1950 Florida seeks to be practical in not in- sisting upon the amendment originally offered, in which the Senator from Ne- braska was kind enough to join him. I notice the Senator from Nebraska also has moved away from that proposal be- cause he does not feel he can get what was first proposed. So we are trying to secure the best we can. That does not mean we are not in favor of the original proposal, and I believe the Senator from Nebraska will be the first to agree with me. Mr. WHERRY. I will ask the Sen- ator this question: Is it not a fact that it has been my position all along that I felt that a special committee, either without or with legislative authority, should be set up in the United States Senate, and that we should determine that matter once and for all? If the Senate fails to do that, then has it not also been my contention that if the Sen- ate fails to do that that I have approved each and every measure that has come before the Senate to establish small- business committees, or subcommittees on small business in the regular com- mittees? Has that not been my posi- tion? Mr. HOLLAND. I rather think it has been. At any rate the Senator has said what I wanted him to say, namely, that he would still stand for Senate Resolu- tion 58, just as the sponsors and pro- ponents of the Reorganization Act are still for the elimination of the special committees, for the very reasons stated in their reports, for the reasons that were so impressive that an overwhelming majority of the Senate voted for that particular provision of the Reorganiza- tion Act. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator again yield? Mr. HOLLAND. I yield. Mr. WHERRY. Ido not want to take the time of the able Senator in discussing his own amendment to Senate Resolu- tion 58, but if the Senator will further yield, I shall ask one more question: Does the Senator feel—knowing how just and fair the Senator from Florida is, and the junior Senator from Nebraska stated on Friday that if there was anyone in the Senate who was to select the com- mittees from which the ex officio mem- bers would be chosen, the Senator from Nebraska knows of no other Senator he would rather have choose them than the junior Senator from Florida. But does the Senator from Florida feel that he can select, as among the committces themselves, which one is more impor- tant than the other, among Finance, Judiciary, Rules and Administration, and so forth? Matters come before the Committee on Rules and Administration which affect small business. The same is true respecting other committees. Which committee would the Senator choose above other committees? And after the Senator has chosen such a com- mittee, what member of that committee is the Senator going to choose? The minority side is limited to membership from only two major committees. Younger members of the committee would be blocked, because senior Mem- bers would be chosen, While there are CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE many younger Members who could render efficient service, they would not be chosen as members from two of the major committees. However, younger members of committees could serve on @ special committee, regardless of their membership on other committees. Mr. HOLLAND. _I will say to the Sen- ator from Nebraska that it is my under- standing, from the Legislative Reference Service, that the ex officio members will not find themselves deprived of any other major committee assignments, but that to the contrary, if provision be made for ex officio membership on a standing committee the reorganization measure itself provides for no such decision as the Senator mentions. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield on that point? Mr. HOLLAND. I yield. Mr. WHERRY. I do not understand the authority from which the Senator quoted. My understanding is that there would be no restriction with respect to appointment of membership to a special committee, but that with respect to ap- pointing Members to a subcommittee of a standing committee the question will at least arise as to whether a Member can serve on two major committees and also serve on the subcommittee of another committee. Mr. HOLLAND. It is my understand- ing that the ex officio members created not by the statute but by a rule of the Senate would not be subjected in any way to that embarrassment or to that rule. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further on that point? Mr. HOLLAND. I yield. Mr. WHERRY. I know that every time the question of an appointment comes up a senior member of a com- mittee really receives the appointment, rather than a new member. Mr. HOLLAND. MI will say to the Senator from Nebraska that would be a matter wholly for discussion on his side of the aisle as to his two additional Members and on this side of the aisle at to the three additional Members from this side. I am quite willing to leave in the judgment of the Vice President, the presiding officer of this body, and in the judgment of the steering com- mittees of the two sides, to pick the Senator who will be really helpful to small business from the sources provided in the resolution, Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further? Mr. HOLLAND. I yield. Mr. WHERRY. I would completely agree with that statement except that it is unfortunate to have a restriction which would prevent new Members of the Senate who are on major commit- tees, who might otherwise serve if a spe- cial committee were reconstituted, and where their services would be so valuable. Mr. HOLLAND. I would thoroughly agree with the Senator if the amendment I propose would accomplish that, but it would not. It would give complete lati- tude as to the naming of the three mem- bers from three standing committees, and even junior members could be chosen; and it would have no limitation at all as to where the two other members could 1937 be found. The Senator from Florida further said that he felt that by all means the junior Senator from Connec- ticut should be added from this side be- cause of his outstanding and successful experience in the field of small business. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for one more question? Mr. HOLLAND. Yes. Mr. WHERRY. Does the Senator feel that if the Committee on Banking and Currency is expanded—and, by the way, I want to say now that I would just as soon that commuttee should handle small-business problems as any other committee in the United States Senate, for I have complete respect for that com- mittee—but if it is to be expanded under the authority proposed by the Senator from Florida, first, to have expanded in- vestigative authority, and then have ex officio members voting on the legislative authority—I ask the Senator this ques- tion: Would it not override the jurisdic- tion of other standing committees? Would it not override the amendment the distinguished senior Senator from Colorado [Mr. JoHNson] succeeded in placing in Senate Resolution 110 whereby it was proposed by the Senate Commit- tee on Banking and Currency that the subcommittee of that committee was not to invade the jurisdiction of this com- mittee? I ask the Senator, how will the chairman of that subcommittee know when it would, by its action, exceed its authority, and when it would not excced its authority and jurisdiction? Mr. HOLLAND. I would remind the Senator from Nebraska that Senate Res- olution 101 would not be changed in that regard at all. The original amendment placed in that resolution on motion by the Senator from Colorado [Mr. Joun- son] would remain in it. There is not the slightest question in my proposal of breaking into the legislative jurisdiction of any committee. I would say also to my friend from Nebraska that Senate Resolution 101 already gives to the Com- mittee on Banking and Currency very full jurisdiction so far as investigation only is concerned. I read again—I read this into the Recorp in the absence of the Senator from Nebraska a few minutes ago—that part of the measure which deals with jurisdiction conferred upon the Committee on Banking and Currency solely with reference to small business: To make a full and complete study and investigation of such problems as it may deem proper relating to * * ®* (2) small business, including (A) problems threatening the continued existence of small- business enterprises, (B) financial aid to small-business enterprises, (C) financial aid to veterans operating small-business enter- prises, and (D) adequacy of Reconstruction Finance Corporation loan authority and ex- tensions thereof. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for one more question? Mr. HOLLAND. I yield. Mr. WHERRY. In other words, is the Senator not asking the same expanded authority, so far as investigations are concerned and other provisions which the Senator is denying to a special com- mittee? It seems to me the very argue ments the distinguished Senator is mak- ing in behalf of expanded authority for
1938 the Committee on Banking and Cur- rency is the reason why the Senator is opposed to a special committee. The Senator would give to the subcommittee, go far as investigation is concerned, the same authority, unlimited practically, that the distinguished Senator from Montana and the junior Senator from Nebraska are asking for under a special committee. Mr. HOLLAND. I will say to the Sen- ator from Nebraska that we are not giv- ing it to them. We gave it to them last year. We extended it to them by action this year. We will simply recognize the status quo and vest in the same good committee which now has that jurisdic- tion, and which was given the money to carry forward the investigation until February 15 next year, a representation coming from other committees and from other Members of the Senate, so as to make them more satisfactory to the feeling that small business would like to have, that that committee is repre- sentative of all trends of thought in the Senate. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for one final question? Mr. HOLLAND. I yield. Mr. WHERRY. Then why not give a special committee the same authority it is proposed to give the subcommittee, and let that special committee which crosses all lines of legislative commut- tees, have that jurisdiction over investi- gation, and not give them legislative au- thority, and then there will be an ideal committee to go clear across the lines, not limiting it to a subcommittee of the Committee on Banking and Currency. Mr. HOLLAND. First, the Commit- tee on Banking and Currency has al- ready dominant jurisdiction, and it has 60 been held by the ruling of the Presi- dent of the Senate, and by the vote of the Senate in this field of small business, so that there would be a relatively large number of those studies made as an investigatorial body which it might translate into legislation. My second point is that I feel that the attitude of small business in wanting @® more generally named committee coming from all the portions of the Sen- ate should be recognized. My third point is this, and I ask the able and economically minded Senator from Nebraska particularly to let me know his answer to this point. His pro- posal and that of the Senator from Montana [Mr. Murray] both simply offer from now until February 15, 1951, to set up a duplicating committee so far as investigatorial powers are concerned because the power has been given, and it is extended until that date by vote of the Senate, to the Banking and Currency Committee to make investigations in a very full and complete manner. I am wondering how the Senator from Nebraska, with his well-known feeling that we should economize both as re- gards the time of the Senate and the spending of the money of the taxpayers of the United States, justifies his present feeling that a new special committee, re- quiring a new staff and new expenditures, and requiring a certain amount of the time of Senators, whose time is not now so employed, be set up, not to take the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE place of the Banking and Currency Com- mittee or its subcommittee, but between now and February 15, 1951, to be com- pletely a duplicate body to that already set up. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, is the Senator from Florida asking me the question? Mr. HOLLAND. Yes; and I am glad to yield to the Senator from Nebraska, to permit him to reply. Mr. WHERRY. In reply to the Sena- tor’s question, let me say that, to begin with, I feel that the Committee on Small Business should be a permanent commit- tee without legislative authority. We might just as well settle that issue now, once and for all, and not have this ques- tion recur at each session of Congress. In view of that fact, it would not make any difference whether we established a special committee on this subject, be- cause the special committee would go into the questions within its jurisdiction. That is point No. 1. If there were any overlapping of juris- diction at all for a period of 3 or 4 or 5 months, it would not be nearly so costly as it would be if it began at the begin- ning of the session commencing with the next Congress. Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, I am disappointed in the statement of the Senator from Nebraska as to his No. 1 reason, because I had understood him to take the position that the junior Sen- ator from Florida takes, namely, that we would wish to have a standing com- mittee with legislative power appointed, rather than a standing committee with- out legislative power. Mr. WHERRY. I shall vote for either one or the other. I should like to have ®& permanent standing committee with legislative authority; but if I cannot have that, I shall do then just what the Senator from Florida will do, namely, I will get the best I can. So if I cannot obtain the establish- ment of a standing committee on the subject, with legislative authority, I am perfectly willing to have a permanent committee without legislative authority. The VICE PRESIDENT. The time of the Senator from Florida has expired. Mr. MURRAY. Mr. President, the statement has been repeatedly made on the floor of the Senate, during the de- bate, that the Banking and Currency Committee has the major jurisdiction over problems affecting small business. That simply is not so. Mr. CAIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. MURRAY. I yield. Mr. CAIN. An hour or so ago, when I had a short colloquy with the Senator from Montana, I understood him to say that the decision of the Senate that the Banking and Currency Committee had major jurisdiction over the problems of American small business was not cor- rect in the opinion of the Senator from Montana. Let me ask whether the Sen- ator from Montana intends to enlarge upon that premise? Mr. MURRAY. Yes; I intend to en- large upon it, and I shall show why that committee does not have major juris- diction in that field, FEBRUARY 20 Mr. President, under the Legislative Reorganization Act, part 1, Standing Rules of the Senate, the Banking and Currency Committee has no legislative power over matters relating to the fol- lowing subjects, all of which affect small business: First. Agriculture generally. Second. Inspection of livestock and meat products. Third. Agricultural and industrial chemistry. Fourth. Dairy industry. Fifth. Agricultural production and marketing and stabilization of prices of agricultural products. All these are under the Committee on Agriculture, and affect the meat-packing industry, including small meat packers all over the country, in whom we are greatly interested. They have appeared on many occasions before the special committee. They also affect the supply of sugar to soft-drink bottling industry under the Sugar Act of 1948, the fertilizer in- dustry, agricultural and industrial chemical industry, the dairy industry, the insecticide industry, the wholesale and retail agricultural produce business. Sixth. The Department of Defense— Army, Navy, Air Force. Seventh. Strategic and critical mate- rials necessary for the common defense. Both the above are under the Committee on Armed Services, and affect military procurement of all kinds, including min- eral products. Fighth. The postal service generally. Ninth. Census and the collection of statistics generally. Both of these un- der the Committee on Civil Service, and affecting postage rates and their effect on small-newspaper publishers, also di- rect-by-mail advertising concerns, and the competition of mail-order houses with small merchants; collection of sta- tistics useful to small-business concerns. Tenth. Studying the operation of Government activities at all levels with a view to determining its economy and efficiency. These are under the Com- mittee on Expenditures and affect pro- curement policies and practices of civil- jan agencies and departments of the Government. Eleventh. Revenue measures generally. Twelfth. Reciprocal trade agreements. Thirteenth. Tariffs and import quotas, and matters related thereto. Fourteenth. National social security. All these are under the Committee on Finance, and affect directly or indirectly everv small-business concern in the United States. Fifteenth. Measures to foster com- mercial intercourse with foreign nations and to safeguard American business in- terests abroad. ‘These are under the Committee on Foreign Relations, and affect directly every American small- business concern engaged in foreign commerce. Sixteenth. Interstate and foreign com- merce generally. Seventeenth. Regulation of interstate railroads, busses, trucks, and pipe lines. Eighteenth. Communication by tele- phone, telegraph, radio, and television. Nineteenth. Civil aeronautics.
1950 Twentieth. Merchant marine general- ly. Twenty-first. Measures relating to the regulation of common carriers by water. Twenty-second. Bureau of Standards. All these are under the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, and affect— Freight rates and shipping regulations, Small bus, truck, and pipe-line opera- tors. Independent operators of radio and television stations. Thousands of small-business men en- gaged in the aviation industry. Small ship owners. Scientific and technological aid to small business. Twenty-third. Protection of trade and commerce against unlawful restraints and monopolies—the greatest problem confronting small business. Twenty-fourth. Patents, and trade-marks. These are under the Committee on the Judiciary, and affect directly or indi- rectly every small-business concern in the United States. Twenty-fifth. Measures relating to education, labor, or public welfare gen- erally. Twenty-sixth. Mediation and arbitra- tion of labor disputes. Twenty-seventh. Wages and hours of labor. Twenty-eighth. Convict labor and the entry of goods made by convicts into interstate commerce. Twenty-ninth. Regulation or preven- tion of importation of foreign laborers under contract. Thirtieth. Child labor. Thirty-first. Labor statistics. Thirty-second. Labor standards. All these are under the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, and affect di- rectly or indirectly every small business in the United States. Thirty-third. Mineral resources of the public lands. Thirty-fourth. Mining interests gen- erally. Thirty-fifth. Mineral-land Jaws and claims and entries thereunder. All these are under the Committee on In- terior and Insular Affairs, and affect directly every small-mine operator in the country, every small-petroleum pro- ducer. Thirty-sixth. Flood control and im- provement of rivers and harbors. Thirty-seventh. Public works for the benefit of navigation, and bridges and dams. Thirty-eighth. Water power. Thirty-ninth. Oil and other pollution of navigable waters. Fortieth. Measures relating to the construction or maintenance of roads and post roads. All these are under the Committee on Public Works, and affect, among other things, development of our natural resources and consequent eco- nomic expansion in all fields of inde- pendent enterprise. Mr. President, I submit that, even un- der the mo.t liberal interpretation of the Reorganization Act, the Committee on Banking and Currency is powerless to legislate on any of the above 40 sub- jects affecting small business, copyrights, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE If a standing committee were estab- lished, as has been debated here this afternoon, selection of members to serve on this committee would be governed by the seniority system, as has already been explained by the minority leader, the Senator from Nebraska I[Mr. WuHerry], in the course of his remarks. Senators with the highest seniority would have the right to be appointed to this committee, and many junior Sena- tors who are intensely interested in the problems of small business would not have an opportunity to serve on it. Mr. President, I submit that the ma- jor jurisdiction of the Banking and Cur- rency Committee has to do with perma- nent plans for loans and risk capital. That is the principal jurisdiction pos- sessed by the Banking and Currency Committee. The next important problem of small business is a long-range research and educational program. That comes un- der the jurisdiction of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. The next one, of course, is monopoly and fair-trade practices, which come under the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary. So, Mr. President, it appears to me that it is very clear that the Banking and Currency Committee does not have jurisdiction over 80 or 90 percent of the problems of small busi- ness in this country. In fact, 1t has a very limited jurisdiction over the prob- lems of small business. I agree with the minority leader when he says that the only effective and effi- cient procedure is to provide for the appointment of a special committee. Of course I should like to see a permanent committee appointed, if it were possible to do so; but that is not possible; I do not think the Senate would vote to do so at the present time. Therefore, I am supporting a program for a special committee which will con- tinue during the remainder of the Eighty-first Congress and during the Eighty-second Congress. Then, at the expiration of that period, we can finally determine whether we should have a permanent standing committee on the subject. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, a parlia- mentary inquiry. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Sena- tor will state it. Mr. LUCAS. Let me inquire how much time remains. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Nebraska has 6 minutes remain- ing. The Senator from Illinois has the re- mainder of the time, roughly 19 minutes. Mr. LUCAS. I shall take 15 minutes of my time to discuss this subject. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Sena- tor from Illinois is recognized for 15 minutes. Mr. LUCAS. First, Mr. President, I should like to yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Washington. Earlier he requested that I do so. I now yield 3 minutes to him. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Washington is recognized for 3 minutes. Mr. CAIN. Mr. President, I am very grateful to the Senator from Illinois, 1939 It seems apparent to the junior Senator from Washington that too little consider- ation has been given this afternoon to the important work which has been ac- complished and undertaken since its inception by the Small Business Subcom- mittee of the Senate Committee on Banking and Currency. As but one typi- cal bit of evidence regarding the excel- Jence and character of the work of the subcommittee, I should like to offer for consideration by all Senators and small- business interests and concerns gener- ally, certain remarks contained in a let- ter dated January 13, 1950, addresesd to the chairman of the Committee on Banking and Currency, the Senator from South Carolina {Mr. MayYBAnk], by Henry Scharf, publisher for Trilane As- sociations, Inc., an organization devoted to accurate, factual reporting of Govern- ment procurement. In part, the letter has this to say: The recent Munitions Board resolution ap- proved by Secretary Johnson January 6, 1950 is now a matter of public record. e e * * s Your Small Business Subcommittee has indeed in this instance rendered the greatest service to American business since the in- ception of the procurement program. I am sure that your files will disclose hundreds of letters from manufacturers seeking Govern- ment business and encountering smoke- screens of secrecy around public information. The wording of the resolution will now dispel all the restrictive conditions that had un- necessarily prevailed heretofore. ° e e ° e The patient and conscientious work of your Small Business Subcommittee indeed deserves recognition since without their ef- forts the original resolution of the Board, dated October 20, would have without a ques- tion been implemented. It would have vir- tually destroyed the meaning of broad pro- curement information. I personally know of the many obstacles that your committee encounteied and Mr. Stewart’s diplomacy and diligence was indeed a very decisive factor in bringing about— in the words of Admiral Ring—‘'a major vic- tory.” Mr. President, for the reason that I think all Senators will be interested in the full text of the letter, I ask unani- mous consent that it be made a part of my remarks at this point. There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: January 13, 1950. Senator BurNET R MAYBANK, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MAYBANK: The recent Mu- nitions Board resolution approved by Secre- tary JoHNSOoN January 6, 1950, is now a matter of public record. All the work that went into bringing this resolution about is little known indeed, nor for that matter is the full significance of the resolution itself. Your Small Business Subcommittee has indeed in this instance rendered the greatest service to American business since the in- ception of the procurement program. I am sure that your files will disclose hundreds of letters from manufacturers seeking Gov- ernment business and encountering smoke- screens of secrecy around public information. The wording of the resolution will now dispel all the restrictive conditions that had un- necessarily prevailed heretofore. For ourselves it of course has accomplished fully its objective. By being able to obtain
