10140 minor New York newspaper of extreme left- wing tinge, the New York Post. It involves certain elements in the State Department; it involves Senator Huszat HuMPmasy, the rad~ {cal Democrat from Minnesota, and it in< volves a former German newspaper cor- respondent in Washington, by name Kurt Sell, Day before yesterday the New York Post carried a big headline across page 1, saying “Nazi Files Say Fulton Lewis, Jr., Offered Ad- vice to Hitler in 1940.” The article, which is I-beled “Exclusive,” is signed by one Charles VanDevander, who did @ series of articles about Fulton Lewis, Jr., in the same newspaper last December, con- sisting chiefly of distortions, misrepresenta- tions, quotations taken out of context, and downright falsehoods. Considering the source, however, I ignored them and atill do. The article begins as follows: “Fulton Lewis, Jr., top Washington com- mentator for the Mutual Broadcasting Sys- tem, is pictured in offictal records of the Nazi foreign office as a volunteer adviser of Hitler in 1940, the Post learned today. “The German documents relating to Mr. Lewis are among a mass of official papers captured by the United States Army in 1945. They are now in the possession of this Gov- ernment, “One report, written by Kurt Sell, then press adviser to the German Embassy in Washington, transmitted a suggestion, at- tributed to Mr. Lewis, as to how Hitler might bring the war to a quick and satisfactory end. Sell, who was head of the Washington bureau of DNB, German news service, identi- fied the Mutual broadcaster to his superior as & close personal friend and as ‘an admirer of Germany and the Fuehrer.’ “The time was late July 1940. France had been knocked out of the war. England, left to face the Nazi wehrmacht alone, was recov- ering from the Dunkerque evacuation and preparing against the threat of imminent !n- vasion, Winston Churchill had just become Prime Minister. “Lewis’ reported suggestion, as transmitted to Berlin by Sell, was that Hitler should pub- licly appeal to President Roosevelt to bring pressure on Churchill to end his ‘senseless’ and ‘pigheaded’ resistance.” The article then goes on to say that I dented any such role, which I did, but quotes a decoded German cablegram from the Ger- man consul in Habana at the time of the Pan-American Conference of 1940. It begins with the following line: ‘Press Adviser Wash- ington Embassy Sell transmits following momorandum which I am (two words illegi- ble on microfilm) relaying as is.” It then goes on to say that I bad pro- posed that Hitler send a telegram to Presl- dent Roosevelt of not more than 200 words because previous messages had been too long for the American public to absorb—with the following specific suggestion, in quotes, at- tributed to me. This ts what I am supposed to have pro- posed that Hitler say to Roosevelt in the message: “You, Mr. Roosevelt, have many times turned to me with appeals, and have con- stantly expressed the wish to see a bloody war avoided. I have not declared war on England, but on the contrary have constantly emphasized that I do not wish to destroy the British Empire, My repeated invitations to Churchil} to be reasonable and to arrive at an honorable treaty of peace have been stub- bornly refused by Churchill. I know that it will go very hard with England if I really order total war against the British Isles, Therefore, I request you, for your part, to approach Churchill and to talk him out of his senseless pigheadednegs.” CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE The New York Post article then quotes the German cablegram further, as follows: “Lewis added that Roosevelt would nat- urally answer with inocivility and animosity; that didn't matter, But upon the North American people and above all on South America, the appeal will make a deep impres- sion and in no sense would be interpreted in serious thinking circles as weakness.” I might mention that the beginning of the message purporting to come from Kurt Sell, reads as follows: “Fulton Lewis approached me yesterday. Lewis, who has been friendly for 12 yeara, highly respectable end an American journal- ist admiring Germany and the Fuehrer; a political commentator with Mutual Broad- casting, declared that the people want no war but are rather defenseless against Roosevelt's refined tactics, now that he has made Oon- gress a yes-apparatus, without a will of its own, by means of a cornucopia of gigantic contracts to all individual States. He there- fore requests to be allowed to expound the following idea which he has discussed with several serious minded people.” That was the New York Post article. And the day it appeared, Senator Humpumry in- serted it into the CoNGRESSIONAL Recorp. He inserted also, yesterday, a follow-up article by the same writer, on the same subject, about a telegram which Hans Thomsen, the German Chargé d’Affaires in Washington sent to Berlin a couple of weeks later, stating that Fulton Lewis was “a respectable and fair-minded individual, but not of any politi- cal importance.” This afternoon, Senator HumpxHrey gave to the press a letter which he sent to Secretary of State Acheson, and Defense Secretary Louls Johnson, taking note of the Post articles and saying: “These documents, if they are genuine, in- dicate that Mr. Lewis secretly approached a member of the German Embassy staff in the summer of 1940. “In the published reports, the documents in question are described as messages that were sent in code to Berlin from Habana and Washington. It is stated that they were found by the United States Army in official files in Germany, after the war, and ere now in the possession of this Government. “If such documents actually exist and are in the possession of the United States Gov- ernment, I am amazed that they are being kept secret from the American people. I consider it the clear duty of the agency which has control over them, to make them public so that this very serious charge against 6 widely heard radio commentator can be dis- cussed in the open. According to the New York Post, Mr. Lewis has dented to # repre- sentative of that newspaper that any such incident occurred. The charge that a prom- inent radio commentator collaborated with Nazi agents and offered free advice to Hitler is a shocking one.” The letter then concludes with a request that the two Secretaries search their files, and {f such documenta are found, that they be turned over to Senator Humpnnty, (He could have saved one of the letters, because the Army states Officially that no such documents are in its possession.) Now for a little background. Kurt Sell, who was & much beloved figure in Washing- ton for many years before the war, died about 18 months ago. So he is not here to speak out and tell what be knows of the story. That's convenient, isn’t it? Except that eometimes dead men do speak, and this 1s one of those times. It so happens that this story was no news tome. I have known about it since May of 1047. About a year ago a Washington re- porter informed my assistant that the State Department had a document which was very damaging to me, and it was waiting for the JuLy 14 proper moment to place that document. I ve been waiting ever since for the docu- ment to appear, and so it has. The reason I say that dead men do speak sometimes is that in late May of 1947 I re- ceived a letter from Kurt Sell, who was then in Portugal. He'd been trying to get back in the United States, because everything he had in Germany had been lost. He had spent the war in Lisbon, Portugal, during which time he said he had been collaborating closely, put secretly, with the American diplomatic ‘orce. It was quite a bulky envelope and con- tained some documents, notably a letter from columnist Drew Pearson, which reads as follows: “Dear Korr: I am sorry to have been so slow in answering your last letter, which I very much appreciated. Please advise me what the situation is regarding your entry visa and how Ican help. I shall be glad to make it a point to talk to someone at the State Department, if you think that would be of any service. “T was interested in running across a docu- ment the other day which the United States Army had picked up in Germany, and which mentions your name. Iam enclosing a trans- lation. I would be interested in knowing for my own information whether this correctly reports Fulton Lewis’ views. With best wishes, Sincerely, Drew Pearson.” There also was included a copy of the Habana message, on which the New York Post based its story, and most important of all, a carbon copy of Kurt Sell’s reply to Drew Pearson. I have it before me. This is what it says: “I am going to believe you, Drew, that you really want this only for your own informa-~ tion, and that you are not going to use it, and so I will give you the full dope. “T know the telegram very well, because I caught holl from the German Embassy in Washington. So I remember that the two illegible words in the first paragraph were ‘tel quel’—the words used in the diplomatic language for ‘as is.’ “T never saw the telegram at Habana, nor did I know while I was there that such a telegram had been sent. I saw it about 2 to 8 weeks later, when Berlin cabled it back to Washington, asking ‘Who is Fulton Lewis?’ “In order to understand the origin of the telegram you must know the ‘ambiente’ of Habana, or rather of the German Icga- tion there, presided over by Tauchnitz, the chargé d'affaires. Tauchnitz, who at the time weighed about 2380 pounds, was very fond of whisky and other drinks, comes from a finé publisher's family, but did not inherit the mental capacities of his forefathers and, therefore, had been sidetracked into the dip- lomatie service. (The German foreign serv~ ice had quite a few of these false alarms like Resenberger in Washington.) Even in the foreign service he could not make any head~ way and finally landed as consul in Panama, @ third-rate post before the war. Then the German Minister at Habana got in bad with the AO (the Nazi organization in foreign ccuntries) and had to be recalled This was just as the war broke out in 1939 and Tauchnitz was sent to replace him, being the only one available at the time. Tauch- nitz, whom I saw almost daily at lunch (he had a marvelous cook) during the 3 weeks of the Pan American Conference, grieved very much because he had never become a full-fledged Minieter. He tried desperately to achieve this during his heaven-sent diplo- matio conference by sending innumerable telegrams to Berlin and trying to draw Ber- lin’s attention to his diplomatic faculties. So we talked politics incessantly, when he had champagne cocktalls before the lunch, hock and champagne with lunch, whisky- soda after lunch. He continued this heavy
1950 drinking in the evening, after a long siesta (though I saw him only once or twice at night, I heard this from the clerks who were pressed into service as extra waiters, bring- ing soda and ice), “During our conversations he usad to ask me about my American colleagues. I men- tioned Pulton Lewis as a very nice man and a fellow broadcaster. I sald that Lewis was an isolationist and hoped that America would stay out of the war. I added that quite a few people shared this view, but that the balance was going steadily to the other side, The only way that both Lewis and I felt that a terrific catastrophe involving the whole world could be avoided was that Hit- ler should end the war now. We did not discuss nor did we care much about condi- tions. “This was all Tauchnits had to go on, but he made it into a beautiful story. This was his opportunity to be the bearer of impor- tant tidings and so he made up this tele- gram, throwing in nice words about the Fuehrer, as well as the well-known Nazi propaganda words against FDR. This tele- gram, which he did not show me, and of which neither Fulton nor I knew a word (Fulton never met Tauchnitz) came back to Washington and Thomsen and Strempel were very sore because Tauchnitz had gone out of his jurisdiction and meddled in United States affairs which only the Embassy was entitled to judge, and to report on, They reproached me for having inspired Tauch- nitz but I told them that I had nothing to do with the telegram. Of course, I felt it my right to talk about the war with Tauch- nitz being in his district for all those weeks. It would have been silly if we hadn't. But Fulton Lewis had not talked to Tauchnitz, nor suggested any telegram. “So the Embassy sent a reply to Berlin, saying that the telegram was not based on the opinion of really influential people. “As to Fulton Lewis: ¥ have known him for years and think he is a very decent man. Some of the boys, I know, didn’t like him because (a) he made a somewhat juvenile impression; (b) he was an isolationist. That does not make him un-American. A coun- try which has fought for democracy among other things for freedom of thought and speech should not condemn a man because his opinions are different from those of the majority. In particular: “1, Lewis did not suggest this or any tele- gram at all; “2. Lewis did not admire the Puhrer. Tauchnitz made that up being well aware of the fate of his predecessor; “3, Lewis never said anything to me about Congress being a ‘yes-apparatus.’ I think this idea of Tauchnitz is particularly silly. The whole telegram patently is the work of @® man who has never been in the United States of America and who just listened to Fritzsche’s broadcasts as Tauchnits, I know, regularly did. “4, Lewis is one of the few former col- leagues who never answered my letter when in 1946 I tried to interest them in my return to America. “65. As far as I am concerned: I never was @ ‘press adviser’ in fact: Strempel knew it all better, and I w-s kept in the dark about all the telegrams they sent and the things they did, The advisers were Hopp and Viereck. “Now, Drew, I have been very frank, and I do hope that you keep your word and make mo use of this.” That letter was written in May of 1947, and it has been tn my files ever since. It tells the story of whether or not the article of the New York Post is true. It tells the atory of exactly what happened; that I never knew snything about any such tele- gram; that it was e figment of the imagina- XCVI-——639 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE tion of a drunken German consul! in Ha- vana. It further ts a little case of a dead man being able to come back, appear on the witness stand and tell the truth even though people never expected that he would be able to do ~ Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, in that connection I wish to make a part of this record a photostat of the letter sent to Mr. Lewis by Mr. Kurt G. Sell, press adviser to the German Embassy in Washington, D. C., in 1940, which is exhibit 5, and which I ask to have printed in the Rscorp. There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: ExHrelT 5 Lisbon, June 4, 1947. Dear Futron: Something very unpleasant has happened: Pearson has got hold of a telegram from Havana in which Tauchnitz quotes you and me. I have done my best to kill the thing as far as you are concerned. It was an awful shock to me, but in fairness to you I think you should know about this. But please, Fulton, keep tt to yourself, do not tell anyone, and above all do not tell Pearson that I sent this to you. Otherwise he would haunt me all over the earth. You may know that I succeeded in getting a visa at the end of September 1946, and had made all Preparations to sail by the end of the year, @s soon as passage by boat was available. I had 4 months to make use of the visa, and I wanted to take my luggage along, the rest of what I had left after everything I had stored in Germany was stolen or destroyed. Then on December Ist, Pearson told the world in his Sunday broadcast that I had received permission to return to the States, and on December 5 my visa was stopped by wire from a State Department shaking in fear of some powerful group as my American friends later told me. How this group works you may see from the enclosed clipping of the New York Herald-Tribune of April 26. It isa fiendish trick to discredit me and to prevent my return. Of course nobody saw me. The story is made up of whole cloth. Those peo- ple had learned that my visa was in order again, and so they conceived this lousy story. Well, I know now that I cannot return to the United States of America though in all those 15 years there I never spoke or wrote a piece of propaganda. The article shows that they would hunt me and would have had neither peace nor a job. Pearson's offer to speak to someone for me 6f course is only a pretext to get from me a confirmation of that tele- gram. I hope I have scotched that plan thoroughly. My funds getting to an end, I have accepted a job at a German-language paper in the American zone and shail leave for Germany by the middle of June, Of course it will be hard: No more relatives to go to, no home, no coal, little food, all this at my age and after all these years in America and Portugal will be very hard, but at least t ts a Job, and it will mean educating people in the American way, a thing I like, As soon as Tam settled I shall write to you and I hope you will then send me “Care” parcels once in a while to eke out my meager rations. I was 60 in March. Bincerely yours, Kort. P. 5.—We get Life International here, and I was tickled to death to see the remark about you in the number of April 20: Congressman Taszn, New York, said about the State De- Partment broadcasts: “not as good as Fulton Lewis, but better than Gram Swing.” Con- gratulations, Can I send you articles from Germany? 10141 Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, with these letters and these documents, the facts are now public and available for examination and judgment by the Amer- ican people. I know these documents will be of interest to the Members of the Congress. I have no further inter- est, nor shall I take further time. GENERAL APPROPRIATION, 1951 The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (H. R. 7786) making appro- priations for the support of the Gov- ernment for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1951, and for other purposes. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the committee amendment on line 6, page 107. Mr, DOUGLAS. Mr. President, last year there was appropriated for this purpose $1,150,000. The House bill raised the amount by $10,000. The Sen- ate committee has now proposed to raise it by more than $47,000, to the same amount as was requested by the Bureau of the Budget. In view of the fact that the Secretary of the Treasury was given the power to affect internal consolidation within his department and therefore to carry into effect the economies promised by the Hoover Commission, it seems to me we should stick to the House provi- sion. I hope the Senate committee amendment will be rejected, Mr. MAYBANK. Mr. President, the only answer I desire to make to the statement made by the Senator from Tilinois is that in the past $ years a re- duction of $170,450 has been made. Be- cause of that reduction the subcommit- tee unanimously agreed to the amount requested, and the full committee agreed to it also. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amend- ment on line 6, page 107. [Putting the question.] The “ayes” appear to have it—— Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I ask for a division. On a division, the amendment was agreed to. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The next committee amendment will be stated. The next amendment was, under the subhead ‘Miscellaneous expenses”, on page 107, line 14, after the word “Depart- ment”, to strike out “$300,000” and insert “$308,500.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Bureau of Accounts—Salaries and expenses,” on page 107, line 19, after the word “binding”, to strike out “$1,- 875,000” and insert “$2,209,000.” The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amend- ment, (Putting the question.) The “ayes” appear to have it—— Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I ap- preciate the desire of the Presiding Offi- cer to get through quickly with a very crowded schedule, but I should like to say that last year the Bureau of Accounts was given $1,725,000. The House bill in- creased it to $1,875,000, or an increase of $150,000. The Senate committee is now
10142 increasing the amount to $2,209,000, or an increase of $334,000 more. While it is quite possible that the Bureau of the Budget may have come forward in re- cent weeks with a proposal for a further increase, in its original estimate it asked for only $1,919,000. If we are going to make economies, Mr. President, we must make them item by item, because I know that when we come to propose general cuts it will be said that the time to have made such proposals was when specific items were being considered. Mr, MAYBANK. Mr. President, by reason of the increase in the cost of han- dling social-security accounts it was the unanimous decision of the subcommittee, as well as of the full committee, that the increase in question should be made. I hope the action of the committee will be sustained. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the committee amendment on page 107, line 19. Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask for a division. On a division the amendment was agreed to. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The next committee amendment will be stated. The next amendment was, on page 108, after line 12 to strike out: RECOINAGE OF SILVER COINS For reimbursement of the Treasurer of the United States for the difference between the face value of subsidiary silver coins of the United States and the amount the same will produce in new coins, $150,000. The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Distinctive Paper for United States Currency and Securities”, on page 110, line 9, after the word “Department”, to strike out “$1,745,000” and insert $1,845,000.” Mr. DOUGLAS Mr. President, this amendment provides an increase of $100,000 for the purchase of the paper on which are printed bank notes and paper money of the United States. I believe this paper comes from one of the large companies, the Crane Co., of Pittsfield, Mass. I wonder if an explanation was given as to why the costs should go up by $100,000. Mr. MAYBANK. Mr. President, I am not interested in what company prints the sheets, and Ido not care. I know we absolutely need more such paper because of the enormous amount of old money which has been returned for redemption by the Federal Reserve Board, and the United Siates Government must print money to take its place. Mr. LUCAS. I suggest the absence of a@ quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk called the roll and the following Senators answered to their names: Anderson, Cordon Frear Brewster Darby Fulbright Bridges Donnell George Butler Douglas Gillette Byrd Dworshak Graham Oapehart Eastland Green Chapman Ecton Gurney Chavez Ellender Hayden Connally Ferguson, Hendrickson CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Hickenlooper McCarthy Robertson Hil McClellan Russell Hoey McFarland Saltonstall Holland McKellar Schoeppel Humphrey McMahon Smith, Maine Ives Magnuson Smith, N. J. Jenner Malone Sparkman Johnson, Colo, Martin Stennis Johnson, Tex, Maybank Thomas, Okla. Kem Millikin Thomas, Utah Kerr Morse Thye Kilgore Mundt Tydings Langer Murray Watkins Leahy Neely Wherry Lehman O'’Conor Wiley Lucas O'Mahoney Williams McCarran Pepper Young The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Stennis in the chair). A quorum is present. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized. Mr. MAYBANK. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Illinois. I under- stand he wishes to make a short state- ment. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I should like to say that last year, in deal- ing with the appropriation bills, when those of us who wished to put into effect economy measures would rise at the con- clusion of the debate and propose a gen- eral cut, we were told we should have made our objections to specific items as they were being considered. It was to remove that criticism, and in no sense to impede the progress of the Senate, that some of us have raised questions regard- ing individual! items. I may say that I shall not demand yea- and-nay votes except on very important items, nor shall I ask fer quorum calls except on important items, although I may occasionally ask for a division. So there is no purpose to delay the proceed- ings of the Senate. Coming to the particular matter under consideration, the item calls for an in- creased appropriation of $100,000, appar- ently to print Government money. It may be that the committee cast its eye on the coming deficit and found it necessary to print more money. That necessity could be removed by balancing the budget so that there will be less need for the operation of the printing press. So I hope that this increase will be rejected. Mr. MAYBANK. Mr. President, I should like merely to say that the $100,- 000 is to purchase additional paper for printing money to be put into the Fed- eral Reserve System in place of the old money. Mr. CORDON. Mr. President, I should like to add a few words to the statement of the chairman of the sub- committee. The increase from $1,745,- 000 to $1,845,000 has all but a handful of small items in one single package. I want the record to show exactly what the breakdown is of this particular item of $1,845,000. The personal service item is $69,565. That is all that goes for the hiring of persons, Travel, $100. Transportation of things, That includes freight. Communication service, $75. Other contractual services, $100. aon performed by other agencies, $81,870. JULY 14 The balance of the $1,845,000 goes solely for the purchase of distinctive paper to print the currency and the obli- gations of the United States, If there be one item in this bill that should not be cut, this is it. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amend- ment, The amendment was agreed to. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The next committee amendment will be stated. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Bureau of Customs—Salaries and expenses,” on page 112, line 5, after “(19 U. S. C. 1525”, to strike out ‘$36,- 500,000” and insert ‘$36,806,360.” Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, last year Congress appropriated for salaries and expenses of the Bureau of Customs $35,150,000. The House bill provided $35,500,000, or an increase of $1,350,000. The Senate committee proposes to in- crease. the House figure by a further $306,000. It would seem to me that in view of the fact that the Bureau has al- ready been given an increase by the House, a further increase should be unnecessary. I hope the amendment will be rejected. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amend- ment. The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Bureau of Internal Revenue— Salaries and expenses,” on page 113, line 9, after “(26 U. S. C. 3792)”, to strike out ‘“$245,600,000" and insert ‘“$245,. 547,500.” The amendment was agreed to, The next amendment was, under the subhead “Bureau of Narcotics—Salaries and expenses,” on page 114, line 15, after the word “justice”, to strike out “$1,750,- 000” and insert “$1,908,000.” Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, last year Congress appropriated $1,610,000 for the Bureau of Narcotics. The House bill calls for $1,750,000, or an increase of $140,000. The Senate committee pro- vides for an additional] increase of $158,- 000. I know that the Bureau of Nar- cotics is doing extremely good work, but it would seem to me that in view of the increase granted by the House no fur- ther increase should be necessary, Mr. MAYBANK. Mr. President, I should like to have the attention of the distinguished Republican member of the subcommittee, the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Brinczs]. I should like to say that the Senator from New Hamp- shire and I very carefully went over this item, and we thought that in view of the narcotic situation in this coun- try the increase should be granted in order to enable the Bureau to obtain evidence to convict violators, and for other purposes, Mr. BRIDGES. Mr. President, I may say that if we go back over a period of 20 or 30 years this appropriation has: been approximately the same during all that time. The problem of narcotics and drugs generally is becoming in-
1950 creasingly acute. The situation is get- ting to be very serious in some of our cities. In view of the illegal importation of narcotics from abroad and the situ- ation in connection with the use of do- mestic narcotics, such as marihuana, we are faced with an increasingly seri- ous problem. Iam for economy all along the line. However, among the appro- priations which can be justified from the point of view of the general good of the country, certainly the protection of the public against the rapidly in- creased use of narcotic products is of vital importance. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amend- ment on page 114, line 15. The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Bureau of Engraving and Printing—Salaries and expenses,” on page 115, line 13, after the word “inves- tigations”, to strike out “$15,500,000” and insert “$16,835,000.” Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, the House appropriated $15,500,000 for sal- aries and expenses of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, which was an increase of $360,000 over the current ap- propriations. The Senate has raised this amount by a further $1,335,000. I am somewhat puzzled, Possibly one reason may be that with the anticipated Fed- era! deficit there would be need for addi- tional paper money. That threat could be removed by balancing the Federal budget. By doing so, we would spend less money and there would be less need for Government bills and Government notes, Irealize there is a certain amount of sardonic humor in what I am trying to say. But I oppose the committee amendment because the Bureau has al- ready been given an increase by the House. Mr. MAYBANK. Mr. President, one reason for the increase is due to the action of the Congress last year in pass- ing laws which put unclassified workers on a different wage scale. If we pass laws, we must appropriate money to pay the bill. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amend- ment on page 1165, line 18. The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Secret Service Division—Sal- aries and expenses,” on page 116, line 19, after the word “criminals”, to strike out “$2,100,000” and insert “$2,250,000.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Coast Guard—Acquisition, construction, and improvements,” on page 121, line 9, after the word “govern- ment”, to strike out “815,000,000” and insert “$18,864,000.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the heading “Title II—Post Office Depart- ment,” on page 123, line 8, after the word “amount”, to strike out “(not to exceed $40,500,000”; in line 7, after the word “specified”, to strike out “(which latter amount” and insert “and the sum need- ed”, and in line 9, after the word "Post- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE master”, to strike out “General)” and insert “General.” Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, this is a@ very important amendment. Under the original wording as it came from the House the Government would make good Only $401,500,000 of the postal deficit. The postal deficit last year was about $550,000,000. It is anticipated that un- less greater efficiencies are effected, or unless postage rates are increased, the deficit will be at least $550,000,000 this year. In making its recommendation the House proceeded on the assumption that the postal rate increase bill, which had been passed by the House, would become law. The postal rate bill as it passed the House provided for revenue of approxt- mately $125,000,000. A similar bill (S. 1103) was on the calendar of the Senate until January. In January, on motion of the distinguished Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Jonnston], who is chair- man of the committee, it was taken off the calendar and recommitted to the committee. The committee has not re- ported the bill. Mr. President, we can see that the effect of striking out the Ymitation of $401,000,000 would be to provide no limit on the amount of the postal deficit which would be underwrit- ten by the Treasury, and, furthermore, it would remove the incentive for passing a postal rate increase bill. This is true because it would not be absolutely neces- sary in order to pay postal expenses. However, tf there is retained in the bill the provision that not more than $401,- 000,000 shall be underwritten by the Government—and we hope it will be less—there will be an absolute necessity to pass a postal rate increase bill. We know what the situation is with re- spect to the cost of postal services. We know that first-class mail pays its own way. We know also that approximately $150,000,000 worth of unpaid services are performed by the post office for Govern- ment business and subsidies, for which the private users should not be asked to pay. Therefore, we have approximately $400,000,000 which would have to be met from two sources, namely, an increase in postal efficiency and an increase in the postal rates. The groups which are getting service for less than cost are newspapers and magazines on second-class matter, di- rect-mail advertising on third-class matter, and the users of parcel post on fourth-class matter. If we were to allo- cate the postal deficit of $400,000,000 amongst these three users, we would find that newspapers and magazines are, in effect, receiving a subsidy of approxi- mately $200,000,000 a year, or half the deficit. We would find that the third- class users of the mails, the advertisers, are getting a subsidy of about $120,000,- 000, and that the fourth-class-mail users are getting a subsidy of about Mr, President, these are the very groups in America which are demanding more vehemently than any other group that the budget be balanced. If we keep this provision in the bill and obligate the 10148 Government to pay not more than $401,- 500,000 of the postal deficit, we should force the postal-rate-increase bill through this session. If we do not do 80, we give a complete excuse to anyone who wants to prevent the passage of a bill providing for an increase in postal rates. I think it is time, in common language, that we ‘cut bait.” Mr. MAYBANK. Certainly I could not quarre] with what the Senator from Tilinois has said, However, if we would leave the limitation in the bill, we would still have quite a postal deficit. In other words, with the increase of $125,000,000 over the House figure of $401,000,000 we would have in the Post Office Depart- ment a deficit of $526,000,000, which would be payable from general funds of the Treasury. The Appropriations Committee cannot legislate on postal rates. All that the Appropriations Com- mittee can do ts to appropriate sufficient money to cover operating expenses of a department. I think that if this language of the House bill is not deleted it might cause suffering to some people of whom the Senator might not think of, because al- ready the deliveries have been reduced to one a day, as.the Senator knows. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Appropriations, I wish to say that it is not up to us in the Committee on Ap- propriations to legislate, and I am fear- ful that if we impose a limitation it is going to hurt somebody other than those of whom the Senator speaks. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I ap- preciate the Senator's high motives and the purpose behind what he is doing, but I point out that if we keep this limi- tation there will then be a great stimu- lus to act upon the postal-rate-increase bill and get it passed at this session of Congress. Mr. FREAR, Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. DOUGLAS, I yield to the Sena- tor from Delaware. Mr. FREAR. I beheve the junior Sen- ator from Delaware agrees with the junior Senator from Tilinois that the postal-rate-increase bill should be acted upon by the Senate. I do not concur with him that the method he suggests is the proper way of getting that bill be- fore the Senate. I also am in favor of balancing the budget, though I am rather conservative in some of the methods I would follow. I wonder if the junior Senator from Illinois, if his amendment is agreed to, would be agreeable to re-~ ducing the force of the Post Office De- partment, providing the rate-increase bill Is not passed and the Post Office De- partment does not secure the funds with which to pay the personnel. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, this Post Office business is a case of ring- around-the-rosy. We face a postal defi- eit, and various interested parties say economy should be brought about some- where—that is, anywhere that it will not affect them. The Postmaster General says the deficit should be cut by an in- crease in rates. The publishers say it should be made up in improvements and
10144 efficiency in the Post Office. Congress says to the Postmaster General, “Reduce the deficit,” so the Postmaster General reduces the service. Whether that ac- tion is planned with the idea that we will hear from our constituents who will tell us that they want the service main- tained, and that we will therefore give orders to the Postmaster General, I will not say. The effect is that everyone passes the buck to someone else, and in the process the Post Office Department is in the red five hundred or five hun- dred and fifty million dollars a year. Mr. President, the able Senator from Delaware suggested that this was not the proper method of forcing the postal- rate bill to the floor of the Senate for action, It may not be a proper method, put it is a sure method of forcing it to the floor. If we keep this limitation, Senators can be certain that a postal- rate bill will come out to the floor before the end of this session, in order that the salaries of the postal employees may be paid. This is really a way of getting action. At the present time that bill is buried in the subcellar. It came to light for a short time, but then it was put down in the subcellar, “way from the sunlight. . Mr. FREAR. I dislike to disagree with the Senator from Illinois, but I do not believe that bill is in the cellar at the moment. I think it is very much alive, and I entertain great hope that it will be brought before the Senate before ad- journment. Mr. DOUGLAS. Rejecting the com- mittee amendment and keeping the lim- jtation is a sure way of getting it to the floor. Mr. FREAR. I wonder if the Senator from Illinois would go along with a bill which would eliminate all penalty and franked mail, and let each department bear its own mail costs. Mr. DOUGLAS. I would be for that. Mr. FREAR. I call particular atten- tion of the Senator to the fact that I in- cluded franked mail in my statement. Mr. DOUGLAS. That is all right. As a matter of fact, I think that the people should realize that of the $73,000,000 cost for franked mail, only about $1,100,- 000 may properly be charged to Senators and Representatives; $72,000,000 of it is chargeable to the departments. Mr. FREAR. I believe that to be true, and that is properly called “penalty” mail. I believe the Senator from Illi- nois also recognizes the fact that all the money spent by the Post Office Depart- ment is not controlled by the Postmaster General. Congress fixes the wages of the postal employees. The Interstate Commerce Commission establishes the rates which may be charged by the rail- roads for carrying the mail. The CAB sets the rates for airplane mail carriage, whereby a subsidy is paid to the air lines. A very small fraction of the money al- lotted to the Postmaster General is un- der his control, relating to activities in which he can perhaps bring about some increased efficiency. Mr. DOUGLAS. In the first place, this has nothing to do with rate in- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE creases, In the second place, the Post- master General does have control over the number of employees. He does not have control over the rates which they may be paid, but he does have control over the number of employees and the efficient use of personnel. But now we are talking about posia] rates, and I say that if we retain this limitation of $401,- 000,000, we can be pretty certain that the postal-rate bill will come to the floor of the Senate, in order that the employ- ees, railroad and air line, may be paid. Mr. FREAR. I wish I could be as sure as is the Senator from Illinois that if the provision were retained the postal-rate bill would be brought to the floor. I be- lieve I might be more inclined to go along with him if that were the case. Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. Mr. President, will the Senator from Illinois yield? Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield to the Senator from Colorado. Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. Will the Senator state what his amendment is, and on what page it is to be inserted? Mr. DOUGLAS. On page 122, lines 3 and 4. The amendment is to eliminate the maximum sum of $401,500,000 which the House provided was to be the amount advanced to the Post Office Department from the General Treasury. The com- mittee amendment, as I understand, pro- poses to eliminate that limitation, so that, no matter how large the deficit, the Treasury will underwrite it. Mr. MAYBANK. That is correct. Mr.DOUGLAS. The amendment is to retain the language as it was passed by the House and to reject the committee deletion. Mr. CORDON. Mr. President, I think there are one or two misunderstandings with reference to this item. The amount appropriated is not set forth in the figure on page 122. The amount of the appro- priation follows in a series of figures. The language on page 122 does nothing but provide that the amount of money appropriated shall be met, first, by postal receipts, and the balance by an appro- priation. But nowhere in the bill is there a provision for expending more money than is appropriated, and the eeures for appropriation are definite and certain. PROTECTION OF GOVERNMENT AGAINST COMMUNISTS AND SUBVERSIVE GROUPS—MUNDT BILL Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, notice has been given that soon after the completion of the consideration of the pending bill a motion will be made to call up the Hawalian statehood bill. I was chairman of the subcommittee which held hearings on the Mundt- Johnson-Ferguson bill. The matter of Hawaiian statehood can wait, and I de- sire to give notice now that when the motion is made to call up the Hawaiian statehood resolution, I shall offer as a ee @ motion to call up the Mundt Mr. President, recently I happened to pass the White House, and in front of the White House was a group of pickets, JULY 14 headed by one Paul Robeson. This country needs the machinery to put Communists and other traitors under lock and key. Today, when we are fighting an undeclared war, the enact- ment of the Mundt bill is absolutely necessary, absolutely essential, for the defense of the United States. I noticed in the press a few days ago that on the Pacific Coast there was or- ganized agitation, led by a well-known Communist to prevent loading ships containing war supplies destined for Korea. All over the world there has been a Communist drive against the un- loading of ships carrying arms which the United States is sending to its Allies. If we become involved in a major war there will be widespread sabotage from Maine to California, and there is not a scintilla of authority on the books by which these traitors can be handled. I do not think the Congress could con- sider more important legislation than the Mundt bill. It is necessary that the bill be passed for the defense of the country. Mr. President, I read from an editorial published in the Brooklyn Eagle of July 6, 1950. Speaking of the Dr. Jekyll-Mr, Hyde character of Communists it says: This new determination to draw the line now, backed by a hope that only through action can another major war be averted, assumes @ Jekyll and Hyde character at home. ‘It is time we cracked down. Mem- bership in the Communist Party must be branded illegal. It must be made a matter of record that party members are traitors. It 1s not enough to be satisfied that this # true, Legislation must back the knowl- edge. Mr. President, I certainly agree en- tirely with that statement in the edi- torial. From the study I have made of the bill sponsored by the distinguished Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Movnor], the distinguished Senator from South Carolina [Mr. JOHNSTON] and the distinguished Senator from Michigan (Mr. Fercuson], I know it is a bill which, if enacted, will place Americans on guard and give them the machinery to protect their country. Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. EASTLAND, I yield. Mr. MUNDT. May I first of all ex- press gratification over the attitude be- ing exemplified by the Senator from Mississippi. I wish to ask him if he noticed in the morning’s newspaper a story quoting the Director of the FBI, J. Edgar Hoover, the man who has prob- ably done more to protect the security of this country against saboteurs and subversive activities than any other in- dividual in the history of the Republic? Under the heading of “Red Underground Activities Rising, FBI Says,” the story appears in this morning’s Washington Post, beginning as follows: United States Communists have increased their underground operations during the past year, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover said yesterday. The result, he said, is the heav- test work load his agency has ever handled, I wonder whether the Senator notes the emphasis J. Edgar Hoover has placed
