Government job, who has per- formed capably in the discharge of the duties of that job or office. The person who has thus been diligent and capable has a right to security in Federal em- ployment, has a vested interest in the job for which he has qualified. The philosophy upon which the whole structure of the United States civil- service system has been based is that Federal employment should be lifted above partisan considerations, and founded upon an orderly system, which will insure continued and efficient civil service for the peoples of the United States. For this reason the conduct of the civil-service system has been keyed to qualifications and capabilities of ap- plicants or employees, with due recogni- tion to military service, and with regard to length of actual Government service. When we undermine that system, when we subject the employee to the threat of summary suspension or removal without appeal to an outside authority, or without making adequate provision for his transfer or reemployment, in a nonsensitive job, in my opinion, we do a disservice to the civil-service employee and to the country as well. The bill provides simply for summary dismissal of security risks. This in- cludes no definition of what constitutes @ security risk. I do not think that a practicable definition {s possible. I am quite willing to give the men responsible for the conduct of these sensitive depart- ments and agencies authority to deter- mine what is a security risk in their re- spective branches. Right of appeal is granted within the agency itself. It is difficult to concsive how an outside, impartial board, could decide, for ex- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE ample, what constitutes bad security risk, in the Atomic Energy Commissior. But I do believe that in giving them that right, we should, at the same time first realize that the authority which we are granting can be greatly abused, and secondly, that we have a responsibility to the persons who are dismissed under the authority granted in this bill. What are the dangers? A security risk is one who is suspected of being a bad risk. He might also be one who had sub- scribed to a certain paper, who attended certain lectures, or even concerts. He could be someone who knows any given person, or who knows someone who knows someone, These may seem to be exaggerations, but certainly all are pos- sible under the absolute discretion which is provided for in this bill. It is with some hesitation that I support a measure which permits any governmen- tal officer to use his absolute discretion, excepting in emergency conditions, when review and reconsideration are impos- sible. Absolute discretion can too eas- ily become the whim of the official or his subordinates. Historical examples are too numerous to permit us to rest easily at the passage of this bill. The clearest and most pertinent example is, in my opinion, that of the lettre de cachet, originally a scaled warrant, invented in the fifteenth century by Louis XI of France, used simply to dismiss the re- cipient from the King’s favor and to take away from him his office or income. In the early days the letters bore the King’s seal and a countersignature by one of the ministers. The countersignature was soon discontinued, and as the procedure became more popular, the King trans- ferred the right to issue such warrants to lesser officials. Soon it became every gov- ernmental functionary’s duty to rid the country of dangerous men, today we would call them bad security risks. In- formers were encouraged, and conse- quently multiplied. Everywhere there was insecurity and fear. I do not ex- pect this extreme to develop in the United States, but even a limited devel- opment of such practice is to be shunned. The American institutions were founded by men in whom the memory of such abuses as this were living memories. The strength of American democracy rests not alone on the basic substantive rights which it proclaims, but also upon its insistence that procedural rights also be respected and sustained, that due process of law be followed, that fair trial be granted. The dictatorships of our generation give full recognition to the great substantive rights in their consti- tutional framework. Yet because the procedural rights are made subject to the whim of a police state functionary, acting with absolute discretion these con- stitutional rights become meaningless, Let me repeat that I do not assert that these evil effects will necessarily follow, or that those who support this legislation, in any way are lacking in respect for American institutions. It is all import- ant, however, for us to realize that in passing this bill we are opening the way to abuse. And that when it is passed, its administration should be subjected to continuing scrutiny, so that the abuses 10031 which are potential in it never do he- come actual. Mr. CORBETT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise to interrogate the gentleman who has offered the pending amendment. I think it would be a mat- ter of information for us if he would point out in what way his amendment differs from the provision already in the bill on page 4, which reads: That the termination of employment here- in provided shall not affect the right of such officer or employee to seek or accept employ- ment in any other department or agency of the Government. Mr. McCARTHY. It does in this re- spect: It requires the Civil Service Com- mission to give the man preference for reemployment. Mr. CORBETT. Preference above any others