1940 all the information on Government procure- ment we can now keep manufacturers and Gealers in every part of the country fully informed as to the Government’s needs. It will remove many hardships that have here- tofore existed. It is sincerely hoped that the final im- lementation of this resolution will uphold he broad outlines of the resolution itself. The patient and conscientious work of your Small Business Subcommittee indeed deserves recognition since without their ef- forts the origtnal resolution of the Board, dated October 20, would have without a question been implemented. It would have virtually destroyed the meantng of broad pro- curement information. I personally know of the many obstacles that your committee encountered and Mr. Stewart's diplomacy and diligence was indeed & very decisive factor in bringing about—in the words of Admiral Ring—“a major vic- The prompt action by Mr. Lee Parsons in- deed dispels any false impressions the public may have of lengthy time intervals prior to any positive action. From long past experience we have no doubts but that this action will result in more bidders for the Government and I am confident that the lower prices thus obtained will probably save the Government many, many times the cost of your subcommittee. Por ourselves and for all the many sub- scribers who depend upon accurate and timely procurement tnformation through- out the country, we would like to express to you our sincerest appreciation for a Job well done. Very sincerely yours, Henry ScHarr, Publisher for Trilane Associates, Ino. Mr. CAIN. I again wish to express my gratitude to the Senator from Hii- nois for permitting me to employ several minutes of his time. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I did not expect to speak upon the pending ques- tion, but in view of the statement made by my very distinguished colleague from Florida in regards to my position on small business at a previous time in the United States Senate, I feel I am justi- fied fn saying a word or two. The prob- lem before us is not a question of whether the Senator from Ilinois has been consistent or has been inconsistent about a small business committee. The Senator from Florida, as a general rule, is very persuasive in his incontestable logic which he presents to the Senate upon any matter in which he is inter- ested. But in his argument on the pend- ing question, the Senator apparently took a great deal of time and some glee in quoting what the Senator from Illinois said 2 years ago, which is perfectly all right with me, but it has nothing to do with whether we are to have a small busi- ness committee either as a temporary or & permanent organization, or whether we are to have a permanent small busi- ness committee without legislative func- tions, So it seems to me the argument ad- vanced by my distinguished friend is far from the mark. Yet he uses what he calls my inconsistency as an argument, while he proclaims to all the world that he is very consistent in his position, although, had it not been for the Sena- tor from Ilinois, along with my good friend from Nebraska, we probably should not be debating the bill today. It ‘was the Senator from Florida, according CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE to what the Senator from Nebraska has said, who made the first mention of the standing permanent committee for small business. These two very able Senators in fact joined tn a resolution to set up a permanent small business committee. ‘When the time came to debate this very important issue, with all due deference to both of my good friends, they both va- cated and abandoned the strong positton they had taken on a permanent stand- ing committee of the Senate; not be- cause of any logic back of this change of heart, but merely for political expedi- ency—in order to try to win a victory. That is practically what the Senator from Florida said when he stated that he got into a conference and found the chairman of the committee against the standing permanent small business com- mittee, because it cut across so many jurisdictional lines of other standing committees. He, of course, is right about that. But these distinguished Senators did not give much thought to that in the beginning, when they came forward with the resolution seeking to set up a per- manent standing committee for small business, I presume, Mr. President, that when the time came to debate the issue, they would stand firmly behind this proposal. But, no, the Senator from Florida did not do so. He has another proposition by way of an amendment which is going to give more power to the Committee on Banking and Currency, and provide greater membership to the committee. He does not like that idea at all, but be- cause he cannot win on his original prop- osition, he now is adopting the expedient method of trying to convince the Senate that it should go along with a resolution of this kind. Mr. President, it is not the kind of res- olution that ought to be passed. The Senator from Florida ts wholly incon- sistent in now attempting to do some- thing entirely different from what he sought to do when he attached his name to the resolution. Yet he tells me, in all good faith, that he is absolutely con- sistent. It is a little difficult for me to understand how a Senator can stand on the floor, after he has abandoned his previous position entirely, and say, “I do not want a standing committee on small business for the United States Senate. I want it to go back to the Committee on Banking and Currency, but I want to add several members to the committee.” In the colloquy I had with the Senator the other day, I asked him, ‘“‘Who on the Committee on Banking and Currency is to determine what is small business?” His reply was, “The chairman of the committee will make the determination of what is small business.” Mr. President, nothing at all will be accomplished by the proposal of the Sen- ator from Florida. No one has more re- spect for the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Banking and Currency than has the Senator from Illinois; but the chairman is to have power to say to his committee what is small business. When he makes the determination, he is then going to notify the members of other standing committees who are to be appointed by the Vice President, “We have a matter of small business before FEBRUARY 20 our committee this morning, and we in- vite you to sit in as ex officio members to help us make a decision.” Mr. Presi- dent, busy as we are, how many Senators from various other committees appointed to sit in with a committee of that kind to talk about small-business matters will attend? Mr. President, they will not go. If we are to have a small-business com- mittee of any kind, it ought to be left exactly as it is, with the Committee on Banking and Currency, without any additional members whatever. No addi- tional members are needed, if it is left where it is. If that is not to be done, the work should be turned back to a spectal committee, without legislative functions, as it was handled in years gone by. Mr. President, in the beginning of the Giscussion of small business in the Sen- ate, when the war was going on, the Sen- ator from Illinois, chairman of the Com- mittee To Audit and Control the Contin- gent Expenses of the Senate, reported resolutions appropriating $380,000, which was spent by the Special Small-Business Committee during those 5 or 6 years for the benefit of small business. Mr. MAYBANK. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Illinois yield to the Sen- ator from South Carolina? Mr. LUCAS. Ido not have much time, but I yield for a question. Mr. MAYBANK. I merely wanted to remind the Senator that I happened to be a member of his Committee to Audit and Control the Contingent Expenses of the Senate during those years, and what he has said about the expenditure of $380,000 is absolutely correct. But, in addition to that, until the Reorganiza- tion Act was passed, the Committee on Small Business and the other special committees had hundreds of thousands of dollars. Numerous Government em- Ployees from different departments also worked on the matter. Mr. LUCAS. The Senator is correct. After the passage of the legislative Re- organization Act of 1946—— Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President-—— Mr. LUCAS. I may say to my friend, I have only a few minutes. After the Legislative Reorganization Act was passed, the Senator from Illinois tried to live up to the letter and spirit of the act, by voting against special commut- tees. The Reorganization Act ts plain on that score; it outlaws special commit- tees. But the Reorganization Act has been violated many times since then. Mr. WHERRY rose. Mr. LUCAS. I yield to the Senator from Nebraska. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, I do not disagree with what the Senator has said up to this point. But the legislative Reorganization Act does not outlaw special committees, Mr. LUCAS. I was under the tmpres- sion it did. I still think it did. I took that position at the time. But, any- way—— Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. LUCAS. I yield for a question, since I yielded to the Senator from Ne= braska.
1950 Mr. HOLLAND. Iwonder whether the Senator has any explanation for the Senate as to why, by supporting the res- olution of the Senator from Montana [Mr. Murray], he wants to establish a duplicate agency to that now functioning in the Banking and Currency Committee through the action of the Senate and which is financed until February 15, 1951. Mr. LUCAS. The Senator from Flor- ida is the one who started this entire controversy. It was not the Senator from Illinois who started it. The Senator from Florida was not satisfied, apparently, either with the Small Business Commit- tee which had functioned with the Sen- ator from Montana at the head of it, or with the subcommittee functioning through the Banking and Currency Committee. The Senator from Florida is the one who is responsible for bringing in a resolution seeking to make it a stand- ing, permanent committee. So the Sen- ator should not ask me that kind of a question. The Senator from Florida is responsible for our being here at this particular time. He was not satisfied with either arrangement. He wanted a permanent standing committee so that small business would have a better oppor- tunity to be served. He thought that was the better method. Other Senators did not think so. I did not think so, and the Senator from Florida does not think so at the present time, because he has com- pletcly abandoned his original position and now seeks to keep the Committee on Banking and Currency as the committee functioning for small business by adding five or six Senators from other commit- tees, which does not mean a Single thing. It is the most useless and futile resolu- tion I have heard debated for a long time. The Senator from Montana [Mr. Mur- ray! has sought to aid small business through a special committce for a period of 2 years. That is the way it was oper- ated all through the years when the small-husiness committee was function- ing. We had more standing committees when the small-business committee was a@ special committee than we have at the present time. I say, Mr. President, there is a need for @ committee of some kind that will work effectively in attempting to solve the problems of small business throughout the Nation. I do not say that the Bank- ing and Currency Committee, through its subcommittee, has not done a fair job, but there is a constant effort on the part of persons on the outside, who are interested in small business, as well as on the part of a number of Senators, to take responsibility away from the Com- mittee on Banking and Currency because they feel that that committec has all it can do with the tremendous number of problems which come before it at the present time, and that we should estab- lish again 2 special committee such as that which we had during the war and during the Hightieth Congress. That is all I have to say, Mr. President. I merely want the Senate and the Na- tion to understand that the Senator from Illinois is not opposed to small busi- ness—— Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. LUCAS. I have no time to yield. The Senator from Florida had approxi- mately 2 hours, and I have only 2 or 3 minutes. I regret that I cannot yield. What I want to say in my closing re- marks, Mr. President, is that the Senator from Illinois has been charged by some persons with being opposed to small bus- iness. I quoted the figures in the be- ginning with respect to t e amounts ap- propriated for the Small Business Com- mittee only to show that the Senator from Illinois was in nowise opposed to small business. The truth of the mat- ter is that I have never been affiliated with big business of any kind. I have been affiliated with small business in my home town of Havana, II, which js a town of approximately 4,500 persons, and I have always been interested in trying to do something for the independent businessman on the corner, whether he was the druggist, the groceryman, the hardware man, or the proprietor of some other small-business enterprise. I have seen a number of small businesses go by the wayside from time to time. I was satisfied with the Small Business Committee which was operating during the war and which, after the war, ren- dered excellent service on behalf of small business. As the Senator from Montana said recently, it was only when the Small Business Committce decided that legislation was needed that it ever ap- peared, after an investigation, before a standing committee. It was possible that some standing committee might not have the necessary information. But any time that the Small Business Com- mittee had information on which it thought legislation was necessary, it ap- peared before the proper committee and presented it, and a tremendous amount of legislation was enacted during the war and since the war as a result of the efforts of the Small Business Committee. There cannot be any question about that. The VICE PRESIDENT. The time of the Senator has expired. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, I yleld 30 seconds to the Senator from Tllinois. Mr. LUCAS. In view of the fact that this controversy has been raging through the Senate and throughout the Nation as to what should be done, the Senator from Illinois desires to see the question settled once and for all. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, the junior Senator from Nebraska yields 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvanie. |[Mr. Martin]. Mr. MARTIN. My. President, at the outset I want it understood that I am in favor of the strictest economy in Gov- ernment in every sense of the word. I do not believe in the extension of any com- mittee if the work can be performed in some other way, but in the case of small business I feel it is in an entirely differ- ent category from that of the ordinary line of business which comes before the Congress. I realize that businessmen probably should not come to their Senators and Representatives for help, but Govern- ment has become so complicated that it is impossible for the ordinary business- 1941 man to have the means to transact busi- ness with his Government. There are in the Nation three and a half million business concerns, owned by an average of one and a half persons, which employ more than two-thirds of all the persons employed. Small business is a very sub- stantial part of the American economy. At the present time the businessmen who own small businesses are very anxious to do business with the Government of the United States and with each other with- out being in direct opposition to the law. They cannot, as I stated, afford to have the attorneys and the accountants neces- sary to keep them within the bounds of law and regulations. During my time in Congress when a small business committee was function- ing it did a marvelous service. For ex- ample, in the matter of newsprint, it looked for a while as though it would be necessary for small weekly papers, such as church papers, veterans’ organization papers, and labor organization papers, to go out of business because they did not have sufficient newprint. The distin- tinguished senior Senator from Indiana (Mr, CaPrenHartT] got together the large publishers of the United States, and they arranged for the allocation of sufficient newsprint to take care of those persons. There was a time when it looked as if it would be impossible to secure tubular goods with which to drill wells in several States in the Central West so that it would be unnecessary to sell catile be- cause of Jack of water, which would have caused a meat shortage. We were able to get together some manufacturers in Pittsburgh, and they produced the neces- sary Dipe. There was also a shortage of steel with which to construct vetcrans’ hospitals. It was most difficult to get the amount needed, but it was found possible to se- cure an allocation by getting together the 11 largest steel producers in the country. I might also mention the matter of exports. It was necessary to get per- mits for exports. That was a difficult thing to do. The Small Business Com- mittee was able to help many small-busi- ness men obtain permits for exports. There is another point which should be mentioned. “he gray markets in steel, in newsprint, and in many other products cost many fine American busi- nessmen an enormous amount of money. This to some extent was corrected by publicity given by the Small Business Committee. The VICE PRESIDENT. The time of the Senator has expired. The Senator from Nebraska has 1 min- ute. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, the parliamentary situation, so far as amendments are concerned, is that there is on the desk the revised amendment of the Senator from Nebraska which pro- vides for setting up a permanent special committee without legislative authority. That is a recommendation which I think should be adopted. If we mean what we say, let us establish a special legislative committee. I have offered an amend- ment to Senate Resolution 58. Sena- tors can vote for one or the other, I
1942 understand that the Senator from Mon- tana will offer another amendment per- fecting my amendment, which would provide for establishing a committee at this session of the Congress. The VICE PRESIDENT. The time of the Senator from Illinois has expired. The Senator from Nebraska has 1 min- ute left. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, so far as the amendments are concerned, the parliamentary situation, as I under- stand, is that there is on the desk a re- vised amendment submitted by the Sen- ator from Nebraska which sets up a per- manent special committee without legis- tive authority. That is the special com- mittee which I think should be provided for. I believe that is what is needed. There is no use having this fight every session of Congress. If we mean what we say, let us establish 9 permanent spe- cial committe2 without legislative au- thority. I have offered an amendment to that effect to Senate Resolution 58, which is the resolution in which I joined with the distinguished Senator a year and a half ago, which provided for a permanent committee without legisla- tive authority. That is the issue. Sen- ators can vote for one or the other of the amendments. I understood the Senator from Mon- tana was to offer another amendment to my perfecting amendment which would provide for the establishment of a com- mittee to function during this session of Congress and the next session. I do not see any difference between that and the one I have offered because both the com- mittees would be permanent. The VICE PRESIDENT. The time of the Senator has expired. All time for @ebate has expired. Mr. LUCAS. I suggest the absence of @ quorum. Mr. TOBEY. A parliamentary in- quiry. The VICE PRESIDENT. Will the Benator from Illinois withhold his sug- gestion of the absence of a quorum? Mr. LUCAS. I withhold it. Mr. TOBEY, Do I correctly under- stand that in voting on the question about to come before the Senate all Sen- ators who wish to set aside or nullify the spirit of the Senate as set forth in Jan- uary 1937, in the Reorganization Act, will vote “yea”? Is that correct? The VICE PRESIDENT. That is not @ parliamentary inquiry. [Laughter.] Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. Mr. MAYBANK. Mr. President—— The VICE PRESIDENT. The point of no quorum has been suggested, and the Secretary will call the roll. Mr. MAYBANK. Mr. President—— The VICE PRESIDENT. Will the Senator withhold his suggestion? Mr. LUCAS. I withhold it for a moment. Mr. MAYBANK. A parliamentary in- uiry. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator will state it. Mr. MAYBANK. As I understand, those in favor of the amendment offered by the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Wuerry] will vote “yea,” and those op- posed will vote “nay.” CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE The VICE PRESIDENT. The parlia- mentary situation now is that the only pending question, in addition to the original resolution, fs on the substitute offered by the Senator from Nebraska. Of course, that is the question that is to be voted on, and those who favor it will vote “yea,” and those against it will vote “nay.” Mr. MAYBANK. The substitute is in the form of an amendment to the amendment of the Senator from Ne- braska offered by the Senator from Flor- ida, is it not? The VICE PRESIDENT. It is not. The Senator from Nebraska offered a substitute by way of an amendment. The Senator from Montana yesterday proposed a substitute for that substitute, and then withdrew it. So now the only question pending is on the substitute of the Senator from Nebraska. Mr. MURRAY. Mr. President, I offer a substitute for the amendment in the nature of the substitute offered by the Senator from Nebraska. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Illinois has suggested the absence Qs a quorum, Mr. LUCAS. I have withheld it for the last 5 minutes. The VICL PRESIDENT. Does the Senator still withhold it? Mr. LUCAS, I still withhold it. Mr. WHERRY. A parliamentary in- quiry, The VICE PRESIDENT. The clerk will state the amendment, or substitute, or whatever it 1s. Mr. WHERRY. How long can the withholding of a quorum call be main- tained, inasmuch as there was an agree- ment to vote at 4 o’clock? The VICE PRESIDENT. It can be withheld for any length of time, but if it is, some other Senator may make the suggestion, so that it could not go on in- dcfinitely. Mr. TOBEY. Mr. President, I suggest that it is like sand in the gear box. The VICE PRESIDENT. The clerk will state the amendment, The Curer CLERK. In lieu of the mat- ter proposed to be inserted it is proposed to insert the following: That (a) a special committee to be known as the Committce on Small Business and to consist of 13 Senators shall be appointed by the President of the Senate as s00n as prac- ticable after the date of adoption of this resolution and to continue during the Eighty-first and the Elghty-second Con- gresses. (b) It shall be the duty of such committee to study and survey by means of research and investigation all problems of Americun small- business enterprises, and to obtain all facts possible in relation thereto which would not only be of public interest, but which would ald the Congress in enacting remedial legis- lation, and to report to the Senate from time to time the results of such studies and surveys. (c) Senate Resolution 218, Eighty-first Congress, agreed to February 9, 1950, is hereby repealed, euective March 30, 1950. Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, I send to the desk a substitute for the substitute just stated. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Secre- tary will state the amendment. The Curser CLERK. In lieu of the mat- ter proposed to be inserted by Mr, FEBRUARY 20 Murray, it is proposed to strike out all after the word “Resolved” and insert in lieu thereof the following: That five Senators (three from the majority party and two from the minority party), to be appointed by the President of the Senate, shall be ex officio members of the Committee on Banking and Currency, or any duly au- thorized subcommittee thereof, to serve on said committee or subcommittee (a) when any study or investigation of the problems of small-business enterprises is being conducted pursuint to the authority granted to said committee by clause (2) of section 1 of Senate Resolution 101, Eighty-first Congress, agreed to May 6, 1949, and (b) when pro- posed Icgislation, the predominant subject matter of which relates to small-business en- terprises, ts under consideration. One such Senator shall be a member of the Committee on Finance, one shall be a member of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Com- merce, one shall be a member of the Com- mittee on the Judiciary, and each of the others shall be a member of such other standling committee of the Senate as may be designated by the President of the Senate. Sec 2 (a) The first section of Senate Reso- lution 101, Eighty-first Congress, agreed to May 6, 1949, is amended by striking out “dur- ing the Eighty-first Congress, until February 15, 19.0,"; and by inserting after “small busi- ness, including” the following: “(but with- out HNmitation).” (b) Section 2 of such resolution fs amended by striking out “the Eighty-first Congress, until February 15, 19650," and inserting in licu thereof “‘the Congress.” (c) Senate Resolution 218, Eighty-first Congress, agreed to February 9, 1950, is }-ere- by repealed. Sec. 3. Section 4 of Senate Resolution 101, Eighty~first Congress, agreed to May 6, 1949, is amended to read as follows: “Brc 4. The authority granted by this reso- lution with respect to the problems of small- business euterprises shall not enlarge the legislative jurisdiction of the Committee on Banking and Currency as set forth in para- graph (d) of section (1) of rule XXV of the Standing Rules of the Senate, nor shall it diminish the power of any other standing committee of the Senate to investigate any matter within tts jurisdiction.” The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair will explain the parliamentary situation. Under the precedents of the Senate the substitute offered by the Senator from Nebraska is regarded as the text of the resolution for purposes of amendment. The amendment of the Senator from Montana by way of a substitute is there- fore in the first degree, that of the Sen- ator from Florida is in the second de- gree, and no further amendment can be offered. The amendment or substitute offered by the Senator from Florida is not subject to amendment. Either the amendment offered by the Senator from Nebraska in the nature of a substitute or the amendment offered by the Senator from Montana in the nature of a substi- tute may be amended by way of amend- ing the text, but the amendment of the Senator from Florida is not subject to further amendment, and that will have to be voted on first. The question is on agreeing to the amendment offered lL. the Senator from Fiorida in the nature of a substitute. Mr. HOLLAND. I ask for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered, and the legislative clerk called tie roll. Mr. MYERS. I announce that the Senator from Virginia [Mr. Byrp], the
1950 Senator from North Carolina [Mr, Gra- HAM), the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Humpurey], the Senator from Florida {Mr. Pepper], and the Senator from Maryland [Mr. Typrnas] are absent on public business. The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. EASTLAND], and the Senator from Ken- tucky [Mr. WiTHers] are detained on Official business at Government depart- ments. The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Tuomas] is absent by leave of the Senate. The Senator from Florida [Mr. Pep- PER] is paired on this vote with the Sena- tor from Maryland [Mr. Types]. If present and voting, the Senator from Florida would vote “nay,” and the Sen- ator from Maryland would vote “yea.” If present and voting, the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Humpurey] would vote “nay.” Mr SALTONSTALL:; I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Bripces] is absent by leave of the Senate. If present and voting, the Senator from New Hampshire would vote “nay.” The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Van- DENBERG] is necessarily absent. The Senator from Iow12 [Mr. HICKEN- LOOPER] is absent on official business. The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Younc] is absent by leave of the Senate. The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Ma- LONE! and the Senator from Colorado {Mr MILLIKIN] are detained on official business. If present and voting, the Senator from Nevada [Mr. MAatone] would vote “nay.” The result was announced—yeas 33, nays 49, as follows: YEAS--33 Aiken Hendrickson McCarran Benton Hill McClellan Cain Hoey Maybank Chapman Holland Robertson Connally Ives Russell Ellender Johnson, Colo Smith, Maine Flanders Johnson, Tex Smith,N J. Frear Johnston, S C, Sparkman Fulbright Kerr Stennis George Lehman Taft Hayden Long Tobey WAYS—49 Anderson Hunt Mundt Brewster Jenner Murray Bricker Kefauver Myers Butler Kem Neely Capehart Kilgore O'Conor Chavez Knowland O'Mahoney Cordon Langer Saltonstall Darby Leahy Schoeppel Donnell Lodge Taylor Dougles Lucas Thomas, Utah Downey McCarthy Thye Dworshak McFarland Watkins Ecton McKellar Wherry Ferguson McMahon Wiley Gillette Magnuson Williams Green Martin Gurney Morse NOT VOTING—14 Bridges Humphrey Tydings Byrd Malone Vandenberg Eastland Millikin Withers Graham Pepper Young Hickenlooper Thomas, Okla. So Mr. HOLLAND’s amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected. The VICE PRESIDENT. The ques- tion recurs on the substitute offered by the Senator from Montana [Mr. Mur- ray! for the substitute offered by the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. WHERRY]. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. LUCAS and other Senators asked for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered, and the legislative clerk called the roll. Mr. MYERS. I announce that the Senator from Virginia |[Mr. Byrp], the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Gra- HAM], the Senator from Minnesota, (Mr. Humpurey!, the Senator from Florida {Mr. Pepper], and the Senator from Maryland [Mr. Typ1ncs] are absent on public business. The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. EasTLanp], and the Senator from Ken- tucky (Mr. WirHers] are detained on official business at Government depart- ments. The Senator from Oklahoma {[Mr. Tuomas! is absent by leave of the Senate. The Senator from Minnesota I{Mr. Humpnurey] is paired on this vote with the Senator from New Hampshire |Mr. Bripces]. If present and voting, the Senator from Minnesota would vote “yea,” and the Senator from New Hampshire would vote “nay.” The Senator from Florida [Mr. PEep- PER! is paired on this vote with the Sen- ator from Maryland [Mr. Typr1ncs]. If present and voting, the Senator from Florida would vote ‘‘yea” and the Sena- tor from Maryland would vote “nay.” Mr.SALTONSTALL. I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Brinces] who is absent by leave of the Senate is paired with the Senator from Minnesota |Mr. Humpurey!. If present and voting, the Senator from New Hamp- shire would vote “nay” and the Senator from Minnesota would vote “yea.” The Senator from Michigan VaANDENBERG) is necessarily absent. The Senator from Iowa [Mr. HIcKEN- LOOPER | is absent on official business. The Senator from North Dakota [Mr, Youna] is absent by leave of the Senate. The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Ma- LONE] and the Senator for Colorado [Mr. MILLIKIN] are detained on officia] bus- iness. If present and voting, the Sena- tor from Nevada [Mr. MALonE] would vote “nay.” The result was announced—yeas 31, nays 51, as follows: IMr. YEAS—31 Anderson Hunt McKellar Benton Johnson, Tex. McMahon Capehart Kefauver Magnuson Chavez. Kerr Murray Connally Kilgore Myers Douglas Langer Neely George Leahy O'Conor Gillette Lehman O'Mahoney Green Long Thomas, Utah Hayden Lucas Hill McFarland NAYS—51 Aiken Gurney Mundt Brewster Hendrickson Robertson Bricker Hoey Russell Butler Holland Saltonstall Cain Ives Schoeppel Chapman Jenner Smith, Maine Cordon Johnson, Colo Smith,N. J, Darby Johnston, 8.C. Sparkman Donnell Kem Stennis Downey Knowland Taft Dworshak Lodge Taylor Ecton McCarran Thye Ellender McCarthy Tobey Ferguson McClellan Watkins Flanders Martin Wherry Frear Maybank Wiley Fulbright Morse Williams 1943 NOT VOTING—14 Bridges Humphrey Tydings Byrd Malone Vandenberg Eastland Millikin Withers Graham Pepper Young Hickenlooper Thomas, Okla. So Mr. Murray’s substitute for Mr. WueErry’s substitute was rejected. The VICE PRESIDENT. The question now is on agreeing to the amendment in the nature of a substitute, offered by the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. WHrrry]. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, a par- liamentary inquiry. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator will state it. Mr. DOUGLAS. Let me_ inquire whether the Senator from Nebraska is proposing the creation of a permanent standing committee, a select committee, or a permanent select committee? The VICE PRESIDENT. Debate is not now in order. The question is on agreeing to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the Senator from Nebraska. Mr. MORSE and other Senators re- quested the yeas and nays, and the yeas and nays were ordered. The VICE PRESIDENT. If the Sena- tor from Illinois would like to have stated at this time the amendment in the na- ture of a substitute, which is about to be voted upon, the Chair will ask that that be done. Mr. DOUGLAS. Very well. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Secre- tary will state the amendment in the na- ture of a substitute, offered by the Sena- tor from Nebraska. The CHIEF CLERK. It is proposed to strike out all after the word “Resolved,” and insert in lieu thereof the following: That there is hereby created a select com- mittee to be known as the Committee on Small Business and to consist of 13 Senators to be appointed by the President of the Sen- ate as soon as practicable aiter the date of adoption of this resolution and at the coms mencement of each Congress. It shall be the duty of such committee to study and survey by means of research and investigation all problems o. American small- business enterprises, and to obtain all facts possible in relation thereto which would not only be of public interest, but which would aid the Congress in enacting remedial legis- lation, and to report to the Senate from time to time the results of such studies and sur- veys. No proposed legislation shall be re- ferred to such committee and such commit- tee shal] not have power to report by bill or otherwise have legislative jurisdiction, The VICE PRESIDENT. The ques- tion is on agreeing to the amendment in the nature of a substitute, offered by the Senator from Nebraska ([Mr. WHERRY]. On this question the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the Secretary will call the roll. The roll was called, Mr. MYERS. I announce that the Senator from Virginia [Mr. Byrpl, the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. GraHam], the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Humpurery], the Senator from Flor- ida {Mr. Prprer), and the Senator from Maryland {Mr. Typincs] are absent on public business.
1944 The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. EaStLanp] and the Senator from Ken- tucky [Mr. WitTHERs] are detained on official business at Government depart- ments. The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Tuomas] is absent by leave of the Sen- ate. The Senator from Florida [Mr. Prep- PER] is paired on this vote with the Sen- ator from Maryland (Mr. Typrncs]. If present and voting, the Senator from Florida would vote “yea,” and the Sen- ator from Maryland would vote “nay.” If present and voting, the Senator from Minnesota | Mr. HuMPHREY] would vote “yea.” Mr. SALTONSTALL. I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. BripcEs] is absent by leave of the Senate. If present and voting, the Sen- ator from New Hampshire would vote “yea,” The Senator from Michigan [Mr. VANDENBERG] is necessarily absent. The Senator from Iowa [Mr. HICKEN- LOOPER] is absent on official business. The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Youn] is absent by leave of the Senate. The Senator from Nevada [Mr. MALONE] and the Senator from Colorado {Mr. MILLIKIN] are detained on official business. If present and voting, the Senator from Nevada [Mr. MALoNneE] would vote “yea.” The result was announced—yeas 56, nays 26, as follows: YEAS—56 Aiken Hunt Mundt Anderson Ives Murray Benton Jenner Myers Brewster Johnson, Tex. Neely Butler Kefauver o'Conor Capehart Kem O'Mahoney Chavez Kerr Saltonstall Cordon Kilgore Schoeppel Darby Knowland Smith, Maine Donnell Langer Smith, N. J. Douglas Leahy Taft Downey Lehman Taylor Dworshak Lodge Thomas, Utah Ecton Lucas Thye Ferguson McCarthy Watkins Gillette McMahon Wherry Green Magnuson Wiley Gurney Martin Williams Hayden Morse NAYS—26 Bricker Hendrickson McFarland Cain Hil McKellar Chapman Hoey Maybank Connally Holland Robertson Ellender Johnson, Colo. Russell Flanders Johnston, S,C. Sparkman Frear Long Stennis Fulbright McCarran Tobey George McClellan NOT VOTING—14 Bridges Humphrey Tydings Byrd Malone Vandenberg Eastland Millikin Withers Graham Pepper Young Hickenlooper Thomas, Okla, So Mr. WHerrRy’s amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to. The VICE PRESIDENT. The ques- tion now is on agreeing to Senate Reso- lution 58 as amended. The resolution as amended was agreed to. The VICE PRESIDENT. Without ob- jection, the title will be amended to con- form to the text, as follows: Resolution creating a Select Committee on Small Business, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE This resolution places upon the Chair the obligation of appointing the Select Committee. The Chair will announce his appointments later. MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE A message from the House of Repre- sentatives, by Mr. Maurer, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House had passed, without amendment, the bill (S. 1990) to amend section 429, Revised Statutes, as amended, and the act of August 5, 1882, as amended, so as to substitute for the requirement that detailed annual reports be made to the Congress concerning the proceeds of all sales of condemned naval material a re- quirement that information as to such proceeds be filed with the Committees on Armed Services in the Coneress. The message also announced that the House had agreed to the following con- current resolutions of the Senate: S. Con. Res. 69. Concurrent resolution to print additional copies of immigration hear- ings before a judiciary subcommittee, and S. Con. Res. 70. Concurrent resolution au- thorizing the printing of additional copies of Senate Report No. 1158, Eighty-first Congress, first session, entitled “Progress on the Hoover Commission Recommendations.” COLORADO RIVER DAM AT BRIDGE CANYON The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (S. 75) authorizing the con- struction, operation, and maintenance of a dam and incidental works in the main stream of the Colorado River at Bridge Canyon, together with certain appurte- nant dams and canals, and for other pur- poses. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the unfinished business be temporarily laid aside, and that the Senate proceed to the considera- tion of House Joint Resolution 398. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Secre- tary will read the resolution by its title. The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. A joint resolu- tion (H. J. Res. 398) relating to cotton- and peanut-acreage allotments and mar- keting quotas under the Agricultural Ad- justment Act of 1938, as amended. The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there ob- jection? Mr. LODGE and Mr. WHERRY ad- dressed the Chair. The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there ob- jection to the request of the Senator from Illinois for unanimous consent to lay aside temporarily the unfinished busi- ness and proceed to the consideration of the joint resolution just read by its title? Mr, WHERRY. I am forced to object to giving unanimous consent to the tak- ing up of the measure at this time. Mr. LUCAS, I move that the unfin- ished business be laid aside temporarily, and that the Senate proceed to the con- sideration of House Joint Resolution 398. Mr. TAFT, Mr. President, a parlia- mentary inquiry. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Ohio will state the inquiry. Mr. TAFT. What would be the effect of agreeing to the motion? The VICE PRESIDENT. The motion, if agreed to, would set aside the un- finished business for today. But, inas- much as an hour has been fixed for vot- FEBRUARY 20 ing tomorrow, it would automatically come back before the Senate tomorrow. Mr. TAFT. Mr. President, a further parliamentary inquiry. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator will state the inquiry. Mr. TAFT. Would it come back at 12 o'clock, or would it not come back until the hour for voting? The VICE PRESIDENT. It would come back at 11 o’clock, at which hour the Senate is to meet tomorrow. The division of time would be maintained as heretofore ordered. The question is on agreeing to the motion of the Senator from Iinois. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, I sug- gest the absence of a quorum. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Secre- tary will call the roll. The roll was called, and the following Senators answered to their names: Aiken Hayden Magnuson Anderson Hendrickson Martin Benton Hill Maybank Brewster Hoey Morse Bricker Holland Mundt Butler Hunt Murray Cain Ives Myers Capehart Jenner Necly Chapman Johnson, Colo. O'Conor Chavez Johnson, Tex. O'Mahoney Connally Johnston, 8,C. Robertson Cordon Kefauver Russell Darby Kem Saltonstall Donnell Kerr Schoeppel Dougins Kilgore Smith, Maine Downey Knowland Smith, N J. Dworshak Langer Sparkman Eustland Leahy Stennis Ecton Lehman Taft Ellender Lodge Taylor Ferguson Long Thomas, Utah Flanders Lucas Thye Frear McCarran ‘Tobey Fulbright McCarthy Watkins George McClellan Wherry Gillette McFarland Whiley Green McKellar Williams Gurney McMahon The VICE PRESIDENT. A quorum is present. The question is on the motion of the Senator from Illinois to proceed to the consideration of House Joint Resolution 398, which was stated by title a while ago. Mr. McCARTHY and Mr. LUCAS rose. The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Wlinois wish recognition? t Mr. LUCAS. Was the motion agreed 0? The VICE PRESIDENT. No, it has not yet been voted on. Mr. LUCAS. I ask for the question. The VICE PRESIDENT. The motion is open to debate. Mr. LODGE and Mr. KNOWLAND addressed the Chair. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Massa- chusetts {Mr, LopceE!. THE HYDROGEN BOMB Mr. LODGE. Mr. President, the problem which is symbolized by the hy- drogen bomb touches every facet of human existence—ideological, philo- sophical, cultural, moral and spiritual. Mr. President, may we have order? The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator will suspend until the Senate is in order. The Senator will proceed. Mr. LODGE. My statement will not take long. It is on a matter at least as important as the one we have been dis- oussing,