1950 upon the underground nature of this conspiracy, and the fact that the only legislation now before the United States Congress for changing this underground activity into an activity where it is to ‘be open is the so-called Mundt-Fergu- son-Johnston bill. Mr. EASTLAND. The Senator from South Dakota is entirely correct. Every- one knows that we have in the United States Communists who are operating underground. Unless the Senator's bill 4g enacted into law, neither the Justice Department nor any other department of the Government can claim that we have the legal machinery to cope with such activities. Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr, EASTLAND. I yield. Mr. FERGUSON. I also am delighted that the distinguished Senator from Mississippi has taken the stand he has, and that he has given such notice as he has today. I want to ask him whether it is not a fact that today the under- ground activity of the Communist Party is a legal activity, and that we cannot strike at it with any law now on the statute books? Mr. EASTLAND. That is true. Mr. FERGUSON. If the bill the Sen- ator has spoken of is enacted into law the underground conspiracy will be com- Ppelled to come out into the open, where we can see it and where we can cope with it. If the conspiracy does not come out into the open it will be illegal. The Communists by remaining underground will be guilty of an illegal act, and the FBI will be enabled to render highly im- portant service to the country under the proposed statute, by bringing the con- spiracy out into the open light so every- one may know that it exists, so everyone May know how the money used by the conspirators is raised, what the money 4s used for, and if they do not disclose the source of the money they use, such failure also will constitute an illegal act. Mr. EASTLAND. I agree with the Senator. Mr. President, the Communist trai- tors in the United States are today free members, in good standing, of a free so- elety. We have absolutely no machin- ery with which to protect ourselves from them. They are free to come and go and do as they will. They are free to con- spire to injure this country. Mr. McMAHON. Mr, President, will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. EASTLAND, I yield. Mr. McMAHON. I have just sent for the bill referred to, which I intend to study if we are going to have quick action on it. The Senator from Missis- sippi stated that we have no machinery with which to attack the Communist conspiracy in this country and that we have no law on the statute books by which we can reach them, I ask the Sen- ator under what law were the 11 men convicted in New York and sentenced to jail, a conviction on which an appeal is now ? Iam somewhat puzzled by the Senator's statement, Mr. BASTLAND.. Mr. President, the Senator knows that there is a chance to CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE get a few of the leaders under such a procedure as was used in the case the Senator referred to. The Senator is also bound to know that the Department of Justice and the Central Intelligence Agency have come before us crying for additional authority. The statutes we have today are totally inadequate to deal with the question, oe McMAHON. I am not debating at. Mr. EASTLAND. Let me finish. The laws now on the statute books are totally inadequate. There is on the calendar the bill dealing with mternal security, which should follow the bill now under consideration. The point I was making is that it is absolutely necessary to pass both bills for the defense of the United States and we should not take up the Hawaii statehood bill, which ts not a war measure, now, but should take up measures whose purpose is to protect the United States. Mr. McMAHON. the Senator yield? Mr. EASTLAND. tion. Mr. McMAHON. I do not intend to debate the provisions of the bill with the Senator at this time. I simply wanted some clarification and informa- tion respecting the Senator's tatement, in view of the conviction in New York; that is all. Now I have obtained it, and Tam satisfied. Mr. EASTLAND. I am glad the Sen- ator from Connecticut is satisfied. We are trying to fill gaps in the law which are necessary to be filled, and so far as the internal-security bill is concerned it has been requested by the Department of Justice. Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr, EASTLAND. Yes; I yield for a question, Mr. FERGUSON. In view of what the distinguished Senator from Connecticut has just said, the Senator from Mich- igan would like to state that the record distinctly shows, and the charge by Judge Medina to the Jury in New York distinctly shows, that the conviction of the 11 Communists under the Smith Act was obtained solely by reason of the fact that the prosecution was able to prove a certain kind of conspiracy, to prove that the 11 individuals were seeking to over- throw the Government by force and vio- lence, That is what a prosecution under the Smith Act requires. The Communist conspirators in this country are now trying to have elimi- nated from any record of their activity all evidence which would point to their advocacy of force and violence. Bar- ring such evidence they can claim their activities are perfectly legal and be- yond the reach of law, even though their activities are nonetheless a conspiracy against the Government and institutions of the United States, The Senator from South Dakota re- ferred to the article appearing in this morning’s newspaper quoting J. Edgar Hoover. If today war should break out between the United States and Russia it would be necessary for J. Edgar Hoover Mr. President, will I yield for a ques- 10145 and his men to seize literally thousands of Communists who are now working underground, who would sabotage Amer- ica to the nth degree, But that would be purely a wartime security measure. While we are living in this pertod of “no war, no peace,” it is necessary and proper that we should have enacted into law a measure to make it illegal for the Communists to operate underground, whether their conspiracy against the United States would result in overthrow of the Government by force and violence or in sabotage. Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, I do not think the Department of Justice would even claim that it has sufficient legal machinery to handle the situation. Mr. MAYBANK. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hz in the chair). Does the Senator from Mississippi yield to the Senator from South Carolina? Mr. EASTLAND, I yield, Mr. MAYBANK. I wish to associate myself and join with the Senator from Mississippi, in the interest of having considered, when we have completed action on the appropriation bill, bills in the interest of the security of the coun- try, rather than measures for the ad- mission of additional States or anything of that sort. Certainly I hope the se- curity of the country will be the first order of business. Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, I was reading from a very appropriate edito- ria] appearing In the Brooklyn Eagle, I read further from it: Certainly while decent Americans are fighting and dying, in some instances, be- cause communism must be contained, there is no reason why the Red termites here should be free members of a free society and in good legal standing. In time of war we should not provide platforms for the enemy, nor should we permit him to roam at will and sabotage the minds of the gullible and the industries that will be called on to support the troops at the front. What are we waiting for? That is the end of the editorial. Mr. President, again I say that the Communists, who are undertaking to overthrow our Government, should be locked up. The Mundt bill provides ma- chinery for that purpose. As chairman of the subcommittee handling the Mundt bill, I serve notice now that when a mo- tion is made to consider the Hawatian statehood bill, I shall move as a substi- tute the consideration of the bill of the distinguished Senator from South Da- kota (Mr. Munpr]. Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. EASTLAND. I yield the floor. Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President-—— The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota is recog- nized. Mr. MUNDT. I desire to comment very briefly on the subject which is be- fore us at the moment. First of all, I wish to say that IT am highly gratified by the assurance given us by the Senator who handled the long hearings on Senate bill 2311 that there
10146 will be a vote in the Senate on that bill at this session. Of course, each Senator will now study carefully the proposed legislation, as he should; and each Sen- ator is now aware of the fact that he will have a chance to vote either “yea” or “nay” on the question of the passage of that bill. Mr. President, I do not propose to dis- cuss S. 2311 at length at this time, for the very good reason that, of course, we should proceed with our handling of the appropriation bill. However, I should like to focus atten- tion for a moment on an argument which has not yet been mentioned. We have been discussing the possibility of sabotage on the part of the Communists if we go to war with Russia, but we have not said much this afternoon about the fact that we are now at war with com- munism. Casualty lists are coming back from the front in that war against com- munism. American boys are dying in @ war against communism in Korea. American boys are there fighting, in some instances almost with their bare hands, against armaments and tanks made by the Communists in Russia— against mighty tanks and powerful ar- tillery. I can think of nothing the Sen- ate could do next week that would give greater encouragement to the American heroes who now are fighting communism in Korea, than for the Senate to take action which would result in having our troops in Korea hear over the radio or read in their press dispatches that we have finally taken action to control the Communists in America who are doing everything they can to sabotage the war effort being made by American armies in Korea. Mr. President, let me call attention to @ typical headline in the Communist Daily Worker, a paper financed and pub- lished by the enemies of America in our midst. In the copy of that paper which I now hold in my hand—the issue for July 6—there appears the headline: “Youth group gets 100,000 to sign for peace since Truman invasion.” Mr. President, I assure you that those who would allege that there is politics on the part of those of us who are try- ing to do something legislatively against communism, should not make that ac- cusation against members of the Re- publican Party who, along with mem- bers of the Democratic Party, resent a headline such as the one I have just read, in which the effort of the Ameri- can boys who are dying in Korea is termed a “Truman Invasion” or a “Wall Street War,” or an “Imperialistic War.” I am happy to have this demonstra- tion on the floor of the Senate this aft- ernoon by the distinguished Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Eastuanp] and the distinguished Senator from South Caro- lina [Mr. MAyBaNnk]; and I hope other Senators will join them—members of the great Democratic Party—in stand- ing up and saying that they, too, will insist on having a vote in the Senate on the only measure before the United States Congress by which an attempt is made to do something effective at home about this growing menace of commu- n ‘ CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. President, this afternoon in my office I had an opportunity to read an advance issue of the Communist Daily Worker for next Sunday. Senators will be interested in knowing that in large part it is devoted to a deliberate effort to create disunity in America, to destroy the almost unanimous support which this country has so rightfully given to the American effort in the war in Korea, to libel and slander and misrepresent every effort by the Congress and the country and the Army and the President and his Cabinet to turn back the Com- munist forces of tyranny at the battle line, where American heroes are giving their blood and in some cases their lives in the same cause, Americans should be advised of this Communist propaganda. S. 2311 will force the Communist conspiracy to dis- band or to come out into the open where innocent and gullible Americans will no longer be misled by it. So, Mr. President, next week, or at the first opportunity, we are going to ask the Senate of the United States to con- sider and to vote on the only measure before the Congress which would put a stop to the traitorous actions of Com- munists here at home. I submit that the time has come for us to face this challenge like men, and to get that bill out of the pigeonhole and on to the floor of the Senate, not to permit any committee or any Senator to invoke a type of cloture which locks behind the committee door a bill which has been approved by a vote of 12 to 1 in the great Senate Judiciary Committee, a bill which the country is clamoring to have consid- ered and acted upon by the Congress, a bill which has the approval of practically every outstanding patriotic organization in this country, including the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Catholic War Veterans, the National Educational Association, the DAR, the United States Chamber of Commerce, and many other fine, splendid organi- zations, Those organizations are re- questing us, as representatives of the people, to consider and take action on that bill. Mr. IVES. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. MUNDT. I am happy to yield. Mr. IVES. Is it a fact that the Amer- ican Bar Association has also endorsed this proposal? Mr. MUNDT. Yes; it is a fact that the American Bar Association has twice endorsed it and is actively supporting it. A statement in support of it by the American Bar Association will be found in the hearings on Senate bill 2311, Mr, President, I ask Senators to deter- mine, over the week end, in their own minds and consciences, just how we are measuring up on the home front, as compared with what we did after Pear] Harbor in World War II. We took action then; we saw to it that the Ger- man-American Bundists—who were no more and no less traitors than are the Communists now—were stopped; we did not coddle them; we did not court their votes with favor; we did not damn them with faint praise; we did not act toward JuLY 14 them in a way similar to that in which certain persons who today call themselves anti-Communists are acting toward the Communist traitors in the United States today. There are in our country, today, various persons in public life who will speak ill of the Communists, will casti- gate them in their speeches, will de- nounce them and criticize them and cry out against them, but who are opposed to every piece of proposed legislation which would make the Communists’ ac- tivities impossible in America, which would strip the mantle of secrecy from them, which would force them out into the open, which would give the Ameri- can people every opportunity to identify them and to help curtail their activities, and which would by law deny them Government jobs and Federal passports. So, Mr. President, I am gratified by the fine demonstration this afternoon from Senators on the other side of the aisle, which shows conclusively that the effort to secure the enactment of this measure is not a political effort, but is a patriotic call to do something now, before it is to late, before communism in America has destroyed the effective- ness of our work in a great effort for peace abroad, before efforts can success- fully be made to bewilder and befuddle the public and to destroy the support of the people for the great American ef- fort now being made in Korea. Mr. President, I shall not say more at this time, other than to state that I am grateful for the fact that we now know there is a bipartisan effort at home to support the bipartisan effort abroad against communism. I hope it will never again be referred to as a partisan matter, because these challenges by communism are too great to be played on a party organ or to be discussed in political terms. Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. MUNDT. I yield. Mr. McCARTHY. I should like to ask the Senator whether he is aware of the fact that, in addition to the other argu- ments which he has advanced in favor of his proposed legislation, it also is very necessary legislation for the guidance of the President’s Loyalty Board. In that connection I wonder whether the Sena- tor is aware of the fact that I received from the chairman of the Loyalty Board, Mr. Seth Richardson, several months ago, a request to submit to the Board any information I had which might re- flect upon the loyalty of certain indi- viduals named in his letter. I replied to the chairman, pointing out that it would be necesary for me to know what he considered to be evidence of disloyalty, before submitting my material to him, I said, for example: No. 1. Do you consider membership in Communist-front organizations evidence of disloyalty? No. 2. Do you consider a man disloyal if he belongs to the Communist Party? I set forth various other questions. 1 wonder whether the Senator is aware of the fact that I received a letter from the Chairman of the Loyalty Board saying in effect that these were not questions
1950 which could be answered “Yes” or “No,” Does the Senator follow me? Mr. MUNDT. I do. Mr. McCARTHY. I wrote and, in ef- fect, said, “Before I give you evidence, I must know whether you would consider membership in the Communist Party on the part of a Government employee evi- dence of disloyalty.” The Chairman wrote me in reply, sending me a bunch of documents about a foot high, and saying, “I cannot answer that question. You may be able to find the answer in these documents.” I wonder whether the Senator is aware of the fact that the President’s own Loy- alty Board is badly in need of the Sena- tor’s bill in order that the Board may have a bit of guidance. Mr. MUNDT. I was not aware of that rather strange and bizarre answer to the question of whether the head of the Loyalty Board would consider member- ship in the Communist Party evidence of disloyalty. Certainly if he does not con- sider membership in the Communist Party evidence of disloyalty, the Board had better be abolished. The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, as well as, I think, everyone on this floor, recognize that membership in the Communist Party is automatically evidence of allegiance and a badge of loyalty to Soviet Russia, with whom we are engaged in a bloody contest in Korea at this moment. If it is not disloyalty, then we shall have to change the defini- tion of the term. I think many Americans are also not aware of this, Mr. President: At the moment, there is not a single scintilla of legislation on the books which in any way would punish, for example, an un- derground Communist who might have smuggled himself into some department or agency of our Government, who de- liberately appoints other Communists to important Government posts as part of his job, in order to establish a cell, and who gets caught in the act, There is not @ single law that he would have violated, and not one penalty that can be leveled against him. He might accidentally lose his job after & while, but if he does, it is because somebody over him, by execu- tive fiat, removes him. He has not violated the law. Mr, President, we need this legislation if we are to make an all-out effort to de- ter such acts of godless conspiratorial communism. It does not make very much sense to a large number of good Americans who belong to the organizations I have men- tioned to be spending billions of dollars throughout the world against com- munism; to be drafting young Americans as of this moment to be sent to Korea, to give their lives against communism; and to have Senators duck and dodge the elings and arrows of political disapproval here at home, because we do not want to measure up and stand up and be counted for or against a bill to do something about communism here and now. Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. President, will the Senator again yield? Mr. MUNDT, I yield. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. McCARTHY. I wonder whether the Senator has ever seen the photostat of the document which I now give him, dated April 3, 1950. It is a photostatic copy of the secret minutes of a meeting of the President's, Loyalty Board, con- taining very lengthy deliberations, at the time the President called upon that Board to pass upon some 81 cases, which I have heretofore called to the attention of the Senate. If the Senator has not yet seen that, and I assume he has not, I call his attention to page 3 of the re- port, showing that the members argued at some length as to whether they should inquire into the question of bad security risks. The Senator will find the argu- ment was put forth that, even though such information were not given to the public and to the Senate, it should be given to the President, so that he, him- self, would know who were considered by the Loyalty Board to be bad security risks. If the Senator will turn to the bottom of page 2, he will find that the Board discarded the idea of even reporting to the President those who were bad se- curity risks. If the Senator will refer to the last three or four lines, he will find that the reasoning was certainly unusual. They stated that if they were to go into the question of bad security risks, even though no report were made thereon, there would be danger of the informa- tion’s leaking out, so that the general public might know that certain individ- uals were bad security risks. The Senator may not be able to answer some of the questions I have in mind, but I wish he would take that report in its entirety—it is the only photostat I have, so I shall appreciate it if the Sena- tor will handle it carefully—and go through it. Iam sure that when he gets through with the secret minutes of the President’s own Loyalty Board he will be convinced that there is another very important reason why his bill should be passed, and that is, for the guidance of the misnamed Loyalty Board. Mr. MUNDT. I appreciate the Sena- tor’s suggestion. I have never before seen this document. If the Senator de- sires to leave it with me for a while I shall be happy to examine it over the coming week end. Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from South Dakota yield to the Benator from Michigan? Mr. MUNDT. I yield. Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, I do not desire to delay at any length consid- eration of the appropriation bill, but we do have a stopgap resolution in effect which enables each and every one of the agencies of the Government to function until the first of the month, and that gives us an opportunity to pause for other matters of paramount concern. Because I believe that this question of communism in America and what we shall do about it is as vital as is appropri- ating money to fight it in other countries, and realizing that, as indicated by the distinguished Senator from South Da- kota and also as indicated in the past by 10147 the junior Senator from Michigan, and, today, by the distinguished Senators from Mississippi and South Carolina, I want to call attention to certain facts. First, I think those who are interested in legislation of this kind will want to know that other countries, such as Australia, have been vitally interested in this same question. A bill was recently introduced in the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia by the Prime Minister, the Right Honorable R. G. Menzies, entitled “A bill for an act to provide for the dis- solution of the Australian Communist Party and other Communist organiza- tions, to disqualify Communists from holding certain offices, and for purposes connected therewith.” The bill would even bar Communists from employment in vital industry. I want to read the whereas clauses of that bill, in order that we may become familiar with what Communists are doing in other coun- tries, similar to what they are doing in our country. I read: Whereas the Australian Communist Party, in accordance with the basic theory of com- munism, as expounded by Marx and Lenin, engages in activities or operations designed to assist or accelerate the coming of a revo- lutionary situation, in which the Australian Communist Party, acting as a revolutionary minority, would be able to seize power and establish a dictatorship of the proletariat; and Whereas the Australian Communist Party also engages in activities or operations dee signed to bring about the overthrow or dis- location of the established system of gov= ernment of Australia and the attainment of economic,, industrial or political ends by force, violence, intimidation, or fraudulent practices; and Whereas the Australian Communist Party is an integral part of the world Communist revolutionary movement, which, in the King’s dominions and elsewhere, engages in espio- nage and sabotage and in activities or oper- ations of a treasonable or subversive nature and also engages in activities or operations similar to those, or having an object similar to the object of those, referred to in the last two preceding paragraphs of this preamble; and Whereas certain industries are vital to the security and defense of Australia (including the coal-mining industry, the iron and steel industry, the engineering industry, the build- ing industry, the transport industry, and the power industry); and Whereas activities or operations of, or en- couraged by, the Australian Communist Party, and activities or operations of, or en- couraged by, members or officers of that party and other persons who are Commu- nista, are designed to cause, by means of strikes or stoppages of work, and have, by those means, caused, dislocation, disruption, or retardation of production or work in those vital industries; and Whereas it is necessary, for the security and ‘defense of Australia and for the execu- tion and maintenance of the conatitution and of the laws of the Commonwealth, that the Australian Communist Party, and bodies of persons affiliated with that party, should be dissolved and their property forfeited to the Commonwealth, and that members and officers of that party or of any of those bodies and other persons who are Communists should be disqualified from employment by the Commonwealth and from holding office in an industrial organization 1 substantial number of whose members are engaged in a vital industry.
