2586 than the organization known as CARE to see that the best possible application of the funds was made; is that correct? Mr. CARNAHAN. I think that js cor- rect. Ithank the gentleman for his con- tribution. Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. CARNAHAN. I yield to the gen- tleman from Massachusetts. Mr. McCORMACK. The provision in relation to the Secretary of State enables the State Department to pass upon whether or not the books are going to be used by proper groups abroad, so they will not be used for purposes which would be inconsistent with the best interests of our own country? Mr. CARNAHAN. Certainly. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read the bill for amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Be it enacted, etc., That the Secretary of “ate is hereby authorized in hts discretion to make contributions, subject to the limit of appropriations made in pursuance of the authorization herein, to Cooperative for American Remittances to Europe, Inc., for use in the provision of technical, scientific, and professional publications and educa- tional and scientific equipment for lbrarles and institutions of learning abroad. Mr. CHURCH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. CHurcH: On page 1, line 3, after the word “That”, strike out “the Secretary of State” and insert the words “the President of the United Strtes.” Mr. CHURCH. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to speak at length on this amendment. It speaks for itself. I pro- vide by this amendment that the Pres- ident of the United States instead of ‘the Secretary of State is hereby au- thorized in his discretion to make con- tributions,” and so forth. Mr. Chairman, I do not like to come here today and vote for a bill that gives to the Secretary of State—unless I knew that he had resigned before this bill be- comes law—this discretion, after know- ing of his words of yesterday and his words of some time ago with reference to Mr. Hiss. That is all I am going to say on this subject. I believe for the present at least that this “discretion” can be in the Pres- ident of the United States. The Pres- ident of the United States is an elected officer. The present Secretary of State has abused his discretion and I believe the majority of the people of the United States believe that. I hope the amend- ment will pass. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois. The amendment was rejected. Mr. KEEFE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word. Mr. Chairman, the discussion on the pending legislation pin points a situa- tion which I believe confronts most of the Members of Congress today. I have on my desk perhaps 100 telegrams and letters asking me to support a piece of legislation intended to authorize an ex- penditure of a very substantial sum of money to provide extension library serv- ices in each of the States of the Union. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE I believe there is not a Member of the Congress who does not have on his desk the requests and pleas of the library associations and librarians throughout the country that we vote for that bill which would authorize an expenditure of a minimum, I believe, of $40,000 a year in each State for the development of library services in the various States of the Union. The arguments in connection with that proposed legislation have demonstrated to me at least that there is a tremendous need throughout the country for the dis- semination of reading material to our own people which does not presently exist. They are seeking to extend library services through the medium of traveling libraries in the remote areas of the var- fous sections of the country, which are not served by the ordinary free public libraries. When the representatives of these li- brary associations came to my office and asked me whether or not I would support that legislation, I said to those ladies, just a day or two ago, who by the way were from my own State, “Will you kind- ly tell me where we are going to get the money to engage in that new project, worth while as it may be?’ I said my own humble opinion is, if you want the truth, that even if that legislative au- thorization were to pass the Congress you could not get through the Committee on Appropriations as it has presently mani- fested its attitude, any money to imple- ment such a proposal. I think I have stated the truth. There is nothing in the President’s budget, as I understand it, to implement such a piece of legislation. Now, here today is a sum, stated in the report, $1,229,240.61, which has been cov- ered into the Treasury of the United States as “miscellaneous receipts.” All of the talk about the source of this fund does not change the fact that this money is moncy that was paid into the Treas- ury of the United States and occupies a position no aifferent than any other money, as far as the expenditure thereof is concerned. An appropriation will be necessary out of funds in the Treasury of the United States, in order to make this legislation work. Should I, as a Representative in Congress, deny to my own people library services which people all over this country say are necded, in order that we might buy books, which those librarics could usc, and send abroad to replenish the libraries over there? I pose that question to you gcn- tlemen who have talked in the interest of the welfare of your own people. I ask you, when you vote against an appropri- ation to implement the library services requested for our own people, how you can do so and justify appropriating this money out of the Treasury of the United States to buy books to be shipped to for- eign countries. Mr. EVINS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. KEEFE. I yield. Mr. EVINS. The gentleman is en- tirely correct. This Hbrary bill is going to be taken up within the next 2 weeks, and I do not know where we are going to find the money to provide our own libraries, Marcu 1 The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. KEErFs) has expired. Mr. KEEFE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for two additional minutes. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Wisconsin? There was no objection. Mr. KEEFE. These bills come here from the Foreign Affairs Committee, and they are just pushed through as a mat- ter of course. I do not think they are given proper consideration. I think it is time the Congress of the United States began to think in terms of what the needs of the people of America are. Mr. EVINS. Will the gentleman yield further? Mr. KEEFE. I yield. Mr. EVINS. There is enough money in this appropriation to build some 8 or 10 post-office buildings in the United States, and there has not been one built for the past 12 years. We have been trying to get authorization for a public- works program through this House. There is enough money in this bill to take care of 8 or 10 post-office buildings. Mr. KEEFE. As far as I am con- cerned, I am going to vote against this, because I cannot consistently vote to sustain the budget of the President and not go beyond it and not provide serv- ices that are much needed for our own country, and then stand up here and vote to authorize an appropriation to take money out of this country that could well be spent in providing library services right here at home. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin has again expired Mr. STEFAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word. Mr. Chairman, the organization known as CARE has done one of the greatest services to humanity that I can recollect. This organization has supplemented by many million dollars what the American people have appropriated from taxation for relief in foreign countries. It is an organization which packages food and transmits food and clothing to needy people in all parts of the world, food which is purchased by American indi- viduals and organizations and is deliv- ered directly to the needy. The supple- ments made by CARE to the relief that the American taxpayers have given to people in foreign countries is a tremen- dous supplement, and had it not been in operation we would have been called upon to appropriate many more millions of dollars to meet the problem of hunger and malnutrition all over the world. However, the committee of which I am & member, the Subcommittee on Appro- priations for the Department of State and the Foreign Service, will presently come before you with a bill asking for @ tremendous amount of moncy to be appropriated to one section of our for- eign section, USIS, or, as you know it, the Voice of America. The Voice of America is set up for the purpose of giving the world the true pic- ture of the United States, our aims and our foreizn policy. In this operation this organization not only transmits the
1950 written word, the printed word, but also the voice and visual pictures, motion pic- tures, radio, newspapers, magazines; and it operates an elaborate library system in many foreign countries in which there is a tremendous circulation of books, magazines, and so on. These USIS li- braries are visited by thousands of people. In addition to that, we subsidize Ameri- can magazine-publishing houses, peri- odicals, and newspapers. We circulate many publications. The program, in- cluding libraries, is a coordinated pro- gram. The cost annually is heavy. I would like to ask the committee mem- bers presenting this bill to transfer a certain amount of money over to CARE, which is fundamentally a food-distribu- tion organization, how they plan to cir- culate books, periodicals, and magazines, and open libraries in foreign countries when we already have an agency in exist- ence doing that work in a very large library program? Why start a new one? Mr. JUDD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. STEFAN. I yield. Mr. JUDD. The answer is that the books and periodicals that are sent over under the Voice of America program are sent to American libraries main- tained in these various countries, where- as the books under this bill would go to libraries maintained by the countries or cities of their location. Mr, STEFAN. I beg to differ with the gentleman. These are American-oper- ated libraries, operated by the State De- partment’s Voice of America. They are for the use of all the people wherever they are located, and the expense of these libraries is borne by direct appropriations made by this Congress each year. We are coming before you very shortly to ask for money to continue and expand those libraries. The annual cost will be over $4,000,000. Mr. JUDD. That is right; but as I see it, that program does not in the least conflict with the CARE program. Mr. STEFAN. Why should we em- bark on another library program when we already have a fine one in existence? Mr. JUDD. It is a different sort of program. The books and periodicals to be purchased under the program to which the gentleman is referring could not be contributed to various national or city libraries like that of the University of the Philippines in Manila, the Uni- versity of Rangoon in Burma, the Uni- versity of Helsinski in Finland, and the University of Oslo in Norway. Mr. STEFAN. We are expanding the Voice of America program, or USIS; we are expanding our far eastern program. We already have a library program, a very elaborate one. It is going to cost many millions of dollars. Why not use this money rather to buy our surplus food and feed the hungry people. Our libraries are already in operation. Mr. JUDD. Because personally I think greater good and wider diffusion of assistance will result under the CARE program. It complements the program the gentleman mentions. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Nebraska has expired. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Mr. JUDD. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman’s time may be extended for 1 minute. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Minnesota? There was no objection. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Nebraska is recognized for one additional minute. Mr. STEFAN. You are scattering your shots all over the world in this li- brary program. Let us concentrate on one that is a going concern supplied with sufficient funds. I personally feel that CARE should stay in the field of the distribution of food and clothing. We subsidize CARE on transportation; we give them every encouragement. It is a fine organization. Let us continue our library program through the Voice of America as it is now set up. Mr. JUDD. I may say to the gentle- man that CARE already has its library program in operation with funds that have been raised by voluntary contribu- tions. The bill does not set up a new program. It is the Voice program which is new, and the gentleman knows I was on the committee which established it. This bill merely aids libraries already in existence, many of them for hundreds of years. Mr. JENNINGS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word. Mr. Chairman, I wish to say at this point in the discussion that there is a definite need in every section of this country for library services to our own people. These library services are being conducted by trained librarians who are familiar with the needs of the children and patrons served and especially with the needs of the children of those who live in the rural sections of our country. I heartily favor and shall support a measure that will implement and finance this service and carry these books to the people who live in the rural sections of the country. These books are such as will be worth while; they are such books as children will naturally be interested in, and they will contribute to the well- being and education of our own people. Let us not get away from the Biblical statement of great truth that he who provideth not for his own household has denied the faith and is worse than an infidel. Do not kid yourselves. You are not fooling the people back home. They know the majority in control of this Con- gress are throwing the money of our peo- ple away with reckless abandon in every quarter of the world. There is no doubt about that. An eZort is being made by this bill to appropriate $1,229,240.61 and scatter it over Europe, nobody knows by whom or in what way. Such efforts as have been made to benefit the people over there have been childish, inane, and insane. For instance, take what is going on in western Germany by the kindergarten methods that have been employed. Some of our soft-headed people are over there undertaking to transform the thinking of the Germans and remake the German character, eradicate from the minds of one of the ablest people in the world their natural desire to have a 2587 unified country and to resume their sta- tion among the countries of the world as a sovereign people. You might as well pour water on a duck’s back or sing a song to a dead horse as to kid yourselves with these childlike ideas that you are going to remake the Germans or any other people by that sort of a naive, childish program. Eastern Germany is under the control of Russic. Western Germany is biding her time. We have not changed their thinking nor the de- sires of their minds and hearts. Mr. KEEFE. Mr. Chairman, wil. the gentleman yield? Mr. JENNINGS. I yield to the gentle- man from Wisconsin. Mr. KEEFE. I would like to get this clearly before the House, because I am afraid it will not get before the Members. Mr. JENNINGS. Do not take all of my time, but go ahead. Mr. KEEFE. I would like to know from the chairman of the committee whether or not there is a budget estimate for this amount in the President's budget? : Mr. KEE. I am unable to answer that. Mr. KEEFE. I would also like to know whether this matter has been cleared by and has the approval of the Bureau of the Budget? Mr. KEE. All I know is that this fund is to be authorized and at the discretion of the Secretary of State to be used for the purposes set out. Mr. KEEFE. This takes money out of the Treasury. Mr. KEE. The gentleman has asked a question. Let me answer it. Mr. KEEFE. The gentleman says he does not know. Mr. KEE, This amount is in a special fund of the Treasurer of the United States and it is lying there unused for any purpose. Mr. KEEFE. That is absolutely not true and it is so shown by your own re- port. That fund has been paid into the miscellaneous receipts of the Treasury. Mr. KEE. It is in a special fund. Mr. JENNINGS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for two additional minutes. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Tennessee? There was no objection. Mr. JENNINGS. Now, coming back to the proposal here before us asking us to appropriate this large sum of money. Nobody knows what sort of Hterature will be purchased withit. In many instances communistic literature has been bought over here and sent over there, literature that is calculated to make the people of America appear ridiculous and asinine in the minds of the people of these Euro- pean countries. I think if we have convinced the peo- ple of Europe of one thing, it is this: We do not know what it is all about. We are the laughing stock of the people of Europe. The people of Europe are a great people. That is where our ances-~ tors came from. They brought with them to America their literature, their philosophy, their religion, their civiliza- tion, and their love of liberty. Our an- cestors came here to build a nation of their own. But, listen folks, one way