1950 Looking at it more narrowly from the standpoint of practical action by gov- ernment, it impresses us first in its mili- tary aspect. We can understand how those who see nothing but its military impact become terrified, although even in this, the bleakest and most depressing phase of the whole business, there are elements of hope. For example, there appears to be no doubt of the following: that the United States can outproduce any other nation in the manufacture of these new weapons; that these new bombs will greatly increase the power of the defensive, which is surely an asset to a nation which has no aggressive in- tent; and that no aggressor can win a final decision by one—or a dozen—ex- plosions of these new bombs in the open« ing days of a new war. Therefore, even in this military phase, which is the stark- est and grimmest of all, we should be able to keep our nerve and our sense of proportion. Mr. President, I hate to interfere with the conversations that are taking place on the floor, but I insist this is an im- portant subject, and that it is one which it is proper to discuss on the floor of the Senate. . The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair has no such compunctions. [Laughter.] Mr. LODGE. I am delighted. The Chair 1s always refreshing and capable. But, happily, government is not con- fined to a strictly military contempla- tion of the problem symbolized by the hydrogen bomb. The United States Gov- ernment, thanks to the unparalleled pro- ductivity of the American people, can make an economic approach to the world crisis and wherever in the world there has been enough local energy to take advan- tage of our help, our economic assist- ance has in the last few years yielded tremendous results. Within the prudent limits of our own resources we should re- act to the problem of the hydrogen bomb by extending economic aid. Then there is the political approach, which has a huge potential. Although results achieved here insofar as the uni- fication of Europe is concerned have been disappointing, conclusion of the North Atlantic Pact shows what can be done, Let us hope that the North Atlantic com- munity will become increasingly real and that under the spur of these great new dangers there will develop a common political outlook among the free nations which should accomplish great new things. Mr. President, I think we all can have the deepest and most sympathetic un- derstanding of those who, on the Senate floor and off the Senate floor demand an immediate show-down with the Soviet Union in the form of an appeal for dis- armament. We must applaud their pur- pose, although it appears certain that their method and such other methods as have lately been proposed seem at this moment calculated to defeat that pur- pose. We cannot, for example, enter into a Big Two meeting with the Soviet Union and set up two worlds without gravely shaking the confidence of all our friends in the Western World whom we have done so much to help and who have made CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE such encouraging progress. We cannot enter into bilateral conversations with- out looking as though we were turning our back on the whole system of collec- tive security which is symbolized by the United Nations. We should not be fair to ourselves or to our friends if we were to agree with the Soviets to a two-thirds or a one-half or a 100-percent reduction in armament expenditures, We, in the United States Army, for example, spend far more money for clothing, pay, food, housing, and medical care, for example, in our mili- tary forces because we are a country which treats people like human beings. If we and the Soviets agreed to eliminate all money expenditures, the Soviet could and would use men as slaves without pay. Nor would it be fair to ourselves or to our friends to agree to a limitation of those weapons of a technical and com- plicated nature where we have a natural advantage and where, therefore, any ap- parently international limitation is actu- ally a gain for the Soviets. We know very well that, even if the Soviets should surprisingly agree to some form of international inspection, they would insist on such a strained construc- tion of their agreement that the inspec- tions which we would be allowed to undertake, if any, would not really be inspections in any honest or complete sense of the term. We are practically sure, moreover, that any appeal of ours would at this juncture be rejected be- cause the Soviets would regard it as a sign of weakness on our part. I know that there are those who would then say: ‘‘Let them reject it. Let us here 1n America show that we at least are willing to disarm. We will thereby stand in a favorable light before world opinion and thus impress the public opinion of the free nations with our virtue and with our love of peace.” I cannot believe that this is wise coun- sel. To make an offer which we are sure will be rejected is, in the first place, to mislead our own people as to the chances for acceptance and to subject them to a correspondingly severe disappointment. It thus tends to hasten the day of a “showdown”’—a day which I hope and belicve will never come. To make an offer which we know will be rejected might well be seized upon by the Soviets as proof of the fact that we are looking for a pretext for war. They might well say, ‘‘“Here are the Americans making us a@ proposition which they know we will reject. What earthly reason could they have for making such an offer other than that of trying to provide an excuse for hostilities?” Seen in the light of these realities, the offer which so many of our well-inten- tioned citizens suggest will actually bring nearer the danger of war. Does this mean that we are condemned to do nothing? Far from it. We must continue to build our strength in every way that we can. We must build it slowly whenever the slow way is the only way. We must build it fast in whatever ways it can be done quickly. We must do it quietly where that is the only way it can be done. And if there is a chance to build strength dramatically I hope we will also take advantage of that. 1945 The truth is that our sincere fellow citizens who ask for an American appeal for disarmament are right in wanting disarmament, but wrong in the way they propose to get it. In the quest for peace disarmament is the second step—not the first. The first step is for us to get strong enough so that the Soviets will ask us for a disarmament conference, Then—and only then—will there be a real prospect of accomplishing results. If you get discouraged by the apparent slowness of this procedure, remember that in 1945 we in effect fell off the top of a high cliff when at Yalta, Potsdam and through our own sudden demobiliza- tion we lost the advantage we built up during the war. We are now climbing back to the top of the cliff, but this is a slower business than falling down, and we must be patient. Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. LODGE. I yield. Mr. SALTONSTALL. My colleague has stated that he does not bclieve we should make any advance to Russia at this time, but he did not say anything about proceeding through the United Na- tions. Would he be willing to state, very briefly, his position on that question? Mr. LODGE. I did not understand the Senator’s question. Mr. SALTONSTALL. My question is, What is the Senator’s attitude as to pro- ceeding through the United Nations rather than through a bilateral confer- ence. Mr. LODGE. I think collective action is desirable, but I do not believe the United States should make the request or make the appeal, because, in my opin- ion, it would look like weakness on our part, and it would amount to nothing. If the proper conditions were created, the Soviets would have no difficulty in find- ing ways of letting us know that they wanted disarmament. Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. LODGE. I yield. Mr. FERGUSON. Does not the Sen- ator believe many things must be done prior to a disarmament conference, such as the raising of the curtain so that there could be inspection, freedom of commu- nication, and freedom of the press, in order that the facts could be determined prior to a disarmament conference? In other words, should we not begin with first things first, with reference to dis- armament? Mr.LODGE. I think the Senator from Michigan has put his finger on a very es- sential point. Disarmament is not the first step. It is a step which can come only after some other things have been done. COLORADO RIVER DAM AT BRIDGE CANYON The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (S. 75) authorizing the con- struction, operation, and maintenance of a dam and incidentai works in the main stream of the Colorado River at Bridge Canyon, together with certain appurte- nant dams and canals, and for other pur- Poses. Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent at this time to
1946 have placed in the body of the Recorp some tables relative to Senate bill 75, the central Arizona project. Many Senators have not been present during the course of the debate and are under the false im- pression that it is merely a controversy between California and Arizona. Of course that is not the case. Nevada, as well as California and Arizona, is inter- ested in the matter. It has been pointed out in the absence of some Senators that it is a project which calls for an authorization of a billion and a quarter dollars and that, in addition, it will remove the yardstick measurements which now exist under the reclamation laws. Because so many of the Senators do not realize the immense amount of money involved in this project in the central Arizona area, I have had com- piled for comparative purposes the total rivers, harbors, and flood-control au- thorizations in various groups of States in contrast to the billion-and-a-quarter dollar authorization provided for in Senate bill 75. We find that for the New England States, Connecticut, Maine, Massachu- setts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont, for rivers, harbors, and flood CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE control, the total authorizations amount to $348,400,000, or approximately one- fourth of the authorization in the project which will be voted on by the Senate tomorrow. I have another break-down for the North Central States, showing that for the States of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin the total authori- zations for rivers, harbors, and flood control, general, amount to $1,265,000,- 000, which is the approximate amount of the single authorization on which the Senate will be called upon to vote tomorrow. I have another break-down for the Middle Atlantic States of Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania, showing the total authori- zations for rivers, harbors, and flood con- trol, general, amount to $988,768,000, or considerably less than the authorization in this one bill which will be before the Senate tomorrow. Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- sent that those break-downs appear as part of my remarks in the Recorp. There being no objection, the break- downs were ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Authorizations and appropriations by States, rivers and harbors, and flood control, general sive plans Btate Flood con- trol, gencral Rivers and harbors New England States: Total cost of authorized projects, includ- ing projects in approved comprehen- Appropriations for construction Rivers and | Flood con- harbors trol, general Total Total Connecticut. -.22.2220.. $16, 380, 700 | $36, 662, 500 | $53,048, 200 | $11,000,900 | $11, 063, 000 $22, 153, 900 Maine .... ... 10, 250, 200 |-----.-------- 10, 250, 200 8, 778, 700 | ...-----.----- 8, 778, 700 Massachusetts. , 64, 032, 400 131, 823, 900 60, 347, 400 19, 744, 000 BO, (12, 400 New Hampshir b27, 55, YR3, 000 86, 610, 600 627, 600 14, 638, 000 15, 265, 600 Rhode Islund.. - 5, &31, 000 15, 608, 300 9, 697, 900 |... 2-2 =... 9, 697, 800 Vermont..........----+- I, 100, 300 79, 969, G00 81, 069, 300 885, 300 5, 274, 300 Total... eee ne ee eee 105, 922,600 | 242,477,900 | 848, 400, 500 91, 427, 400 141, 262, 800 North Contral States: . Minois...2-22 2-2 266, 260, 800 195, 911, 600 | 482, 181, 400 147, 041, 800 87, 247, 000 204, 288, 800) Indiana 20, 278, 400 136, 408, 300 165, 646, 700 28, 300, 100 28, 842, 000 5k, 232, 100 Michigan 176, $94, 400 2, 200, 600 179, 286, 000 113, 308, 700 1, 658, 000. 114, 1460, 700 Ohio___- 101, 287, 200 201, 589, 300 392, 886, 600 54, 106, 700 7%, 127, 000 133, 633, 700 Wisconsin 48, 147, 500 17, 779, 000 65, 926, 500 43, 705, 400 {..---.-.- eee 43, 705, 400 Total. .-.-.--.-2-.---- 421, 078, 300 554, 820, 700 Middle Atiantic States: / Delaware _-..--2-----.-- eveseee--- eee 38, 234, 000 33, 409, 700 |.2...2.2.---. 33, 400, 700 Maryland... ..e ee. 15, 560, 000 20, 768, 000 9, 35%, 400 2, 287, 000 11, 045, 400 New Jerwy. - 284, 000 57, 608, 100 30, 207, 100 284, OW) 39, 581, 100 New York__...22..22.-- 136, 241,000 | 328, 472, 900 142, 833, 00 65, 887, OU0 205, 720, 900 Pennsylvania........... 421, 404,300 | 534, 785, (00 77, 021,000 | 111, 135, 000 188, 156, 000 Total.....------.----- 415, 279, 600 | 573, 489, 300 | 988, 768,000 | 301,920, 100 | 179, 643, 000 481, 513, 100 COTTON AND PEANUT ACREAGE ALLOTMENTS Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, House Joint Resolution 398 1s on the Senate Calendar as a result of action by the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. In reporting the House measure the Senate committee has struck out all the House provisions after the enacting clause, and has instead in- serted very largely the provisions of Senate bill 2919, introduced by the dis- tinguished Senator from Mississippi {Mr. EASTLAND] on behalf of himself and sev- eral other Members of the Senate. Mr. President, this joint resolution is an attempt to correct some inequities which it is claimed have arisen as @ result of the application of Public Law 272. While the planting of cotton is going on, I believe it is impossible to examine carefully into all claims of in- equities and to decide whether or not all of them are just, or whether any of them are just, or whether there should be any change in the law whatever. If at all possible, I believe the Senate should move to confer authority on the Secre- tary of Agriculture to make some adjust- ments in the Cotton Act. The whole danger is that the adjustments may be so large as to throw clear out of balance the possibility of the demand equaling the supply available. I believe that the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, in accepting the provisions of the Senate bill, has fairly well guarded against that possibility. The judgment FEBRUARY 20 of the House may prove to have been superior, but there is one section in the House bill which would add about 1,400,- 000 acres of cotton, according to the best estimates which the House committee was able to obtain. At the time the provisions of the Sen- ate bill were submitted to the Depart- ment of Agriculture, a request was pre- sented to the Department for an estimate as to the acreage which would be added by the Senate bill. The committee was assured that the maximum acreage would probably be somewhere in the neighborhood of 790,000 acres. My own view is that we may find in actual oper- ation there may be added only something in the neighborhood of 600,000 acres. In my opinion, the top figure will be 700,000 acres. I believe it is reasonable to as- sume that the many changes in owner- ship of cotton acreage, with 21,000,000 acres being allotted, may account for underplanting on many of the acres. Some people believe it will run as high as 2,000,000 acres. I do not believe it will run that high. I believe that with quotas becoming effective for the first time, the underplanting will be substan- tially less than 2,000,000 ‘acres. I believe, however, that there is a strong probabil- ity and great hkelihood that the 600,000 or 700,000 acres of cotton which would be added by the provisions of the Senate bill will not be more than the acreage which will be underplanted from the 21,- 000,000 acreage limitation. Therefore I believe that the over-all planting of cot- ton in 1950, if the provisions of the House Joint resolution, as amended by the Sen- ate Committee on Agriculture and For- estry, were to be enacted, would stay within the 21,000,000-acre figure origi- nally provided by the joint resolution. Mr. President, I have no desire to de- tain the Senate long with an explana- tion of the joint resolution. I should like to point out that there were opportuni- ties for inequities. The hope behind the joint resolution was that in every State the amount of acreage which could be reserved by the State committee, and in turn, by the county committees, would be reserved and would be used for the han- dling of these inequities. I may say that where that has been done the complaints have been reduced to a minimum. In testimony before the Senate committee, one of the ablest persons dealing with this subject at the present time estimated that 90 percent of the cotton farmers were satisfied with the allotment. The great majority of cotton farmers are small planters, and the small planters were adequately protected by the legis- lation passed in the form of Public Law 272. There were some complaints to the effect that some of the larger operators were cut too much. It was felt, for ex- ample, that if the reserve had been set aside in every instance and made avail- able for the relief of some of the hard- ship cases, even their complaints would have been minimized. There was testi- mony before the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, given by a Member of the House of Representatives from the State of Oklahoma, to the effect that if those provisions had been ade- quately used in every case nearly all the
1950 complaints would have been eliminated, and that there would have been general approval of the program. The fact remains that, regardless of whether these things should have been done, in many instances they were not done. This was new legislation, han-~ dled by county committees, nearly all the members of which are volunteers, and the things they did were not per- haps the things they would do with more experience. We test new legislation year by year. Cotton acreage is allotted by experience. We have been without cotton quotas for 8 years. Naturally, in many in- stances there are not now on the com- mittees men who are familiar with the handling of this problem. So far as cot- ton provisions are concerned, I think the measure as reported to the Senate is reasonable. I think it will add a small amount of acreage, but I believe that the underplanting of acreage will be greater than the amount that would be added by the provisions of the joint reso- lution as reported by the Senate Com- mittee. Mr. President, there is an additional item in the bill to which I should like to refer briefly. It is a controversial sub- ject. It deals with what the bill attempts to do with refcrence to potatoes. Irecog- nize that there will be, as there has been and probably always will be, a very sub- Stantial difference of opinion as to how the potato situation can best be handled. I have tried not to be harsh with the potato growers of the country. I realize that one of the important factors which contributed to the present great surplus of potatoes is that the growers were fa- vored by extremely good growing weather in the last few months of the year. I invite attention to the fact that as late as August 1949, the predictions were for a crop somewhere in the magnitude of 365,000,000 bushels. Had we actually ob- tained a crop of 365,000,000 bushels, we would have been able to handle it with- out the slightest difficulty. The estimate which I have used comes from the Crop Reporting Board of the Department of Agriculture It was based upon the best available information. It was based upon the size of the plantings and what might be regarded as a normal out-turn of the crop. Subsequenily, and probably not until the month of December, it became known that the crop had gone far beyond the estimated out-turn, and that instead of 363,000,000 or 365,000,000 bushels f potatoes, we would have a crop some- where in the neighborhood of 402,000,000 bushels, which happens to be the size of the 1949 crop. Mr. President, I desire to refer now to the publication of the Department of Ag- riculture known as Changes in American Farming. This is Miscellaneous Publica- tion No. 707. At page 44 there is a chart which I am sure Senators will find profit in studying. The chart shows that the average production of potatoes in the United States in 1920 was under 100 bushels per acre, and while the chart does not show it completely, it shows that somewhere about 1948 the production had reached almost 200 bushels per acre, more than double. But in 1949 the pro- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE duction was 220 bushels per acre. There- fore any Senator who looks at this chart will have to add to it the figures for the remarkable out-turn in 1949, and those figures will carry up to new heights. About one-third of all the potatoes grown in the United States are produced in three States, Maine, California, and Idaho. It is interesting to look at the figures of production of potatoes in those States. In the State of California in 1920 there was an average production that was somewhere in the neighborhood of 135 bushels per acre. I cannot tell exactly from this chart, because the chart is only in units of 20, but the line starts below the 140 bushel figure, so I assume it is somewhere in the neighbor- hood of 135 bushels. That was the per- acre production in the State of Cali- fornia in 1920. In 1948 the average per- acre production was 385 bushels, and in 1949 it was in that level again. The State of Idaho has been very much more constant. The production in the State of Idaho started at about 180 bushels, or somewhat less than that, per- haps 175 bushels to the acre, and by 1948 it was 245 or 250 or perhaps 255 bushels. The State of Maine, however, starting at 220 bushels per acre, dropped to a figure of about 215 bushels in the year 1922. The production stayed fairly level with some fiuctuation because of im- proved agriculture, but in the year 1949 jt had increased from 215 bushels to the acre to 450 bushels to the acre. Mr. President, when a thing like that happens, there ‘s difficulty with a price- support program. Therefore, it has been the judgment of the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry that perhaps the best way to bring this matter to a head, and find a possibility of enacting legislation which would restrict the pro- duction completely, would be to wipe out price supports at this time entirely. Therefore, the distinguished Senator from Illinois proposed an amendment to the cotton-acreage bill which provided that no price support should be available to the producers of Irish potatocs when marketing quotas were not in effect. That is, of course, drastic and unusual treatment, It is different and discrim- inatory. I think that should be acknowl- edged in the beginning, because, if it is not acknowledged, someone will rise and say it is discriminatory treatment, since there is provision in the Agricultural Act of 1949 uncer which basic commodities receive price supports in the neighbor- hood of 90 percent, and they will con- tinue to receive something in that neighborhood in the years to come, There is the provision also that certain nonbasic commodities shall receive sup- ports ranging from 75 percent to 90 per- cent, and they are spelled out. Certain others shall receive price supports from 60 percent to 90 percent. Then there is the general provision which allows the Secretary to support all other commodi- ties as he may deem it necessary and proper, at levels from 0 to 90 percent. But now only in the case of potatoes there would be a provision that he could not do it at all. I say that only because I want Senators to recognize that this is a drastic treatment for a very difficult 1947 and perplexing situation. True it is that it might be possible to control the situa- ation by some other device. But the opinion of the committee is that there should be time to consider appropriate legislation. The Senator from Illinois, the majority leader, was ready with a bill to submit to the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, but there was obviously not time to stop and consider his bill. If hearings were to be afforded, it would require 10 days or 2 weeks to study the testimony and have consideration given by the committee to the provisions of the bill. In addition to that, the chairman of the committee, the Senator from Okla- homa [Mr. THomas] last October intro- duced a bill respecting which many per- sons had been hopeful that there would be hearings long ago. Now, it is possible for those two bills to come to the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry for full consid- eration. I trust that when they reach the committee there will be the element of time that will permit a careful study of the whole problem. What shall we do in the meantime? If we allow the matter merely to lie dormant additional] States will move into the area of those who have already planted their potatoes, and, with still further delay, the line will be moved very much more rapidly into the northern areas; into the intermediate areas, and finally into the areas of late potatoes. If that sort of delaying procedure should occur there would be no action at all which would be effective at the present session of Congress. This matter is of importance to all segments of agriculture, because if there are years and years of bad experience with a crop such as potatoes, the support extended to all other agricultural com- modities may be jeopardized, and partic- ularly to those basics which have been supported by a decision of the American Congress and the administration for a great many years. I think the chances of damage to the potato growers are very much less than the possibilities of dam- age to all the rest of the agricultural economy, which is of over-all importance. I therefore feel that we would be doing a favor to all American agriculture in adopting this very simple amendment which strikes all potato support. I think the result of such action will be a strong and vigorous demand for immediate and prompt consideration of legislation which will make possible quotas upon po- tatoes. It is not yet impossible for legislation of that kind to become effec- tive on this year’s crop. Therefore, it seems to me that the part of wisdom for the Senate would be to accept this rider which is, as I have frankly admitted, discriminatory, and permit the matter then to go to confer- ence. I hope the House will agree to the amendment, and that the adoption of the rider will bring to the attention of the Congress the immediate need for doing something with potato-acreage quota legislation. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. ANDERSON. I am glad to yield.