10148 Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- sent that this proposed bill be inserted in the Rrcorp at the end of my remarks, The PRESIDING OFFICER, Without objection, it is so ordered. (See exhibit 1.) Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, the State of Michigan is vitally interested in the question of Communists in industry. Yesterday a committee of four Michigan State senators, who constitute a com- mittee to investigate the establishment in Michigan of a loyalty program, Came to the seat of the government of the United States, in Washington. The junior Senator from Michigan had con- ferred with their counsel the day before, and he conferred with the committee yesterday. They said they learned—and I have heard him testify to the fact— that the FBI Director, Mr. Edgar Hoover, had stated that there are approximately 1,200 Communists in the State of Mich- igan. The committee wanted to know whether they could secure a list of per- sons who are members of the Communist Party and who reside and operate in the State of Michigan. Naturally, they were told by the FBI that no such informa- tion could be given. Why? Because, Mr. President, it is not illegal in this country to be a member of the Commun- ist Party, and, therefore, the FBI could not and would not give the names of such persons. If the bill which {s proposed to e brought up for consideration be passed, then, Mr. President, the State of Mich- igan, the State of New York, the State of Illinois, and every other State will be able to know who are the Communists, because if they are members of the Com- munist Party they must register. Mr. MAGNUSON, Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. FERGUSON. I shall be happy ‘o yield. Mr. MAGNUSON. I appreciate what the Senator has said, and he knows that we have before us the problem of peace- time disloyalty as to which our laws are very inadequate. Of course, the bill deals with the Communist problem, and the Senator knows we have appointed a sub- committee of the Committee on the Ju- diciary to give the question some study, because, during wartime, we have power to take care of treasonable acts, but our peacetime laws on the question of dis- loyalty, whether it be communistic dis- loyalty or any other kind, are woefully inadequate. There is no crime involved in most cases. It is high time we review- ed the whole subject of acts of disloyalty in peacetime. I know the Senator from Michigan and I feel very keenly about it. It will require a great deal of legal study, but I hope we can attack the problem in @ broad way. Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. FERGUSON. I yield. Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, I think the Senator from Washington has put his finger on a very important point which we should consider very seriously between now and the time we vote next week. If we were in a war declared by Con- gress, there would be many ways in CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE which we could deal with disloyalty and espionage. But we are not officially at war; there has been no declaration of war, There is shooting going on, many American boys are dying, and many se- rious consequences are flowing from the battle in which we are engaged, but there is no declared war. So we should have legislation in order to deal with these peacetime situations, I wonder if the Senator from Michi- gan will permit me to ask unanimous consent to have inserted in the Recorp at the conclusion of his remarks an edito- rial which has just been brought in by messenger, appearing in the National Tribune—The Stars and Stripes, of Thursday, July 13. I think it is a very significant editorial, because it comes from one of the gr2at newspapers of the United States. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered. (See exhibit 2.) Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, it is true, as pointed out by the Senator from Washington, that there is a subcommit- tee of the Committee on the Judiciary appointed to study further details with regard to subversive activities. But, Mr. President, this bill of which we speak has received the careful attention not only of committees in the Eighty-first Con- gress, but in the Eightieth Congress, It has received days and weeks of careful attention not only of Senators who are members of the Judiciary Committee and are students of the law, but of very dis- tinguished outside counsel, in order that we might offer within the framework of the Constitution, a law which can cope with the situation, As I said before, Mr. President, the State of Michigan and every other State, and all the possessions of the United States, are interested in this question. It should and must be taken care of on a national basis, so that when registra- tion is complete the State of Michigan or the city of Detroit will be able to know who are the Communists, who are the conspirators, that reside in that State or in that city. Mr. President, it is a well known fact that a few months ago there was in op- eration in the city of Detroit a sabotage school receiving money from the Com- munist Party. The time has come to bring out on the surface the fact as to who is furnishing money for such edu- cation to destroy America. An article from the Daily Worker has been read to- day. The coming Sunday edition will be used to sabotage the effort of the United States of America. That newspaper is not supported by the advertising which it carries. Who supports the Daily Worker? We need to know the facts, such as the facts of financing, that He behind the Communist movement in America. This bill will do that. I will say that this bill is on a par, in importance, with the appropriation bill, The reason why I make these remarks today and have asked to place in the Recorp the Australian proposal, at the expense of time spent considering the appropriation bill, is in order that the Members of the Senate may examine it JULY 14 in detail before the bill is brought to the floor, so that they may be able, without undue debate, to pass the bill, and that it may be sent to the House, passed by the House, signed by the President, and be- come the law of the land in this very critical period. It will enable us to cope with this critical situation, and to meet the domestic aggression of the Com- munists, whose international aggression our boys are fighting today in Korea, In this fair land of ours, Mr. President, there is actual aggression by the Com- munists, and we would be better pre- pared to fight that aggression if we have this law on our statute books. We were caught short-handed in Korea. We did not have our big guns near the front. Mr. President, we are warned, though, concerning the situation in America. Let us assume that our Intelligence Agency did not say when the North Koreans were going to come across the thirty-eighth parallel. I want to warn America that our Intelligence Agency says that the enemy is now in America. Why can we not pass this bill? Why can we not roll this bill up as one big gun, as one big bomber? Yes, Mr. Pres- ident, I say the enactment of this bill would be the atomic bomb to the Com- munists in America. It would destroy them at the very roots. Therefore, I have taken this time to speak on it even though I am delaying consideration of the omnibus appropriation bill. Exner 1 [From the Parliament of the Commonwealth, House of Representatives, April 27, 1950} (Brought in by the Prime Minister, the Right Honorable R. G. Menzies) An act to provide for the Dissolution of the Australian Communist Party and of other, Communist Organizations, to disqualify Communists from holding certain Offices,’ and for purposes connected therewith. PREAMBLE Whereas the constitution empowers the Parliament to make Jaws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to the naval and military de- fence of the Commonwealth and of the seve eral states; and . Whereas under the constitution the execu- tive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the King and 1s exercisable by the Gov-~ ernor-General os the King's representative, and extends to the execution and mainte- nance of the constitution“and of the laws of the Commonwealth; and Whereas the constitution also empowers the Parliament to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Common- wealth with respect to matters incidental to the execution of any power vested by the constitution in the Parliament of the Com- monwealth or in the government of the Commonwealth; and Whereas the Australian Communist Party, in accordance with the basic theory of com- munism, as expounded by Marx and Lenin, engages in activities or operations designed to assist or accelerate the coming of a revo- lutionary situation, in which the Australian Communist Party, acting as a revolutionary minority, would be able to seize power and establish a dictatorship of the proletariat; and Whereas the Australian Communist Party also engages in activities or operations de- signed to bring about the overthrow or dis- location of the established system of gov- ernment of Australia and the attainment of economic, industrial, or political ends by
1950 foree, violence, intimidation, or fraudulent practices; and Whereas the Australian Communist Party fs an integral part of the world Communist revolutionary movement, which, in the King's dominions and elsewhere, engages in espionage and sabotage and in activities or operations of a treasonble or subversive na- ture and also engages in activities or opera- tions stmilar to those, or having an object similar to the object of those, referred to in the last two preceding paragraphs of this preamble; and Whereas certain industries are vital to the security and defense of Australia (including the coal-mining industry, the iron and steel industry, the engineering industry, the buliding industry, the transport industry, and the power industry); and Whereas activities or 0, srations of, or ene couraged by, the Australian Communist Party, and activities or operations of, or en- couraged by, members or officers of that party and other persons who are Communists, are designed to cause, by means of strikes or stoppages of work, and have, by those means, caused dislocation, disruption, or retarda- tion of production or work in those vital industries; and ‘Whereas it is necessary, for the security and defense of Australia and for the execu- tion and maintenance of the constitution ana of the laws of the Commonwealth, that the Australian Communist Party, and bodies of persons affillated with that party, should be dissolved and their property forfeited to the Commonwealth, and that members and Officers of that party or of any of those bodies and other persons who are Commu- nists should be disqualified from employ- ment by the Commonwealth and from hold- ing office in an industrial organization a substantial number of whose members are engaged in a vital industry: Be it therejore enacted by the King’s Most Excellent Majesty, the Senate, and the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia, as follows: SHORT TITLE 1, This act may be cited as the Communist Party Dissolution Act, 1950. COMMENCEMENT DEFINITIONS 2, This act shall come into operation on the day on which it receives the royal as- sent, 8. (1) In this act, unless the contrary intention appears “authority af the Com- monwealth” includes a body established by or under & law of the Commonwealth; “au- thorized person” means a peace Officer ap- pointed under the Peace Officers Act of 1925 or a person declared by the attorney gen- eral to be an authorized person for the pur- poses of this act; “branch,” in relation to an industrial organization or an uniléwful association, includes a section of the organ- ization or association and a local, regional or subsidiary body forming part of the organ- tigation; “Communist” means a person who supports or advocates the objectives, pol- ioies, teachings, principles or practices of communism, as expounded by Marx and Lenin; “industrial organization” means an organization of employers or employees as- sociated for the purpose of protecting and furthering their interests In relation to terms and conditions of employment or for pur- poses including that purpose; “office,” in re- Jation to an industrial organization or branch of an industrial organization, means (a) the office of 8 member of the committee of management or other governing body of the industrial organization or branch; (b) the office of an executive officer of the In- dustrial organization or branch; (c) the office of a person holding, whether as trustee or otherwise, property of the industrial organ- fgation or branch, or property in which the industrial organization or branch has a beneficial interest; or (d) every office within CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE the industrial organization or branch for the Milling of which an election ts conducted or an appointment is made within the industrial organization or branch; “officer,” in relation to an unlawful association, means (a) a member of the committee of management or other governing body of the unlawful asso- ctation or of a branch of the unlawful asso- clation; or (b) a person working for the unlawful agssoctation or for a branch of the unlawful association; “property” includes money, goods, things In action, land and every description of property, whether real or personal; “the Australian Communist Party” means the organization having that name on the specified date, notwithstanding any change in the name or membership of that organization after that date; “the specified date’ means May 10, 1948, being the last day of the National Congress of the Australian Communist Party by which the constitution of the Australian Communist Party was adopted, “unlawful association’ means the Australian Communist Party or a body of persons declared to be an unlawful associa- tion under this act. (2) For the purposes of this act, the prop- erty of an unlawful association includes all property of a branch of that association and all property held by a person for or on be- half of, or in trust for, that association or & branch of that association. DISSOLUTION OF AUSTRALIAN COMMUNIST PARTY 4 (1) The Australian Communist Party is declared to be an unlawful association and is, by force of this act, dissolved. (2) The Governor-General shall, by in- strument published tn the Gazette, appoint a receiver of the property of the Australian Communist Party. (3) Upon the day upon which that instru- ment its so published, the property of the Australian Communist Party shall, by force of this act, vest in the receiver named in the instrument. (4) Where any land to which this section applies is subject to the provisions of any law providing for the registration of title to land, the vesting of the legal estate in that land in the receiver shall be subject to compliance with the provisions of that law. AFFILIATED ORGANIZATIONS MAY BE DECLARED UNLAWFUL 5. (1) This section applies to any body of persons, corporate or unincorporate, not being an industrial organization registered under the law of the Commonwealth or a atate— (a) which is, or purports to be, or, at any time after the specified date and before the date of commencement of this act was, or purported to be, affiliated with the Aus- tralian Communist Party; (b) a majority of the members of which, or a majority of the members of the com- mittee of management or other governing body of which, were, at any time after the specified date and before the date of come mencement of this act, members of the Aus- tralian Communist Party or of the central committee or other governing body of the Australian Communist Party; (c) which supports or advocates, or, at any time after the specified date and before the date of commencement of this act, supported or advocated, the objectives, policies, teach- ings, principles or practices of communism, as expounded by Marx and Lenin, or pro- motes, or, at any time within that period, promoted, the spread of communism, as so expounded; or (d) the policy of which is directed, con- trolled, shaped, or influenced, whoily or substantially, by persons who— (1) were, at any time after the specified date and before the date of commencement of this act, members of the Australian Com- munist Party or of the central committee or other governing body of the Australian Communist Party, or are Communists; and 10149 (11) make use of that body as a means of advocating, propagating, or carrying out the objectives, policies, teachings, principles, or practices of communism, as expounded by Marx and Lenin. (2) Where the Governor General 1s satis- fied that a body of persons is a body of per- sons to which this section applies and that the continued existence of that body of per- sons would be prejudicial to the securlty and defense of the Commonwealth or to the ex- ecution or maintenance of the constitution or of the laws of the Commonwealth, the Governor-General may, by instrument pub- lished in the Gazette, declare that body of persons to be an unlawful association. (3) A body of persons so declared to be an unlawful association may, within 28 days after the publication of the declaration in the Gazette, apply to the high court to set aside the declaration, on the ground that the body !s not a body to which this section applies (4) If, upon the hearing, the applicant satisfies the high court that it ts not a body to which this section applies, the high court shall set aside the declaration. (5) If the applicant does not so satisfy the high court, the high court shall dismiss the application and the declaration shall remain in force UNLAWFUL ASSOCIATIONS TO BE DISSOLVED 6 (1) Subject to this section, a body of persons in respect of which a declaration has been made under this act shall, by force of this act, upon the expiration of 28 days after the publication of the declaration in the Gazette, be dissolved (2) Where the body applies to the high court to set aside the declaration, the body shall not be dissolved upon the expiration of 28 days after the publication of the decla. ration in the Gazette, but, if the high court dismisses the application, the body shall, by force of this act, be dissolved upon the day upon which the high court dismisses the application. OFFICERS AND MEMBERS OF UNLAWFUL ASSOCIA@ TIONS TO CEASE 7 (1) A person shall not— (a) become, continue to be, or perform any act as, an officer or member of an un« lawful association; (b) carry or display anything indicating that he 1s or was an officer or member, or is or was in any way associated with, an une lawful association, (c) contribute or solicit anything, as a subscription or otherwise, to be used directly or indirectly for the benefit of an unlawful association; or (d) in any way take part in any activity of @n unlawful association or carry on, in the direct or indirect interest of an unlawful assoctation, any activity in which the unlaw- ful association was engaged, or could have engaged, at the time when it became an un- lawful association. Penalty: Imprisonment for 5 years. (2) Nothing in this section prohibits an officer or member of an unlawful association from performing any act on its behalf which is reasonably necessary for the purposes of an application by the unlawful association to the high court under section 5 of this act. PROPERTY OF UNLAWFUL ASSOCIATIONS TO VEST IN RECEIVER 8. (1) The instrument under thig act de- Claring a body of persons to be an unlawful association shall appoint a receiver of the property of that body. (2) Upon the day upon which that {nstru- ment is published in the Gazette the prop- erty of that body shall, subject to this sec- tion, vest in the receiver named in the in- strument, (3) If the high court sets aside the declara- tlon, all sales or dispositions of property, payments made and acta done by the receiver (or by a person acting under his authority)
10150 shall be valid, but the property of the body shall revert to the body for its estate or inter- est therein on such terms and subject to such conditions, if any, as the high court orders, (4) Where any land to which this section applies is subject to the provisions of any law providing for the registration of title to land, the vesting of the legal estate in that land in the receiver shall be subject to com- pliance with the provisions of that law. DECLARATION OF COMMUNISTS AND MEMBERS OF UNLAWFUL ASSOCIATIONS 9. (1) This section applies to any person— (a) who was, at any time after the speci- fied date and before the date upon which an unlawful association is dissolved by this act, @ member or officer of that unlawful associa- tion; or (b) who is, or was at any time after the specified date, a Communist. (2) Where the Governor General is satis- fied that a person is a person to whom this section applies and that that person is en- gaged, or is likely to engage, in activities prejudicial to the security and defense of the Commonwealth or to the execution or main- tenance of the constitution or of the laws of the Commonwealth, the Governor General may, by instrument published in the Gazette, make o declaration accordingly. (3) A person in respect of whom a dec- laration is made under the last preceding subsection may, within 28 days after the publication of the declaration in the Ga- gette, apply to the high court to set aside the declaration on the ground that he is not 8 person to whom this section applies. ‘ (4) If, upon the hearing, the applicant satisfies the high court that he is not a person to whom this section applies, the high court shall set aside the declaration. (5) If the applicant does not so satisfy the high court, the high court shall dismiss the application and the declaration shall remain in force, ‘ (6) The Governor General may at any time, by instrument published in the Ga- vette, revoke a declaration made under this section. DISQUALIFICATION OF PERSONS DECLARED 10. (1) A person in respect of whom a declaration is in force under this act-— (a) shall be incapable of holding office under, or of being employed by, the Com- monwealth or an authority of the Common- wealth; (b) shall be incapable of holding office as @ member of a body corporate, being an authority of the Commonwealth; and (c) shall be incapable of holding an office in on industrial organization to which this section applies or in a branch of such an industrial organization, (2) For the purposes of this section and of the next succeeding section, a member of the defense force shall be deemed to be a person employed by the Commonwealth. (3) Where the Governor General is satis« fied that a substantial number of the mem- bers of an industrial organization are en- gaged in a vital industry, that is to say, the coal-mining industry, the iron and steel in- dustry, the engineering industry, the bulld- ing industry, the transport industry, or the power industry, gy in any other industry which, in the opinion of the Governor-Gen- eral, is vital in the security and defense of Australia, the Governor General may, by instrument published in the Gazette, de- clare that industrial organization to be an industrial organization to which this sece tion applies. (4) If the Governor General is satisfied that an industrial organization in respect of which a declaration has been made un- Ger the last preceding subsection no longer has a substantial number of members en~ gaged in a vital industry, the Governor General shall, by instrument published in the Gazette, revoke that declaration. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE DISQUALIFIED PERSONS TO VACATE OFFICE 11. (1) If, upon the making of a decla- ration in respect of a person under this act, that person holds any office referred to in subsection (1) of the last preceding section or is employed by the Commonwealth or by an authority of the Commonwealth, that person shall, by force of this act, be sus- pended from the office or employment, (2) Unless an application has been made to the high court to set aside the declaration, the office held by that person shall, by force of this act, become vacant, or that person shall cease to be so employed, as the case may be, upon the expiration of the twenty=- eighth day after the day upon which the @eclaration was published in the Gazette. (8) If an application is made to the high ecurt to set aside the declaration, the sus- pension effected by subsection (1) of this section shall continue until the making of an order by the high court upon the appli- cation. (4) If the high court sets aside the decla- ration, the suspension of the person con- cerned shall cease, but if the high court dis- misses the application, the office held by that person shall, by force of this act, become vacant, or that person shall cease to be s0 employed, as the case may be, upon the day upon which the high court dismisses the application. (5) A person whose office 80 becomes va- cant, or who ceases to be so employed, shall, for the purpose of the determination of his rights in respect of superannuation or other retirement benefit, be deemed to have re- signed, INJUNCTIONS 12. (1) The high court shall have jurisdic- tion to grant an injunction restraining a person who, under section 10 of this act, is incapable of holding an office in an indus- trial organization or branch of an industrial organization from performing any act, duty, or function, or exercising any right, as the holder of an office in the industrial organi- gation or branch. (2) The attorney general may apply for an injunction under the last preceding subsec- tion, but this subsection does not prejudice any right any other person has to apply for Buch an injunction, CONTRACTS NOT TO BE MADE WITH DECLARED PERSONS 13. A contract or agreement shall not be made by the Commonwealth or by an au- thority of the Commonwealth with a person in respect of whom a declaration is in force under this act under which a fee or other remuneration is payable in respect of the services of that person. DUTIES AND POWERS OF RECEIVER 14. (1) It shall be the duty of the re- ceiver of an unlawful association to take pos- seesion of the property of the association, to realize that property, to discharge the lia- bilities of the association, and to pay or transfer the surplus to the Commonwealth. (2) For the purpose of performing his due ties under this act in relation to an unlaw- ful association the receiver of that assocla- tion shall have power— (a) to receive, collect, get in, and control property of the association; (b) to take proceedings in his own name to recover possession of the property of the association or to obtain payment of moneys owing to the assciation; (c) to sell or dispose of any of the prope erty of the assoclation; (ad) to make any arrangement or compro- mise which he thinks expedient in relation to the property of the association; (e) to reimburse himself all expenses ine curred in or about the execution of his powers; and (f) to take possession of, collect, and dis- pose of books, papers, documents, and records JULY 14 relating to, or in the possession or under the control of, the association; and shall have such other powers as are prescribed. DETERMINATION OF QUESTIONS BY HIGH COURT 15. (1) The receiver of an unlawful asso- clation may make an application to the high court to determine any question relating to the property or liabilities of the association or to the performance of his duties or the exercise of his powers under this act, (2) The determination of the high court shall be binding on the receiver and on the association and on such other persons as are affected by the determination. RECEIVER NOT TO BE PERSONALLY LIABLE IN RESPECT OF HIS ACTS 16. The receiver of an unlawful associa- tion shall not be under any personal liability for or in respect of any act or thing done or omitted to be done in the exercise or purported exercise of any of the powers con- ferred by or under this act or for or in respect of any of the liabilities of the unlaw- ful association of which he is receiver. RECEIVER MAY AVOID CERTAIN DISPGSITIONS 17. The receiver of an unlawful associa- tion may direct that any disposition of prop- erty of the association within 1 year before the date upon which the association was dissolved shall be void as against the receiver and the disposition shall be so void accord- ingly, but nothing in this section affects the rights of a purchaser, payee, or encumbrance in good faith and for valuable consideration. INSOLVENT UNLAWFUL ASSOCIATIONS 18, If the receiver of an unlawful associa- tion determines that the association is in- solvent, the provisions of the Bankruptcy Act, 1924-48, relating to proof of debts and priority of payments of debts shall, subject to the regulations, be applicable in relation to the association, OBSTRUCTION OF RECEIVER BY DESTROYING PROPERTY, ETC. 19. (1) A person shall not, with intent to delay or obstruct the performance by the receiver of an unlawful association of any of his functions, or the exercise of his powers, under this act— (a) destroy or alter, or withhold from the receiver (whether a demand has been made therefor or not), any of the property of the unlawful association, pr any book, paper, document, record, or security relating to, or in the possession or in the control of, that association; or (bd) send or attempt to send, or conspire with any other person to send, out of the Commonwealth any such property, book, paper, document, record, or security. Penalty: Imprisonment for 5 years. (2) If, in any prosecution for an offense against this section, it is proved that the per- son charged with the offense— (a) has destroyed, altered, or withheld from the receiver any of the property of the unlawful association, or any book, paper, document, record, or security in the posses- sion of or under the control of that agsocia- tion; or (b) has sent or attempted to send or con- spired to send out of the Commonwealth any such property, book, paper, document, rece ord, or security, the onus of proving that in so doing he did not act with intent to delay or obstruct the performance by the receiver of any of his functions, or the carrying out of any of his powers, under this act shall be upon the person charged. POWERS OF SE RCH, ETC, 20. An authorized person shall at all times have full and free access to, and may, if need be by force and with such assistance as is necessary, break open, enter, and search, any house, premises, or place in which he sus- pects that there is any property of, or docue ments or papers relating to, an unlaviful age
1950 sociation and may search any person found in the house, premises, or place and may take possession of, remove, and impound any property, books (including documents or pa- pers) in the house, premises, or place which the authorized person is satisfied belong to that association, JURIspIOTION ‘or HIGH COURT 21, (1) The high court shall have Jurisdic- tion to hear and determine any application under sections 6, 9, or 15 of this act, (2) The jurisdiction of the high court un- der this section shall be exercised by a single justice, and the decision of that justice shall be final and conclusive. (8) The Commonwealth shall be the re= spondent to any application to the high court under section 5 or section 9 of this act. EVIDENCE 92. (1) In any proceedings under this act, proof that, at any time after the specified date and before the date upon which an un- lawful association is dissolved by this act, a raon—- (a) attended a meeting of that association or of a branch of that association, or of a committee of that association or of such a branch; (b) spoke publicly in advocacy of that as- sociation or of tte objects; (c) distributed literature of that associa- tion or in advocacy of its objects; or (a) wrote, issued, or published, or caused to be written, iasued, or published, a docu- ment in advocacy of that association or of its objects, shall be evidence that that per~ son was, during that period, a member or officer of that association, as the case may be. (2) Without prejudice to the operation of the next succeeding subsection, proof in any proceedings under this act that the name, initials, or other means of identifi- cation of a person appear— (a) on a document found at the offices or premises of the Australian Communist Party at Marx House, George Street, Sydney, on the 8th day of July, 1949, being a document— (1) which purports to show; or (11) from which, in the opinion of the eourt, it may, in the circumstances, reason- ably be inferred, that that person was a member or officer of the Australian Communist Party; or (b) on a list, roll, or other record found at the offices or premises of the Australian Com- munist Party at Marx House, George Street, Sydney, on the 8th day of July, 1949, being a list, roli, or record which purports to be, or appears to the court, in the circumstances, to be, a list, roll, or record of members or officers of the Australian Communist Party, shall be evidence that that person was, after the specified date and before the date upon which the Australian Communist Party is dissolved by this act, a member or officer of the Australian Communist Party, as the case may be. (3) Proof in any proceedings under this act that the name, initials, or other means of identification of a person appear— (a) on a document which was kept or found— (1) at any office or premises of an un. lawful association or of a branch of an un« lawful association, or at any office or prem-~- ises under the control of a member or officer of an unlawful association; or (it) in the custody of a member or officer of an unlawful association, 8& doeument— (iti) ‘which purports to show; or (iv) from which, in the opinion of the court, tt may, in the circumstances, reason~ ably be inferred, , that that person was & member or officer of that unlawful association or of a branch of that asscetation; or (b) on a ist, roll, or other record which waa kept or found— CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE (1) at any office or premises of an unlaw~ ful association or of a branch of an unlawful asaociation, or at any office or premises under the control of a member or officer of an unlawful association; or (if) tn the custody of a member or officer or an unlaful association, being « list, roll, or record which purports to be, or appears to the court in the circum- stances to be, a list, roll, or record of mem- bers or officers of that unlawful association, or of a branch of that assoctation, shall be evidence that that person was, after the specified date and before the date upon which that unlawful association is dissolved by this act, a member or officer of that un- lawful association, as the case may be. 28. The Governor-General may make reg- ulations, not inconsistent with this act, pre- soribing all matters which by this act are required or permitted to be prescribed or which are necessary or convenient to be pre- scribed for giving effect to this act and in partioular for prescribing penalties not ex- ceeding £500 or imprisonment for 6 months for any offense against the regulations, Exnisrr 2 [From the National Tribune—the Stars and Stripes) We wish it were possible to delay prepa- ration of this article until later this week because fireworks were promised in the United States Senate on Monday, but we must meet our deadline for composition and the subject matter of this comment is so important to the country that we cannot let any time slip by. The Senate might ad- journ by early August and there fs work to be lone. On Monday, Senator Karu FE. Munnt, of South Dakota, was to pay his respects to certain Senate leaders who have attempted to sabotage the bill he is cosponsoring in an effort to put a stop to Soviet activities in the United States. The measure has been pending for many months. It ls a gesture as American as the grass roote from which the Senator hails, but pussyfooting interesta and Red propagandists have so far pre- vented consideration of this bill which be- longs on the working agenda of the Upper House, particularly in view of the ever dee veloping threat to the existence of our insti tutions and our freedoms. Senator Munopr attempted to call up the Mundt-Ferguson-Johnson-Nixon bill over a week ago after his desires—and those, inci- dentally, of many millions of our citizens— had long been frustrated. He did so in ac- cord with Senate rules when nothing else was under consideration. His efforts met with scathing rebuke by World War I Senate Leader Scorr W. Lucas, of Dinos, who ts doubtiess a staunch and loyal American but who takes his orders from the White House and is in the corner of those who oppose action on the antisubversive bill at this time. On Monday Monpr was to take his turn in lecturing the Ilinoisan. We anticipate that the job will have been done thoroughly by the time we go to press, and all right-think- ing veterans hope the oratory will be so all-encompassing that the smoke will roll out of the windows of the sedate old Senate Chamber. What the proposed measure calls for ts @ requirement, under penalty of law, that all Communist political organizations and Red- front groups register with the Attorney Gen- eral and maintain accurate lists of mem- bers, deny use of the mails or radio- broadcast Taciitties to them unless definitely labeled as Communist-inspired, and forbid such pere sons to hold Government fobs or obtain pass- porte. Why anybody who believes tn the American system eould object to such regis- trations and restrictions is baffling, particu- larly in view of the Korean situation. But they do, and vigorously. The one fault we 10151 ‘find in the entire scheme {s that it does not go nearly far enough. We think that Com- munists as such should be outlawed entirely, and, in any emergency, they should be treat- ed as the trattors they are and be lined up against the wall. That is exactly what would happen ff anybody did in their beloved Rus- sia what they do in the United States. The Reds in this country, and their fol- lowers, have entered into a criminal con- spiracy to destroy America. They are know- ingly supported by the only nation on earth that ts committed to the overflow of our people by force and violence, and yet failure to curb such activity is fought by the ad- ministration leadership. While admitting a need to strengthen antisubversion laws, they Oppose all attempts to do so by suggesting that the Mundt bill might place under sus- picion some “innocents” who have at one time or another affiliated with a society now Nested as subversive. They and their backers suggest the measure would create the new crime of contributing to the establishment of a totalitarian dictatorship, and they ask that it be put over for calmer consideration. The trouble is that it has been put off too long already. If in force, it would have the effect of making those innocents think twice, and as for a dictatorship, that tssue can be met, if it comes, in exactly the same manner as this exigency. Every possible obstacle has been erected to prevent investigation of subversives since way back in the thirties. The Dies commit- tee and its successor groups have heen thwarted and ridiculed regardless of the post- tive evidence they have unearthed. While hundreds of alien-minded public servants have been fired or have been permitted to resign, some are still being held on the pay- rolls. by stubborn officials even though quall- fied and patriotic individuals have been forced to quit in protest. In almost every Instance, when charges are preferred, politi- cians term them partisan activity and every effort 1s employed to hamper inquiries. So brazen have been the enemies of the Amer- ican way of life that they have filtered into the Government, and even tnto congressional membership, and they are permitted to be coequals with citizens who think firat of the country that gives them refuge. Daily news- papers tolerate their views in the name of liberalism while they knife the public in the back. Atom spies are afforded protection beyond the limits of due process of Jaw. The enemy underground thrives on American generosity, and our people's tolerance allows the foes of American ideals to continue in the dastardly work of undermining the in- stitutions for which our manhood has fought for generations and for which it has died in war. Hostile world elements are on this very day testing the strength of this Nation. Com- mitted wholeheartedly to its complete de- struction, they seek to determine what weap- ons they will face tf it 1s forced into total war- fare, and yet there are among us those who temporize when our safety hangs in the bal- ance and our defenses are imperiled. It is beyond the comprehension of men, who have bled In war to maintain our liberties, to recognize the opposition of others against bringing out of hiding and labeling for what they are the very subverts who make our position more difficult. There is nothing mad or viciouz about an endeavor to put a stop to foreign attempts to destroy us. It is Not an exhibition of abnorma! patriotism to try to fetch the skeletons out of the closet and expose them for the tnsidious influence they are. Those are merely temperate moves to protect our citizenry against the logs of everything they possess, and Senator Mumpr and his cosponsors are aiming solely at pre- venting the defeat of this Nation through complacency. He and those who support him are being far more liberal than they should be with a type of liberalism that js ladem with dynamite.
10152 The Communists tn the United States have been declared to be conspirators. They are outlaws, fugitives without right to legal ‘protection making every possible illegitimate effort to proscribe the statutes that were enacted to protect believers in democracy. Some of the lower Federal courts have made such a determination and there is basis, therefore, to challenge those who assert that outlawing such conspirators would be un- constitutional, The Communist Party, and all of those who aid and abet it by word or deed, teach and spread criminal doctrine when they propagate a system of terror. It is our inherent belief that the Constitution of our country bears the power to defend fiself, and that is one reason why, among others, we believe that the Reds should be outlawed. They hide behind a party label, abuse constitutional rights delegated to others and attract to their ranks craven fol- lowers who suggest that suppression of their ultimate motives means dictatorship. Unfortunately the Mundt bill does not seek to make outlaws of Communists and followers of the party line. It is only a part- way means of keeping a finger on them and of punishing offenders for infractions of lesser laws. However, it is recognized that it is the most that could be accomplished at the present moment, and that is why the veterans of this country are solidly behind it. It is # patriotic endeavor to save our people from the machinations of sworn enemies within our gates. This is a time for realism. We are, a8 a Nation, faced with making crucial decisions in a desire to avoid world conflict. We must complete the task to which the country fs dedicated. For want of a better means to stamp out insurrection at home, the Congress should pass the Red registration bill now, before it winds up its lawmaking for the year. Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, I do not propose to sit on the floor of the Senate and hear two or three Senators pretend to have all the patriotism within their own hearts. Insofar as the bill intro- duced by the distinguished Senator from South Dakota is concerned, I want every Senator to know that as a member of the Committee on the Judiciary I filed minority views. I submit that when the proper time comes it will be shown that this bill, instead of being a good bill, as a@ matter of fact would deprive the peo- ple of this country of their liberty under the guise of trying to put subversive ele- ments in prison. Mr. President, let me call attention to the fact that the distinguished Senator from Michigan has said that for two years this bill has been in committee, originally as the Mundt-Nixon bill and now as the Mundt-Ferguson-Johnston bill. This bill has been carefully studied. Surely every Senator within the sound of my voice knows that the American Fed- eration of Labor cannot be called sub- versive. During the World War what did they do? With 21 percent fewer employees on the railroads, and with 21 percent fewer employees in nearly every other industry, they did almost twice as much work as before. They did it at a time when their youngest men were in the armed services. Certainly, Mr, President, the fathers and mothers who constitute this great organization, the ‘American Federation of Labor, would not come out in opposition to this bill, patriotic as they are, unless in the bot- ‘tom of their hearts they felt there was something wrong with it. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Another great organization is opposed to it, an organization of laboring peo- ple—the CIO. They are on record as be- ing unalterably opposed to the enact- ment of this measure. That is the same CIO which time after time in their an- nual conventions have barred Commu- nists from membership. They have thrown Communists out right and left. They realize that this bill is an attack, in a time of hysteria, upon the principles of true democratic gaqvernment. It would take from the American people the liberty for which our forefathers fought 150 years ago. Our country has grown great under present laws and the Constitution. These organizations would not be in opposition to the meas- ure unless they had good reason for it. There is another great organization, Mr. President, which is opposed to this bill. It is the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, which is made up of con- ductors, firemen, and engineers. It is an organization composed of hundreds of thousands of men. They are also on record against the bill. Those are the same men who during the last World War, with 21 percent less labor on the payroll, did twice as much work and hauled twice as much freight than ever before in the history of the United States. They are opposed to the bill. Mr. President, there is another great organization which is opposed to the bill. It is the National Farmers Union. The National Farmers Union, with its enor- mous membership of farmers stretching from one end of the United States to the other, is opposed to the bill. Then the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, made up of some 14,000,000 members with an ac- tive membership of hundreds of thou- sands of people, are also in opposition to the bill. Then there may be mentioned the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Lawyers Guild both of which are opposed to the bill, More than that, Mr. President, I ask every Senator on the floor to read care- fully the opinion of Charles Evans Hughes. Was hea Communist? Was he advocating communism? Let us take the opinion of John W. Davis, the Demo- cratic nominee for President in 1924. Is there any Senator who would charge that John W. Davis is a Communist? Would anyone say that John W. Davis sympathizes with Communists? We have heard mentioned on the floor of the Senate the President’s Loyalty Re- view Board. It was referred to by the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. McCartry]. I happen to know the Chairman of the Loyalty Review Board unusually well. He happens to be Seth W. Richardson. For 20 years, he prac~ ticed law in my own State. Under Presi-~ dent Hoover he was an Assistant Attor- ney General of the United States of America. Before a vote is taken on the so-called Mundt bill I suggest that Mr. Richardson's opinion, which he gave to the Judiciary Committee, be studied very carefully. Here is a man who for many years was a United States district attor- ney in a great State of the Union. I JULY 14 know of no more patriotic man in the entire United States than Seth W. Rich- ardson, He was chosen by the President of the United States to be the Chairman of the Loyalty Review Board. Of course there is also the opinion of Mr, Chaffee, Jr., of Harvard University. Mr. President, I rise to make it clear that this is not a one-siued proposition. A few minutes ago Senators said that this bill could be disposed of very quick- ly, If they think for a single moment that this bill will be decided without a fight on the floor, I wish to serve notice on them now that they are very much mistaken. It is true that I alone signed the minor- ity views. I filed them on a Friday. What happened? The next day the dis- tinguished junior Senator from Ten- nessee [Mr. KEeFavuver] announced that he was in sympathy with those views. A short time later another Senator, the distinguished Senator from Washington {Mr. Macnuson! announced that he was opposed to paragraph 4 of the bill. Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. LANGER. I decline to yield. I did not interrupt the Senator from South Dakota, and I do not propose to be inter- rupted at this time. A short time after that two other Senators announced that they were opposed to certain paragraphs of the measure. That accounts for at least 5 members of a committee of 13 Senators. I understand that another distinguished member of the committee, who had been absent, said that if he had been present he would have voted with the minority, which would have made a vote of 7 to 6. Mr. President, it is not so simple as one would be led to believe by the eloquence of the distinguished Senators from South Dakota and Michi- gan. We are dealing with a very, very serious matter. I say that this bill, if enacted, would constitute the greatest threat to American civil liberties since the alien and sedition laws of 1798. I do not propose to sit here and have Senators rise and talk about the Ighting in Korea when some of them are just as responsible for it as those in actual con- trol of the Government. If some of us had been listened to, the Government today might not be finding itself in the sad situation in which it is. Oh, the question of patriotism is raised. How men like to take the American flag and wrap it around themselves and say, “Here is a bill. If you pass this bill, we are going to wipe out communism.” If anyone objects to a single line, a single sentence, a single paragraph, it is said he sympathizes with Communists, and sym- pathizes with those who are opposed to American free enterprise and the Amer- ican way of life. No, Mr. President, that is too serious a matter for one to sit idly by and watch it being put over. IT say this bill is a product of hysteria and frantic, unthink- ing fear, and that it strikes at the very foundations of our democratic institu- tions. As the debate starts, and is pro- ceeded with, I do not think there will be very much trouble in proving that to any fair Senator on the floor of the Senate,