-2588 to completely destroy any nation is to destroy the solvency of that nation. This country is staggering under a debt of $260,000,000,000 and will go in the red this year an additional $10,000,000,000. We know now that you can put a healthy human being on the operating table and the surgeon can make an incision in the veins of such a person and take a quart of his or her blood and us it to strength- en another human being. But you can- not take a half a gallon of blood from such person and you cannot take that quart too often. Uncle Sam has been on the operating table now ever since we got into this last World War, and our financial resources, yes, the blood of our young people, has been dissipated and spilled all over the world. And, where do we stand today? If my friends over on this side of the House and over on that side mean what they say, when they talk in pontifical terms and in threatening predictions of the next world war, then we are in the shadow of the third world war. And, where are we headed? What are we going to fight it with? With whom are we going to fight and for what are we going to fight, and who, pray, will be on our side? Let us stop this wasting of our money. We are weakening the ability of our people to defend themselves. I wish I knew what it is that is used on some of our distinguished fcllow Members here that makes them want to give everything we have away. I have been told and I have read that the sav- ages, who eat human flesh, compound sort of a drug out of a weed that grows in their country, and out of that they make a substance called hashish, and they fecd it to their intended victim, so that he will be hale and hardy and have a strong body and a weak mind and get fat by the time when they butcher him for a feast. I wish we knew an antidote against what some people use that makes them lose all restraint and all good judgment when the spending of our money among foreign people is proposed. No one has been able to give us a sensi- ble reason for throwing this $1,229,240.61 down a rat hole. This money belongs to the people of our country. We have no moral nor legal right to squander it. The folks back home wish us to save it for them and for their children. This I propose to do, and I hope a majority joins me in this effort for the folks back home. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Tennessee has expired. Mr. TACKETT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word. Mr. Chairman, any type of foreign-aid proposal has no difficulty in progressing to the floor of this House for the atten- tion of this Congress. As all the other Members, I have several bills that I think are worthy of consideration, but the ma- jority of this body is anxious to give all priority to the foreign-aid program. I wonder how many of the 435 Mem- bers of this House promised reasonable assistance to the disabled of this country due to either age, physical incapacities, or mental deficiencies? In other words, I wonder how many of you assured the old peopl. of your district a reasonable old-age pension? That sounds a little CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE silly now since the campaigns, does it not? But it was not so silly, and you considered the promise necessary, during your campaigns. Now, honestly, how many of you actually promised those old people, the crippled, and the ones without the necessities of life—those without ac- tually enough to eat and wear—that you were going to do something for them when you were elected to Congress? I venture to say that every one of the 435 Members would necessarily need answer my questions in the affirmative. I dare say that as many bills as there are Mem- bers of Congress have been introduced to provide reasonable assistance to the needy aged and incapacitated; but none of us are able to progress our proposals on behalf of our own people to the floor of this House because we need give prior- ity to the wishes of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. The action of this House conclusively indicates that the majority is more interested in sending money overseas than they are in taking care of our people. How many of you Members have promised to do something to curb the drastic floods in your areas? How many of you have promised to bring some Federal buildings to your districts? To curb the floodwaters and provide public buildings would be doing some- thing for our own people. Appropria- tions for these purposes are easily cut. There has not been a post-office building constructed in this country in 12 years. We live up to none of our political prom- ises on behalf of our people, but we find it easy to throw away billions of dollars upon foreign soil every day that this Congress meets. The proponents of the legislation at hand say that this bill amounts to noth- ing because it only involves some one and one-quarter million dollars. No, to them it does not amount to a thing in the world. But I wonder how many of the old people in this country who actually do not have enough to eat and wear could be fed and clothed if we made this money available to them. The Committee on Foreign Affairs is to be congratulated for writing the bill before us in such plain language that its purposes and intentions cannot be mis- understood. Most of these foreign-aid bills are so written that a thousand in- terpretations could be made upon every sentence. Then they are allowed to hol- ler Jong and loud that the money is being used to feed and clothe the foreign un- derprivileged. Not more than 40 percent of the funds appropriated for foreign aid are used for the purposes indicated. Most of it is for the purpose of enhanc- ing the wealth of big businesses of this country that are collaborating with for- eign businesses, and a great amount is used for foreign political purposes. Not many of the foreign people have any idea of the sacrifices being made by our tax- payers, and less of them give a hoot. But the bill today is to provide libraries throughout the world and to assist the slackers in time of war—the so-called conscientious objectors. Now we are told that we should give the foreigners some- thing to read and to assist all the slackers rather than take care of the needs of our own people. MarcH 1 Mr. Chairman, I know that as a fresh- man Member of Congress I am supposed to remain silent and just go along and agree with everything that the older Members believe should be done. Well, I have several thousand people to repre- sent, and I fail to understand that my people were sending me up here as a “poll parrot.” The vote of a majority of this Congress indicates that they think more of Europe than the United States. I cannot believe that such men are voting the dictates of their con- science. Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. TACKETT. I yield to the gentle- man from Iowa. Mr. GROSS. If we helped the old people of this country we would be aiding the economy of this country instead of depleting it and destroying it, would we not? Mr. TACKETT. That is absolutely right. In these 1-minute speeches every morning I always hear something said on behalf of our aged, crippled, and needy. What do we do about it? Noth- ing but allow the Committee on Foreign Affairs to sell some more propaganda on the foreign-aid program. Most of the time of this Congress is spent entertain- ing the thoughts of the Foreign Affairs Committee. Mr. RANKIN. Mr. the gentleman yield? Mr. TACKETT. I yield to the gentle- man from Mississippi. Mr. RANKIN. The amount in this bill does not affect the Congress. If it were $15,000,000,000 it would pass with- out any delay. Mr. TACKETT. It would pass a lot easier if it were $15,000,000,000 rather than one and one-quarter million; all of us know that. The more moncy called for in a foreign-aid proposal, the quicker it goes through this Congress. Perhaps this bill can be defeated because it asks for so little in comparison with the usual foreign-aid requests. Mr. FULTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. TACKETT. I yield to the gen- tleman from Pennsylvania. Mr. FULTON. We like the freshman Congressman from Arkansas, but do we understand he is complaining of the in- activity of the Eighty-first Democratic Congress in taking care of the people of this country? Some of us Republi- cans are complaining about it, too. Mr. TACKETT. It is not unusual while I am addressing the House for the gentleman from Pennsylvania {[Mr. FuLron] to bring to my attention some- thing about what the Democrats are doing or what the Republicans would like for them to do. That has no part in the present debate. The gentleman from Pennsylvania should be satisfied because his Foreign Affairs Committee receives most of the attention of this body. Mr. JENNINGS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. TACKETT. I yield to the gen- tleman from Tennessee. Mr. JENNINGS. I want to compli- ment the gentleman on his usual sound common sense, and say in support of Chairman, will
1950 what he has safd that never a day goes by that letters do not come to me from needy people in my district who are ap- pealing for assistance, when at the same time we are giving it to them with a medicine dropper while we dump it abroad with a steam shovel. Mr. TACKETT. That is right. Just a few days ago, I pointed out sev- eral of the businesses in this country that had sponsored and promoted the Marshall plan; and I brought to your at- tention the billions of dollars in business that they had received for their efforts. Just yesterday another Member of this House pointed out the fact that this Con- gress was allowing foreign aiders to carry on propaganda in this country at an ex- penditure of several million dollars a year to sell our people upon the foreign-aid program. In other words, we are allow- ing huge sums of money to be used to encourage our people to allow us to send billions overseas to the detriment of our own people at a time when we are denying ald to the underprivileged in our dis- tricts. Any time a Member of this Con- gress seeks national aid for his people, the big businesses, magazines, and news- papers refer to the proposal as “pork barrel” and political pottaze; but these same big businesses can never find any- thing wrong for foreign aid that is used to protect the foreign investments of the biz businesses of this country. Gentlemen, this is serious. Not enough Members of the House will even come over here to listen what is going on when a foreign-program bill is up because they know the bill is going to pass anyway, and they do not care to listen to it. There are not more than half the Members here right now. I tell you right now, this is a@ serious matter. Mr. H. CARL ANDERSEN. Mr. Chair- man, will the gentleman yield? Mr. TACKETT. TI yield to the gentle- man from Minnesota. Mr. H. CARL ANDERSEN. I wish to congratulate the gentleman from Arkan- sas for the opinions he has expressed here today. It is high time for all of us to give consideration to the welfare of our own people. Mr. TACKETT. Your conclusions are based upon ample proof. Why, just a minute ago the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee said that they had found approx:matecly one and one-quar- ter million dollars some place not being used, and he thought it should be used to furnish these foreign libraries. They are looking for every loose nickel to send overseas. Mr. GROSS. I did not know they had any money in the Treasury. Mr. TACKETT. Well, it seems that they found some that is not being used; therefore, they want to get it in circula- tion overseas in order that the taxpayers will never have another opportunity to see it. Mr. JENNINGS. If the gentleman will yield further, our good friend the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. KEEFE] says that the statement that the money is in the Treasury is a mere chimera, that it is not there. Mr. TACKETT. It does not make any difference whether it is there or not. If it is there they do not want to see it xXCVI——163 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE idle; and {ff it is not there the taxpayers will be called upon to get it there. Mr. JENNINGS. Anybody knows that if it ts there it 1s part of the common fund. Mr. TACKETT. The Foreign Affairs Committee seems to believe that every loose penny should for some reason be spent by their committee. Mr. JENSEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. TACKETT. I yield. Mr, JENSEN. Anybody knows that this million dollars plus what was put in the Treasury by these people has been spent long ago and that it is not there. Mr. TACKETT. Of course, it is not there. This Congress is not going to allow anything to stay in the Treasury very long. Mr. JENSEN. There is an1IO U there. I want to say this about the gentlcman who is addressing us and who has the floor, the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Tackett], that as one Member of Con- gress who has been here for 12 years Iam neither an old Member nor a young Member, but what this country needs today more than anything else is more Tacketts—more Tackxetts in the Con- gress of the United States. Mr. TACKETT. Ido appreciate those remarks, Mr. JENSEN, and I hope that the people of my district have an opportunity to read or hear them. Mr. JENSEN. Maybe they will. Mr. TACKETT. As in my district, every Member of Congress has a great number of good, honest American citi- zens within their district who, for no fault of their own, do not have the neces- sities of life. Yet, during my tenure in office not one bill has been brought to the floor of this House in compliance with the political promises of all of us to give some relief to these good people. Mr. HARVEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Select Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments, it was my privi- lege to look into our overseas adminis- tration in Europe and the Near East last fall. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hays! was also in that group. I want to say to you we looked very carefully into the entire foreign spending pro- gram, with particular emphasis upon our so-called USIS, or Information Serv- ice. We saw over there very elaborately stocked libraries. They were operating on a basis commensurate with anything which might exist in this country. We saw over there elaborate newspaper-re- porting programs which would be com- parable with any adequate newspaper in this country. We saw there phases of information programs, including elaborate movie services. As was brought out by mem- bers of the Committee on Appropriations we are spending great sums over there. But listen carefully to this: Here is the point—and it was brought out in the testimony over there—that actually we are only reaching a very minor percent- age of the people and that the people we are not reaching are the very people we should reach. Our program has been conceived over there on the theory that those countries operate like we do—that 2589 they have an elaborate press and radiy system which can be used for propa- ganda purposes just as easily as ours. But that situation does not exist there. I say to you the entire program has been overemphasized and I think should be scaled down considerably. In my hum- ble judgment a vote for this bill is just another vote for the useless expenditure of money abroad. Mr. STEFAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer a preferential motion. The Clerk read as follows: Mr. STEFAN moves that the Committee do now rise and report the bill back to the House with the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken out. Mr. ROONEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. STEFAN. I yield. Mr. ROONEY. Is it not the fact, may I ask the distinguished gentleman from Nebraska, that there is currently in the proposed bucdect, the amount of $4,190,- 842 for the division of Hbraries and insti- tutes of the information and educational program of the Department of State? Mr. STEFAN. There is no question about it. In addition to that the com- mittee should know something about our investment in these libraries. In addi- tion they should know that we also par- ticipate in a $14,000,000 program through the Institute of Inter-American Affairs, the purpose of which is educational. Mr. ROONEY. Is it not the fact that there is nothing in the President’s pro- posed budect for fiscal year 1951 to cover the cost of the authorization proposed in the pending legislation? Mr. STEFAN. In spite of the fact that this money is in the Federal Treasury presently, there was absolutely nothing in the budget, I confirm what the chair- man of my subcommittee said in that regard, This bill needs further study by a committee like ours, which deals with appropriations for international affairs, and that committee should have some knowledge so we can effect econ- omy, efficiency, and eliminate duplica- tion. Mr. ROONEY. Is it not the fact that if this pending legislation were to be passed by the House, an appropriation out of the general fund of the Treasury would be required in order to implement the program setting up these libraries? Mr. STEFAN. I endeavored to say that. You are correct. It is a new re- quest for a new appropriation for new funds that are now in the Tr asury of the United States. Mr. ROONEY. And that at the pres- ent time when we have libraries in prac- tically all the large cities of all the coun- tries of the world? Mr. STEFAN. The gentleman is ab- solutely correct. Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. STEFAN. I yield. Mr. RANKIN. Someone questioned my statement about surplus potatoes and eges which we have in this country, so I called up the Department of Agricul- ture and I find that the surplus Irish potatoes amounts to 50,000,000 bushels. The eggs are already dried, I will say to the gentleman from California [Mr.