1948 Mr. LUCAS. Am I correct in my un- derstanding that the price support on potatoes which are now planted in the southern section of the country actually has very little effect upon the price it- self because they are new potatoes, the first ones to come on the market? Is it not a fact that those potatoes as a gen- eral rule sell above the price support? Mr. ANDERSON. The price support on potatoes in 1950 will be $1.01 a bushel. The report of last year’s crop showed that the early potatoes sold at $2.85 a bushel. Those figures have been placed inthe Recorp. Potatoes from Louisiana, as I am sure the distinguished Senator from Louisiana will testify, generally bring well above the support level. Mr. LUCAS. If that holds true, then the support price, so far as those potatoes are concerned, would have nothing to do with their actual market price, and the Government would be losing nothing upon those potatoes so far as the support price is concerned? Mr. ANDERSON. I think that is ap- proximately true, but not completely true. The Government will lose some- thing, because it is already buying a few potatoes, and will continue to do so, but the amount of potatoes it buys is not tremendous. As I tried to point out the other day, it is the abundance of these crops which is the best regulator of their prices. The fact that we support a few when there is a tremendous outpouring of potatoes really means that what we are doing is guarantecing to the American public a very satisfactory market in which they will buy their potatoes. For example, in 1946, as I remember, something like 100,- 000,000 more bushels of potatoes were produced than in 1947. The average price to the farmers was something like $1.24 in 1946, and $143 the next year, when the potato crop was smaller. So that while the Government spent quite a bit of money for supports that year, the consuming public, the country as a whole, profited, because the price of potatoes dropped when there was a larger crop. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further? Mr. ANDERSON. I yield. Mr. LUCAS. It {is estimated, as I un- derstand, that in the crop year 1950 we will lose nearly $100,000,000 on potatoes alone. Mr. ANDERSON. I should like to sug- gest to the Senator that he probably re- fers to the crop year of 1949. Mr. LUCAS. The Senator is correct. I am referring to the crop year 1949. It is estimated that we will lose nearly $100,000,000 on that crop. Now, what we are trying to do by this amendment is to prevent the same situation from occurring with respect to the 1950 crop. If I understand the situation correctly, we will lose around $100,000,000 on po- tatoes this year. However, it is my un- derstanding that if this amendment is adopted we can save at least $50,000,000 on the 1950 crop, provided we follow it up, as I hope we shall do, with the bill which I introduced the other day, which applies rigid restrictions through mar- keting quotas, agreements, and other necessary controls to the potato grow- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE ers on the same basis that similar con- trols now apply to the cotton farmer and the tobacco farmer. Does the Senator agree? Mr. ANDERSON. I think the Sena- tor from Illinois is correct in saying that if the rider is adopted, and we then pass effective quota legislation, the saving might be as much as $50,000,000. I think it is fair to say that there are many potato growers throughout the country who would question very greatly some of the provisions in the Senator's bill, and I am sure the Senator wants them to have the fullest opportunity to be pres- ent at hearings. We are not foreclosing what the decision on that question will be. But if as the result of the hearings and the suggestions made by potato growers it is possible to pass effective quota legislation, then I think that the rider, plus the legislation referred to, will save $50,000,000. Mr. LUCAS. Ithank the Senator from New Mexico. That is exactly the rea- son for the offering of the amendment. It seems to me we have to do something drastic, something that is out of the ordi- nary, in order to bring the potato situa- tion forcibly home to the American peo- ple. The Senator from Ulhnois does not want in any way to harm the potato growers of the Nation. The fact that we have given to the potato growers one- half billion dolars out of the Treasury in the past 7 years is a pretty good in- dication that we have not attempted to harm the potato growth. But the time has come when we must cease pouring this unusual amount of money out of the Treasury into a particular crop over which we have no effective control. All I want to do is to follow up this amend- ment with the bill I introduced the other day, along with the one introduced by the distinguished Senator from Okla- homa iMr. THomas], chairman of the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, so that hearings can be held and there can be established effective controls over potato production. This can be done, ac- cording to the Secretary of Agriculture. Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. ANDERSON. I yield. Mr. AIKEN. I should like to ask the Senator from New Mexico a question. It is understood that the potato support program will cost the taxpayers from $80,000,000 to possibly $100,000,000 this year. But does not the Senator from New Mexico understand that if the Sec- retary had chosen to use the provisions of the law in requiring compliance with marketing practices through the market- ing agreements, and which we are given to understand he does intend to use this year, the cost of the potato support pro- gram would have been reduced some- where between two-thirds and three- quarters of the amount which it is now costing? Mr. ANDERSON. I think it is fair to say that I do not Know what the Secre- tary of Agriculture did in the way of using the provisions which were in the Marketing Act of 1948. Mr. AIKEN. The Senator under- stands, does he not, that the Secretary did not use that provision of the law which would have given him the right FEBRUARY 20 to require compliance with the market- ing practices as a qualification for price support? Mr. ANDERSON. I understand that he did not, but I have no way of know- ing, and it was my hope that when we got into the consideration of the long- range provisions of the bill we would have before us the desirability of having marketing agreements, and that at that time it would be possible to question the Department of Agriculture to find out exactly what had been done. I under- stand the marketing orders were not is- sued. I tried to explain that as late as August, and probably later, it was antici- pated that the crop would not be in ex- cess of about 360,000,000 to 365,000,000 bushels, and if the crop had stood to that magnitude it would not have been necessary to have marketing orders or agreements. When the fact became ap- parent that the Maine crop was going to be very much larger and that other crops in other States was going to be very much larger, I do not happen to know. Mr, AIKEN. Mr. President, will the Senator further yield? Mr. ANDERSON. I yield. Mr. AIKEN. Is it not true that as late as November the total size of the potato crop was underestimated by about 40,000,000 bushels? Mr. ANDERSON. My understanding is that very late it was underestimated by a great many million bushels. Mr. AIKEN. Does not the Senator understand that the provision whereby the Secretary could require compliance with marketing practices was inscrted in the law at the request of the Depart- ment of Agriculture? Mr. ANDERSON. It was my under- standing that it was inserted in the law at the request of the Department of Ag- riculture; yes. Mr. LUCAS. Senator yield? Mr. ANDERSON. I yield. Mr. LUCAS. The Senator knows more about the so-called Anderson bill than any other individual, because he was in- strumental in securing its enactment. Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, I de- sire to suggest to the distinguished ma- jority leader that the question pro- Pounded by the Senator from Vermont has to do with the Agricultural Act of 1948, in which marketing agreements were first inserted at the request of the Department of Agriculture. Mr. LUCAS. Very well. Mr. ANDERSON. They were carried forward in the Agricultural Act of 1949, however. Mr. LUCAS. I understand that. But, referring to the bill at present on the statute books as an amendment to the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, known as the Anderson bill, I ask the Senator, Is that bill, plus whatever other laws are on the statute books at the pres- ent time, sufficient to control potatoes, if we are going to support them under the so-called price-support program? Mr. ANDERSON. I think I would wish to know what the Department of Agriculture planned to do under that program. I may say to the Senator that if the program did rot have the type of Mr. President, will the
1950 marketing orders added to it as was the case in 1948, it would not be sufficient to control potatoes. I believe marketing agreements can be effective if they are backed up by marketing orders. Mr. LUCAS. One further question. I understand that the Senator from New Mexico was Secretary of Agriculture when the potato program was estab- lished, and that he recommended to the Congress from time to time that it do something about that matter, and that the 1938 act was in effect when the Sena- tor from New Mexico was Secretary of Agriculture. My point is this: In view of the question of the Senator from Ver- mont [Mr. AIKEN], does the Senator be- lieve the Secretary of Agriculture has power, or ever had power, to control po- tato production? Mr. ANDERSON. He had his first possibility of power in connection with the 1949 crop, under the Agricultural Act of 1948. I am not convinced that marketing agrcements alone are sufficient to control potatoes. The reason why I say that is my belief that a marketing agreement, in order to be effective, must be supported by a desire on the part of both parties to support the agreement, and I do not think there is a desire at the present time to enforce marketing agreements on the crop. That is a wholly different situation from what we find in connection with the citrus-fruit crop, where the citrus-fruit growers want the marketing agreement to work. When the growers want the marketing agreement to work, it works effectively, as I am certain the distin- guished Senator from Florida will testify. Mr. LUCAS. The whole question, then, comes down to the difference be- tween marketing agreements and mar- keting quotas. Certainly it seems to me, in view of the money which has been lost on the support program on the potato crop in the last 5 or 6 years that if mar- keting agreements were effective to con- trol production, they would have bcen put into use long before now. It is the opinion of the Senator from Illinois that the only way we shall con- trol potato production is by means of the rigid controls set up in the bill intro- duced last year by the Senator from Oklahoma, and more or less duplicated in a bill introduced by the Senator from IHinois. Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. SPaRKMAN in the chair). Does the Sen- ator from New Mexico yield to the Sen- ator from Vermont? Mr. ANDERSON. I yield. Mr. AITKEN. Does not the Senator understand that the Secretary of Agri- culture is requiring marketing agree- ments to be in effect for the 1950 crop, as a qualification for price supports un- der the same provision of law, which was in the law last year Mr. ANDERSON. Yes; I understand that is correct. Mr. AIKEN. And does not the Sena- tor also understand that if the Secretary of Agriculture has the authority to use that provision of law this year, he cer- XCVI-——123 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE tainly must have had the same authority to use the same provision of law last year? I do not say that the failure to use it was not due to a gross under- estimate of the potato crop, due to the remarkably good growing season; but does not the Senator from New Mexico also understand that it cost the taxpay- ers, this year, in the neighborhood of $100,000,000 to support the potato crop, which is supposed to be under airtight Government control? I know it is diffi- cult to get the exact amount, but it is in the neighborhood of $100,000,000. Mr. ANDERSON. I may say to the Senator from Vermont that I do not think it is in the neighborhood of $100,- 000,000. I think it 1s in the neighbor- hood of $35,000,000. I do not believe it is possible to put peanuts under airtight controls as yet. Perhaps I should say that in the opera- tion of the law, the limitation has been put at 2,100,000 acres. That amount of land will produce more peanuts than the country will use this year, and there will be a loss on this year’s crop. But in 1951 it will be possible to put peanuts under complete acreage controls, and I hope the peanut growers will re- member that that probably will mean less than one and one-half million acres, and possibly less than 1,000,000 acres Mr. AIKEN In estimating the cost of the peanut-support program this year at $35,000,000—and I think the late esti- mate of the Department is thirty-cight million some hundred thousand dol- lars—the Senator from New Mexico is omitting the peanuts which were taken off the hands of the Commodity Credit Corporation by the Army and the ECA; is he not? Mr. ANDERSON. Not entirely. There are two amounts of peanuts that are handled there. Mr. AIKEN. That is correct. Mr. ANDERSON. I did not mean to get into this subject; but in part pea- nuts are handled under a foreign export program, under which the ECA and the Army were charged 81g cents, as against the total, over-all cost of 16% cents. Certain other quantities were sold to the ECA and to the Army at cost, which means 1614 cents I think on those the Army takes a loss, because the oj] costs it more than the 8% cents for which it can buy the oil in the market. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. ANDERSON. I yield. Mr. LUCAS. I think the Senator is getting away from the question in talking about peanuts now, because we are con- cerned here with potatoes. The Sena- tor knows that last year I did as much as any other Senator in trying to control the potato situation. Mr. AIKEN. I only wish the Senator had been successful. Mr. LUCAS. I attempted to be. Nevertheless, we are now talking about potatoes. The Senator from Vermont appears to be telling the Senate that the Secretary of Agriculture has the power, under the marketing agreements, to con- trol potatoes. But the evidence will show, when we finally get to the point of taking evidence—at least, I have been 1949 s0 advised—that the measure we are now debating, followed up with quotas will save the taxpayers $50,000,000 on the 1950 crop. The Senator from Vermont would create the impression that the Depart- mental officials have not done the cor- rect thing. Regardless of whether they have or whether they have not, those officials now tell us that if this proposed legislation is enacted, we can save $50,- 000,000 on potatoes alone this year and in view of what the potato growers have received during the past 5 or 6 years, this legislation would not harm any pro- ducer very much. I am interested in the potato question, not because I am attempting to be unduly harsh with the United States potato farmers—certainly I am not—but be- cause I am interested in the great farm program which we in the Congress have enunciated over a period of years, and which has been the most successful pro- gram of its type in all the history of America. Certainly we must have a prosperous agricultural economy in order to have a prosperous America. If we continue to subsidize crops, over which we have no control whatever—whether it be peanuts or potatoes or any other crop—we shall finally break down the prcgram. I am interested in the continuing stability of our whole farm program, more than any- thing else. Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, I may say to the distinguished majority leader that if I were in the position of Secretary of Agriculture and had to have an effective program for the control of the potato situation, so that it would not cost the Government more than it should cost—and some little cost is justi- fied—I would want marketing quotas. I think that is the best and the most effec- tive way, certainly, to handle this situa- tion. Iam not able to say whether market- ing agreements would be effective in the case of potatoes. Before a judgment is passed upon that question, I would want to see what was done in 1949, under the terms of the Agricultural Act of 1943, and what has thus far been done in 1950, under the terms of the Agricultural Act of 1949. I would want to see what mar- keting orders were issued, what attempts were made to establish grades. Then I might be able to say whether I thougl t it was an effective way to handle the potato program. I may say ‘that when the origina) legis- lation was enacted, it was the opinion of the Department of Agriculture that marketing agreements would be, to a great degree, effective. At that time it looked as if the potato growers wanted to cooperate and would cooperate. I still think a great majority of the potato growers will cooperate in a marketing- agreement program If it is possible to handle this situation by means of marketing agreements, certuinly that is a@ very desirable and satisfactory way to handle it. Unfortunately, we have not yet had sufficient experience, in my opinion, to be able to know whether it will be effec- tive; and what experience I have had
1950 leads me to believe that I would like to have marketing quotas on a crop, rather than marketing agreements. Mr, STENNIS, Mr. BREWSTER, and other Senators addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from New Mexico yield; and if so, to whom? Mr. ANDERSON. I yield first to the Senator from Mississippi, who has been seeking recognition for some time. Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I should like to ask the Senator whether I correctly understood him to say, a while ago, that the proposed cotton bill will add 600,000 acres to the present allot- ments for cotton. Mr. ANDERSON. I said the official estimate of the Department of Agricul- ture was 790,000 acres; and I have no way of disputing that figure, except that other estimates, made inside the Depart- ment, run as low as 600,000 acres, and some run as high as 800,000 acres. I be- leve the correct figure to be between the two. Mr.STENNIS. But regardless of that, the Senator from New Mexico believes the total acreage will not exceed that presently allowed by law, namely, 21,000,000 acres; is that correct? Mr. ANDERSON. I think so. I think there will be underplanting, not nearly sO much as some persons believe, but sufficient so that the acreage will still come within the 21,000,000 acres, or per- haps slightly above it. Mr. STENNIS. I understood the Sen- ator to say that the present law has op- erated exceedingly well for the small grower and operator. Mr. ANDERSON. That is correct. Mr. STENNIS. And that the present measure will take care of some of the inequities affecting the larger operators. Mr. ANDERSON. Not necessarily that. Mr. STENNIS. But is it not true that the bill affects smaller operators also, be- cause many of them are tenants and have to come under the allotments al- lowed the larger land owners. Mr. ANDERSON. That is correct; and I hope I did not leave the impression that only the large operators’ allotments will be affected by this measure. There is a situation in the State of Texas, for example, which will be handled by it, that has nothing to do with either large or small operations, where all the crops will be taken care of. It is an attempt to make possible the application by the Department of certain additional facts or circumstances which they were not able to apply at an earlier date. Mr. STENNIS. But, even in the case of large operators who are going to be taken care of, this measure affects many people, because they are tenants who receive their acreage really under the larger operator’s allotment. Is that not true? Mr. ANDERSON. Yes. I may say every large operator, unless it be those in the large irrigated sections, operates with a system of tenants, who derive their allocation from the larger operator, and it happens that most of the relief will come in the States where that is the practice. Under the proposal there will be no relief, or only minor relief, to the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE State of California, for example, where there is a large irrigated area. The ad- vantage will come, as the Senator from Mississippi has indicated, to the States where the large operator uses the tenant in his operation. Mr. STENNIS. The family-unit farmer is the one who will benefit. Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. ANDERSON. I yield. Mr. FREWSTER. In view of the ap- parent fact that the Secretary did not deem it wise to use the power he pos- sessed last year, and in view of the fact that the potato growers of the country were the ones who took the 60-percent parity, and the only ones so far as the major crops are concerned, would it not be more considerate and more equitable that the potato industry should have the opportunity to have its case considered before the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, and to recommend whatever additional legislation may seem to be indicated, to deal with the problem, be- fore they are entirely deprived of the support program? ‘That would be the effect of the rider in this case. Mr. ANDERSON. In answer to the distinguished Senator, I said quite frankly, as I began, that this was dls- criminatory legislation, and I so recog- nize it, but I see no way of getting ef- fective and early action without discrim- inatory legislation. I think it is a chop- ping-off, which I concede to be unfaur, but 1t will probably precipitate immediate consideration of an acreage bill which will establish workable quotas. Mr. BREWSTER. Is not that unfair, If I may use the word? No hearings have been held. The potato industry has been ready to go ahead with hearings on this matter, and would welcome an oppor- tunity, if the distinguished Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, and his colleagues, could set this question for an immediate hearing. It would give some assurance of consid- eration which has already been too long delayed. Mr. ANDERSON. The Senator from Maine places me in a bad position. I happen to be a member of the subcom- mittce which called upon the Department of Agriculture for a legislative proposal. The legislative proposal came, was re- ceived by the chairman of the commit- tee, and was introduced by him as a bill. I think it would have been well if we had had hearings on it last October or, pref- erably last September, and had com- pleted the hearings, so they might have been incorporated in legislation early in January. But a great many things in- tervened to make that impossible. I could also state to the distinguished Sen- ator that I had not intended to say any- thing about that in speaking on the joint resolution, but in the absence of the chairman, members of the committee asked me to explain the cotton provi- sions of it, and naturally I felt obligated also to explain why we went into the potato situation as we did. I have tried to be fair and to say I do not think this is fair treatment, but I say it is a type of drastic treatment that sometimes makes it possible to obtain fair treatment. If I may take just another minute, let me say FEBRUARY 20 further to the distinguished Senator from Maine that when the matter comes before the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, I hope my conduct then will convince him that I should still like to be fair to the potato growers of the country. I think this is a necessary step perhaps to bring the question before the Congress in an effective way. Somehow, nothing would have been done with it, otherwise. The Senator has said the potato grow- ers have been ready to proceed for 5 months, I think he is entirely correct in that statement, and therefore I think perhaps we have done them an injustice, and this may be another injustice. Two wrongs may not make one right, at all, but it may be that out of these two wrongs we may finally get some legisla- tion that may be fair. Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. ANDERSON. I yield. Mr. AIKEN. I simply wanted to ask one more question. Section 2 of the joint resolution as amended reads: No price support shall be made available for any Irish potatoes planted after the en- actment of this joint resolution unless marketing quotas are in effect with respect to such potatoes. Assuming that the joint resolution be- comes effective on March 1, and the potato quota bill is enacted into law, effective April 15, what will be the status of potatoes planted between March 1 and April 15? Also what will be the status regarding quotas of potatoes already planted, and which will be above ground by March 1? Mr. ANDERSON. I think I could an- swer those questions for the Senator from Vermont. I imagine when the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry is considering the matter they will at- tempt to draft some sort of schedule which will make it possible to dispose of that question. I was going to say it would seem to me 1t would be desirable to have the provision reach as far back as possible. I am not greatly worried about what happens to potatoes planted in January, February, and March. I think that generally speaking they can be han- died without much loss to the Federal Government, and whatever loss there might be would be more than offset by the lower prices paid by the consumers as they buy those potatoes in the stores. If, Mr. President, we had a ereat scarcity in January, February, and March of the early potatoes, then the price might be very high in the stores, and I would rather have a little bit larger supply, and support them a little bit, than to have a scarcity of those early potatoes. Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, I should like to ask one more question. Suppose a North Carolina farmer plants, we may say, 50 acres before the acreage law goes into effect, and then finds he is entitled to market only the product from 35 of the acres he has planted. Would we then expect the other 15 acres to be de- stroyed? What would happen to them? Mr. ANDERSON. I still say that is a matter the committee would have to con- sider. Ido not think it presents too great a problem, because I think quotas can be allowed to a great many in the early,