1950 Mr. President, I have not the bill be- fore me now, but I would need to take up only one or two paragraphs of it to show what it is and what it does. I am not going to quote either John W. Davis or Charles Evans Hughes, Jr., or any of the witnesses at this time because we can do that when the proper time comes. I call attention to what the head of the Loyalty Board, Seth W. Richardson, appointed by President Truman himself, said, as appears on page 9 of my minority views; Seth W, Richardson made a similar point. When di similar provisions of H. R. 6652, he said that trial in a proper court in the first instance ts a question of guilt of the citizen, Under Anglo-Saxon law, we have never convicted anyone in this country unless the man first performed an overt act of some kind, did something the prosecut- ing attorney could get hold of and pre- sent to a jury. Here is proposed a political board, composed of three men appointed by the President of the United States. Their judgment apparently 1s to be final. Oh, there is a provision at one place for an appeal. If the distinguished present Presiding Officer, the Senator from Ala- bama (Mr. Hiv], for instance, belonged to an organization in his State, and in that organization there happened to be a few Communists, less than 1 percent, and out of a clear sky this board said the Presiding Officer was a Communist— mind you, without any trial—who is there to say the Senator had not been hurt, that he had not been ruined tn his business? Suppose one lived in the great State of Washington, or in California, or in Hawailt, or Alaska. Do Senators know where he would have to come for trial under the bill? He would have to come to Washington, in the District of Colum- bia, two or three thousand miles away from home. Mr. President, when the proper time comes, when the motion is made which it is said is to be made, I simply say to those who are to make it that when they state it will take but a very short time to pass the measure, In my opinion they are woefully mistaken, Let there be no mistake about this: I am 100 percent opposed to any subver- stve organization and to any man or woman who is a subversive. However, I cherish the Constitution of the United Ctates and the liberties it guarantees. These liberties, under my oath as a Sen- ator, I am sworn to protect. I want to make it clear that I am for this bill only if proper amendments are adopted to protect the liberties of the American people. Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, I want to comment on the letter, except t when he read it he did not s g g There guage which it was.thought should be . An amendment was offered CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE in committee, and the amendment was made, Mr. President, I should like also to have appear in the Recorp the fact that Charles Evans Hughes did not see this bill, has never read the bill. He was deceased at the time the bill was being considered. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the Senator from Michigan? There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Davis, PoLKk, WaRDWELL, Sunpee ann & KIENDL, New York, N. Y., February 10, 1950. Hon. Par McCarran, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. My Dear Sunator: I apologize for my de- lay in answering your letter of January 17 in reference to Senate bill 2311. I can only plead in excuse the constant pressure of other matters. On several occasions I have undertaken to make response Only to be di- verted by demands which were more in- stantly compelling. Undoubtedly 8. 2311 is an improvement over the predecessor bill, H. R. 6852. The term “Communist political organization” is now, as I think, adequately defined by the two criteria which are set up, to wit: (a) That it is substantially dominated or con- trolled by the foreign government or foreign governmental or political organization con- trolling the world Commynist movement; (b) that it operates primarily to advance the objectives of such world Communist movement. These are both criteria capable of being made certain by the introduction of adequate proof. So also as to the “Com- munist-front organisation” which is (a) under control of a Communist political organization, or (b) 1s primarily operated for the of giving aid and comfort to a Communist political organization, a Com- munist foreign government, or the world Communist movement. Whatever the difi- culties of proof, these are facts susceptible of ascertainment. J think these provisions comport with the legal maxim, “Id certum est quod certum reddi potest.” Section 4 (a) raises, by its language, cer- tain questions which are not entirely free from doubt, Indeed the charge of in- indefiniteness may be leveled against it. The bill does not purport expresaly to forbid Communist political organisations or mem- bership in them. On the contrary, there is provision for registration of the organization and, second, for registration of ita members who are called on to come forward in their own names if the organization fails to do so. Ventilation rather than prohibition seems the primary purpose. Section 4 (a) how- ever forbids one to combine, conspire, or agree with any other person to perform any act which would substantially contribute to the establishment of a totalitarian dictator- ship under foreign domination or control. Would mere membership in a Communist political organization which ts duly registered or required to register, constitute an act such aa section 4 (a) proscribes? If so, is there not inherent contradiction between these sections, and might not a person called on to register as a member claim that he would involuntarily incriminate himself by so do- ing? In the other hand, it {s possible that the courts would interpret the words “per- form any ect which would substantially con- tribute to the establishment” etc., etc. as synonymous with the familiar phrase “aid, abet, and assiat,” membership aside. The cardinal words of the section seem to be “the direction and control of which js to be vested 10158 in or exercised by or under the domination or contro! of any foreign government, foreign organization or foreign individual.” It seems unlikely that the section is intended to forbid public advocacy of a totalitarian form of government in the United Statea, absent foreign domination or control. Per- haps these questions of construction can be avoided by revision of the section or even by its omission entirely. As a matter of draftsmanship, I question a phrase employed in section 14 (e) of the bill, page 27 printed copy. The board is directed to take into consideration the “extent to which” etc. The use of this phrase implies, does it not, that the attention of the Board is to be directed, not to the performance of specific acta but to their spread or fre- quency. Would it not improve the definite- ness of the criteria if they read, for instance, (1) whether ite policies are formulated, etc., ete.? The substitution of the word “whether” for “the extent to which” might be worth consideration by your committee. The other conatitutional questions which might be raised seem to me to be adequately answered by the memorandum of July 29, 1949, of Mr. Ogleby of the American Law Section, which you were good enough to send me. I have nothing to add to the review which he makes.* Again, I express no opinion on the policy or the necessity of such an act. I note the Attorney General's reservations concerning it. If, however, it is enacted in its present form, I think the act, in its main features will survive constitutional attack. Iam sure you join me in lamenting the untimely death of Mr. Charles Evans Hughes, J ir. Believe me, Very sincerely yours, Joun W. Davis. Mr, CAPEHART. Mr. President, I wish to make just e brief remark with respect to the so-called Mundt-Fergu- son bill. We are at war today. We are fighting Communists, and I cannot con- ceive of anyone who would be opposed to passing the legislation necessary to control the Communists within our own ranks, particularly at a time when we are at war. How are we to handle the situation unless we enact some new leg- tslation? I am not going to argue today the merits or demerits of the Mundt bill, but I am satisfied in my own mind that we very badly need some new legisla- tion to enable us to handle such situa- tions as that with which we are faced at present. Much has appeared in the newspapers in Indianapolis recently about Commu- nists and thelr activities. Some Com- munist activities have been found in the Indiana State Welfare Department. I am not too familiar with the details, and I do not vouch for the authenticity of what has been written, but the people of Indiana, and particularly of Indian- apolis, are very much concerned about it. Mr. President, we are at war. What we are engaged in is not a police action, but it is war. We are fighting Commu- nists. We are told that the Korean war 4s inspired by Communist Russia, that they are furnishing materials and men, 2Memorandum by Robert Ogleby, Legis- lative Reference Section, Library of Con- gress, which was used as the basts of the con- stitutional discussions in this report,
10154 that they are furnishing the brain pow- er to carry on the war. It looks very much as if this struggle will develop into a full-scale war, and if it does, is there one Senator who will sit on the floor of the Senate and not join in pass- ing the necessary legislation to stop Communists in our own country, to stop giving them an opportunity to sabotage the war effort, to sabotage the Nation? Mr. President, an attitude of do noth- ing simply does not make sense to me. If the bill we are discussing is not as it should be, let us correct it, let us amend it, but before this session of Congress adjourns or recesses, in my opinion we should pass whatever legislation is nec- essary to deal with Communists within our own ranks, to reduce to the very minimum the opportunity of any sabo- tage among those who think as they do, I see nothing un-American about that. It seems to me it is the most American thing we can do. I know of nothing more American than to protect Amer- ica. Iam confident that the great ma- jority of the people of my State are for some sort of legislation which will put a stop to the undermining of our Gov- ernment by those who would overthrow it, and if I understand the philosophy of communism correctly, it is to over- throw our Government and to over- throw the governments of all other countries. Mr. President, I want to say in closing that I shall support any piece of legis- lation that looks to the control of sabo- teurs in the United States, and particu- larly in the face of the fact that we are now at war. It is not a police action. We are at war, and we are fighting those who hold to the philosophy of what we commonly know as communism. So far as I know there are no good Communists. They are just Commu- nists. I hope that Congress, before it adjourns, will take a good look at our laws, and makes certain that before we go home, if we do, there will be passed legislation which will properly protect the Government of the United States and properly protect and back up the boys who are giving their lives in Korea, who are face to face with and fighting the philosophy we know as communism. CONVEYANCE OF FORT RUCKMAN MILI- TARY RESERVATION TO TOWN OF NA- HANT, MASS.—CONFERENCE REPORT Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I submit a conference report on House bill "477, providing for the conveyance to the town of Nahant, Mass., of the Fort Ruckman Military Reservation, and I ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hr. in the chair). The report will be read for the information of the Senate. The report was read, as follows: The committee of conference on the dis- agreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H. R. 7477) providing for the conveyance to the town of Nahant, Mass., of the Fort Ruckman Military Reservation, having met, after full and free conference, have agreed to recom- mend and do recommend to their respective Houses as follows: That the House recede from its disagree- ment to the amendment of the Senate and CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE agree to the same with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate amendment insert the following: “That, upon payment to the United States of the sum of $23,000, the Ad- ministrator of General Services is authorized and directed to convey by quitclaim decd to the town of Nahant, Mass., all of the right, title, and interest of the United Statcs in and to all lands constituting the Fort Ruck- man Military Reservation, situated within the town of Nahant, together with the bulld- ings and other tmprovements thereon: Pro- vided, however, That the instrument of con- veyance shall contain such terms and condi- tions which will allow the recapture of the property in the event said property is not used for educational, recreational, or other public purposes: Provided further, That the instrument of conveyance shall reserve to the United States, for so long as it is neces- sary for governmental purposes, that certain 15-foot easement for the maintenance, re- pair, and replacement of a cable and its ap- purtenances, and at such time as it shall be no longer required for governmental use, said easement may be abandoned and upon such abandonment will automatically terminate, and that certain temporary easement, ter- minating June 30, 1954, covering one and eight-tenths acres of land used in connection with the Turf Drainage Investigation Pro- gram, with right of access thereto, both ease- ments being more particularly described in WAA Form 1005 dated June 22, 1948, Report- ing Agency No, WD-1299, as amended by WAA Form 1005 dated December 15, 1948, Re- porting Agency No. WD-1299-B, which are filed in the office of the General Services Administration”; and the Senate agree to the same. Husert H. HUMPHREY, Wm. BENTON, MARGARET CHASE SMITH, Managers on the Part of the Senate. Witu1aM L. Dawson, HERBERT C. BONNER, Ropsert F. RIcH, Managers on the Part of the House. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the present consideration of the conference report? There being no objection, the report was considered and agreed to. GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS, 1951 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. BRIDGES obtained the floor. Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me so I may make & unanimous consent request? Mr. BRIDGES. I yield to the Senator from Washington, Mr. MAGNUSON. I have on the desk some four amendments to the pending bill. I also intend to propose, on Mon- day, a further amendment to the biil. I am obliged to go to a committee meet- ing this afternoon, and I ask unani- mous consent that if my amendments are reached in the course of considera- tion of the bill today I may be privi- leged to bring them up on Monday when the Senate convenes. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator state what the amendments are Mr. MAGNUSON. One amendment, Mr. President, is on page 61, one is on page 179, one amendment, submitted by me and some 20 other Senators, Is on page 329; one amendment is on JULY 14 page 247, and the amendment I propose to submit on Monday is to the cancer, heart and mental diseases section. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the Senator from Washington? ‘The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered, Mr. BRIDGES. Mr. President, on be- half of myself, the senior Senator from Virginia (Mr. Byrn], the junior Sena- tor from Nebraska [Mr. Wuerry], the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. McCuzt- LANI, the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Corpvon], the Senator from California [Mr. Knowranp], the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. SattonstTa.u], the junior Senator from Virginia [Mr. Ros- ERTsoN], the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Ferrcuson}, the senior Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Gurney], the Sena- tor from Indiana (Mr. CapeHart], the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Horry], the Senator from Florida [Mr. Howianp], the Senator from Montana Mr. Ecton], the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Witutams], the Senator from New York {Mr. Ives1, the junior Senator from New Jersey (Mr. HeEnprickson], the Senator from Colorado [Mr. Miiirm«1n], the junior Senator from South Dakota {Mr. Munor], the senior Senator from Kansas {Mr. ScHoEpPEL], the Senator from Minnesota {[Mr. THyE], the senior Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Butier], the Senator from Iowa [Mr. HIcKEN- LOOPER], the Senator from Idaho [Mr. Dworsuak]1, the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. McCartuy], the senior Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Smiry], the jun- jor Senator from Kansas (Mr. Darsy], the senior Senator from Ohio | Mr. Tart], the junior Senator from Indiana (Mr. JENNER], the Senator from Missouri [Mr. Kem!, the Senator from Nevada [Mr. Macone], the Senator from Maine [Mr. Brewster], the Senator from Utah [Mr. Watkins], the Senator from Pennsyl- vania (Mr. Martin], and the junior Senator from Ohio [Mr. Bricker], I submit an amendment intended to ba proposed by us, jointly, to the bill (H. R. 7786) making appropriations for the sup- port of the Government for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1850, and for other purposes, and request that the amend- ment be stated, after which I shall dis- cuss the amendment for a moment or WO, The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated. The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. In lieu of the matter proposed to be stricken on pages 444, 445, and 446 by the committee amendment, insert the following: CHAPTER X-4—GENERAL REDUCTIONS IN APPRO- PRIATIONS AND CONTRACT AUTHORIZATIONS Sec. 1001. Except as hereinafter provided, each appropriation, reappropriation, and contract authorization or reauthorization, made by this act for the fiscal year ending June 80, 1951, to any department or agency in the executive branch of the Government (including funds of Government corpora- tions authorized by this act for administra- tive expenses), ig hereby reduced by 10 per- cent, Sxc. 1002. In order to provide for the most effective use of appropriations and contract authorizations reduced by this chapter, the head of each department and agency in the executive branch of the Government is hereby authorized to make adjustments and
1950 transfers between such appropriations, and between such contract authorisations, within his department or agency; but no auch appropriation or contract authorization mhall be increased under the authority of this section to an amount in excess of that provided in other chapters of this act. Sxc. 1008. The reductions provided for in this chapter shall not apply to the following: (a) Title IZ of chapter IV; chapter X; s0 much of title I of chapter X~-B as is con- tained in the paragraph headed “Mutual defense assistance”; and the amount ap- propriated to the General Services Adminis- tration for carrying out the provisions of the Btrategio and Critical Materials Stockpiling Act of July 238, 1946; (b) Appropriations in title I of chapter VIII for the Executive Office of the President under the headings “Compensation of the President,” "The White House Office,” “Emergency fund for the President,” and “Executive Mansior and Grounds”; (c) Appropriations and contract author- izations for the atomic energy program; (d) Trust funds; (e) Funds of Government corporations excluding those made avatiable in this act (1) for administrative expenses and (2) by appropriation from the general fund of the Treasury; (f) Amounts (other than under the Veterans’ Administration) for furnishing medical and hospital services and domi- ciliary care, excluding (1) administrative ex- penses not directly connected with the opera- tion of a specific hospital, dispensary, or clinic, and (2) expenses for employee health service programs; (g) Amounts providea in this act for pay- ment of obligations incurred under prior ap- propriations or authorizations, and obligated balances of reappropriations; (h) Appropriations of, or measured by, receipts; (4) Amounts appropriated by this act for the operation of law enforcement agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investiga- tion, Bureau of Customs, Immigration and Naturalization Services, and the Secret Serv- fee; or for the payment of compensation and expenses of agents and auditors of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, and such other officers and employees of other agencies whose duties primarily pertain to intelli- gence operations (including funds trans- ferred pursuant to section 6 (a) of the act of June 20, 1949; 63 Stat. 211) or to the investi- gation, apprehension, prosecution, or deten~- tion of persona suspected or convicted of offenses against the criminal laws of the United States; (J) Amounts provided for any program of tl» Veterans’ Administration, excluding (1) administrative expenses not directly con- nected with the operation of a specific hos. pital, dispensary, clinic, or facility, and (2) expenses for employee health service pro- grams; (k) Amounts provided for payments to States or political subdivisions thereof; (1) Amounts provided to make payment of or contributions toward pensions, retire- ment and disability annuities and benefits, employees’ death or injury benefits, or other items of a similar nature; (m) Appropriations for refunds, awards, and indemnities. Mr, BRIDGES. Mr. President, the amendment has been prepared by Sena- tors from both sides of the aisle as an economy amendment to be substituted for the Thomas-Taber amendment found in the House appropriation bill. This amendment has been most care- fully worked out by a group of Senators who have met many times in drafting the amendment. The group has been in close consultation with our own legis- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE lative counsel of the Senate and with representatives of the General Account- ing Office and the Bureau of the Budget. It is the opinion of our legislative counsel and of the downtown agencies that this amendment is technically cor- rect to do the job of reducing appropria- tions in this 1951 omnibus bill. Mr. President, only twice in the last 21 years has the Federal budget been in balance. The fiscal year just past has been one of deficit financing. The fiscal year we are entering will be one of deficit financing. We would incur a deficit in fiscal 1951 even if the Korean crisis had not developed. The advocates of deficit spending al- ways harp back to the cost of wars, past and future. The fact of the matter is, Mr. President, that the cost of war is not the sole cause of the continuing Federal deficits. Excluding the cost of national defense, Mr. President, excluding the ecst of international aid, excluding the interest on the public debt, excluding the cost of the Veterans’ Administration— all other costs of the Federal Govern- ment have increased from $2,000,000,000 in 1946 to an estimated $12,'700,000,000 in the President’s budget estimate for 1951. Today, Mr. President, this Nation is faced with a crisis as severe as any that has confronted this Nation in its history. We do not know what the immediate fu- ture will ask of us. We do know that we may be called upon to exert every last measure of strength. Events of the past few weeks ought to have convinced every American of the need for military and padustrial preparedness to match the our, ‘We cannot spend our substance today on projects not directly related to the requirements for national defense and the minimum needs of Government operation, This amendment which is submitted today, Mr. President, will not balance the budget. I do not promise that it will stop all unessential operations of the Govern- ment. I know there are many members of the Senate who do not believe this amendment goes far enough. But I would remind you, Mr. President, that it is an amendment in the nature of a com- promise, worked out by several different Senators representing several different sections of the country and representing both major political parties. The amendment proposes to reduce most appropriations for nondefense items by 10 percent. The directive given in the amendment to the executive branch of the Govern- ment is clear and unmistakable. There is no surrender of authority from the legislative branch to the execu- tive branch of the Government. If this amendment carries, the President will know exactly how much is appropriated under each title of the bill. Beeause the sponsors of this amend- ment are aware that there may be some appropraition titles which cannot stand a cut of 10 percent, we have written into the amendment the power to transfer between appropriations within depart- ments and independent agencies, 10155 In practical effect, Mr. President, this transfer authority makes the cuts department-wide. The amendment carries sensible exemptions. National defense, everything having to do with the war effort, atomic energy, and related programs are exempted. Mr. McKELLAR. Myr. President, I have just entered the Senate Chamber. Has the Senator's amendment been printed and does it lie on the table? Mr. BRIDGES. I will say to the Sena- tor from Tennessee that I have just sub- mitted it. Mr. McKELLAR. Has the Senator a copy of the amendment which he can let me see? Mr. BRIDGES Yes. I send a copy of it to the Senator’s desk, The Post Office, already operating on a deficiency basis, is exempted. Payments of pensions and benefits to veterans and other personnel are exempted. The fixed commitments of trust funds and existing contracts are exempted. I would like at this time, Mr. Presi- dent, to give a firm estimate of the amount that this amendment would re- duce appropriations and reappropria- tions found in the 1951 bill. I am in- formed that the Director of the Budget currently is preparing such an estimate, which should be available within the next day or so. Pending an estimate from the Bureau of the Budget, I believe this amendment may reduce the bill by approximately $600,000,000. Mr. President, the amendment is a workable amendment. If it is adopted, appropriations and expenditures for nondefense items will be reduced. Of course, Mr. President, this amend- ment is going to lessen some of the op- erations of Government, The number of employees in the executive branch will be reduced. I would remind the Senate, however, that defense agencies already are building up their employee list and that a manpower shortage in Washing- ton is beginning to threaten. The amendment, also, will reduce ap- propriations for programs not directly Telated to defense. If it is adopted, we will put off for another year some of the construction and development which we had proposed to do this year. It is my hope, Mr. President, that the members who urged so strongly putting off construction of a badly needed Sen- ate Office Building will be consistent and support the amendment. I can anticipate the arguments that will be forthcoming in support of some of the nondefense programs which the amendment is going to reduce. But this is a critical period and many worth-while things must be put off. I, personally, would favor a deferment of all nones- sential public works at this time. The amendment calls only for a 10 percent reduction fn such spending. The people of America, Mr. Presi- dent, already are called upon to sacri- fice their sons in battle. They know that, should the international situation be- come worse, they will be called upon