2590 Wuirel, and they amount to 4,000,000,- 000 eggs. It took 4,000,000,000 eggs to produce the amount of dried eggs which the Department now has on hand, Mr. STEFAN. What I have to say is in no way derogatory to CARE. I gave considerable assistance to the organiza- tion of that organization, which dis- tributed so much food. But I call your attention to the fact that this is a mat- ter that has something to do with that which we are already considering, and for which we are appropriating money. Mr. RANKIN. Instead of sending them something to read, which the chances are they have already: read, we had better send them something to eat when they are hungry. Mr. ROONEY. Mr. Chairman, will the Jearned gentleman from Nebraska yield further? Mr. STEFAN. I yield. Mr. ROONEY. The report on the pending bill says: On the other hand, the money will be released to the private agency at the discre- tion of the Secretary of State. Do you not interpret this to mean that the State Department would have, in addition to the $4,190,842, which they ask for libraries and institutes in the coming fiscal year, the amount of $1,229,- 240.61 proposed to be expended by this legislation? Mr. STEFAN. They would have an additional $1,229.240.61, in addition to what they are asking us to appropriate for library service abroad. Mr. BYRNES of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. STEFAN. I yield. Mr. BYRNES of Wisconsin. I wonder if the gentleman knows whether this proposition was submitted to the Bureau of the Budget and what their report was. If they did not submit it, why was it not submitted? Mr. STEFAN. Would the chairman of the committee care to answer that ques- tion? Mr. KEE. I would ask Dr. Jupp to answer that. Mr. JUDD. To the best of my knowl- edge, all bills that are introduced are referred automatically to the depart- ments that are involved. A letter or re- port comes back from that department, either approving or disapproving. It was testified last year that the Adminis- tration had no objection to it. The bill was reported out of committee last year. What this year’s budget recommends I have not checked. Mr. STEFAN. Mr. Chairman, I feel we are doing something here which in- terferes with the orderly appropriations for libraries in foreign countries, for which we are already asked to appro- priate over $4,000,000. I hope my mo- tion will prevail. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Nebraska has expired. Mr. JUDD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the motion. Mr. Chairman, there are three com- ments I would like to make, First, I cannot believe that these funds should be considered as on a par with the regu- lar funds in the Treasury of the United States raised by taxes for the expenses CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE of government. Viewing it from the moral standpoint, they do not really be- long to the Government of the United States. This fund is not money for the services rendered by those conscientious objectors who contributed lterally mil- Hons of days of public work. For that service which ranged from_ building privics in Mississippi and Florida, to serving as attendants in mental hospitals and soil-conservation work, they did not receive anything from the people of the United States, but the people of the United States and many communities re- ceived great benefit. In fact, they paid for their own support while doing the work. That is, the Mennonites and the Quakers and the Brethren and other re- ligious bodies to which they belonged furnished their clothes and food and lodging while they were doing such work. In the case of those who were assigned to private employers, like dairy farmers, naturally the employer had to pay the going wage for what he received as labor. It did not, however, go to the men who did the work; it was sent to General Hershey, the Director of the Selective Service, who kept it in a separate ac- count. In 1947 when nothing had been done about it, he naturally turned 1t over to the Treasury. This money was earned by men who love their country, although unable be- cause of religious scruples to bear arms, and they believe that the best use of the funds will be to help restock destroyed libraries in order to satisfy spiritual and intellectual hungers through this agency which heretofore has been primarily en- gaged in satisfying physical hunger. Mr. ROONEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. JUDD. Very briefly. Mr. ROONEY. The gentleman refers to these conscientious objectors as men who love their country? Mr. JUDD. Yes; certainly I do. I know no reason why conscientious ob- jectors should be considered as loving their country less than any other citi- zens. That is the status given them in the laws of this land. As I said earlier when the gentleman was not here, these were men whose consciences—I do not agree with them myself, but I respect them—whose consciences did not permit them to go out and kill for their country, but they were willing to give their own lives for their country. A good many did. A group at the University of Minnesota voluntarily underwent a semistarvation experiment under strict controls. More was learned from that experiment over many, many months about what hap- pens to persons when they are systemat- ically deprived of this vitamin, that min- cral, a particular fat, protein, carbohy- drate, or other food element, than has ever been learned before about starva- tion and how to handle it. This fund, however, was set up by earnings of those objectors who worked for private em- ployers. They ask nothing from it for themselves or their dependents. They believe that this is the best use that can be made of a fund in which they have at least a great moral equity. The second thing I would like to say is that similar use of the money has MarcH 1 once been authorized by the House. In the Eightieth Congress, by unanimous consent, we passed a bill to authorize use of these same funds, a bill introduced by the gentleman from New Yerk [ Mr. Cote]. In his bill the agency named to disburse the funds was the International Children’s Emergency Fund. Since then the situation abroad has changed so that it is now thought that they can be used more advantageously through CARE. So this is not a new procedure. This money, in my judgment, does not rightly belong to the Government, in the sense that tax money from all the citizens does. Besides, it has been authorized by the House for similar purposes once before, in the Eightieth Congress. The third thing is that in my opinion the money that is appropriated under the Voice of America program for setting up American libraries abroad, is not likely to do as much good dollar for dol- lar, as this program under CARE. From the standpoint of building understand- ing and good will abroad it has been my experience that funds administered by private agencies are infinitely more effec- tive and are received with less suspicion than funds or programs administered by government agencies. For example, after the great earthquake in Japan in 1923 the Rockefeller Foundation pro- vided money to rebuild the great library of the Imperial University in Tokyo. That one gift did more to build good will among the people of Japan toward our country and to strengthen the anti- militaristic elements in Japan than any other single thing that I know of. It was not supported by enough similar policies to prevent the militarists from eventually running wild with the coun- try. But it showed the pattern which builds good will. Something happens to human beings when other human beings, out of nothing but charity and sym- pathy for people in need, voluntarily take that which they have earned, and ask that it be sent abroad, through a non- governmental organization like CARE, as a gift from the American people to help them with one of their most urgent postwar needs. For these several rea- sons, I hope this motion to kill the bill will be defeated. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentle- man from Nebraska. The question was taken; and on a di- vision (demanded by Mr. STEFAN) there were—ayes 92, noes 27, Mr. KEE. Mr. Chairman, I demand tellers. Tellers were ordered, and the Chair- man appointed as tellers Mr. Kre and Mr. STEFAN, The Committee again divided; and the tellers reported that there were—ayes 127, noes 46. So the motion was agreed to. Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed the chair, Mr. Price, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H. R. 5953) to authorize contributions to Cooperative for American Remit- tances to Europe, Inc., had directed him
1950 to report the bill back to the House with the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken out. The previous question was ordered. The SPEAKER. The question is on the motion to strike out the enacting clause, Mr. KEE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays. Mr. JAVITS. Mr. Speaker, a parila- mentary inquiry. The SPEAKER. The gentleman will State it. Mr. JAVITS. So that we may know what we are voting, is it a fact that a vote “yea” means that the enacting clause will be stricken, and a vote “nay” means that it will not be stricken and the bill will pass? The SPEAKER. The question now is on the motion to strike out the enact- ment clause. The yeas and nays were ordered. The question was taken; and there were—yeas 265, nays 102, not voting 65, as follows: CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Poulson Sheppard Wadsworth Preston Short Wagner Quinn Bikes Weiche} Rankin 8impson, Til Welch Reed, Ill Simpson, Pa Werdel Reed, N. Y Smith, Kans Wheeler Rees Smith, Va. White, Calif. Rich Smith, Wis. Whitten Riehlman Stanley Whittington Rivers Btefan Widnall Rodino Stigler Wigglesworth Rogers, Fla Sutton Williams Rogers, Mass. Taber Willis Rooney Tackett Wilson, Ind. Sadlak Talle Wilson, Okla. St. George Tauriello Winstead Sanborn Thomas Withrow Sasecer Thompson Wolcott Saylor Van Zandt Wood Scrivner Velde Woodruff Secrest Vinson Young Shafer Vursell NAYS—102 Angell Holifield Patman Aspinall Hope Perkius Batley Howell Peterson Bates, Ky. Huber Pfeifer, Battle Irving Joseph L. Blemiller Jackson, Wath Polk Bolton, Ohio Jacobs Powell Burke James Price Burleson Javits Priest Burnside Judd Rabaut Byrne, N. ¥ Karst Rains Carnahan Karsten Ramsay Case, N. J. Kee Rhodes Celler Kelley, Pa. Ribicof® Christopher Keogh Richards Combs King Scott, Crosser Lodge Hugh D, Jr Cunningham McCormack Sims Deane McGutre Spence DeGraffenried McKinnon Staggers Dingell Meck, Ill, Steed Doyle Magee Sullivan Eliott Mahon Thornberry Engle Calif Mansfield Tollefson Felghan Marsalis Trimble Fulton Marshall Underwood Gordon Merrow Vorys Granger Miller, Calif, Walrth Gwinn Mitchell Walter Halo Monroney Wickersham Halleck Morgan Wier Havenner Murdock Wolverton Hays, Ark. Nixon Worley Heselton O'Neill Yates Hobbs O'Sullivan NOT VOTING—65 Abbitt Ellsworth Murray, Wis. Allen, Ill. Fogarty Pace Allen, La. Fugate Poage Anderson, Calif. Furcolo Redden Barrett, Pa. Gilmer Regan Blackney Gore Roosevelt Boggs, Del. Hall, Sabath Boggs, La. Leonard W Sadowski Bolling Hedrick Scott, Hardle Bolton, Ma Herter Scuddcr Boykin Hinshaw Shelley Brooks Hoffman, Ill. Smathers Bulwinkle Jackson, Calif. Smith, Ohio Cannon Kean Stockman Carroll Kunkel Taylor Chatham Lesinski Teague Chudoft Lyle Towe Coudert McGrath Whitaker Davenport Macy White, Idaho Dawson Marcantonio Wilson, Tex. Douglas Morrison Woodhouse Eaton Morton Zablocki So the motion was agreed to. The Clerk announced the following pairs: Until further notice: [Roll No. 73] YEAS—265 Abernethy Dondero Kelly, N. Y, Addonizio Donohue Kennedy Albert Doughton Kerr Allen. Calif. Durham Kilburn Andersen, Eberharter Kilday H Carl Elston Kirwan Andresen, Engel, Mich Klein Ausust H. Evins Kruse Andrews Fallon Lane Arends Fellows Lanham Auchincloss Fenton Larcade Barden Fernandez Latham Baring Fisher LeCompte Barrett, Wyo. Flood LeFevre Bates, Mass. Forand Lemke Beall Ford Lichtenwalter Beckworth Frazier Lind Bennett, Fla. Gamble Linehan Bennett, Mich. Garmatz Lovre Bentsen Gary Lucas Bishop Gathings Lynch Blatnik Gavin McCarthy Bonner Gillette McConnell Bosone Golden McCulloch Bramblett Goodwin McDonough Breen Gorski McGregor Brehm Gossett McMillan, 8 ©. Brown, Ga Graham McMillen, Il. Brown, Ohio Granahan McSweeney Bryson Grant Mack, Wash. Buchanan Green Madden Buckley, Ill. Gregory Martin, Iowa Buckley,N.Y Gross Martin, Mass. Burdick Haven Mason Burton Hall, Meyer Byrnes, Wis. Edwin Arthur Michener Camp Hand Miles Canfield Harden Miller, Md. Carlyle Hardy Miller, Nebr. Case,S Dak, Hare Mills Cavalcante Harris Morris Chelf Harrison Moulder Chesney Hart Multer Chiperfield Harvey Murphy Church Hays, Ohio Murray, Tonn. Clemente Hebert Nelson Clevenger Heffernan Nicholson Cole, Kans, Heller Noland Cole, N. ¥. Herlong Norblad Colmer Hill Norrell Cooley Hoeven Norton Cooper Hoffman, Mich. O'Brien, Ml. Corbett Holmes O'Bricn, Mich, Cotton Horan O'Hara, Il, Cox Hull O’Hara, Minn. Crawford Jenison O'Konskt Crook Jenkins O'Toole Curtis Jennings Passman Dague Jensen Patten Davies, N. Y. Johnson Patterson Davis, Ga. Jonas Pfeiffer, Davis, Tenn. Jones, Ala. William L. Davis, Wis. Jones, Mo. Philbin Delaney Jones, N. 0. Phillips, Calif. Denton Kearney Phillips, Tenn, D’Ewart Kearns Pickett Dollinger Keating Plumley Dolliver Keefe Potter Mr. Wilson of Texas with Mr. Allen of IIli- nols. Mr. Redden with Mr. Towe. Mr. McGrath with Mr. Eaton. Mr. Gilmer with Mr. Anderson of California. Mr. Morrison with Mr. Kean. Mr. Sadowski with Mr. Taylor. Mr. Roosevelt with Mr. Hardie Scott. Mr. Barrett of Pennsylvania with Mr. Leon- ard W. Hall. Mrs. Douglas with Mr. Herter. Mr. Shelley with Mr. Hoffman of Illinois. Mr. Whitaker with Mr. Boggs of Delaware. Mr. Abbitt with Mr. Kunkel. 2591 Mr, Regan with Mr. Coudert. Mrs. Woodhouse with Mr. Smith of Ohio. Mr. Allen of Louisiana with Mr. Jackson of California. Mr. Bolton of Maryland with Mr. Black- ney. Mr. Cannon with Mr. Macy. Mr. Chudoff with Mr. Morton. Mr. Hedrick with Mr. Scudder. Mr. Pace with Mr. Stockman. Mr. Teague with Mr. Murray of Wisconsin. Mr. Smathers with Mr. Ellsworth. Mr. FiluBin and Mrs. Rocers of Mas- sachusetts changed their votes from “nay’’ to “yea.” Messrs. Hosss, DEGRAFFENRIED, ANGELL, and James changed their votes from “yea” to “nay.” The result of the vote was announced as above recorded, A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. EXTENSION OF REMARKS Mr. GARY asked and was given per- mission to extend his remarks in the Rec- orp and include an editorial which ap- peared in the New York Times on Febru- ary 22, 1950, entitled ‘“‘The Case for ECA.” DISPENSING WITH FURTHER CALENDAR WEDNESDAY BUSINESS Mr. PRIEST. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the further call of committees under the Calendar Wednesday rule today be dispensed with, Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Speaker, I object. Mr. PRIEST. Mr. Speaker, I move that further call of the committees under the Calendar Wednesday rule today be dispensed with. The question was taken; and on a divi- sion (demanded by Mr. RANKIN) there were—ayes 219, noes 6. So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the motion was agreed to. REFERENCE OF BILL Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs be discharged frem further consideration of the bill H. R. 5604, and that the bill be referred to the Committee on Armed Services. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Mis- sissippi? There was no objection. NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Mr. CROSSER. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further con- sideration of the bill (H. R. 4846) to promote the progress of science; to ad- vance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national de- fense; and for other purposes. The motion was agreed to. Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill H. R. 4846, with Mr. THompPson in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. Mr. FULTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. FoLTon: Page 15, line 25, strike out the words “after con- sultation with” and insert “with the approval of.”