1950 intermediate steps, and still not bring about too great distress. Mr. THYE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr, ANDERSON. I yield. Mr. THYE. The able senior Senator from Vermont raised the question I had in mind, as to what would be done with the producer who either had his potatoes planted or was in process of harvesting them. But I could not quite follow the able Senator from New Mexico when he said that an excess yield, or an excess amount of early potatoes might be ad- vantageous rather than a handicap. I think they have been a handicap to the Department of Agriculture, only in the most recent weeks, because, while I may not have the positive facts, I read in the public press that they have been buying some early potatoes at the present time in order to support the program, or to support the potato price, while in the northern section of the United States, the late potatoes are in surplus and we are attempting to dispose of them. So I cannot see how, if the Government is purchasing early potatoes in the deep South to support the program, those po- tatoes are not a problem to the Nation and to the Department of Agriculture at the present time. Mr. ANDERSON. I may say to the distinguished Senator from Minnesota that, earlier, I had admitted that, as I understood, some potatoes had been pur- chased in the South at this time. I say only that the surplus potatoes are the best price-regulating mechanism we have, and that applies to all farm pro- grams, I hope that in imposing quite drastic legislation affecting potatoes, we do not so fix the quotas that we will have a scarcity of potatoes. I should rather have a little abundance of potatoes, and remove them from the markets, than to have a scarcity of potatoes. Therefore, that is why I said I did not think the amount which had thus far been devel- oped to be at all dangerous or to be costing the Government too much money. Mr. THYE. If the able Senator from New Mexico will yield further, I fully agree with his statement as to a surplus, and that possibly it is to the benefit rather than a handicap to consumers of the Nation. If they do not plant suffi- cient acres to get a yield that affords a sufficient supply to meet the demand, the scarcity of the product may cause con- sumers to pay an enormous price. If and when we get to a point where we attempt to regulate every unit of production to merely our domestic consumption, we may find a short season when produc- tion is not so favorable as the production of potatoes was in the past going season of 1949. If that happens, Mr. President, then, consumers are going to pay a great’ deal more than the cost they paid under support prices at 60 percent of parity, as we had it in the calendar year 1949 and this winter of 1950. I believe that in dealing with this over- all question, we have got to make it clear on the Senate floor what we are going to do with the potatoes which are today planted and are growing, and to make it CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE clear whether the support will be availa- ble to those who are planting this spring, in the late potato-producing areas, be- cause it is absolutely wrong for the Con- gress to permit one section of the United States, in producing a crop, to receive a different support from that which is accorded to farmers in another section producing the same type of crop. So I definitely hope that when the question is finally disposed of we will have written into the law provisions which will be ap- plied to the growers across the Nation, not merely to the growers in certain sectors of the country. Mr. BREWSTER rose. Mr. ANDERSON. I have badly in- fringed upon the time of the Senator from Wisconsin. Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield so that I may ask one more question? Mr. ANDERSON. I should like first to make one brief observation to the Senator from Minnesota. The joint res- olution clearly says that potatoes which are planted up to the time of the effective date of the rider shall receive price sup- port. This would not be the first time that there has been a difference in the way a price support has been given to potatoes, because at one time the price support was only made available to what were called storable potatoes, and the early and intermediate potatoes did not receive price support. I therefore sug- gest we have not always handled the problem exactly alike, although I admit to the distinguished Senator from Min- nesota that it probably is discriminating and may be unfair. I have tried to be frank about that. Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. President, one more question, please. Is it not true, I would ask the Senator from New Mex- ico, that a very substantial portion, pos- sibly from 30 to 50 percent, of the con- templated surplus this year, may be the result of the influx of Canadian potatoes into our country? Mr. ANDERSON. I would not be able to say how much it may be, because I am not familiar with the figures. I have al- ready conceded that the influx of Cana- dian potatoes, when we had a 50,000,000- bushel surplus, was a very distressing item. Mr. BREWSTER. Is it not true that the President has the entire power to stop that influx whenever he shall deem it ex- pedient in the public interest? Mr. ANDERSON. Ido not know. I do not think so, because I understand there is a provision in the tariff law which allows a certain amount to come in at a reduced rate, and which provides higher rates beyond that for additional quantities. The Senator from Maine is far more able to answer his own ques- tion than I am, and I shall therefore leave it with him. Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, I should like to send to the desk and ask to have printed and lie on the table an amend- ment which I propose to offer to House Joint Resolution 398, when it comes be- fore the Senate for action. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be received, printed, and lie on the table. 1951 Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, I should like to be associated with the distin- guished Senator from Vermont in offer- ing that amendment. If my colleague from North Dakota [Mr. Younc] were present, he would also like to be asso- ciated in offering the amendment. He is at present at home because of the illness of his mother. Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, I assure the Senator that I welcome his associa- tion with me in that amendment, and I should welcome any other Senators from agricultural States. The PRESIDING OFFICER. With- out objection, the name of the senior Senator from North Dakota will be added as a sponsor of the amendment. MILITARY SERVICE OF BRIG. GEN. JULIUS KLEIN Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have inserted in the Recorp at this point in my remarks a statement prepared by myself dealing with the military service of Brig. Gen. Julius Klein and an additional statement of his military service. There being no objection, the state- ments were ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows. STATEMENT BY SENATOR BREWSTER Mr. President, I am happy to pay tribute to an outstanding citizen soldier with whose past record I am fully acquainted Julius Klein has devoted a rich and active life to the service of his country and to his fellow men. Julius Klein entered active military serve ice with the Thirty-third Division in March 1941, before this country was at war. He did special research work on north African and German problems and prepared a compre- hensive paper on combat public relations, which dealt with the problems of psychologie cal warfare, military government, and propa- ganda. However, he was eager to assume active duties and requested that he be as- signed to a service which would enable him to participate in active combat. Holding the rank of Neutenant colonel, he was later placed in command of the Second Battalion, Twenty-third QM Truck Regi- ment, with which unit he was assigned to New Caledonia. He saw action in the South Pacific and later in the Philippines. He and his battalion recelved numerous commenda- tions and was rated “superior"’ by the Inspec- tor General. He was cited for bravery in the South Pacific by Lieutenant General Harmon, and was later awarded the Soldier's Medal for heroism by the President. General Klein was later placed in command of the Five Hundred and Twenty-third QM Group, and assumed the responsibility of expediting the movement of cargo and troops from the port of Noumea. So well did he carry out his duties, under the stress of war and in the face of a multitude of wartime problems, that the convoy operations in that area were enormously improved General Klein later commanded Lis group during the invasion of the Philippines and took full charge of all service troops on the island of Cebu. His group executed the movement of the Twenty-fifth Division to the Philippine theater, which was subse- quently commended by the division com- mander and others as having been the best planned and executed movement of its size yet witnessed. General Klein has made equally important contributions to the Illinois National Guard. Before a group of American Legionnaires at Bloomington, Ill, General Klein delivered what may well be called a speech of his- toric importance to the National Guard
1952 system. In this speech, he opposed the fed- eralization of the National Guard, a subject in which many of us in the Senute are deeply concerned. Very sagactously, he invited at- tention to the danger of federalization. He said, and I quote: “The National Guard sys- tem, comprising, as it does, citizen soldiers, has always been a bulwark against the con- centration of military power in our Federal Government I urge all citizens in groups and as individuals to take appropriate action to assure the rejection by Congress of pro- posals which would destroy our existing Na- tional Guard system” Unquote. At the end of World War II, General Klein was called to Washington to assume the pust of special assistant to the then Secretary of War Robert P. Patterson. Mr. President, I would like to close with a quotation from the great Ameuican Douglis MocArthur’s message to General Klcin. “My appreciation for the conspicuous service you rendered while a member of my com- mand is a matter of official record, as is your service prior to that time Your promotion to the grade of brigadier general is not only a highly deserved honor, but in furtherance of the public interest as well” This per- sonal tribute from one of the world's great- est soldiers is solid indication of General Klein's standing in the brotherhood of pa- triotic military men who have contributed to America’s glory. I am sure that many of my colleagues on the floor of the Senate join me tin spirit in paying tribute to this worthy gentieman, Julius Klein. MILITARY RECORD, BRIG GEN JULIUS KLEIN— EXTRACTS FROM LETTERS AND OFFICIAL RE- PORTS “He has always demonstrated his suitabill- ty for the rank of brigadier general "—Lt Gen Robert C. Richardson, Jr, May 6, 1946. “He was assigned as port commander (Noumea) and reorganized the same in a superior manner. * * * He has definite- ly demonstrated his suitability tor the rank of brigadier general ”’"—Mnjy Gen. Rush B. Lincoln, May 7, 1946 “Your unselfish and outstanding devotion to duty merit this long overdue recognition of the conspicuous service you have given this Nation "—Maj Gen Edward F. Witsell, February 16, 1948. “It has come to my attention that Col. Julius Klein has been selectcd as Command- ing General of an AAA Brigade in the MIli- nois Nutional Guard. I was most pleased to receive this news as I feel that it is a recog- nition of Colonel Klein's ability and a mark of approval of his performance in World War II. He will no doubt do an equally fine job in the citizen soldier army * * * It is gratifying to see his ability recognized. Colo- nel Klein is a man of great ability and one who has imagination coupled with an amaz- ing capacity for work. His selection there- fore secms to me to be very wise '"—Lt Gen. Robert C. Richardson, Jr., February 20, 1948. “Colonel Klein has proved himself to be @ fine and outstanding soldier and fully worthy of the faith you hive placed in him by your recent recommendation that he be promoted to general officer rank. The Na- tional Guard will certainly benefit greatly by your action ’—~Maj. Gen. Ewart G Plank, February 24, 1948 “I have followed with interest his assign- ments, and the manner in which he has per- formed them all bear witness to his out- standing ability and his worthiness for the awards presented. * “* * JI regret that I am not in a position, due to my retirement, to place an oficial endorsement on General Klein's promotion papers. However, I would like to add my recommendation for Federal recognition of his promotion and to inform you of my complete confidence in his ability CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE to serve in the rank of brigadier general.”— Maj Gen. Rush B. Lincoln, March 5, 1948. “He has the proper training and seasoned judgment for such a responsibility and I would not hesitate to huve Colonel Klein in his new position under my command if the occasion should arise I heartily endorse your recommendation and the promotion of Col. Julius Klein to brigadier general.""—Lt. Gen. Robert Eichelberger, Murch 18, 1948. “Iam delighted to hear of your recent pro- motion to the grade of brigadier gcneral in the Illinois National Guard It is a well-de- served and long overdue honor, and you have my congratulations "—Gen Douglas MacAr- thu, April 9, 1948 “My appreciation for the conspicuous service you rendered while a member of my command in 1945-46 is # matter of official record. * * * JI consider that your pro- motion to the grade ot brigadier general is not only a highly deserved honor but in fur- therance of the public interest as well and had the war not terminated when it did, I have no doubt but that you would have received this promotion in the due course of your active duty in the Army of the United States.”—-Gen. Douglas MacArthur, April 17, 1948, “Brigadier Gencral Klein served in my office when I was Secretary of War. * * * I cannot say too much for the caliber ot his work He is an officer of marked ability and notable vigor. I am sure that he is thor- oughly qualified for Federal recognition in his present rank and post "—Judge Robert P. Patterson, April 15, 1948 “As I relinquish my office as Governor of Illinois, I should like to express my appre- ciation for the splendid cfforts you have ex- pended in the service of our State and Na- tion * * * The tremendous efforts, the immeasurable value of this work, cannot be overrated. You have my heartfelt thanks for this job which has meunt so much to the Nation we both serve. I was therefore Pleared to receive and act favorably upon General Haffner's recommendation for your promotion to brigadier general ’—Governor Dwight H Green, January 8, 1949 “I desire to take this opportunity to express to you my personal gratification of your in- terest in our national security as exempli- fled by vour participation as a student in Senior Officers’ Indoctrination Course, held at the Antiaircruft and Guided Missiles Branch of the Artillery School, Fort Bliss, Tex. * * * The intcrest and enthusiasm which you have displayed throughout the course has been an inspiiation to both the faculty and the other student members of the class."—MajJ Gen. John L Homer, Febru- ary 17, 1949. “I was particularly impressed by his knowl- edge of military tactics and strategy and his keen appreciation of the use of antiaircraft artillery and guided missiles It is my opin- jon that his professional qualifications are sufficient to qualify him for the rank of brigadier general, National Guard, to com- mand an antiaircraft brigade. I would be highly pleased to have him as a general offi- cer in command of units in any command I might have "—Maj. Gen. John L Homer, July 11, 1949 “Brigadier General Kicin is, in my opinion, a real leader, and manifests this military leadership successiully and effectively in the distinctly high quality of his troop com- m.nds. I am satisfied that his knowledge, training, sound judgment, courage, and fine personal qualities fully qualify him for his appointment as brigadier general "—Maj. Gen Ewart G Plank, July 16, 1949. “I consider it not only a privilege, but my duty, as the former chief executive and war- time Governor of Illinois, to appear before this Board 1n behalf of Julius Klein, a worthy citizen-soldier who has rendered distin- guished services to the State and Nation, and FEBRUARY 20 who, particularly during my 8 years as Gover- nor of Illinois, was of immeasurable value to me in matters pertaining to the military establishment of our State. * * * Goneral Klein is eminently well qualified to hoid post- tions in the military, because he has energy, ambition, drive, keen intelligence, loyalty, superior judgment, and forthrightness.”— Dwight H Green, July 26, 1949 “Iam familiar with the services rendered by Brigadier General Klein tn World War II and with his subsequent performance of duty. For some time he served a3 special assistant to me in the office of the Sccretary of War * * * He dischargcd his duties with fidelity, skill, and ability, being in- defatigable in his work He has unusual qualities of leadership It is my opinion that he ts thoroughly qualified for Federal recog- nition "—-Judge Robert P Patterson, Septem- ber 8, 1949. “The results obtained during the field training of the One Hundred and Ninth Antl- uircralt Artillery Brigade are ample proof of the capabilities of the brigade commander and staff, * * * The brigade commander is to be commended for his Initiative, energy, and enthusiasm which has been so largely responsible for the success of the camp. Through the brigade commander's varied ex- periences he has acquired an intimate knowl- edge of human nature, and as a result has been able to instill in his entire command a very high morale and a desire to reflect credit upon the citizen-soldier of our country "— Field Training Inspection Report, Fitth Army Inspection Team, August 7, 1948 “This unit has progressed rapidly and shows evidence of excellent leadership "— Annual Armory Inspection Report, Inspector General Fifth Army, January 3, 1949 “This is the second field training phase in which this unit has taken part * * * The excellent results shown by the units under their command are due to a considera- ble degree to the organizational ability and systematic supervision of the brigade com- mander and his staff An examination of the brigade commander's record and his conduct in the field indicate that he is well qualified both as an executive and a trocp command- er’~-Field Training Inspection Report, Fifth Army Inspection Team, August 24, 1949 “Based on technical proficiency, condition of equipment, camp and range discipline, courtesy and morale, the training standard existing in the One Hundred and Ninth Anti- aircraft Artillery Brigade, Illinois National Guard, a8 compared with other National Guard units, 1s superior "—Report of Staff Visit by Representative of Chiet Army Field Forces, September 7, 1949 COMMUNISTS IN GOVERNMENT SERVICE Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. President, I wish to discuss a subject tonight which concerns me more than does any other subject I have ever discussed before this body, and perhaps more than any other subject I shall ever have the good fortune to discuss in the future. It not only concerns me, but it disturbs and fright- ens me About 10 days ago, at Wheeling, W Va., in making a Lincoln Day speech, I made the statement that there are presently in the State Department a very sizable £roup of active Communists. I made the further statement, Mr. President, that of one small group which had been screened by the President's own security agency, the State Depariment refused to discharge approximately 200 of those individuals, The Secretary of State promptly de- nied my statement and said there was not a single Communist in the State De-