10156 for many sacrifices of civilian require- ments. The people of America will stand behind Congress, Mr. President, if we have the courage to cut from the Presi- dent’s budget some of the funds not necessary for national defense. In closing, Mr. President, let me say that I was very much impressed with a statement made a few years ago by a legislator in the State of Vermont, on the question of building an executive mansion for the Governor of Vermont. That question came up, and it had very popular support from the civic groups in the State. Finally one veteran legis- lator from a small town rose and turned the tide by making this statement: “I am not for voting money that we ain't got for something we don’t need.” Mr. President, I think that very prac- tical, humble statement could well be applied to the situation in our country today. I, too, am not in favor of spend- ing what we do not have—for today we are operating on a deficit—for things we do not need. That is the purpose of this amend- ment. Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Pres- ident, will the Senator yield? The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. CuapMan in the chair). Does the Sena- tor from New Hampshire yield to the Senator from New Jersey? Mr. BRIDGES. I yield. Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I am very much impressed with the statement which has just been made by the distin- guished Senator from New Hampshire, and I feel that I should like to identify myself with the proposal he is making. I should like to ask him a question, if I may. Mr. BRIDGES. Certainly. Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. At the time when I was studying the ECA pro- gram this year, and when I was discuss- ing the matter with Mr. Hoffman, I asked him about the estimates of the funds needed by the ECA to carry on its work. He said that he was perfectly willing to take his cuts across the board, if he had to, but he hoped they would not be imposed upon the ECA after its funds had already been cut. So I wish to ask the Senator whether he thinks it would be fair, after the funds for ECA already have been cut, to make a further cut of 10 percent in the ECA funds or commitments, which I feel are a part of our defense program. Mr. BRIDGES. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from New Jersey, who is a great student of international affairs, and who I know has a great interest in the ECA, as I have, that this amend- ment does not exclude the ECA, It does exclude arms implementation or other military aid. We would be delighted to have the Senator from New Jersey join with us in sponsoring the amendment, and have him reserve the right on his part to take a different position on the ECA item, if he chooses to do so. Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I think I would check with those in the ECA with whom I have been studying this matter, and see what position they would take in regard to the ECA program which is the bedrock of our operations in regard CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE to European aid; and I believe that T would reserve the right, when the matter comes up on the fioor of the Senate, to try to restore the part of the ECA funds which then might be missing, if a 10- percent cut had already been made in the ECA funds, or if one was then pro- posed. Mr. IVES. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. BRIDGES. I yield. Mr. IVES. Is it not a fact that if the ECA funds are found to be insufficient by the end of the calendar year, we very possibly can provide for the ECA by means of a deficiency appropriation before the next calendar year? Mr. BRIDGES. Of course, that will be possible, particularly in view of the fact that, of course, it was not possible for the ECA to make exact estimates. Under those circumstances, the Con- gress was generous enough to appropri- ate more than ample funds for the ECA, and the ECA was efficient enough to con- duct its operations in such a way as to have a carry-over of $277,000,000. It ts quite understandable that it was impossible for exact estimates to be made of the funds required by ECA. How- ever, the situation would be as the Sen- ator says, and the representatives of ECA would be able to come before the congressional committees at such a time when we would know more definitely about the world situation. Mr. IVES. I thank the Senator. Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? : Mr. BRIDGES. I yield. Mr. FERGUSON. The Senator from New Jersey has raised questions about the ECA. Is it not true that in the amendment, of which the junior Sen- ator from Michigan is a cosponsor, pro- vision is made that the 10-percent cut shall be on the amount stated in the bill as it is finally passed by both Houses of Congress and is signed by the Presi- dent? Mr. BRIDGES. That is correct. Mr. FERGUSON. So the conferees will be able to determine what, in their opinion, is the amount which is to be cut 10 percent; is not that a correct statement? Mr. BRIDGES. Yes; that is correct. Mr. FERGUSON. As also indicated, is it not true that if an emergency arises, and if the President feels he needs money with which to take care of such an emer- gency—whether in regard to the ECA or otherwise—it is possible for a deficiency or supplemental appropriation to be requested? Mr. BRIDGES. Of course. Mr. FERGUSON. So the purpose of this amendment is to attempt to have the Congress cut the civilian, nonmili- tary, nonfighting budget 10 percent; is that correct? Mr. BRIDGES. That is correct. Mr. FERGUSON. When we are at war, even if it is termed a police action, and we are going to supply the men at the front and those who are engaged in arming Europe, then most certainly the time has come when we must save some- thing from the least essential operations of Government in order to be able to give JULY 14 sufficient assistance and make sufficient appropriations for activities which are vital and essential. Mr. BRIDGES. That is the philoso- phy of the amendment, and I think it is the best possible approach which can be devised at this time. Mr. President, we have not had an opportunity to invite Senators generally to join in spohsoring the amendment, but I should like to say that any Sen- ator—regardless of political party—is in- vited to become a cosponsor of the amendment. If Senators will notify us of that desire on their part, their names can be added to the amendment before it is printed this evening. Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. BRIDGES. I yteld. Mr. LANGER. I have not seen the amendment, but under the circumstances I should like to know whether the pro- posed cut would apply to the rural mail carriers. Would they be cut 10 percent, under the provisions of the amendment? Mr. BRIDGES. The amendment ex- cludes the Post Office Department in its entirety. Mr. LANGER. How about the Vet- erans’ Administration? Mr. BRIDGES. The amendment ex- cludes it in its entirety. Mr. LANGER. What does the amend- ment include? Mr. BRIDGES. It includes all the civilian components of the Government which do not directly apply to the mili- tary, to veterans, to arms implementa- tion aid, to the FBI, to the Secret Serv- ice, to the Immigration Service, to grants in aid to the States, and so forth. Mr. LANGER. How many Govern- ment employees, or what percent, would be affected by the amendment? Mr. BRIDGES. I do not know that I can state the exact percentage of Gov- ernment employees who would be af- fected by the amendment, but I would say to the distinguished Senator from North Dakota that the amendment has been worked out very carefully so that it would not have the effect of injuring any program which is vital or essential at this time. Mr. LANGER. Do I correctly under- stand from the distinguished Senator— if he will yield further—that the con- ferees will be able to determine which of the Government departments the amendment will affect and which ones it will not affect? Mr. BRIDGES. No; they are stated in the amendment. What the Senator from Michigan said was that the con- ferees, of course, will determine the exact amount of the bill—as between the amount of the bill as passed by the House and the amount of the bill as passed by the Senate. So the amend- ment will apply to the amount arrived at in that way, rather than to the amount carried in the bill as passed by the Senate. That was the point the Sen- ator from Michigan made, I believe. Mr. LANGER. I thank the Senator. Mr. BYRD. Myr. President, the Sen- ator from New Hampshire has made a splendid presentation of it, and I shall not attempt to cover the ground he has
1950 covered; as a cosponsor of this amend- ment, I desire to discuss it briefly, When the appropriation bill passed the House of Representatives it contained the Thomas-Taber amendment providing for reductions by formula in addition to those specifically set forth in the various appropriation items, This over-all formula reduction to provide further economy was adopted on the floor of the House by a vote of more than 2 to 1. The predominating criti- cism of the House provision has been with respect to the technical difficulties which would arise in its administration. The Senate committee amendment, which is offered as an amendment to the Thomas-Taber amendment in the House, has been drafted with the benefit of as- sistance by technicians from the Bureau of the Budget, the General Accounting Office, and the Senate Legislative Draft- ing Counsel. The Bureau of the Budget 18 now preparing a careful estimate of the savings. For myself, I should not hesitate at this time, in this perilous condition of the country, to vote for much larger re- ductions in domestic civilian expendi- tures. We are virtually in a state of war and from recent experience we know what military operations cost. This amend- ment applies no reduction to appropria- tions for the Military Establishment or for direct activities in support of our military defense. In the current circumstances of inter- national crisis abroad with its fiscal and physical requirements at home, I vigor- ously urge that nonessential domestic civilian expenditures should be cut to the absolute minimum. This amendment does not go that far, Iwish it did. Iwishitdid. I would feel much better about the security of the Nation. I realize, of course, that much of the appropriations in this bill are tied to long-term commitments made by law which cannot be remedied in an appro- priation bill. I take this occasion to repeat what I have been saying for years: We should proceed with caution toward the enactment of basic legislation which in effect commits the Federal Govern- ment ito virtually permanent spending programs, and I hope that before the next appropriation bill reaches the Sen- ate, the Senate Appropriations Commit- tee will be able to advise us as to these programs and how much each of them costs in terms of requested appropria- tions. The Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Bripces], the ranking minority member of the Appropriations Commit- tee, has explained in great detail, as I have said, the provisions of the amend- ment. It suffices for me to say that we do not propose by this amendment to reduce any appropriation essential to our national defense. The nonessentials which would be reduced would be cut by only 10 percent and there are few who would argue that there is not more than 10 percent of fat in every appropriation which comes before Congress. In addi- tion, I am confident that we have had the benefit of the best technical advice XCVI-—640 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE available in the drafting of this amend- ment so that it simply raises the question as to whether, in the face of war condl- tions, we choose to retrench by 10 per- cent in nonessential Federal expendi- tures which involve neither the military defense of the Nation nor legal and moral commitments to individuals, cor- porations, or political subdivisions. I repeat, it is my sincere belief that a 10-percent reduction can be absorbed at this time on every budget expenditure item with the exception of interest on the debt and national defense. As a cosponsor of this amendment, I shall support it in the belief that it rep- resents the very least that we can do in an effort to make secure the fiscal posi- tion of the Government of the United States. For myself, as I have said, I should like to do much more in the direc- tion of reducing nondefense expendi- tures, and I believe more may have to be done if conditions develop as it now ap- pears they will, requiring large addi- tional expenditures for our military de- fense. Mr. WHERRY, Mr CAPEHART and Mr. LANGER addressed the chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Virginia yield, and if so, to whom? Mr. BYRD. I yield first to the Sena- tor from Nebraska. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, I de- sire to ask the distinguished Senator from Virginia a question, but before do- ing so, I should like to state that I have worked with the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations for many years, and with the entire minor- ity membership, and I am well satisfied that all the Senators who have joined in offering this amendment to the appro- priations bill have done so after careful study and consideration. If adopted, 1 feel satisfied that it will work mechani- cally in a very satisfactory way. That is a difficult thing to do, when an attempt is made either by way of rescission or by limitation or restriction in an appropria- tion bill. I wish to say for the record that I re- gret that a greater reduction in the appropriations bill cannot be brought about this year. I feel satisfied that the Appropriations Committee, prior to the development of the Korean situation, had done a splendid job, and I wish to compliment the chairmen of the various subcommittees upon the bill which has been reported to the Senate. After nearly 8 years service in the Senate, with most of the time membership on the Appropriations Committee one of my regular assignments, I am satisfied that the Appropriations Committee has given a great deal of conscientious effort and study to the appropriations for indi- vidual items. But I must say that, in view of the emergency which confronts us, there can be no doubt of the abso- lute necessity of making every possible savings, to the end that military items for the defense of the country and trust fund items, which must be protected, are given adequate supplies of money, when and if the demand comes. I should like to ask the distinguished Senator from Virginia and the distin- guished Senator from New Hampshire 10157 whether they have made any estimate of the saving which would be effected by this amendment. I do not know whether the figures have been worked out to the last detail, but I wonder whether the Senator can give us an estimate. Mr. BYRD. The Senator from New Hampshire, I believe, estimated the sav- ing at about $600,000,000. Mr. BRIDGES. From $600,000,000 to $700,000,000. Mr. BYRD. A very careful estimate will be made by the Budget Bureau within the next few days. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further? Mr. BYRD. I yield. Mr. WHERRY. Can the Senator give us an estimate of the total amount of reductions made by the House and the Senate, without the adoption of this amendment, and of the total amount of reductions that would be made with it? Mr. BYRD. As a rough estimate, I should say that the reductions made by the House and the Senate without the adoption of this amendment would be about $1,200,000,000. I should say that the reductions, including the reductions proposed by this amendment, would ap- proximate $2,000,000,000. Mr. WHERRY. I thank the distin- guished Senator from Virginia, and to join with him wholeheartedly in his ob- servations, in the course of which he has stated—and I agree—that this certainly is a step in the right direction. I hope the Senate will look with favor upon the amendment, and that it will have the support of the Senate as an effort to save money where money can be saved, and to make it possible to use money where it must be used, if and when occasion arises Mr LANGER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. BYRD. I yield. Mr. LANGER. I should like to inquire of the distinguished Senator how the proposed 10-percent cut under this amendment would be applied. Would it apply pro rata? Mr, BYRD. It would be applied to each department of the Government, to be broken up by each of the departments for specific application within the de- partment. Mr, LANGER. For example, would it mean, if the amendment is adopted, that travel expense could be cut 10 percent? Mr. BYRD. It would. Mr. LANGER. Would it mean that the supplies could be cut 10 percent? Mr. BYRD. It is left to the discretion of the heads of the departments. The appropiation for the department itself would be cut, and that cut would have to be distributed within the department. Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further? Mr, BYRD. I yield. Mr, LANGER. I am reminded of a speech made some months ago, possibly a year ago, by the distinguished Senator, showing that in one department there was enough paper on hand to last for 78 years, and that another department had certain supplies on hand sufficient to last for 287 years. Under this amendment, I take it, it would not be necessary to cut
10158 those supplies 10 percent, but they could be cut out entirely. Mr. BYRD. The Senator is correct. Mr. LANGER. I should like to ask one more question, if Imay. If the amend- ment should be adopted, how would it affect the Byrd-Langer amendment? Mr. BYRD. It would not affect the Byrd-Langer amendment, because that provides for a limitation upon employ- ment, It would not be affected at all. Mr. LANGER. In other words, the Bureau of the Budget would still have to reduce personnel? Mr. BYRD. Yes. Mr. LANGER. I thank the Senator. IMPORTANCE OF RETAINING OUR SUR- PLUS WAR MATERIALS Mr, CAPEHART. Mr. President, I hold in my hand an article appearing in today’s issue of the Washington Daily News, by Jim G. Lucas, entitled “GI's Could Use Tanks We Let Go.” Ido not rise to talk about it in a spirit of criti- cism, but, rather, to make a suggestion after I have read the article: American GI’s, fighting a losing battle against Russian-made heavy tanks in Korea, could use some of those Uncle Sam lost, sold, or gave away a few years back. It wasn't too long ago that Uncle Sam was peddling surplus tanks to all takers at a few cents on the dollar. In July 1947, for in- stance, we sold 10 Nght tanks, worth ¢270,- 000, to Belgium for $10,000. In December, we disposed of 31 more, worth $568,000, to Canada for $17,000. In January 1948 we sold nine tank en- gines, track assemblies, and spare parts, worth $166,000, to Venezuela for $8,000. In March, 849,000 worth of engines and spare parts went to Guatemala for $2,000. In April, we closed a deal with Ecuador for 21 tank engines and spare parts, worth ¢400,000, for $20,000. In September of that year, we eold Mexico 12 tank engines, worth 6291,000, for $14,000. NINE THOUSAND AND EIGHTY-FIVE TANKS LOST The Hoover Commission’s national secu- rity task force said we made 86,000 tanks during World War II. Army statistics in- dicated we had 25,045 at the end of the war. In 1948, the task force said, the Army could account for 15,960 tanks. The task force said the Army was unable to state what had be- come of the others. The task force said it believed the Army didn’t know how many tanks it had. The task force charged that the Army was ask- ing for money to modernize more tanks than were in stock. The Army overlooked the fact, the task force said, that 102 had been sold to the Marines, and asked for money to modernize them, too. Moreover, the task force said, the Army couldn't account for the vast quantities of matériel on hand at the end of hostilities. The Army says it has matériel sufficient to equip only 18 divisions, although at the end of the war it had 89 fully equipped divi- sions and great additional quantities of ma- tériel in the pipeline. Mr. President, in order to save the time of the Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have the remainder of the article printed at this point in the Recorp. There being no objection, the remain- der of the article was ordered to be printed in the Rxcorp, as follows: “Loss of easily replaceable matériel is easlly understood, but the loss of complicated, hard-to-produce military equipment is an- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE other matter, especially as the military was put on notice 6 months after the end of the ‘war as to the seriousness of the international situation.” HOOVER REPORTED IT The case of the missing tanks was firat told to Congress by ex-President Herbert Hoover on April 11, 1949. The next day, ex-Army Secretary Kenneth C. Royall said Mr. Hoover was totally incorrect. Mr, Royall said 7,170 tanks were found to be obsolete and were transferred, sent abroad as military aid or lost for similar reasons. He said the tank transfer to the Marines was discovered and adjusted accordingly. Mr. Royall said equipment for 35 divisions was sold to civilian, destroyed, demilitarized, given to the Red Cross or UNRRA, salvaged or made part of the Greek-Turkish aid pro- gram. Equipment for another 23, he said, was out of balance as to quantity, or needed repair. The rug was pulled out from under Mr. Royall the next day. Defense Secretary Louis Johnson, at his first press conference, agreed with Mr. Hoover, who later said his facts were “taken from their original source, confirmed by officers in charge, and rechecked with in- dependent sources.” The Hoover Commission task force said that—-whatever the reason—it was evident we no longer had the tanks or the equip- ment for 71 demobilized divisions. “Whether or not the equipment was per- fect,” the task force said, “its possession today would be of great comfort and value to the peaceful countries of the warld.” Mr. CAPEHART. My. President, when World War II ended, I urged as strongly as I could that the Government should not dispose of any war matériel, I even urged that it should dispose of no fac- tories. I recommended that it dispose only of that which was perishable, on the theory that the best we could do was to receive from 10 to 15 percent of the value of the surplus war matériel, and that we might need it again sometime. The argument against that suggestion, of course—and there was some merit to it—was that war matériel become ob- solete. My answer then was, as my answer js today, that it is better to have obsolete material than to have no material at all. The purpose of my rising, Mr. Pres- ident, was to urge upon the President of the United States that if we are dis- posing of any war material at the mo- ment, such disposal be immediately dis. continued and; that we keep such mate- rial, even though it be obsolete. I feel that my recommendation when the war ended was sound, and I think it is sound today, that we not dispose of any of our surplus war material. If we had today the tanks which we had at the end of the war they would be very helpful to the boys who are fighting in Korea. Mr. SCHOEPPEL, Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. CAPEHART. I shall be very happy to yield to the Senator from Kansas. Mr. SCHOEPPEL. Is it not true that some material which might be classified as obsolete consists of critical material which is not available at this time, and might it not be very well for us to con- sider it from that angle and to keep and preserve what we have? Mr. CAPEHART. There is no ques- tion but that the Senator is correct. JULY 14 As I said a moment ago, Mr. President, I am making these remarks not in any spirit of criticism, because we are at war, but only to urge upon our Government that it not dispose of any war materials, because even that which looks like scrap is made of steel, copper, and other mate-~ rials which in an all-out war effort be- come scarce, I strongly urge that the Government immediately stop disposing of any s0- called surplus war material, because, frankly, I do not think there is any such thing as surplus war material. It may have become obsolete, but obsolete ma- terial is better than no material at all. I think we made a mistake, and I so stated 5 years ago, in disposing of our war plants and of surplus war material. I know it is easy for one’s hindsight to be better than his foresight, and I am not trying to be critical in this instance, because we are at war, and it behooves every American to support his Govern- ment in time of war. I think it behooves us as Members of the United States Senate to offer constructive suggestions. I believe the suggestion which I have just offered, that the Government discontinue the disposal of even one penny’s worth of war materials at this time, until the war in Korea is over, is a good suggestion, When that war is over, let us keep our war material, because obsolete material is always better than no material at all. STATEHOOD FOR ALASKA—H. R. 831 Mr. BUTLER. Mr. President, I desire to speak for a few minutes on a very important matter that is to come up for Senate consideration soon after we com- plete the consideration of the Appro- priations bill, now before this body. I refer to the statehood bill for Alaska, House bill 881. The chairman of the Committee on Interior and Insular Af- fairs, on Monday last, made a similar short statement at the time he submitted the report of the majority for inclusion in the Rrcorp, The origina] version of House bill 331 was, no doubt, pretty well circulated in Alaska both before and after {ts pas- sage by the House, but I doubt if a dozen copies of the bill as finally reported by the Senate committee have reached Alaska, I personally airmailed four or five copies to the dally newspapers of Alaska as soon as I obtained printed copies of the bill as revised by the Senate committee. To date, I have heard from only one or two persons in Alaska with reference to the contents of the revised bill. Iam certain that the revised Sen- ate bill is a tremendous improvement over the House version, but I also feel that it may be wise to take more time to perfect the Senate bill, as evidenced by the editorial from the Juneau Daily Alaska Empire, which I shall insert in the Recorp with this statement. If more people in Alaska were given the opportunity of reading the Statehood bill, as now proposed, I feel certain there would be many protests, not only with reference to the public lands provision, but also with regard to the provisions affecting the mining and fishing indus- tries of the Territory.