2592 Mr, FULTON. Mr. Chairman, may I read this amendment. On page 15, line 25, it says: The authority to cooperate in interna- tional scientific research activities as pro- vided in subsection (a) of this section, shall be exercised only after consultation with the Secretary of State. My amendment would provide that it shall be exercised only after the agree- ment or the approval of the Secretary of State. As it is set up we can have a disagreement with the Secretary and the course followed will be out of line with the foreign policy of our country. In addition to that, Mr. Chairman, I have another amendment which I ask to be read at this time, and I ask unan- imous consent that the two amendments be considered together. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania? There was no objection. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will re- port the ncxt amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. FuLtron: On page 20, line 16, strike out the words “after consultation with” and insert “with the ap- proval of.” Mr. FULTON. On page 20, line 15, under subsection (k) it now reads: The executive committee, after consul- tation with the Secretary of Defense, shall establish regulations and procedures for the security classification of information or property (having military significance) in connection with scientific research under this act. My amendment would make it a re- quirement that the regulations and procedures shall have the approval of the Secretary of Defense. The provi- sion will read, with my amendment, that the executive committee with the ap- proval of the Secretary of Defense shall establish regulations and procedures for the security classification of informa- tion or property—having military sig- nificance—in connection with scientific research under this act. Mr. PRIEST. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. FULTON. I yield to the gentle- man from Tennessee. Mr. PRIEST. May I say that so far as I am concerned, and I believe so far as the committee is concerned, certainly on this side, we accept both of the gen- tleman’s amendments. Mr. WOLVERTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. FULTON. I yield to the gentle- man from New Jersey. Mr. WOLVERTON. Mr. Chairman, speaking for the members of the com- mittee on this side, I will say that we are not Opposed to the amendments of- fered by the gentleman from Pennsyl- vania. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendments offered by the gentle- man from Pennsylvania. The amendments were agreed to. Mr. WADSWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. WapswortTH: On page 3, strike out lines 15 to 19, inclusive. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Mr. WADSWORTH. Mr. Chairman, this paragraph authorizes the Founda- tion to maintain a register of scientific and technical personnel and in other ways provide a central clearing house for information covering all scientific and technical personnel in the United States. Mr. Chairman, this is the very thing that the National Academy of Sciences has been doing since 1863. One of the duties imposed upon the National Academy of Sciences in its charter, which was granted in 1863, {s to respond to re- quests of any department of Govern- ment, to furnish to that department scientific assistance and the names of the scientists who may be of assistance to the Government. They have kept that up for years and years. It should be remembered that the Na- tional Academy of Sciences is not an arm of the Government. When they make up a list of available scientists no in- fluence of Government is felt. To my mind, there is an exceedingly important difference between the present custom under the National Academy of Sciences and the one proposed here, because this National Science Foundation is to be an arm and part of the Government itself and, clothed with that power, the Na- tional Science Foundation can make up its own list of eligible scientists and that will become the Government's list. That, I think, Mr. Chairman, is a power which should not be placed in the hands of a governmental authority. It should be left in the hands of the Na- tional Academy of Sciences, which is not a branch or arm of the Government but is an independent organization unswayed by politics or governmental policies. It is for that reason that I move to strike out that paragraph and allow the present machinery to work as it has been working for years. Mr. HESELTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Again, Mr. Chairman, let me say that I have the deepest regard and highest respect for the gentleman who has of- fered this amendment. It so happens that within the hour I have had a tele- phone conversation with Dr. Merriam E. Trytten, who is director of the office of scientific personnel, National Research Council. He asked me if I would explain to the Members the situation that exists now. It is a fact that from 1863, when they initiated this effort, they did a pretty good job, but he told me that approxi- mately 3 years ago because of lack of funds and lack of personnel they had to limit themselves to maintaining a reg- ister only from the Ph. D. level upward, that that is entirely unsatisfactory, and that they have no information about the existence or qualifications of our younger scientists, who are the ones that we are after all trying to locate and assist. He asked me to say to you that the council not only does not oppose this provision, but that it hopes it will be kept in this bill. He says we will then have a working list which will be available not only to the Government but to industry, to private research institutions, as well as to our universities and colleges. I MARCH 1 assure you that I believe he fs giving us excellent advice. I wish he had called the gentleman from New York. I can assure the gen- tleman I am giving the exact message that he gave to us. I hope you main- tain this list for our own security. Mr. FULTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HESELTON. I am glad to yield to the gentleman. Mr. FULTON. In establishing this list and by being left off of it, will it more or less be a blacklisting of any individ- ual or would it have any effect on his standing in the scientific community? Mr. HESELTON. Ido not understand there has been any occasion in the past where that has happened while it was in active use. I cannot conceive that any scientist who is qualified would be omit- ted from this list. The purpose of the listing is so that those who wish to get in touch with qualified scientists will know where they are and will be able to reach them. That is the only purpose. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. MILLER of Nebraska. Mr. Chair- man, I move to strike out the last word and rise in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment of the gentleman from New York. I also want to call your attention to some dangerous features in this bill. I have read with interest the hearings and I have listened for two days to vari- ous statements on the bill. The distin- guished majority leader gave his splen- did address on the bill, and I find in reading the address in the RrEcorD on page 2416, third column, third para- graph, he said: Our scientific world is without national leadership. My colleagues, I was under the impres- sion that we in the United States had made great progress in scientific and technical leadership. I was under the impression that we led the rest of the world in probing the unknown, for after all, research is nothing more than prob- ing the unknown—asking questions of nature and finding the answers. We have outstripped the rest of the world. We built the atomic bomb. We have made tremendous progress in all fields, I want to speak specifically about the progress we have made in the medical field and make a comparison with what I saw in Germany and Hungary in the early twenties, and then some 15 years later, You know those countries adopted socialized medicine. I went over there for some postgraduate work in 1927. It was splendid. Then as the cold, clammy hand of government began to push down upon the scientists and technical men in Germany, scientific training went out the window. I know what happened there because when I went back in the late thirties there was no more good technical and scientific training being given in Germany, Hungary, Poland, and Czechoslovakia. I do endorse the principles of the measure, but there seems to be many loopholes in the purchase of land, the possibilities of leaks of secrets to foreign
1950 countries, the huge political agency du- Plicating what is already being done. We are spending something over a billion dollars in a number of research programs in the United States. Our universities and private groups all over the United States—free men with free minds have made progress which we ought to hold up and point to with pride. Free enterprise unfettered by govern- ment regulations have produced tools of production which has made this ra- tio great. The thing that worries me is when you get the Federal Government in this picture subsidizing universities and scholarships and when the Federal Government reaches out and takes the taxpayers’ dollars away from him, in the natural course of events when that dollar is handed back, it is with the iron fist of the dictator. It has always been so and it is so today, and it could be so under this bill. Therefore, I feel we ought to leave our free men with free minds with as little government regula- tion as possible to let them proceed in developing the scientific and technical knowledge that we have in the world. Great progress has been made. Greater progress has been made in the treat- ment of medical problems than in any other nation. Frankly I have been con- cerned how long we as a people, if we continue on the road toward nationaliza- tion, step by step, of every little industry that we have, how long are we, as a free people, going to be able to lead our lives as we see fit, under the mod- erate restraints of the Constitution, or are we going to adopt that theory which says that the Government after all, knows best and will take care of us from the cradle to the grave? We must Icave scientific minds free to bring further blessings to mankind. If minds are shackled by regulations then progress in science stops. I hope the legislation 1s amendcd s0 I can support what seems to be a step in the right direction—without amend- ments to protect our scientific progress— I will vote against the measure. Mr. BIEMILLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. PRIEST. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. BIEMILLER. I yield. Mr. PRIEST. I ask unanimous con- sent, Mr. Chairman, that all debate on the pending amendment and amend- ments thereto close in 5 minutes. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Tennessee? There was no objection. Mr, BIEMILLER. Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak bricfly for the committee members on this side of the aisle in oppo- sition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Waps- worTH]. We agree heartily with the ex- pressions of the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. HEsELTON]. We believe he has brought important infor- mation to the committee in regard to the attitude of the National Academy of Science on the maintenance of an official scientific roster. In addition to that, we would like to call attention to the fact that there is CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE already in existence a Government roster of scientific personnel, a roster that was started during the war by OSRD and is now being continued by the United States Employment Service, which is a part of the Department of Labor. Section (1) on page 19 transfers that roster from the Department of Labor to the National Science Foundation. I think that is an eminently desirable pro- vision. We hope it will prevail and that the power granted the National Science Foundation on page 3 will be continued. Mr. WADSWORTH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr, BIEMILLER. I yield. Mr. WADSWORTH. I may say to the gentleman it is a surprise to me to hear the announcement that the National Academy of Science cannot afford to do this work. I had heard to the contrary from other members of that organiza- tion. But assuming that that statement is correct, and the National Academy of Science has not enough money to supply a complete list, would it not be within the power of this proposed Foundation to give it a little money and to still keep the formation of this list out of Government hands? Mr. BIEMILLER. I would assume that the National Science Foundation, which will have on its board of directors eminent scientists from al] parts of the country, would certainly want to coop- erate in every reasonable, feasible man- ner with the National Academy of Sci- ence. I think such will be the case. But I repeat, as I said a moment ago, there is already in existence a Government roster. It is very desirable that that roster be transferred to the National Sci- ence Foundation and that the National Science Foundation use its good judg- ment in maintaining the proper roster in the future, to make sure that the United States has a complete catalog of avatl- able scientific personnel in the country. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the re- mainder of my time. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentle- ran from New York [Mr. WapsworrH]. The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. JENNINGS) there werc—ayes 44, noes 66. So the amendment was rejected. Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. Case of South Dakota: On page 12, Mne 18, after the word “and” insert “, with approval of the Secretary of Defense.” Mr. PRIEST. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. CASE of South Dakota. I yield. Mr. PRIEST. May I say to the gen- tleman from South Dakota that we dis- cussed this very briefly in an interchange yesterday, both the gentlemen from Cal- ifornia (Mr. HinsHaw] and I. I am will- ing to accept the amendment, and I be- lieve the other side of the Committee is willing to accept the amendment. Mr. WADSWORTH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield that I may pro- pound a question and proceed for a min- ute or two if the gentleman will let me use some of his time? Mr. 2593 Mr. CASE of South Dakota. I would be glad to have the gentleman use some of my time but I should like to have my amendment voted upon before I lose the floor. The CHAIRMAN. When the gentle- man yields the floor the vote will be taken. Mr. CASE of South Dekota. Under the circumstances, Mr. Chairman, I pre- fer not to yield. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South Dakota [Mr. Case]. The amcndment was agreed to. Mr. W..DSWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I move to < trike out the last word and do so for the purpose not of detaining the Committec unduly, but to ask if it would not be well for the proponents of this bill to describe what is in the mind of the committee or what this bill contemplates in the paragraph beginning in line 13 of page 12, and reading: The Foundation is authorized to enter into contracts or other airangements or modifications thereof, for the carrying on, by organizations or individuals in the United States and foreign countries, including other Government agencics of the United States and of foreign countries, of such basic sci- entific-research activities and such acientific- research activities in connection with mat- ters relating to the national defense. It goes on to state: Such contracts or other arrangements, or modifications thereof, may be entered into without legal consideration, without per- formance or other bonds, and without regard to section 3709 of the Revised Statutes— And I understand that this last section 3709 refers to the matter of compctitive bidding. What is the purpose of this section in that it authorizes American money, as I read it, to be expended with foreign governments under contract or by indi- viduals of the United States? Mr. PRIEST. Mr. Chairman, I may say that the purpose of this particular provision is to authorize the Foundation, if such circumstances should develop, to enter into negotiations and contracts with a foreign nation for certain work that might be highly restrictive in na- ture and secret. That, frankly, is the purpose of that provision in the bill, It is the sort of thing that we do not usually discuss too vocally, but I do not mind saying that that is the purpose of the language in the bill, that should the cir- cumstance require it an agreement may be entered into with a foreign nation to carry on some research of a restricted nature. Mr. WADSWORTH. But this foes a great deal further than that and pro- vides that an individual in the United States may enter into a contract with a foreign government. It is a rather ex- traordinary provision, Mr. Chairman. Mr. PRIEST. Only after approval by the Secretary of State. I believe the gen- tleman will find restrictive language on page 15 beginning in line 20: (b) (1) The authority to enter into con- tracts or other arrangements with organiza- tions or individuals in foreign countries and with agencies of forcign countries, as pro- vided in section 11 (c), and the authority
2594 to cooperate in international scientific re- search activities as provided in subsection (a) of this section, shall be exercised only after consultation— And I believe we have amended that to read “approval’— with the approval of the Secretary of State. Mr. WADSWORTH. Mr. Chairman, would not the gentleman think it wise to strike out the word “individuals”? Mr. PRIEST. The committee did not so think. The chairman of the subcom- mittee does not so believe in view of the purpose of the language in the bill. I certainly respect a great deal the opin- jon of the gentleman from New York, but on this particular point I fcel that the language in the bill is proper and should remain as it is. Mr. WADSWORTH. In my humble opinion, we are advancing on risky ground: Any organization or any individual of the United States once approved by the Founda- tion may enter into a contract with a for- eign government. Mr. FULTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. WADSWORTH. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. Mr. FULTON. Under the point 4 pro- gram, which was introduced by the gen- tleman from West Virginia [Mr. KEE], I would like to ask the chairman of the committee this question: There is section 5 which states: The President is authorized to plan, un- dertake, administer, and execute bilateral technical cooperation programs carried on by any United States Government agency, and in so doing to— (a) Coordinate and direct existing and new technical operation programs. In relation to the question of the gen- tleman from New York, does not this very act cut across that provision in the point 4 program? The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York has expired. Mr. JAVITS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word and I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New York? There was no objection. Mr. JAVITS. Mr. Chairman, in a speech buried in the Appendix of the CONGRESSIONAL REcorD on page A1010, the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. RANKIN] made certain statements which have such importance as a lesson for the rest of us and for the country that I call them to the attention of the House. He spoke of ‘Yiddish Communism versus Christian Civilization” and—I continue to quote: Our Yiddish Solicitor General has taken it upon himself to go into the Supreme Court and misrepresent the American people by filing a brief in the Henderson case, for the purpose of trying to wipe out all segrega- tion, and destroy our separate schools throughout the country. He continued: I understand that every member of the Politburo around Stalin is either Yiddish or married to one, and that includes Stalin himself. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE The Russian desk of the State Depart- ment informs me that of the 12 members of the Politburo, only 1 is Jewish. He is Kaganovich. The State Department informs me that it is impossible for them to find out anything about the wives of the members, as they do not mix socially. However, they said, there is a rumor— unproven—that Stalin’s third wife is Kaganovich’s sister. I call this matter to the House’s atten- tion because whether or not the rules would permit the striking out of such material defaming the people of a great faith I do not intend to ask that they be stricken. On the contrary, I believe they should remain in the REcorpD as a per- manent memorial on two points, critical to the national security of our country about which this same gentleman so often speaks, but which it is my convic- tion he most seriously jeopardizes. This is first—that it can happen here—that our constitutional democracy is not free from the dangerous propaganda tech- nique, popularized by Hitler, Goebbels, and Stalin, of the sweeping lie constant- ly reiterated which in a moment of a weakness or national frustration our people might seize on to overturn all the gains of constitutionalism and human decency which have endured so magnifi- cently throughout the life of our Nation and which we are determined to preserve forever. My second reason for speaking is that I have noted that when the same gen- tleman who uttered these words utters others of the same character, Members often laugh with indulgence or amuse- ment as if to say, “Isn’t that pictur- esque.” It is high time we realized the grim realities involved and the awful hurt that can be inflicted by these words upon a great body of fine Ameri- can citizens who have contributed so enormously—and I shall not repeat the history of the achievements of Ameri- cans of the Jewish faith from Haym Salomon to David Lilienthal as practi- cally every one of the Members knows of them not only from history but from his personal experience—to our national life. I believe rather that these words should remain of record as a constant memorial to the danger which can threaten our essential freedom and domestic peace generally. When we see hatred in action it is not a laughing matter. I believe the Members will know that it is a very trying ordeal for me to take the floor under circumstances such as these. It would be so much easier to say nothing and to justify it by the un- willingness to repeat the charges in the course of refuting them. But this would be far more a disservice to our country than to Americans of Jewish faith. Let me make it crystal clear that the surest guaranty of the rights of all minorities in our country is the very white Christian majority which the gentleman from Mississippi refers to so often, and that the minorities have complete and permanent faith in the devotion to the great ideals of the con- stitution of this majority. For Ameri- cans of my faith that seek fellowship and brotherhood, recognize that ours is MarcH 1 the greatest example of government where all citizens have the capability of equality of opportunity and rights of any in recorded history, and are con- vinced that the noblest and most success- ful development of our country is the greatest future there can be for them. Mr. CASE of New Jersey. Mr. Chair- man, will the gentleman yield? Mr. JAVITS. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey. Mr. CASE of New Jersey. Iagree com- pletely with the statements the gentle- man has made. I am sure that every Member of this House, other than the gentleman from Mississippi, will agree also. And I think it terribly important that the country as a whole and the world should know that in this sad and sordid departure the gentleman from Mississippi stands alone. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York has expired. Mr.FULTON. Mr. Chairman, I heart- ily jom with the gentleman from New York [Mr. Javits] in his sincere plea for brotherhood and fellowship among peo- ple of all faiths. No group should be separated from the rest of Americans because of race, creed, or color The gentleman from New York [Mr. Javits] properly emphasize what we all know to be true: That benefit to our country is at once the benefit to all of our people, including every minority. From my own knowledge, the Jewish people of our country have made their full contribution to the best phases of our national development, our cultural heritage, and our security and defense. Mr. HESELTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word. Mr. Chairman, once again the gentle- man from New York has raised a very pertinent question as to the phraseology and the meaning of the section which he discussed. He wanted to know and I think all Members have a right to know why we are providing for doing business in other countries. I am sure I am not disclosing any security information when I read to you from volume V of the Presi- dent’s Scientific Research Board report dated October 18, 1947, as follows: TRAVELING FELLOWSHIPS Several foundations and the United States Department of State have programs of traveling fellowships under which scholars from this country and abroad are sent to other countries for observation and study. The holders of traveling fellowships appro- priately spend most of their time visiting research institutions and talking with lead- ing investigators. They seldom spend more than a very short time in investigation ina single laboratory. The promotion of inter- national understanding and the exchange of scientific information are as important as the specific training obtained under such fellowships. That, in a general way, explains what the Committee is trying to get at. But, more particularly, let me read to you what is reported with reference to the Navy Department: NAVAL MEDICAL RESEARCH UNIT NO. 8 (CAIRO, EGYPT) This unit passed to the Navy from the United States Typhus Commission in January 1946. It is engaged in roscarch in local med- ical problems and diseases of military im-