1950 partment. I thereafter sent a telegram to the President, which I should like to read at this time: President Harry S. TRUMAN, White House, Washington, D.C. In the Lincoln Day speech at Wheeling Thursday night I stated that the State De- partment harbors a nest of Communists and Communist sympathizers who are helping to shape our foreign policy. I further stated that I have in my possession the names of 57 Communists who are in the State Depart- ment at present. A State Department spokes- man promptly denied this, claiming that there is not a single Communist in the De- partment. You can convince yourself of the falsity of the State Department claim very easily. You will recall that you person- ally appointed a board to screen State De- artment employees for the purpose of weed- g out fellow travelers—men whom the board considered dangerous to the security of this Nation. Your board did a painstak- ing job, and named hundreds which had been listed as dangerous to the security of the Nation, because of communistic con- nections. While the records are not available to me, I know absolutely of one group of approxi- mately 300 certified to the Secretary for dis- charge because of communism. He actually only discharged approximately 80. I under- stand that this was done after lengthy con- sultation with the now-convicted traitor, Alger Hiss. I would suggest, therefore, Mr. President, that you simply pick up your phone and ask Mr. Acheson how many of those whom your board had labeled as dan- gerous Communists he failed to discharge. The day the House Un-American Activities Committee exposed Alger Hiss as an impor- tant link in an international Communist spy ring you signed an order forbidding the State Department's giving any information in re- gard to the disloyalty or the communistic connections of anyone in that Department to the Congress. Despite this State Department black-out, we have been able to compile a list of 57 Communists in the State Department. This list is available to you but you can get a much longer list by ordering Secretary Ache- son to give you a list of those whom your own board listed as being disloyal and who are still working in the State Department I believe the following is the mintmum which can be expected of you in this case 1. That you demand that Acheson give you and the proper congressional committee the names and a complete report on all of those who were placed in the Department by Alger Hiss, and all of those still working in the State Department who were listed by your board as bad security risks because of their communistic connections. 2. That you promptly revoke the order in which you provided under no circumstances could a congressional committee obtain any information or help in exposing Communists, Fallure on your part will label the Demo- cratic Party of being the bedfellow of international communism. Certainly this label is not deserved by the hundreds of thousands of loyal American Democrats throughout the Nation, and by the sizable number of able loyal Democrats in both the Senate and the House. Mr. President, the only answer I have received to this telegram was the state- ment by the President at his press con- ference to the effect that there was not a word of truth in the telegram. Subsequently, the Democratic leader of the Senate—at least, the alleged lead- er—made a speech in Chicago in which he repeated substantially what the Pres- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE ident said, except that he went one step further and stated: If I had said the nasty things that Mc- Cartuy has about the State Department, I would be ashamed all my life. He also said there was not a word of truth in my charge. I think it is un- fortunate, not because I am concerned with what the senior Senator from IIli- nois happens to think, but because he occupies such an important position. I believe, if we are going to root out the fifth column in the State Department, we should have the wholehearted coop- eration of both Democrats and Republi- cans—— Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. McCARTHY. Wait until I finish. If the Senator will stay with me for the next few hours he will learn a great many facts. I have never refused to yield to any Senator, and I do not intend to re- fuse. The Senator from Illinois will have full time in which to answer any question he wishes to ask, but Jet me first finish my sentence. I started to say that I think it is espe- cially bad because it indicates a pre- conceived decision not to work with us in attempting to ferret out Communists. I do not feel that the Democratic Party has control of the executive branch of the Government any more. If it had, with the very able Members on the other side of the aisle, we would not find the picture which I intend to disclose. I think a group of twisted-thinking intel- lectuals have taken over both the Demo- cratic and Republican Parties to try to wrest control from them. I shall be glad now to yield to the Sen- ator from Illinois. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I should like to say to the Senator that there is no one in the Senate or in the country who is any more opposed to Communist domination of any nation or Communist infiltration into any country than is the Senator from Illinois. What I am ask- ing the Senator to do—and I hope he will do it, and the country wants him to do it—is to follow through with the speech which he made in Wheeling, W. Va., in which he stated more than 200 persons working in the State Depart- ment were known to the Secretary of State to be members of the Communist Party. If the Senator made that state- ment—and that is what has been re- ported—I want him to name those Com- munists. If there are card-carrying Communists in the State Department, the Senator from Illinois will go along with the Senator from Wisconsin in any way possible to remove those Commu- nists from the rolls. The Senator does not have to do as he did in Salt Lake City and say, “I am not charging these four people with being Communists.” The Senator is privileged to name them all in the Senate, and if those people are not Communists he will be protected. That is all I want the Senator to do. If the Senator names those 205 card-carrying Communists, and he proves to be right, the Senator from Jllingis will apologize for anything 1953 he has said about the Senator from Wisconsin. Mr. McCARTHY. I wish to thank the distinguished Senator from Mlinois for his views, but I should like to assure him that I will not say anything on the Senate floor which I will not say off the floor. On the day when I take advan- tage of the security we have on the Sen- ate floor, on that day I will resign from the Senate. Anything I say on the floor of the Senate at any time will be repeated off the floor. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. McCARTHY. Not until I have finished answering the question of the Senator from Illinois. The Senator called my attention to something, and Iam glad he did; otherwise I might have overlooked it. Incidentally, the speech in Reno, Nev., and that in Wheeling, W. Va., were recorded, so there is no question about what I said. I do not believe I mentioned the figure 205. I believe I said “over 200"’ The President said, “It is just a lie. There is nothing to it.” I have before me a letter which was reproduced in the CONGRESSIONAL REc- oRD on August 1, 1946, at page A4892., It is a letter from James F. Byrnes, for- mer Secretary of State. It deals with the screening of the first group, of about 3,000. There were a great number of subsequent screenings. This was the be- ginning. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yleld? Mr. McCARTHY. Please let me fin- ish. The Senator will have all the time in the world to ask questions, and I shall be very glad to yield to the Senator for that purpose, and he can even make short speeches and take al] the time he wants. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, the Sen- ator from Ilinois—— Mr. McCARTHY. I do not yield at this time. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin declines to yield. Mr. McCARTHY. The letter deals with the first group of 3,000 which was screened. The President—and I think wisely so—set up a board to screen the employees who were coming to the State Department from the various war agen- cies of the War Department. There were thousands of unusual characters in some of those war agencies. Former Secretary Byrnes in his letter, which is reproduced in the CONGRESSIONAL REcorD, says this: Pursuant to Executive order, approximately 4,000 employees have been transferred to the Department of State from various war agen- cies such as the OSS, FEA, OWI, OIAA, and so forth. Of these 4,000 employees, the case histories of approximately 3,000 have been subjected to a preliminary examination, as a result of which a recommendation against permanent employment has been made in 285 cases by the scrcening committee to which you refer in your letter. In other words, former Secretary Byrnes said that 285 of those men are un- safe risks. He goes on to say that of this number only 79 have been removed. Of the 57 I mentioned some are from this
1954 group of 205, and some are from subse- quent groups which have been screened but not discharged. I might say in that connection that the investigative agency of the State Depart- ment has done an excellent job. The files show that they went into great detail in labeling Communists as such. The only trouble is that after the investigative agency had properly labeled these men as Communists the State Department re- fused to discharge them. I shall give detailed cases, Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President—— Mr. McCARTHY. As to the 57 whose names the Senator is demanding, if he will be patient and sit down—— Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, in view of the statements made, the Senator should yield. Mr. McCARTHY. I shall yield at this time only for a question. I shall not yield for any lengthy speeches by the Senator from Illinois. If he wishes to ask a ques- tion, I shall be glad to answer it. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, did the Senator say at Wheeling, W. Va., last Thursday night that 205 persons work- ing for the State Department were known by the Secretary of State to be members of the Communist Party, or words to that effect? Did he call the attention of the country to the fact that 205 men in the State Department were card-carrying Communists? Did the Senator say that? That is what I should like to know. Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent at this time to insert in the Recorp a copy of the speech which I made at Wheeling, W. Va. Mr. LUCAS. Cannot the Senator an- swer “Yes” or “No'’? Mr. McCARTHY. I will ask the Sen- ator please not to interrupt me. I will yield to him later. I will give him all the chance in the world. Mr. LUCAS. I asked the Senator a very simple question. Mr. McCARTHY. I ask at this time unanimous consent to be allowed to in- sert in the Recorp a copy of the speech which I made at Wheeling, W. Va., and at Reno, Nev. It was the same speech. Mr. LUCAS. Mr, President, I object. Mr. McCARTHY. In that case I shall read the speech into the REcorp. Mr. LUCAS. We want to hear it. Mr. McCARTHY. The speech reads: Ladies and gentlemen, tonight as we cele- brate the one hundred and forty-first birth- day of one of the greatest men in American history, I would like to be able to talk about what a glorious day today is in the history of the world. As we celebrate the birth of this man who with his whole heart and soul hated war, I would like to be able to speak of peace in our time, of war being outlawed, and of world-wide disarmament. These would be truly appropriate things to be able to mention as we celebrate the birthday of Abraham Lincoln. I hope the Senator from Illinois will stay for this. Mr. LUCAS. I shall be right here. I am coming over to the Republican side of the aisle so that I will not miss any- thing. Mr. McCARTHY. I am sure the Sen- ator will not miss anything. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE The speech proceeded: Five years after a world war has been won, men's hearts should anticipate a long peace, and men’s minds should be free from the heavy weight that comes with war. But this is not such a period—for this is not a period of peace. This is a time of the ‘cold war.” This is a time when all the world js split into two vast, increasingly hostile armed camps— e@ time of a great armaments race. Today we can almost physically hear the mutterings and rumblings of an invigorated god of war. You can see it, feel it, and hear it all the way from the hills of Indochina, from the shores of Formosa, right over into the very heart of Europe itself. The one encouraging thing is that the “mad moment” has not yet arrived for the firing of the gun or the exploding of the bomb which will set civilization about the final task of destroying itself. There is still a hope for peace if we finally decide that no longer can we safely blind our eyes and close our ears to those facts which are shaping up more and more clearly. And that is that we are now engaged in a show-down fight—not the usual war between nations for land areas or other material gains, but a war between two diametrically opposed ideologies. The great difference between our western Christian world and the atheistic Communist world is not political, ladies and gentlemen, it is moral. There are other differences, of course, but those could be reconciled. For instance, the Marxian idea of confiscating the land and factories and running the entire economy as a single enterprise is momentous, Likewise, Lenin's Invention of the one-party police state as a way to maKe Marx's idea work is hardly less momentous. Stalin’s resolute putting across of these two ideas, of course, did much to divide the world. With only those differences, how- ever, the East and the West could most cer- tainly still live in peace. The real, basic difference, however, lies in the religion of immoralism—invented by Marx, preached feverishly by Lenin, and car- ried to unimaginable extremes by Stalin. This religion of 1mmoralism, if the Red half of the world wins—and well it may-——this re- ligion of immoralism will more deeply wound and damage mankind than any conceivable economic or political system. Karl Marx dismissed God as a hoax, and Lenin and Stalin have added in clear-cut, unmistakable language their resolve that no nation, no people who believe in a God, can exist side by side with their communistic state. Karl Marx, for example, expelled people from his Communist Party for mentioning such things as justice, humanity, or moral- ity. He called this soulful ravings and sloppy sentimentality. While Lincoln was a relatively young man in his late thirties, Karl] Marx boasted that the Communist specter was haunting Europe. Since that time, hundreds of millions of peo- ple and vast areas of the world have fallen under Communist domination. Today, less than 100 years after Lincoln's death, Stalin brags that this Communist specter is not only haunting the world, but is about to com- pletely subjugate it. Today we are engaged in a final, all-out battle between communistic atheism and Christianity The modern champions of communism have selected this as the time. And, ladies and gentlemen, the chips are down—they are truly down. I might say for the benefit of the Sen- ator from Illinois that what I am read- ing was taken from a recording of the Speech. I did not use a written speech that night. I continue the reading: Lest there be any doubt that the time has been chosen, let us go directly to the FEBRUARY 20 leader of communism today—Joseph Stalin. Here is what he said—not back in 1928, not before the war, not during the war—but 2 years after the last war was ended: “To think that the Communist revolution can be carried out peacefully, within the framework of a Christian democracy, means one hag either gone out of one’s mind and lost all normal understanding, or has grossly and openly repudiated the Communist revolu- tion.” And this is what was said by Lenin in 1919, which was also quoted with approval by Stalin in 1947: “We are living,” said Lenin, “not merely in a state, but in a system of states, and the ex- istence of the Soviet Republic side by side with Christian states for a long time is un- thinkable. One or the other must triumph in the end. And before that end supervenes, a series of frightful collisions between the Soviet Republic and the Bourgeois states will be inevitable.” Ladies and gentlemen, can there be anyone here tonight who is so blind as to say that the war is not on? Can there be anyone who fails to realize that the Communist world has said, “The time is now”—that this is the time for the show-down between the demo- cratic Christian world and the Communist atheistic world? Unless we face this fact, we shall pay the price that must be paid by those who wait too long. Six years ago, at the time of the first con- Terence to map out the peace—Dumbarton Oaks—there was within the Soviet orbit 180,- 000,000 people. Lined up on the antitotali- tarian side there were in the world at that time roughly 1,625,000,000 people. Today, only 6 years later, there are 800,000,000 peo- ple under the absolute domination of Soviet Russia—an increase of over 400 percent. On our side, the figure has shrunk to around 500,000,000, In other words, in less than 6 years the odds have changed trom 9 to 1 in our favor to 8 to 5 against us. This indicates the swiftness of the tempo of Communist victories and American defeats in the cold war. As one of our outstanding historical figures once said, “When a great democracy is destroyed, it will not be because of ene- mies from without, but rather because of enemies from within.” The truth of this statement is becoming terrifyingly clear as we see this country each day losing on every front. At war's cnd we were physically the strong- est nation on earth and, at least potentially, the most powerful intellectually and morally. Ours could have been the honor of being a beacon in the desert of destruction, a shin- ing ving proof that civilization was not yet ready to destroy itself. Unfortunately, we have failed miserably and tragically to arise to the opportunity. The reason why we find ourselves in a posi- tion of impotency is not because our only powerful potential enemy has sent men to invade our shores, but rather because of the traitorous actions of those who have been treated so well by this Nation. It has not been the less fortunate or members of mi- nority groups who have been selling this Nation out, but rather those who have had all the benefits that the wealthiest nation on earth has had to offer—the finest homes, the finest college education, and the finest jobs in Government we can give. This is glaringly true in the State Depart- ment. There the bright young men who are born with silver spoons in their mouths are the ones who have been worst. Mr. LODGE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. McCARTHY. I yield. Mr. LODGE. I should like to say to the Senator from Wisconsin that I am interested in what he is saying, both as
1950 a Senator and as a member of the For- eign Relations Committee. When the Senator casts doubt on the personnel of the State Department that, of course, is something which interests me very es- pecially. Inot only feel that there should be no Communists in the State Depart- ment, but that there should be nobody in the State Department who is not af- firmatively, enthusiastically loyal to the United States and what it stands for. Therefore I say to the Senator from Wis- consin now, that so far as the junior Senator from Massachusetts is con- cerned, he will at the earliest appropriate opportunity make a motion to have a subcommittee of the Foreign Relations Committee take up every single one of the accusations which the Senator from Wisconsin makes. Mr. McCARTHY. I was hoping the Senator would. Mr. LODGE. I make that statement at this point, when the Senator from Wisconsin is beginning to speak about the State Department, because I think that I for one have a special responsi- bility in that field. Mr. McCARTHY. In case the Senator from Massachusetts is not able to re- main and listen to all of my remarks. Mr. LODGE. I cannot remain and listen to the whole of the Senator’s speech, because I haye another engage- ment, but I shall read it all in the morn- ing with the utmost care. Mr. McCARTHY. In case the Sena- tor must leave—and I say it will take me a long time to conclude, if I continue to have the interruptions I have previously had—TI should like to call attention to three of the cases which I intend to cite: Case No. 1, case No. 2, and case No. 81. Those, I think, represent the big three. While there are vast numbers of other Communists with whom we must be con- cerned, if we can get rid of those big three we will have done something to break the back of the espionage ring within the State Department. I might say also, in case the Senator will not be present to hear me, that in giving the records I have been very care- ful about doing two things: No. 1, not to cite anything which has not been con- firmed by the intelligence agencies which have been investigating these men; and No. 2—and this I think is very important—I have tried, and I hope suc- cessfully, to red-pencil anything that might be embarrassing to any investi- gating agency. I know it is easy to call for files, and when I call for a disloyalty file I do not mean that I am calling for the source of information. I do not think any intelligence agency can work and do a good job if the Senate or the House, or any other body is entitled to make public the source of the informa- tion. The files which I have here show the source of the information. I con- tacted one of the Federal intelligence agencies, one of the investigative units. I asked them if they would care to go over what I have to say before I say it, and red-pencil anything which they thought might in any way divulge the source of information, that would in any way inform the Communist spy ring of CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE the information they have. The answer was, “Well, you have gotten all of it from the State Department files, and the Communists within the Department can see those files, and I will show you which Commies have the top-secret clearance, so if they have seen it, it does not do much damage for the Senate to see them.” Mr. LODGE. Let me say to the Sen- ator from Wisconsin that I am not un- dertaking to say whether he is right or wrong. J have no way of knowing that. What I say is that the matter he is dis- cussing is of such vital importance that I think it ought to be investigated by a subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Re- lations Committee. Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. President, I say with my whole heart, I hope * am wrong. There is nothing as disturbing as is this picture. But if I am wrong, I shal be very happy indeed to know that am. Mr. LODGE. I say to the Senator that I shall do all I can to leave no stone unturned to get to the bottom of the matter. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. McCARTHY. I cannot yield any further. Mr. LUCAS. Perhaps I can save some time. The Senator from Wisconsin in his discussion with the Senator from Massachusetts said that he had a long speech and had to read it. If the Sena- tor will answer my question, pcrhaps we can save some time. Mr. McCARTHY. I cannot yield at this time for the Senator's question. I cannot yield for that purpose until I complete the speech. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yleld? Mr. McCARTHY. I yield to the Sen- ator from Nebraska if I do not lose the floor thereby. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator may yield to me without losing the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, I do not want to interrupt the proceedings. I am perfectly willing to cooperate with the majority leader in every way. But when I look around the Senate Chamber I see only two or three Senators on the other side of the aisle, and half a dozen on this side of the aisle. The matter seems to me to be of such importance—— Mr. LUCAS. The Senator from Ne- braska and I are present. Mr. WHERRY. Yes; but I believe more Senators should be present. I be- lieve more Senators should be on the floor to hear this statement. I do not want to interfere with the majority leader's program, but I ask him if we cannot take a recess at this time, or, if necessary, have a quorum call to bring Senators back to the Senate Chamber so they can hear the speech being made by the Sena- tor from Wisconsin. It seems to me the only sensible thing to do at this time is to take a recess or have a quorum call. 1955 Mr. LUCAS. As TI look around the Sen- ate Chamber I see about as many Sena- tors present as I usually see present when @ speech is being made. Last Friday we discussed the creation of a Small-Busi- ness Committee all afternoon, and at times only 3 Senators were present. The resolution then before the Senate was a very important one. I believe there are perhaps 25 or 30 Senators now present. That is as many as would remain after we have a quorum call. Mr. WHERRY. Very well, if the Sen- ator from Illinois feels that way. Mr. LUCAS. Iam perfectly satisficd to sit here and listen. Mr. WHERRY. Perhaps the majority leader is, but I say that a very important speech is being made. Terrific challenges are being hurled. I am perfectly willing to stay until 9 o’clock, but I submit to the majority leader that I feel more Sen- ators ought to be on the floor if the Sen- ator from Wisconsin is going to proceed with his speech. Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me for the purpose of suggesting the absence of a quorum? Mr. McCARTHY. If that is done I do not think we will obtain a quorum, and I will be obliged to discontinue. I should like to read some more of my speech. Mr. President, at this time I ask unan- {mous consent that we proceed until 7 o’clock without having a quorum call, and at that time the Senate adjourn until 11 o’clock tomorrow, and that then I may have the floor. Mr, LUCAS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, let me say that what has now been suggested is what is often suggested under similar circumstances. Let me remind the Senate that on the request of certain Democratic and Re- publican Members I made the announce- ment that there would be no vote to- night on the important measure which is now pending, the cotton-potato meas- ure. Consequently many Senators have gone home. Now the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. WHerryY], the minority leader, and others, do not want the Sena- tor from Wisconsin to continue. They want a quorum call. The Senator from Wisconsin now asks that he be allowed to quit at 7 o’clock. If the speech is one which is going to electrify the Na- tion, I should think the Senator from Wisconsin would désire to get it off his chest as fast as he possibly can, and not walt until tomorrow, because tomorrow the Senator will have no larger audience than he has at the present time. I should like to say to the Senator from Wisconsin that if the statement he is about to make is as important as he says it is, and if he can prove what he says he is going tu prove, he will find the Sen- ator from Illinois making the same de- mand that the Senator from Massachu- setts made, which is a thorough and complete investigation with respect to all the Communists he js going to name. I want to remain here until he names them. That is what I am interested in. The newspaper reporters and the people of the country generally are demanding to know who these 207 or 201 Commu- nists are.