on the registry list? Mr. McCARTHY. Yes. Mr. CORBETT. I thank the gentle- man, Mr. CHELF. Mr, Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, it was my privilege and duty as a member of the Committee on the Judiciary of the House to serve on the subcommittee that investigated the Amerasia case. During that investiga- tion we found that there was a serious, horrible, shocking, even criminal lack of security in some of our governmental agencies, especially the State Depart- ment. During World War II it was found, for instance, that many Federal employees in the Department of State who were holders of a so-called gold badge, were indiscriminately permitted to take out of their offices during the day or night, any amount of secret papers, top-secret documents, and other highly confidential information which, if disclosed, would have been to the detriment of the Nation and was to the detriment of this country by reason of the fact that same was dis- closed. Hundreds—gets this now, I re- peat—hundreds of these top-secret docu- ments, consisting of military plans, maps, charts, and codes as you know, were re- covered in the office of the Amerasia magazine, which was undoubtedly a Communist front here in this country giving aid and comfort to our enemies, Now, I yield to no man or woman on this floor in my loyalty, devotion, or sup- port of the Federal employees of this Government. I have always tried to keep my feet on the ground, my head clear, and my heart right insofar as their in- terests are concerned. Nevertheless I simply have to agree at this Juncture with my friend from Texas [Mr. Kripav] when he stated that a job with the Fed- eral Government is not a constitutional right, but rather it is a high privilege. et me make it perfectly crystal clear that I am in favor of every man having his day in court, I endorse the right of all men to have a trial by jury—to appeal their case—to have every advantage guaranteed them by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. However, in this pay~ ticular instance, I feel that the security of this Nation must not be overlooked. During peace or war, as n democracy, we have to delegate certain powers to those
10032 selected or elected to administer our laws and operate our democratic form of gov- ernment. Through necessity therefore we find ourselves having to place a vast amount of faith, trust, and confidence in our national leaders, This bill simply gives the Secretaries of Defense, State, Army, Navy, Air Force, Treasury, Atomic Energy Commission, and others, the right and discretion, when it is deemed necessary in the interest of our national security, to suspend without pay, any civilian Federal employee. Now what is wrong with that? At the present mo- ment the world is literally rocking on the precipice of a horrible conflagration. It is a time that tries men’s souls and sends them in quict prayer to the Almighty for help and guidance. I can see no reason why we should put the Federal employees of this country in @ special class or special category. At the present time there is far too much laxity with our internal security in our various departments of government. It has to stop. I say to you the time has come when we must stop, look, and listen. You know a man is best known by those he lives and works with. There- fore, the Secretary or top chieftain of a given constitutional agency of our Gov- ernment ought to be in a better position to really know those employed under him far better than anyone else. If an em- ployee is found to be a bad security risk, this bill gives the Secretary of that em- ployee’s agency or department, the right to suspend him. If the national security permits, the suspended employee has a right to challenge his suspension. He can show cause why he should be rein- stated or restored to duty. During our investigation of the Amer- asia case, our committee found that there was practically no security within the Department of State. I say to you that the lack of security in that Depart- ment during World War II did not reek with putrefaction—it just plain stunk. I repeat, the lack of security in the State Department during the last war was worse than pitiful—it was criminal. I say to you quite frankly I think it is high time for us to meet this issue. We should vote down all of these amendments ex- cept the amendment offered by the gen- tleman from Ohio [Mr. Brown], which would simply include the Department of Commerce. Mr. CANFIELD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. CHELF. I yield. Mr. CANFIELD. I wonder if the gen- tleman would be good enough to tell us who under the bill unamended will be the final arbiter in the Department of State as to the dismissal of these em- ployees? Mr. CHELFP. As I have said, we have to trust our elected or selected adminis- trators of our Government agencies. However, we ought to here and now serve notice upon each and all of them that the Congress not only expects but de- mands that its will be done and that this and all other laws, especially pertaining to this Nation's security, are strictly en- forced to the letter, because at the mo- ment the very lives of our GI's in Korea are at stake. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE No honest, loyal, patriotic Federal em- ploye has any need to worry about this legislation. Every conscientious, sin- cere, loyal employee of our Government should welcome its enactment, just as every God-fearing, law-abiding citizen of this country welcomes laws designed to inflict heavy penalties upon the thug or gangster who would destroy his prop- erty, harm his person, or deprive him or his loved ones of their lawful possessions. I am against the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota. I say to you that if there are those individuals in this Nation who do not like this country, who think our form of government is not good enough to suit them, that they ought to get out. If, by the same token, we find disloyal persons, either in or out of Government positions, we ought to ship them with a one-way ticket to Russia. I heard a little ditty back in World War I. I was just a kid, about 12 years old. It goes like this: If you don’t lke your Uncle Sammy, Then go back to your home over the sea-— To the land from whence you came, whatever be its name; But don't be ungrateful to me, If you don’t like the stars in Old Glory; If you don’t like the Red, White, and Blue, Then don’t act like the cur in the story— Don't bite the hand that’s feeding you. I trust this amendment will be de- feated and that the bill will pass. This is a critical hour in our Nation’s history. Let us not falter or mince words. Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word. Mr. Chairman, I would like to turn back the pages of history about 16 or 17 years. The administration in power at that time changed, and up in Minne- sota because of that change, and because there was a political difference as far as personnel was concerned in the opera- tions of some of the agencies, we had a number of employees who came to our fair State. Of course, at that time you recall in those years we could always de- pend upon the States to the south of us to carry the load as far as the Democratic Party was concerned, and we had a num- ber of very fine employees from that area who came up into Minnesota and occu- pied positions in Minnesota because of the control of the party at that time. I knew one agency head in Minnesota who was firmly convinced, and he was very sincere about it, strange as that may sound now, that the national security of the country was going to be completely undermined by the folks who were com- ing up from the South. Now, that man was very unfair about that. He did everything he possibly could to make life miserable for the people who came up to occupy those positions. In all of the debate this afternoon I have been unable to find out just what is meant here by national security. Had it been left to the interpretation of that particular gentleman the head of that agency and that department, he would have certainly sent those folks right back home pronto because they were un- dermining the national security of the country, according to his view and they JULY 12 had no business being up there—they did not know what our problems were, and so forth. I would like to ask the chairman of the committee, I admire all of the people I have met here from the southern part of the country and I want to say here and now that the people who came up to oc- cupy those positions did a great thing for us up there to bring about a better and greater understanding of our na- tional problems—those of us who be- came acquainted with them, lke them and I found them to be very fine people. Mr. Chairman, you are thinking in terms of national security. What would prevent a person from taking that big- oted, shortsighted view as was taken by the gentleman? As far as the employee is concerned, what could he do? He is determined by that department head to be undermining the national security. What can prevent that unfair dismissal? Mr. MORRIS. If the gentleman will yield, I can answer that. He cannot do anything. Absolutely nothing. Mr. MARSHALL. That is what I am afraid of. What will that do? Mr. MORRIS. I will answer that, if the gentleman will yield. That will de- stroy our liberties in this country, if we continue with that. Mr. MARSHALL. The gentleman from Oklahoma, whom I admire greatly, has raised another point. We are talk- ing of liberty, and we want the people of the world to understand the great Gov- ernment that we have. The things that we do like this, which bring about injus- tice to an individual, will do a great deal of damage. That will be propagandized all over the world. Now, as far as security is concerned, any employee in the Federal Government who undermines the things that we be- lieve in certainly ought not occupy a Federal position. I am sure we all agree with that. But we want that to be proved. We want that to be a matter of Christian justice. That is what all of us believe in, I am sure. We believe that each person in his or her individual right have the priviledge of proving charges brought against us. Under our law based on Christian justice a person is innocent until proven guilty. Some- times some of us forget the great prin- ciples upon which this country is founded. We cannot combat dictator- ships by putting into effect NMke prin- ctples. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Mar- SHALL] has expired. Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word. Mr. Chairman, of course I am opposed to this amendment. I served for many years on the Com- mittee on Un-American Activities. I was there when we exposed Remington, and it took 2 or 3 years to get rid of him. I am not going to give way to the head of any department, but I am furnishing the information now, and have for the last 12 months, to one of the great agencies of this Government, to check up on the loyalty of those who were brought into question and who need to be checked upon by the various departments, This