1950 portance in the Middle East, Africa, Europe, and India. The present program consists of (a) comparative studies of the bac- terlology, biochemistry, and physiology of febrile diseases, and (b) preventive medicine studies of the entomology, epidemiology, and mamology of the diseases of the Middle East, Africa, Europe, and India. Specific projects are.in collaboration with the Egyptian Gov- ernment, the United States Public Health Service, the War Department, and Depart- ment of Agriculture. I wish Ihad had the timeto locate other illustrations while the gentleman from New York |[Mr. WapswortH] was speak- ing, but I think that may offer at least two specific illustrations of what we want to provide for. Mr. CHURCH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. CuHurcH: On page 2, line 18, after “contracts” strike out “or other arrangements (including grants, loans, and other forms of assistance)” end- ing on line 19. Mr. CHURCH. Mr. Chairman, the ob- vious purpose of this amendment is to narrow the authority of the National Science Foundation proposed to be estab- lished by this bill. I call your attention to the broad pow- ers which the Foundation will have under subsection (3) of section 3 (a). The au- thority is virtually unlimited. Under the terms of this subsection the Foundation can enter into any kind of an arrange- ment it wishes, by contract, by loans, or even by out-and-out grants of money for scientific research. There is no limitation as to the amount of money that may be expended by way of loans or by way of contract commit- ments. Nor is there any limitation as to the kind of research. The only limi- tation is that the research be “in connec- tion with matters relating to the national defense.” But, Mr. Chairman, what is a matter relating to national defense? That can mean almost anything. It can mean food. It can mean clothing. It can mean medicine. At this very moment our armed services have research con- tracts with various institutions in these fields which, to the average layman, and I think to most of us, are far removed from national defense. Research in connection with an im- proved gun fs a matter relating to na- tional defense. No one can question that. But the armed services do not stop there. They point out that the tractor or carriage is essential for the mobility and effectiveness of the gun. Accordingly, they justify Federal assist- ance for research in this fleld. As the carriage is important to the gun, the wheels are important to the carriage. Accordingly, they justify Federal ex- penditures for research in how to im- prove the wheels as a matter relating to national defense, as well as research on how to improve the axles. And what about the grease or oil that lubricates the axle wheel? The point I seek to emphasize, Mr. Chairman, is that there is no limitation whatever in what constitutes a matter relating to national defense. The Foun- dation would have the authority to make CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE unlimited expenditures, if not by direct grants, at least in the form of loans, in practically every fleld of endeavor. Businesses could be practically set up to compete with existing businesses. I have no objection whatever to the Federal Government entering into ex- perimental contracts, such as were en- tered into during the war, for the pro- duction of a better submarine or perhaps a better bombsight. Those are con- tracts for products which have no com- mercial market. They are for some- thing which industry does not normally produce. But I strenuously object to giving this new Government agency this broad au- thority to enter into any kind of an arrangement it may wish for research in unlimited fields. This is something which is now being well done by business itself. In 1947 industry itself spent around $10,000,000 on basic research, and the amount spent on applied research, in finding new products or improved ones, it has spent many, many times that amount. The high standard of living you and I enjoy is the result of this free competitive enterprise system. We now propose by this bill to compel industry to discontinue its own efforts and look to the Federal Government. The fundamental question which this bill raises is whether American science must become dependent upon a Govern- ment agency for its support, or whether it can look to support from private funds. It is my deep conviction that American science can best be advanced by en- couraging through reduced taxes the ex- penditures of funds on research than by establishing another Government agency to distribute money collected from the people in taxes. It must be recognized that any organi- zation that has the authority to expend money, to give or withhold, can exercise considerable control over the activities of the individuals or organizations who re- ceive the benefit or the grant or loan. It must also be recognized that it is human nature for people to avoid spending money for some purpose if it can get the Government to do it. And that is par- ticularly true when the available funds in the hands of the people are limited by the burden of taxes. I hope my amendment will be adopted. It will at least put some limitation on what can be done and how much can be spent under the guise of national defense. It will at least confine the authority to contractual arrangements rather than allowing the Foundation to make loans or some other arrangements, without limi- tation as to the amount and purpose, and thereby place an additional burden on the people who will have to bear the cost of all this, Mr, JONAS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. CHURCH. I yield to the gentle- man from Illinois. Mr. JONAS, No doubt the gentleman from Illinois is familiar with the sec- tion of the bill which provides for a board of 24 members. Does the gentle- man understand that the 24 members are to be eminently qualified, scholarly, 2595 learned, and distinguished scientists? If they are, then are they working for $25 a day and expenses? Does the gen- tleman know any scientist of any emi- nence and distinction, any learned and scholarly scientist who can afford to work for $25 a day? Mr. CHURCH. I agree with the gen- tleman. I donot. Let me say that the scientists in America become eminent because they are free from this kind of control by a foundation or control by the Government. Mr. JONAS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield further? Mr. CHURCH. I yield. Mr. JONAS. Is the gentleman famil- far with that part of the. bill which says that of the 24, 9 shall constitute an execu- tive committee and that the executive committee shall be the means through which business shall be done. Will not that stamp the other 15 as mere stuffed shirts and strawmen under that sort of a set-up? Mr. CHURCH. The gentleman is cor- rect. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Illinois has expired. Mr. CHURCH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for four additional minutes. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Tllinois? There was no objection. Mr. WAGNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. CHURCH. I yield. Mr. WAGNER. If this amendment is adopted will the gentleman vote for this measure? Mr. CHURCH. No, I want to be per- fectly frank, because there are other broad provisions in the bill that the gen- tleman from New York and others have called attention to, under which this Foundation can compete with industries in your district under contracts without consideration. The bill goes too far in many of its provisions. Mr. WAGNER. Is that the only objec- tion the gentleman has to the measure? Mr. CHURCH. Oh, no. There are a number of objections which have been pointed out in the debate. Mr. PRIEST. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. CHURCH. Yes. Mr. PRIEST. The gentleman will recognize that the word “basic” is omitted only in connection with research for the national defense, at the request and ap- proval of the Secretary of Defense. We feel that if this country faces danger we should utilize every research agency in the country to protect it. It applies only in that case and with that restrittion. These are basic only except as it relates to national defense. Mr. CHURCH. Then how far will you go in the matter relating to national defense? Does not food have to do with that? Does not medicine have to do with that? Does not clothing have to do with that? Does not almost every product that business is struggling to make under the competitive system have to do with or in some measure relate to national defense? You are going to give
2596 some bureaucracy the power to determine it and determine it in peacetime. Mr. PRIEST. In these far-flung bat- tlefields around the world I am ready to say that everything relates to that which this Nation has. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. CrrurcH] has expired. Mr. WOLVERTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. PRIEST. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. WOLVERTON. I yield. Mr. PRIEST. I ask unanimous con- sent, Mr. Chairman, that all debate on the Church amendment clos2 in 5 min- utes. Mr. WHITE of Idaho. I object to that. Mr. PRIEST. Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on the Church amend- ment close in 5 minutes. The motion was agreed to. Mr. WOLVERTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment in order that I may have an opportunity to bring to the attention of the commit- tee some facts that seem to me to have been entirely overlooked during this de- bate. As far as the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois is concerned, I do not consider it of sufficient impor- tance to even take the time to reply to the argument he has made. In the first place, I want to call the at- tention of the House to the fact that yes- terday and today Members of this House, with sincerity, have stood in the well of this House and offered amendments. The bill now before us is almost word for word the same as the several other bills that have been before the House for the last 4 years on the same subject. Never once have I heard any Member who is now offering amendments come before the committee and give our com- mittee the benefit of his thought when the committee was seeking to draw legis- lation that would be appropriate and effective. I call attention to the fact that this bill is not a partisan bill; this bill is the same in character, practically word for word—and I hope my friends on the left of the aisle will realize what I am saying—as the bill that I introduced, the committee approved and the House passed in the Eightieth Congress. That was the Republican Congress. It was also passed by a Republican Senate. If the bill was good then it is good now. It was vetoed by the President for reasons that he considered sufficient and which at the time I would have been perfectly willing to accede to in order that we might have the legislation. Mr. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. WOLVERTON. I will yield only for a brief question; my time is very limited. Mr. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN. It seems to me that the situation was differ- ent in the EHightieth Congress than it is today. Inthe Eightieth Congress we bal- anced the budget, paid off on the national debt, left a surplus, and reduced taxes. Now we will have a deficit in the Eighty- Myr. Chairman, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE first Congress of nearly $10,000,000,000. It occurs to me that the situation is en- tirely changed. This may be a very good project but it is a new project; and if we are going to balance the budget again we will have to stop spending money and wait until the countr, can afford it. Mr. WOLVERTON. I wish that at some time or other some of these indi- viduals who come before the House and make arguments such as has just been made would realize the inconsistency of those arguments There are times, Mr. Chairman, that we cannot decide a ques- tion just on the basis of the dollars and cents involved; there are times when we must recognize that there are some things more valuable than dollars and cents. This bill contains a limitation of apprcpriation of $500,000 this year and at no time to exceed $15,000,000. That is a small amount to pay for the security and helpfulness to our citizens that this bill will provide. I appreciate the sincerity of the gen- tleman from Minnesota [Mr. Aucust H. ANDRESEN], but I am not in accord with application of the principles he mentions to this particular bill This bill is a ne- cessity in this scientific age. As I have previously said there are times when ex- isting circumstances justify us in ex- penditures for worth-while programs. I believe this to be such, I am sorry the gentleman, for whose sincerity I have the greatest respect, does not agree with me. There is no more outstanding advocate of economy and efficiency in Govern- ment than former President Hoover, the head of the Commission that so recently made a report to us on reorganization of executive departments. Before reading the Hoover Committee’s report let me say that the policy statement of the Re- publican Party adopted just a few days ago had this to say: The achievement of efficiency and economy in Government, especially by adoption of measures along the lnes of the Hoover Re- port What did the Hoover report have to say about the necessity for an organiza- tion in Government such as this bill pro- vides for a National Science Foundation? On pages 49 and 50 of the Hoover report, and I ask unanimous consent to insert the entire portion of the report in my remarks, it is said: The Federal Government is now engaged in @ wide range of research activities involving tremendous expenditures of funds The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New Jersey has expired. Mr. WOLVERTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I may pro- ceed for two additional minutes. Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to ob- ject—I do not understand the situation. I wonder why the gentleman on the other side a while ago called attention to the rule limiting the time? I am not attempting to limit the gentleman’s time; I hope he gets his time. Mr. WOLVERTON. This House was liberal enough to give the gentleman from Illinois four additional minutes to speak on an inconsequential amendment, and it would seem to me that the rank- ing Republican member of the commit- MaRcH 1 tee ought to have at least two additional minutes. Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. The gentleman understands I am not object- ing but I am calling their attention to an inconsistency. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New Jersey? There was no objection. Mr. CHURCH. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman referred to my inconsequen- tial amendment. Does the gentleman believe in my sincerity? Mr. WOLVERTON. I have absolute confidence in the gentleman’s sincerity and honesty of purpose even though I do not agree with his Judgment in this particular instance. There is no Mcm- ber of the House for whose sincerity I have a higher regard. Mr. CHURCH. Nor do I agree with the gentleman’s Mr. WOLVERTON. Mr. Chairman, finishing the reading of the report of the Hoover Commission, it goes on to say: The Federal Government is now engaged in a wide range of research activities involving tremendous expenditures of funds. In 1947, total Federal expenditures for research ex- cluding atomic energy amounted to $625,- 000,000 This Commission, while recogniz- ing that effective planning and coordination of research undertaken ts of major impor- tance, has not endeavored to make an inde- pendent study of organization for research in the Federal Government. This decision was based primarily on a realization that the main aspect of the problem had been re- cently investigated and reported by the Pres- ident's Scientific Research Board Neverthe- less, the Commission does wish to call at- tention to the major issues in this fleld, pointing out progress which has already been achieved and further steps that should be taken The report of the Scientific Research Board makes it plain that a satisfactory correlated research program for the National Govern- ment has not yet been realized. To be ef- fective, an organization which will facilitate the development of research policy for the Government as a whole must have roots in each department with major responsibilities. Every Federal agency with an extensive re- search program should have a staff organi- gation reporting to the agency head for de- veloping general research policy. A number of such staff groups are now in operation. These groups include the Agricultural Re- search Administration, the Office of Naval Research, the Office of Research Planning, and Public Health Service, and Research and Development Division of the Department of the Army’s General Staff. While the authority, responsibility, and or- ganizational status of these groups vary widely, they do have a number of common basic characteristics Each is responsible to the agency head, each maintains records of research projects conducted by all units of the agency served, each advises the agency head on such matters of research policy as the flelds of which research shculd be ex- panded or contracted and whether research should be undertaken directly by the Fed- eral Government or by non-Federal agencies under a grant of contract, and similar mat- ters. Effort along these lines within individual agencies 1s not enough. There is need for an organization to facilitate the development of research policy for the Federal Govern- ment as a whole. That wes r.c-guized in a report of the Presiconts Ge oil Ne Research Board. That Board recomme..dcd as a first
1950 step the establishment of an interdepart- mental committee on scientific research and development. Such a committee was created by Executive order 1n December of 1947. It was directed to further the most effective administration of sctentific research and de- velopment activities in the Federal Govern- ment and was authorized to submit recom- mendations on research policy and admin- istration direct to the President. The full potentialities of this committee hae not been realized, since its members have not as yet attacked major problems of research policy for the Federal Covernment ag a whole. This may be due in part to lack of staff and funds. An interdepartmental committee working alone and without staff is seriously limited in achieving adequate co- ordination and developing over-all plans to completion. This points to the need for a National Science Foundation. The major functions of such a Foundation should be (a) to examine the total scientific research efforts of the Nation, to assess the proper role of the Federal Government in this ef- fort, to evaluate the division of research ef- fort among the scientific disciplines and mmong ficlds of applied research, and to evalunte the key factors that impede the de- velopment of an effective national research effort. Based upon its investigation, it should advise the President as to the mefs- ures necessary to establish a sound scientific research program for the Nation In addition, the Foundation should be given appropriations for the support of basic research and for research fellowships in flelds not adequately covered by the research grants and fellowships of other Federal Gov- ernment agencies. The Foundation might administer the grant and fellowship program for which it has received funds, or delegate administration to other Federal agencies In addition, it should advise the President as to the proper balance among research grants and fellowship programs supported by appropriations given to other Federal agencies, and as to major policies that should govern the administration of these programs The National Science Foundation should consider most carefully the manner in which the national policies with respect to scientific research are related to broader questions of educational policy At present, grants for research purposes are being made on a hit- and-miss basis, making the award of re- search grants in effect a new form of patron- age. The awarding of research grants must be put on a more systematic basis, with due recognition given to their impact on the educational programs of our higher institu- tions of learning. Mr. Chairman, that is from the Hoover Commission report. In my opinion it is sound. We should adopt the bill now before us. It will carry out the objec- tives set forth in the Hoover Commis- sion Report. I believe it will eventually save money. Certainly, I hope so. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentle- man from Illinois [Mr. Cuurcy]. Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amend- ment be reread. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Mississippi? There was no objection. The Clerk reread the Church amend- ment. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment. The amendment was rejected. Mr. PRIEST. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on the bill and all amendments thereto close in 20 minutes. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Tennessee? Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I have an amendment. The regular order was demanded. Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I object. Mr. PRIEST. Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on the bill and all amend- ments thereto close in 25 minutes. Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I offer a preferential motion. The CHAIRMAN. There is a preferen-* tial motion now pending. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Priest). The motion was agreed to. Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I coffer a preferential motion. The Clerk read as follows: Mr. HorFMAN of Michigan moves that the Committee do now rise and report the bill back to the House with the recommendation that the ehacting clause be stricken. Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I make this motion, not that I hope it will be adopted, but for two reasons, first, because I am opposed to the bill and because I want the time. It has been impossible to obtain recognition to offer an amendment. The gentleman from New Jersey [{Mr. WOLVERTON] seemed to be quite exercised because I called attention to the inconsistency of the gentleman, the very fine, distin- guished, lovable, and admirable gentle- man from Tennessee [Mr. Prigst| who is in charge of the debate, in objecting a moment ago to some extensions of time, calling for the enforcement of the rule which had been adopted limiting debate, But when the same question just came up while the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. WOLVERTON] was speaking and the argument was along the line he ap- proved he did not call attention to the fact debate had been limited. All I was trying to do was to call attention to the inconsistency. I was not objecting to the extension of time of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. WotvertTon]. I do not care if the gentleman talks for an hour. I would listen to him, but I wanted to point to this inconsistency on the majority side. When you talk so much about civil rights, equal privileges, and all that, acts should be compared with words. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. WoLverton] was talking about some of us on the Republican side who did not go along with the platform on FEPC. To mea platform {fs nothing more or less than a collection of promises to garner votes. As far as I can remem- ber back, no platform has ever been ad- hered to when it came in conflict with party policy after the election. So, that argument about what is in the Republi- can national platform does not mean too much to me. Mr. Roosevelt was re- elected three times after he repudiated the platform on which he was first elect- ed. That platform promised a 25 per- cent reduction in Federal expenditures, In 15 years no attempt was ever made to keep that promise. Another thing, every day we hear that we must do something, we must create a 2597 new agency, & new commission, we must spend some more money. What this country needs is relief from excessive Government expenditures and new so- cialistic legislation. I have been accused many times of being an obstructionist, being against everything, just because I voted against an appropriation or some unsound unneeded legislation. Bless your hearts. When I voted against an appropriation I was voting for economy and efficiency; I was trying to make the administration live within the income that it has or can get. The Govern- ment should do the same thing we all try to do—spend no more than we earn. I recall many, many things that we have done as Republicans which have proved to be wrong. I recall this bipartisan forcign policy that the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. WoLverton! voted for all along. Now almost everyone admits that it has been a rank failure. If in all the world we have a nation which is friendly—which will not desert us at the first opportunity when it is to its ad- vantage, I cannot name it. TI recall the Marshall plan. We voted millions, yes, billions of dollars for foreign aid, and where are we? Have we the good will of any nation in the world? No; we have not. I recall that a Member over in the other body, the head of the gercat Foreign Affairs Committee over there, is quoted this morning as saying he has gone along with ECA; it was wonderful to spend billions of dollars, but if Eng- land continued to discriminate against Texas oil, that was something else acain: none of that for Texas or for him. I recall that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Jacozs] on (he Committee on Labor, was dead against the Taft-Hartley Act; he wanted none of it. The gentleman not so very long ago wanted the Tart-Hartley Act used down in his district so that his constituents could get some coal down there; oh, yes, that was a different story when his people were in need of coal. On page 3, of this bill, down at the bottom, subsection 5, it is provided that this scientific informa- tion shall be gathered and disseminated to—and mark this—foreign nations. On the front page of the paper this after- noon is a statement that this scientist, Dr. Fuchs, over there in London pled guilty, and he got 14 years. For doing what? Giving those fellows scientific information. Now, we pave the way to appropriate several millions of dollars, maybe more, to collect this information, and pass it along. Where is the good sense in that? When the next scientist peddlcs information to the enemy will he plead the passage of this in bar if he be prosecuted? Now, to save time, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my motion. Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr. Chairman, I object, and claim time in opposition to the motion. Mr. HINSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the motion. Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, a point of order. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it. Mr. HARRIS. This is a preferential motion to strike out the enacting clause,