1956 Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. will not yield any further. Mr, KNOWLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield in order to straighten out the record respecting the program for tomorrow? Mr. McCARTHY. Yes. Mr. KNOWLAND. I call the Sena- tor’s attention to the fact that we al- ready have a special order that the Sen- ate will meet at 11 o’clock tomorrow morning under a unanimous-consent agreement, with the time for a vote hav- ing been set. Therefore it would not be possible for the Senator to continue his speech as of 11 o’clock tomorrow. Mr. McCARTHY. Very well. I will withhold yielding for a call of a quorum for the time being, if the Senator dors not mind. My. President, I continue to read from my speech: Now I know it is very easy for anyone to condemn a particular bureau or department in general terms. Therefore, I would like to cite one rather unusual case—the case of a man who has done much to shape our foreign policy. When Chiang Kai-shek was fighting our war, the State Department had in China a young man named John 8 Service. His task, obviously, was not to work for the commu- nization of China. Strangely, however, he sent official reports back to the State De- partment urging that we torpedo our ally Chiang Kai-shek and stating, in effect, that communism was the best hope of China. Later, this man—John Service—was picked up by the Federal Bureau of Investigation for turning over to the Communists secret State Department information. Strangely, however, he was never prosecuted. How- ever, Joseph Grew, the Under Secretary of State, who insisted on his prosecution, was forced to resign. Two days after Grew's suc- cessor, Dean Acheson, took over as Under Secretary of State, this man—John Service— who had been picked up by the FBI and who had previously urged that communism was the best hope of China, was not only reinstated in the State Department but pro- moted. And finally, under Acheson, placed in charge of all placements and promotions. Today, ladies and gentlemen, this man Service is on his way to represent the State Department and Acheson in Calcutta—by far and away the most tmportant lstening post in the Far East. Now, let's see what happens when individ- uals with Communist connections are forced out of the State Department. Gustave Du- ran, who was labeled as (I quote) “a noto- rious international Communist,” was made assistant to the Assistant Secretary of State in charge of Latin American affairs. He was taken into the State Department from his job as a lieutenant colonel in the Commu- nist International Brigade. Finally, after intense congressional pressure and criticism, he resigned in 1946 from the State Depart- ment—and, ladies and gentlemen, where do you think he is now? He took over a high- salaried job as Chief of Cultural Activities Section in the office of the Assistant Secre- tary General of the United Nations. Mr. President, I call the attention of the Senator from Illinois to the fact—es- pecially in view of the comment he re- cently made—that I did not list John Service as one of the 57. Perhaps I could have, but I have listed only persons whose files were available tome. For some un- known reason, John Service's file has disappeared in the State Department. I have tried to find where it is, and I have been told that it is in the office—quoting President, I CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE the individual over there—‘of the top brass.” So I have not listed Service, and that is the sole reason why I have not. I have listed only individuals whose rec- ords have been confirmed by the Presi- dent's own investigative agency. The Senator from Illinois will also note that I have not named any of the 57. I have named or will name four individuals, and I have given or will give their records. One is John Service. I have shown what influence he has had in the Far East. I have not reached the second one yet; but I am now discussing what happens when those with commu- nistic connections are forced out of the State Department, and in a short time I shall reach the fourth one. I read further from my speech: Then there was a Mrs. Mary Jane Kenny, from the Board of Economic Warfare in the State Department, who was named in an FBI report and in a House committee report as a courter for the Communist Party while work- ing for the Government. And where do you think Mrs. Kenny is—she is now an editor in the United Nations Document Bureau. Another interesting case was that of Julian H. Wadleigh, economist in the Trade Agree- ments Section of the State Department for 11 years and was sent to Turkey and Italy and other countries as United States repre- sentative. After tho statute of limitations had run so he could not be prosecuted for treason, he openly and brazenly not only admitted but proclaimed that he had been @ member of the Communist Party * * * that while working for the State Depart- ment he stole a vast number of secret docu- ments * * * and furnished these docu- ments to the Russian spy ring of which he was a part. You will recall last spring there was held in New York what was known as the World Peace Conference—a conference which was labeled by the State Department and Mr. Truman as the sounding board for Com- munist propaganda and a front for Russia. Dr. Harlow Shapley was the chairman of that conference. Interestingly enough. according to the new release put out by the Department in July, the Secretary of State appointed Shapley on a commission which acts as liaison between UNESCO and the State Department. That is the man who headed the con- ference which the Secretary of State said was a tool of Communist Russia, a sounding board of Communist propa- ganda. Again, that man was not named as one of the 57, but he might well have been. I read further: This, ladies and gentlemen, gives you somewhat of a picture of the type of in- dividuals who have been helping to shape our foreign policy. In my opinion the State Department, which is one of the most im- portant government departments, is thor- oughly infested with Communists, I have in my hand 57 cases of individuals who would appear to be either card carrying members or certainly loyal to the Commu- nist Party, but who nevertheless are still helping to shape our foreign policy. One thing to remember in discussing the Communists in our Government is that we are not dealing with spies who get 30 pieces of silver to steal the blueprints of a new weapon, We are dealing with a far more sinister type of activity because it permits the enemy to guide and shape our policy. In that connection, I would like to read to you very briefly from the testimony of Larry E. Kerley, a man who was with the gounter espionage section of the FBI for g FEBRUARY 20 years. And keep in mind as I read this to you that at the time he is speaking, there was in the State Department Alger Hiss, the convicted Alger Hiss; John Service, the man whom the FBI picked up for esplonage— And for turning over secret docu- ments— Julian Wadloigh, who brazenly admitted he was a spy and wrote newspaper articles in regard thereto, plus hundreds of other bad security risks. The FBI, I may add, has done an out- standing job, as all persons in Washington, Democrats and Republicans alike, agree. If J. Edgar Hoover had a free hand, we would not be plagued by Hisses and Wadleighs in high positions of power in the State Depart- ment. The FBI has only power to investi- gate. Here ts what the FBI man said. Mr. President, let me point out solely for the record something which I know Senators are well aware of, but some- thing which causes confusion in the minds of many persons throughout the United States, namely, that the FBI has no power other than to investigate. People often write to Senators, and say in their letters, “With a man like J. Edgar Hoover at the head of the FBI, how is it that this situation exists?” For their benefit I think it should be stated that the FBI has no power whatever except to dig up facts and report them to the Department of Justice or other executive agencies. Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. McCARTHY. I yield. Mr. FERGUSON. On that point, let me inquire whether it is also true that the Secretary of State has the sole power to discharge, without trial, anyone in the State Department whom he thinks might be disloyal. Mr. McCARTHY. I so understand— under the McCarran amendment. Mr. FERGUSON. Yes, under the Mc- Carran Act. Mr. McCARTHY. I so understand; and I understand that it applies both to employees of the State Department and to civil-service employees. Mr. FERGUSON. So it is not neces- sary for a trial to be held in such cases, but the Secretary of State has full power to discharge, and that power was given to him in 1946; was it not? Mr. McCARTHY. Yes; and I intend to call attention to it. ‘ Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield at this point? Mr. McCARTHY. Not until I finish reading this statement. I shall be glad, when I finish reading it, to yield to the Senator. I read further from the statement, reading what was said by the FBI man: In accordance with instructions of the State Department to the FBI, the FBI was not even permitted to open an espionage case against any Russia suspect without State Department approval. Incidentally, Mr. President, this was testimony given at a hearing of a Senate subcommittee, headed by the Senator from Maryland [Mr. O’Conor]. I read further: Mr. ARENS. Did the State Department ever withhold from the Justice Department the right to intern suspects?
1950 Mr. Keriry. They withheld the right to get out process for them which, in effect, kept them from being arrested, as in the case of Schevchenko and others. Mr. ArENns. In how many instances did the State Department decline to permit process to be served on Soviet agents? Mr. Keriey. Do you mean how many Soviet agents were affected? Mr. ARENs. Yes. Mr. Kerury. That would be difficult to say because there were so many people connected in one espionage ring, whether or not they were directly conspiring with the ring. Mr. Arens. Was that order applicable to all persons? Mr. Keriey, Yes; all persons in the Soviet- espionage organization. Mr. ARENS. What did you say the order Was as you understood it or as it came to you? Mr. Kreriry. That no arrests of any suspects in the Russian-espionage activities in the United States were to be made without the prior approval of the State Department. + That means the prior approval! of the Alger Hisses and the Wadleighs in the State Department. I read further: Now the reason for the State Department’s opposition to arresting any of this spy ring is made rather clear in the next question and answer. “Senator O'Conor. Did you understand that that was to include also American par- ticipants? “Mr. Kerrey. Yes; because if they were arrested that would disclose the whole appa- ratus, you see.” Meaning the whole apparatus both in- side and outside the State Department. I read further: In other words they could not afford to let the whole ring which extended into the State Department be exposed. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. McCARTHY. Not at this time. The Senator has insisted that I read this statement, and I shall read all of it be- fore I yield. I now read further: This brings us down to the case of one Alger Hiss who is important not as an indi- vidual any more, but rather because he is so representative of a group in the State Department. It is unnecessary to go over the sordid events showing how he sold out the Nation which had given him so much, Those are rather fresh in ell of our minds. However, it should be remembered that the facts in regard to his connection with this international Communist spy ring were made known to the then Under Secretary of State Berle 3 days after Hitler and Stalin signed the Russo-German alliance pact. At that time one Whittaker Chambers—who was also part of the spy ring—apparently decided that with Russia on Hitler's side, he could no longer betray our Nation to Russia. He gave Under Secretary of State Berle—and this is all a matter of record—practically all, if not more, of the facts upon which Hiss’ conviction was based. Under Secretary Berle promptly contacted Dean Acheson and received word in return that Acheson (and I quote) “could vouch for Hiss absolutely’—at which time the matter was dropped. And this, you under- stand, was at a time when Russia was an ally of Germany. This condition existed while Russia and Germany were invading and dismembering Poland, and while the Com- munist groups here were screaming “war- monger” at the United States for their sup- port of the allied nations. Again in 1943, the FBI had occasion to in- vestigate the facts surrounding Hiss’ con- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE tacts with the Russian spy ring. But even after that FBI report was submitted, nothing was done. Then late in 1948—on August 5—when the Un-American Activities Committee called Alger Hiss to give an accounting, President Truman at once issued a Presidential direc- tive ordering all Government agencies to refuse to turn over any information whatso- ever in regard to the Communist activities of any Government employee to @ congres- sional committee. Incidentally, convicted— The statement should have been “even after Hiss was indicted”— it is interesting to note that the President silll labeled the exposé of Hiss as a “red her- ring.” If time permitted, it might be well to go into detatl about the fact that Hiss was Roosevelt's chief adviser at Yalta when Roosevelt was admittedly in fll health and tired physically and mentally * * *° and when, according to the Secretary of State, Hiss and Gromyko drafted the report on the conference. That is not entirely correct; actually the report on the conference was drafted by Hiss, Gromyko, and an Englishman whose name I cannot now recall. Mr. MUNDT. It was Gladwyn Jebb. Mr. McCARTHY. That is what I un- derstood the Senator to say previously. I read further: According to the then Secretary of State Stettinius, here are some of the things that Hiss helped to decide at Yalta. (1) The establishment of a European High Commis- sion; (2) the treatment of Germany—this you will recall was the conference at which it was decided that we would occupy Berlin with Russia occupying an area completely circling the city, which, as you Know, re- sulted in the Berlin airlift which cost 81 Ametican lives; (3) the Polish question; (4) the relationship between UNRRA and the Soviet, (5) the rights of Americans on con- trol commissions of Rumania, Bulgaria, and Hungary; (6) Iran; (7) China—here’s where we gave away Manchuria; (8) Turkish Straits question; (9) international trustee- ships; (10) Korea. Of the results of this conference, Arthur Bliss Lane of the State Department had this to say: “As I glanced over the document, I could not believe my eyes. To me, almost every line spoke of a surrender to Stalin.” As you hear this story of high treason, I know that you are saying to yourself, “Well, why doesn’t the Congress do something about it?” Actually, ladies and gentlemen, one of the important reasons for the graft, the corruption, the dishonesty, the dtsloy~- alty, the treason in high Government post- tions—one of the most important reasons why this continues is a lack of moral upris- ing on the part of the 140,000,000 American people. In the light of history, however, this is not hard to explain. It 1s the result of an emotional hang-over and a temporary moral lapse which follows every war. It is the apathy to evil which people who have been subjected to the tre- mendous evils of war feel. As the people of the world see mass murder, the destruction of defenseless and innocent people, and all of the crime and lack of morals which go with war, they become numb and apathetic. It has always been thus after war. However, the morals of our people have not been destroyed. They still exist. This cloak of numbness and apathy has only needed a spark to rekindle them. Happily, this spark has finally been supplied. As you know, very recently the Secretary of State proclaimed his loyalty to a man guilty of what has always been considered even after Hiss was 1957 as the most abominable of all crimes—of be- ing a traitor to the people who gave him a position of great trust. The Gecretary of State in attempting to justify his continued devotion to the man who sold out the Chrise tian world to the atheistic world, referred to Christ's Sermon on the Mount as a justifica- tion and reason therefor, and the reaction of the American people to this would have made the heart of Abraham Lincoln happy, When this pompous diplomat in striped pants, with a phony British accent, pro- claimed to the American people that Christ on the Mount endorsed communiem, high treason, and betrayal of a sacred trust, the blasphemy was 80 great that it awakened the dormant indignation of the American peop!e. He has lighted the spark which is resulting in a moral uprising and will end only when the whole sorry mess of twisted, warped thinkers are swept from the national scene so that we may have @ new birth of national honesty and decency in Government. Mr. President, that answers the ques- tion of the Senator from Illinois as to the number of Communists I stated were in the State Department. I have stated I have the names of 57. Let me make it clear that I do not claim to know all the Communists in the State Department. I do not have any counter-espionage group that can go there and ferret out all the information. I have also pointed out that the State Department refused to discharge—and so stated in a press conference—205 individuals who, its own security agency said, were unsafe risks, If the Senator has any further questions, I shall be glad to yield. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. McCARTHY. I yield. Mr. LUCAS. I now repeat the same question I asked the able Senator in the beginning: Did the Senator from Wis- consin, in a speech at Wheeling, W. Va., Thursday, February 9, declare that he had a list of 205 persons working for the State Department, who were known by the Secretary of State to be members of the Communist Party? Mr. McCARTHY. I may say, if the Senator is going to make a farce of this, I will not yield to him. Mr. LUCAS. No. Mr. McCARTHY. I told him three times. I read the speech to him. I told him I said there were 57 Communists in the State Department. I told him tNere were in the State Department 205, who, according to the President’s own Secu- rity Board, are unsafe risks. They said, “Mr. Secretary, fire these men. Dis- charge them.” He refused to do it. I quoted Secretary Byrnes’ letter, telling him to do that. I shall not answer any more silly questions of the Senator. This is too important, too serious a matter for that. I am trying to get down to the point of showing the Senate cases, facts, and dates, so that the President will ad- mit that he was wrong, and I hope the Senator from Llinois will admit that he went off half cocked in Illinois the other day when he said, as the President said, this is all lies, and tried to prejudge the case. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. McCARTHY. yield for a question. I will be glad to
1958 Mr. LUCAS. This is pretty serious to the Senator trom Illinois, and it is seri- ous to the Senate, and it is serious to the country. The only thing I am ask- ing the able Senator is whether the news- papers misquoted him. ‘The newspapers quoted him, and there is an editorial in the Washington Post, which is libelous if not true, in which the Senator is quoted in his speech at Wheeling, W. Va., as saying that he had a list of 205 persons working for the State Department who were carrying Communist cards. What I want to Know is merely one simple thing. I did not find anything in the speech to bear out what the newspaper reported to be true. The Senator keeps talking about 57; the newspaper says th? Senator said there were 205. That rep- resents quite a difference, and it is of importance, whether the Senator from Wisconsin made the statement or did not make it. He can answer yes or no to that. He may say that in his speech he did not make that statement; he may have made it in a conference of some kind. But it was carried all over the country, through the Washington newspapers, the New York newspapers, and the Chicago newspapers, that the Senator said he could name the 205 who were carrying Communist cards. It may be a silly question in the eyes of the Senator from Wisconsin, and that, as he said, I am trying to make a farce out of this thing, but it is a serious charge; the Senate and the country are entitled to know the facts. Mr. McCARTHY. May I answer the Senator’s question? Mr. LUCAS. It is serious to me. Mr. McCARTHY. Let me answer the Senator’s question, for the third time. I will tell the Senator, and I am now re- peating it, if the Senator will sit down and give me the time to do it, that there are at least 57 Communists in the State Department. I think, without any trou- ble at all, with sufficient investigation, we can find the 205 for the Senator. As to what the Washington Post says, I do not know, andI frankly do not care. I think that is clear. I will not answer the Sen- ator a fourth time. I said that I made speeches. I have said there were 57 Communists in the State Department. I wired the President to that effect. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. McCARTHY. I am not yielding to the Senator now. I have wired the President to that effect, and I told him those names were available to him. I am now going to give the Senate of the United States the facts, and I refuse to go further into the question raised by the Senator from Illinois. Let me tell him now, so there may be no question in his mind, I said 57 Communists were in the State Department. Isaid there were 205 in the State Department whom the Secretary of State refused to discharge, although his loyalty board said, “Dis- charge those men.” Now, is that clear to the Senator? Mr. LUCAS. If that is what the Sen- ator is saying, I can understand; but what I am trying to find out is whether newspapers have deliberately distorted what the able Senator said in his speech. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. McCARTHY. I refuse to yield further to the Senator. Mr. LUCAS. I want to find out. Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. McCARTHY. For a question, certainly. Mr. LEHMAN. Do I correctly under- stand the Senator to claim he has sub- mitted the names of the 57 cases to which he refers and the 205 natnes which are referred to, not only in the Washington Post but in a number of other news- papers, to the State Department? Does he claim he has submitted the names of 57 and 205, or any substantial number? Mr. McCARTHY. The answer to the Senator is, “No.” The answer is “No.” Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for another question? Mr. McCARTHY. I am glad to yield. Mr. LEHMAN, Does not the Senator believe that, interested as he is in com- batting communism, and we are all in- terested in combatting communism, that it is his duty both as a Senator of the United States and as an American to sub- mit those names to the State Depart- ment or to the Senate, in executive ses- sion? Mr. McCARTHY. If the Senator will but sit down and let me make my report to the Senate, he will have all the in- formation he wants. The Senator from Wisconsin does not need any advice on his duty as a Senator, in this respect. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for one question? Mr. McCARTHY. No, not now; not until I give some of the information the Senator is asking for. I will not yield for another 15 or 20 minutes, until I can get down to the information which I am trying to give the Senate. I will not yleld any further. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, I de- mand the regular order. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin will proceed. Mr. LUCAS. I beg the Senator's pardon. Mr. McCARTHY. I shall be glad to yield later to the Senator. Mr. President, I am going to have dif- ficulty talking, while the Senators are chatting The PRESIDING OFFICER. Let there be order in the Chamber. Mr. McCARTHY. I shall be glad to yield for 5 or 10 minutes to let the Sena- tors carry on their conversation. Mr. President, I have before me infor- mation from the State Department files, information which the President says the Senate did not have. Having this infor- mation, it is a serious question as to what. should be done with it. I originally thought possibly we could hope for some cooperation from the State Department and the President. However, in goinr over the material and finding that all of it, of course, has been available to the State Department, for it is all from their files, if seemed that nothing would be gained by calling it to their attention again. The President, I felt, had demon- strated his lack of interest quite thor- oughly during all the Hiss investigation. Then, when I sent him a telegram and said, “Mr. President, I have the 57 names; they are yours if you want them”; and FEBRUARY 20 when he answered by calling me a liar, I felt I could get no cooperation from the President. Then, when the majority leader, with- out even discussing the matter with me, though he knew I had stated that I had the information, he made a speech in Illinois and prejudged the case, without hearing the evidence, and said, ‘The Sen- ator from Wisconsin is a liar,” I felt I could get no cooperation from the ma- jority leader. It was then suggested that I ask the Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments to go into the matter and that I submit the names to that committee. I talked to some of the members of the committee. They thought perhaps the Committee on the Judiciary or the Committee on Foreign Relations, or both committees jointly might have jurisdiction, and they thought it should be discussed with them. I discussed it with a number of the individuals who have been interested in the subject, digging up this information. They felt that under the prescnt circum- stances the committce could do very little, because, if we gave the committee the names and the information, and the President said, “You cannot get any in- formation from the State Department files,” they would be hamstrung. It was suggested that I draft a resolution pro- viding that the Committee on Expendi- tures in the Executive Departments, or some other committee, should have the right to subpena the secret State De- partment files. That sounds all right on the face of it, Mr. President, but it 1s dangerous to go that far. As is well known, during the Coplon trial the judge ordered the FBI to sub- mit all its secret files, including the sources of information. That informa- tion was made public, and a number of men in the FBI have stated that it set the FBI back 10 years. It endangcred the security of some of their best men. I finally arrived at the conclusion that the only way to clean out the State Department, or any other Department which is infested with Communists, is not by the passage of any additional law. The only way it can be done is to secure the cooperation of the President. If we could get that, and he says that the in- formation will be made available so that trusted staff members could go over the files, and we can be sure that the sour¢e: of information shall not be disclosed; We can clean house. I frankly think that is the only way. In line with that, I de- cided to submit to the Senate the detailed cases. Originally I was disturbed that I might give out information which would embarrass the investigative agencies by indirectly disclosing some of their sources of information, but I was told, “With so many commies over here having top posi- tions, you need not fear giving the in- formation to the Senate.” I have gone over it. Let me say, be- fore starting, that I shall submit quite a large number of names. I think they are of importance. They all worked for the State Department at one time or an- other. Some are not there at the pres- ent time. Many of them have gone into work which is connected closely with the Department, for example, foreign trade,