1950 At this point, Mr. President, I ask that the editorial above referred to be made a@ part of my statement. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Ir Wit Be Too Lars When the original Alaska statehood bill, H. R. 331, after having passed the House, came to the Senate, and a hearing was had before the Senate Committee on Territorial and Insular Affairs, it was brought to the attention of the committee that this bill had not been given any circulation in the Terri- tory, 8o that very few persons were familiar with its contents. It was also pointed out that the provisions of the bill relating to the transfer of public lands to the new State were wholly inade- quate. Apparently most of the proponents of statehood agreed to that and so did the Members of the committee, for the bill has been amended in the Senate committee, and the chief amendments deal with section 5, relating to the transfer of public lands to the new State. We have received a copy of the bill as it now stands and as it was amended by the committee on June 21 and 23. Sec- tion 5 (b) of the latest bill reads as follows: “After 5 years from the admission of Alaska into the Union, the State, in addition to any other grants made in this section, shall be entitled to select not to exceed 20,000,000 acres from the vacant, unappropriated, and unreserved public lands in the State. Such selections shall be made in reasonably come pact tracts: Provided, That valid, existing rights shall not be affected by any such selec- tions or grants. Where the lands desired are unsurveyed at the time of selection, the Sec- retary of the Interior shall survey the exte- rior boundaries of the area requested without any subdivision thereof and shall issue a pat- ent for such selected area in terms of the exterior boundary survey. Such lands may be granted or sold by the State in tracts of not more than 640 acres for any purpose, but with a reservation to the State of a royalty of not more than 124 percent on all min- erals produced therefrom, The lands granted to the State of Alaska pursuant to this sub- section, and income therefrom and the pro- ceeds thereof when said lands are sold, shall be held by said State as a public trust for the support of public schools and other public educational institutions.” In the first amendment made by the com- mittee the provison “that valid existing rights shall not be affected by any such selec- tions or grants” was not included. However, the inclusion of that in section 5 (b) would seem to add very little protection for the new State in acquiring public lands. As the section reads, the State shall be en- titled after 5 years to select not to exceed 20,000,000 acres from vacant, unappropriated and unreserved lands in the State. As the tracts are selected the Secretary of the Inte- rior shall survey the exterior boundaries of the areas requested and shall issue a patent for such selected area in terms of the exte- rior boundary survey. Now, let us suppose that the new State after 5 years begins to select areas to be transferred to it by patent from the United States. Let us say it selects an area con- taining three or four thousand acres in one locality. The new State is not likely to select mountain peaks or tundra, but it may be as- sumed that it will try to select the best lands available, and it is difficult to conceive of any considerable tracts of land which might be so selected which would not contain within their exterior boundaries some unpatented mining claims and some other unpatented ground held by settlers for one purpose or another, In the first place, since the State is aue thorized to select only from vacent, unap- propriated, and unreserved public lands, it CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE could hardly be said that tracts which in- clude unpatented mining claims and other unpatented claims would be either vacant or unappropriated; therefore, according to the atrict letter of the law, the Secretary would refuse to make the survey and issue the patent to the State. If he should attempt to make the survey and issue the patent, just how would the valid existing rights of any person be pro- tected? Furthermore, there might be exist- ing rights which the Secretary or the new State might consider not to be valid. This would surely cause litigation in case the Secretary should consider the lands to be vacent, unappropriated, and unreserved and issue the patent to the new State. The very best he could do would be to survey the lands selected and issue a patent which would contain a reservation in the Janguage of the statehood bill that all valid existing rights on the land are unaffected. No one would know what those valid exist- ing rights were, how many claims were in- volved, their area or extent, or what other rights might be affected, and there is no ma- chinery set up in the bill for determining these things. This is a most serious matter, and one which might well prevent the new State from ever getting any public lands or if it did ac- quire any, there would be endless law suits to determine who had valid existing rights on those lands prior to their transfer. Who would be the judge as to what was a valid existing right? In all cases it would require litigation. Another objectionable feature in section 5 is the provision for the sale of State lands in tracts of ‘not more than 640 acres for any purpose.” The meaning of that phrase is certainly obscure. We do not know whether it means that not more than 640 acres may be sold to any person or corporation—but if it doesn't mean that, it is meaningless, If it does mean that any one person or corporation is limited to 640 acres, what would happen in the case of a mining com- pany like the Alaska-Juneau Gold Mining Co. which operated before the war a large low-grade property on a very narrow margin requiring a very considerable acreage of land exceeding 640 acres? A mining property such as the Alaska-Juneau requires a very large investment, requires a large number of claims and millsites, power plant sites, land for transmission lines, dam sites, etc. How could it ever operate if it is restricted to owning 640 acres? Another very objectionable provision in section 5 (b) is that which provides that when the State acquires lands and sells them it must reserve a royalty on minerals of not more than 12% percent. The mining in- dustry in Alaska and generally throughout the United States has always been strongiy opposed to royalties, yet the statehood bill, for some reason which we cannot fathom, requires that the State must reserve a royalty on minerals, whether the people desire it or not. In our opinion this would further dis- courage mining in the new State. A royalty is on gross production and again let us illustrate by taking the case of the Alaska-Juneau mine. It was a large low- grade mine and it was necessary to operate on a very extensive scale, mining 18,000 to 14,000 tons of ore a day on account of the very low grade of the ore. The mining in the prewar days was on a scale which re- quired a gross production, we believe, of between five and six million dollars a year. The profit, in years when there was a profit, was very slim, and even if a royalty of 1 percent on the gross production had been in effect, that is to say, if such a mine were operated on lands acquired from the State, the royalty alone could well mean the dif- ference between profit and loss. It is dificult to see how such provisions were inserted in the statehood bill by the 10159 committee and we repeat what we said before, that if statehood is to be granted to Alaska, it is certainly of sufficient importance to permit the people of the Territory to express some opinion as to the public lands provi- sions of the bill. We think the bill as amended by the Sen- ate committee should be generally distrib- uted throughout the Territory in order that the people may read and consider and com- ment upon section 5 before it is enacted. It will be too late afterward, Mr. BUTLER. An Associated Press dispatch from Seattle, under date of July 10, quotes a member of the International Fisheries Commission to the effect that the fisheries provision in the amended statehood bill would encourage foreign entanglements. I personally feel that we already have enough troublesome in- ternational entanglements without add- ing to them with a hasty passage of this bill. Since I assume, Mr. President, that there will be considerable debate on this and similar provisions of the Alaska statehood bill, I will not take the time of the Senate now to elaborate further, ex- cept to request that the press release referred to above be made a part of my remarks at this point. There being no objection, the dispatch was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: IFC PROTESTS TO PROPOSED CHANGE, STATE- HOOD BILL SEaTTLE, July 10.—An International Fish- eries Commission member today charged the fisheries provision of the amended Alaska statchood bill would encourage for- eign entanglements. Edward W. Allen, a member of General MacArthur's fisheries mission to Japan, said the amended bill “threatens to sacrifice an important food asset of this country.” Allen contended the bill should be rewrit- ten to state specifically what fishery control is to be vested in the proposed new State (Alaska). “At least it should be redrafted to provide expressly for the repeal of the present fishery laws relating to Alaska,” he said. The Federal Government has been regulat. ing salmon fishing for many years. “It 1s the only power which can protect salmon runs in the future against destruc- tive fishing by Russians and Japanese,” Allen said. Allen said the amended statehood bill does not repeal the present Federal laws protect- ing Alaska fishing, but does take away all facilities for enforcing them. Mr. BUTLER. I also request that a news article entitled “Query Asked Into Palmer Airport Deal,” published in the Daily Alaska Empire on July 10, be made a part of my remarks at this point. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: QUERY ASKED INTO PALMER ArrPorT DraL— Dickrr To Ger Matcuing Funps From Fep- grav Agency Unorr Finz, News-Miner FaIrBANKS, ALASKA, July 10..—The Fair- banks Daily News-Miner has proposed 4 Federal inquiry into a $150,000 land trans- action for an airport project at Palmer, in the Matanuska Valley. The newspaper said its own investigation showed an attempt was being made to place a disproportionate value on the land to get matching funds from the Federal Govern- ment. About 128 acres of land at Palmer are in- volved. The newspaper said the estimated construction cost of the airport was $120,000.
10160 To acquire the land, the News-Miner satd, the Territory paid the Palmer Airport Asso- ciation $150,000, which was $1,172 an acre. The paper sald offictal records of the Territory at Juneau show that the Palmer Association shortly thereafter repaid $145,000 to the Ter- ritory. The News-Miner said the transaction cre- ated a situation in which the Territory might try to recover from the Federal Treasury @ payment of $37,000 tn matching funds (25 percent of the land-acquisition cost) to offset expenditures on Palmer airfield facilities prior to 1949. It was in 1949 that the legis- lature took action that made the Territory eligible t6 benefits under the Federal act. In response to a reporter's inquiry at Juneau, Governor Gruening commented: “I am not familiar with details of the Palmer Airport deal, but I know it was necessary to set the price of land at $150,000 in order to permit the Territory to receive matching funds for moneys spent prior to passage of the enabling act ” A meeting of the aviation board has been called for Tuesday in Anchorage. Mr. BUTLER. Mr. President, my ref- erence to the Palmer Airport deal is men- tioned only to indicate a condition pre- vailing in Territorial finances that cer- tainly is not encouraging for statehood, Under date of July 8 there appeared an article about the same airport deal in the Anchorage Daily News. I ask that this article also be made a part of my remarks at this point. There being no objection, the article ‘was ordered to be printed in the REcorp, as follows: News-Minzrx Dectares HuGr PAYMENT NICKED TAXPAYERS Gov. Ernest Gruening, commenting on the Pairbanks News-Miner story, sald, “I am not familiar with details of the Palmer Airport deal, but know it was necessary to set the price of lend at $150,000 in order to permit the Territory to recetve matching funds for moneys spent prior to passage of Enabling Act.” A meeting of the four-man aviation board has been called for Tuesday in Anchorage to discuss the airport situation. Charges that there were irregularities in payments made by the Territory of Alaska to the Palmer Airport Association for Federal airports were hurled today in Fairbanks by the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner. The statements were made in a front-page story and in an editorial in today’s edition af the newspaper. Held in question by the newspaper was payment of $150,000 for Jand on which the new Palmer Airport is being butlt, and shortly thereafter the return to the Terri- tory by the Palmer Alrport Association of $145,000 of this sum. Editorially, the News-Miner charges that the transaction was arranged specifically to enable the Territory to collect from the Fed- eral Government matching funds against money spent by the Territory on the old Palmer Airport before the Federal airport act became effective in Alaska. The newspaper charges that by this trans- action Alaskans, as Federal taxpayers, are re- quired to pay another $87,500 (25 percent of the $150,000-land-acquisition cost), thus duplicating their earlier expenditure, as Ter- ritorial taxpayers, of 650,000 for financing the existing airport. The paper has demanded a congressional investigation of “this bizarre method of financing public tmprovements.” Published tn the newspaper today was a photostat showing that the $150,000 payment ‘was made by warrant No. 288540, issued April 11, 1950, for 12794 acres of land, or at the rate of $1,172 per acre. An accompanying CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE photostat of the Palmer Airport Association's minutes, dated April 15, 1950, discloses that the payment to the association of $150,000 and its repayment to the Territory of $145,- 000 was made to enable the Territory to claim 25-percent matching funds, or $37,500 yrom the Federal Government, based on the $150,000 valuation of the land. The minutes state: “In order to receive credit under said act for moneys already expended it would be necessary for the Pal- mer Afrport Association to place a value of 150,00 on the present premises and sel) the same to the Territory at such a figure, thereby allowing the Territory to receive 26-percent credit in matching funds for land acquisl- tion, an allowable cost under said act” The Federal moneys thus yielded, the min- utes state, would offset Territoria) expendi- tures of $50,000 made on the old Palmer Altr- port before the Federal Airport Ald Act be- came effective in Alaska. The balance of $150,000 retained by the association after payment to the Territory of 145,00 was used to purchase extra land for the new Palmer Alrport. Purchases included 11 acres from Harold Thuma for $2,640, 23 acres from Snodgrass and Newcomb for $1,600. E. Q. Fisher, assistant director of the CAA for Alaska, said that the Territory has not yet applied for payment of the matching funds. Records in the CAA office at Anchorage show that the cost for the airport was esti- mated at $5,500 in the original request for Federal aid of November 1949. The project application of March 1950 estimates the land cost at $150,000. The News-Miner charges that the meeting of the airport association, at which a price of $150,000 was placed on the land, took place on Apil 15, or 8 days after the voucher for the $150,000 payment was presented to the Territory, and 4 days after the warrant for payment was issued. Mr. BUTLER. Mr. President, much has been said about the urgency of grant- ing statehood to Alaska and Hawaii be- cause they are important in our defense system. Mr. President, this is pure sen- timental poppycock. Those who advance such silly arguments to be consistent should demand that South Korea be made a part of the United States, and given statehood, before we defend that country. Those sentimentalists also say “denial of statehood would be capital- ized by Communist propagandists every- where.” Myr. President, this is more silly poppycock. Who thinks we will over- come the Communist move, here or else- where, by throwing out sops, by granting statehood to keep them off our backs? I have complete confidence in the pa- triotism of Hawaii and Alaska. Those good people are going to defend our Union the same as did the people of Nebraska and many other States that were in Territorial status at the time of our own Civil War. Neither Nebraska nor any other Territory that I know of based its request for statehood on the fact that it helped to defend the Union. The full resources and power of America will go to the defense of either Hawaii or Alaska whenever occasion requires. Myr, President, there is no Member of this body who will defend the rights of minority groups more ardently than the senior Senator from Nebraska. But, Mr. President, I also feel that I have a re- sponsibility to defend the majority from being a victim of minority propaganda. Big plane loads of witnesses were flown Jury 14 here to testify for statehood recently, almost entirely at public expense, but not one person was permitted to come to appear as a witness to testify against statehood, unless he came at his own expense. Statehood hearings should be held in the Territories where both sides can be heard. Mr. President, I ask that my minority views on H. R. 331 be printed in the Recorp at this point. There being no objection, Mr. BuTLER’s minority views were ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Minoerry Views or Senator HucwH BUTLER ON ALasKa StatrHoop Bu, H. R. 331 Statehood for Alaska at this time might well spell financial ruin for that vast area of 866,481,600 acres, Instead of strengthening national defense as its proponents claim, passage of H. R. 331, by bringing economic chaos to an important, strategic area, might in fact weaken our military position. No military authority has at any time held that Alaska statehood is necessary for de- fense. I refer you to the testimony of Rear Adm. Ralph Wood, retired, appearing on pages 869 to 371 of the hearings before the com- mittee. He said: “It hag been stated that statehood for Alaska is now going to bolster somehow the national defense. In my opinion it makes no difference whether Alaska is a State or a Territory as far as national defense is con- cerned.” Defense Secretary Louis Johnson has stated that a stable local government aids defense. I feel that statehood for Alaska at this time would not result in a stable government. Instead, it would saddle that vast area with unbearable financial handicaps. FINANCIAL BURDENS In addition to granting rights, statehood imposes responsibilities and financial bur= dens. It would be unwise to grant statehood to ® population that cannot carry the ate tendant burdens. If we should make Alaska a State under the provisions of H. RB. $31, the financial burden will prevent the economic development of that area, It is unprecedented for a State to be unable to carry the cost of statehood but Iam afrald that may happen to Alaska if this bill passes, What would be the consequences? Educa- tion would suffer, public services would de- terlorate, highways and other means of com- munication would fall into disrepair. In- dustry, struggling under an unreasonable tax burden, would migrate from Alaska, and the population would decline rather than in- crease. That is the prospect that may face the people of Alaska if H. R. 831 passes. We shall be doing them no service by thrusting statehood upon them before they are in a position to support it. Would a substandard Btete be what Terri- torial Governor Gruening called for in his message to the nineteenth legislature when he referred to Alaska as o “shining exemplar in these northern latitudes of what the American way of life should and can be * * * across Bering Strait another way of life, which contrasts wholly with American ideals of freedom, is strongly entrenched?” SPARSE POPULATION If Alaska ts granted statehood, it will be far the largest in area. But deapite the re- cent vast immigration of Government em- ployees and persons working on Government projects, it would have the smallest popula- tion of any State in the Union. For each 10 square miles of land in Alaska there is but one settler. This is important because today @ certain minimum of population and in- dustry is essential to provide the nacezsarv