2598 and I believe a committee member is en- titled to recognition. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct. The Chair recognizes the gen- tleman from California [Mr. HINsSHAW]. Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it Mr. CASE of South Dakota. The gen- tleman from South Dakota was recog- nized, was he not? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman was recognized by the Chair to make an ob- jection, but not to speak. Mr. HINSHAW. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from South Dakota desires time, I will be glad to yield to him for a minute or so. Mr. CASE of South Dakota Mr. Chairman, I would lke to see the bill passed I would like to see it get in shape that it could be supported whole- heartedly. There 1s room for coordinat- ing our research activities. However, a thing happened within the past 24 hours that does raise a serious question about one provision here, and I think some at- tention should be drawn to it. On page 15 appears language which refers to sec- tion 11, about which questions have been raised. This morning the radio and the press report that a man who was an enemy agent, who was a known Communist, was admitted to very confidential secrets in the United States. The confession of Fuchs brings out the fact that here was a@ man who was a known Communist and an enemy agent who was getting secrets and passing them on. Mr. HINSHAW. I can explain to the gentleman the answer to the question I know he has in mind. Mr. CASE of South Dakota. The lan- guage on page 15 provides that the au- thority to enter into contracts with or- ganizations or individuals in foreign countries and with agencies of foreign countries, as provided in section 11 (c)— that is the one to which attention has been drawn—shall be exercised only after consultation with the Secretary of State. Mr. PRIEST. That has been amended to require the approval of the Secretary of State. Mr. CASE of South Dakota. But it is limited to the Secretary of State. The question I raise is, Should we not go a bit further there and require consulta- tion also with the Director of the Cen- tral Intelligence Agency or some security activity? Mr. HINSHAW. I am delighted to yield to the gentleman, but he has used most of my time. Mr. CASE of South Dakota. I hope the gentleman will address himself to that. Mr. HINSHAW. I will do that gladly, but first I want to point out to the House that this bill is one of those bills that are in line with the recommendations of the Hoover Commission report. This is a situation where the bill itself will create considerable economy and_ efficiency through the correlation of the research projects in all the agencies of the Gov- ernment. It is directly in line with the Hoover Commission report, which so CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE many of the gentlemen have said they want to support. In specific answer to the gentleman from South Dakota, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. HESELTON] was on the floor just a few minutes ago—per- haps the gentleman from South Dakota did not hear him—and gave a very fine explanation of why that language is there. As far as Mr. Fuchs is concerned, he was sent here by the British Gov- ernment, as I know, being a member of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, and was vouched for by the British Gov- ‘ernment in connection with the atomic energy project. The atomic energy proj- ect is eliminated from this bill and has nothing to do with it at all. Mr. CASE of South Dakota. I may say to the gentleman that recently at some hearings of the National Advisory Com- mittee for Aeronautics it was brought out that we are now exchanging scientific information with certain nations, which I shall not name because we were asked to keep it off the record. In view of the fact that the Secretary of State is the only person to whom we look for clear- ance under the bill, and he is concerned only with international relations and foreign policy objéctives and certain oth- er things that I shall not bring into this discussion, I question whether we ought to permit the contracts to be made with foreign organizations and individuals on the clearance of the Secretary of State alone, Mr. HINSHAW. I hope the gentleman will read the story that the gentleman from Massachusetts |Mr. HESELTON] has here. I am sure he will be not only en- lightened but satisfied with the story. Mr. Chairman, I rose in opposition to the motion offered by the gentleman from from Michigan. I hope his motion will be voted down. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the preferential motion of the gentle- man from Michigan | Mr. Horrman]. The motion was rejected. Mr. FLOOD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. FLoop: On page 20, after line 20, insert » new paragraph as follows: “(m) No person a national of a foreign country shall be associated with the Foun- dation in any capacity whatsoever unless and until the Federal Bureau of Investigation, independent of any investigation made by the government of such person shall have investigated such person and reported to the Foundation that such person is not and has not at any time been a member of any organization that teaches or advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States by force and violence.” Mr. FLOOD. Mr. Chairman, yester- day the committee adopted an amend- ment offered by the gentleman from Vir- ginia [Mr. SmirH!, which had to do with employees of the Foundation. This amendment is expressly directed at the Fuchs situation. There, Fuchs came to the United States but he was cleared only by the British and not by the FBI. This amendment will make it necessary that no matter from which foreign coun- try these persons come they will have to be clea.ed by the FBI, and the report made to the Foundation. Had this MARCH 1 amendment been law when Fuchs came to the United States the FBI would have checked him and would have prevented any incident from arising. The fact that Fuchs had been cleared by the British would not have mattered. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentle- man from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fioop]. The amendment was agreed to. Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. Case of South Dakota: On page 16, line 1, after “Secretary of State”, insert “and the Director of Central Intelligence”, and in line 3, after “foreign- policy objectives”, insert “and security.” Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr. Chairman, this amendment directs itself to the question which I brought up be- fore. It merely provides that in these contracts with organizations or tndivid- uals of foreign countries, in addition to getting clearance with the Secretary of State, this would require clearance with the director of Central Intelligence. It seems to me that is clearly in harmony with the best interests of the United States, and I can see no valid objection to the amendment. Mr. BIEMILLER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. CASE of South Dakota. I yield. Mr. BIEMILLER. I have always been under the impression that CIA was set up for a straight job of intelligence, as the word indicates, and that it was never intended to do any administrative work whatsoever. I doubt very seriously whether CIA itself would welcome the kind of administrative responsibility which the gentleman from South Da- kota would endeavor to give it. Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Let us not confuse the foreign intelligence with the administrative work of the FBI at home. The amendment already adopted is to take care of clearance of FBI for students or scientists in this country, but where you have contracts going into other countries it seems to me that we ought to have the Foundation get clear- ance from the Central Intelligence before they go to individuals and organizations in other countries. The FBI would not have that information. Only Central Intelligence would. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from South Dakota has ex- pired. Mr. PRIEST. Mr. Chairman, may I be recognized for a part of the time that has been allotted to me to say that I feel this amendment jis very much out of order and it should not be adopted. I do not have the time to discuss it fully, but I feel it is a very inappropriate amendment and should be voted down. Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. PRIEST. I yield. Mr. McCORMACK. I sat on the com- mittee that drafted the bill in relation to the CIA. The CIA is a special com- mittee. This will put it into adminis- trative field, which would be dangerous. I know the gentleman has the best of intentions, but the amendment would be very harmful, not to this bill, but from the angle of bringing the CIA into a field Mr.
1950 phat it would be dangerous to bring it The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Tennessee has expired. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South Dakota [Mr. Case). The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. Cass of South Dakota), there were—ayes 50, noes 173. So the amendment was rejected. Mr. KEATING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word. Mr. Chairman, after studying the re- port of the committee and hearing the debate on the issues involved and with the utmost respect for the views of those who differ, I have concluded to support this legislation. The bill, as now amended, conforms to the recommendations of the Hoover Commission, which in its report recog- nized the need for and advocated the establishment of a National Science Foundation. It seems clear to me that this recommendation was sound. Not only, however, will the interests of economy be promoted but also the national welfare, prosperity, and secu- rity will be furthered by the enactment of this legislation. Our national pre- eminence in the field of applied research and technology should not blind us to the fact that until very recently we occu- pied a secondary position as regards basic research. The remarkable American develop- mental work on the automobile, airplane, and radio should not obscure the truth that the fundamental] discoveries under- lying these developments were made in nineteenth-century Europe. Even the atomic bomb, so vital to our national defense, is an outgrowth of basic dis- coveries made in England, France, Ger- many, and Italy. In recent years the United States has made progress in pure science, but an examination of our na- tional research efforts in university, in- dustrial, and governmental laboratories reveals that around a Dillion dollars annually is being spent on applied re- search, However, such expenditures cannot reap the rich harvest they de- serve unless new ideas are forthcoming to nourish and sustain new applications. Basic research is the source of new ideas. Traditionally, a great deal of pure or basic science has been carried on at institutions of higher learning. In re- cent years, howevcr, private support of universities has been sharply curtailed through the spending and taxing poli- cies of the Federal Government. Our national security.and progress make it essential that we find supplemental means of support for basic research. In the future we cannot count, as we have in the past, on basic research per- formed in other countries and on the im- portation of outstanding scientists trained abroad. The ravages of World War II have been so extensive that Eu- rope is bankrupt and in no position to carry on much of the basic research of the future which requires such compli- cated and expensive equipment, The United States can no longer be content to borrow its basic knowledge, but rather must make its own fundamental dis- coveries, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE The cost of this program, limited by the commendable amendment of the gentleman from Arkansas to not to ex- ceed $15,000,000 annually is, of course, an important factor to which we cannot close our eyes. In the present state of the Federal purse, any measure involv- ing an expenditure of public funds must be carefully and critically scrutinized. As I have pointed out, however, the Hoover Commission has urged the cre- ation of the Foundation to promote both economy and efficiency. In addition, the fieures envisioned in this bill for basic research are infinitesimal com- pared to the large sums being spent on applied research. If necessary, and certainly it is desirable from the stand- point of economy, I would be prepared to reduce the budget for applied research in various Government departments to the extent necessary to provide for this furtherance of pure science, since I have become completely convinced that it is essential that we make provision to re- plenish the basic research bank, not only for our prosperity and well-being as a nation, but, very possibly, for our very survival. The passage of this measure will sal- vage a critical situation. It is {mpera- tive that it pass. My conscience does not permit a negative vote. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog- nizes the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. DurHam]. Mr. DURHAM. Mr. Chairman, I hate to take the time of the Committee at this late hour. I am a little distressed at the turn of events on what should be a very sound approach to the problem, if we expect to continue what we call the abundant life in America. Most of us realize that we have got about 94 elements to live off of in this world. Out of that comes a living for allof us. We have been dependent, ever since the Grecian period of culture, to a great extent, on the scientific minds of the world in creating articles of all types that we may use in our daily lives. America is still regarded as one of the countrics which has an abundant supply of material for productive science, and that is the objective of this bill. It is of no use for us to fool ourselves. We are living in a technological era and a period in which scientific research today is more important than it has ever been in the history of the world. All of my life has been spent under the sound of a college bell and I have observed from thousands of students at this in- stitution that most of our young Amer- icans today are eager for an education, but unfortunately here in this great land of ours, a very small percentage have qualified themselves with doctors degrees to carry on all of the basic funda- mental and applied research programs that this land of ours offers. Most of our young men when they graduate from college return to our industrial plants or other vocations of life. The group that really needs help are those who take their masters and doctors degree, and I believe that this legislation is designed primarily for the graduates and doctors degree Jevel. This group usually takes on family responsibilities at that age 2599 and find themselves with insufficient in- come to live a normal American life and still continue their studies. We can no longer be dependent on Europe as we have for the past several centuries for our scientific talent. It is true we have made considerfible progress here in this country, but even today and at this hour, we have many solentists carrying on im- portant work that came to our country because of the treatment they received from foreign lands, and I am hopeful that we may pass this bill and carry it into conference and remove some of the amendments that we have adopted here which, in my opinion, are detrimental to & program which we desire to have. Yesterday, I offered an amendment on page 20, line 8, to strike out the word “atomic,” and substitute the word “nuclear.” This amendment was ac- cepted. I would like to make one further com- ment regarding the amendment. You will recall that I stated that it was not very clear from the Science Foundation bill whether the word “atomic” covers the new process of the hydrogen bomb. Unlike the Atomic Energy Act, the bill does not contain any definition of atomic energy. My purpose in offering the amendment was to assure that the lan- guage in the Science Foundation bill was as broad as that contained in the Atomic Energy Act to cover the hydrogen bomb process. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog- nizes the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. JENNINGS]. Mr. JENNINGS. Mr. offer an amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. JENNINGS: On page 12, line 13, strike out subsection (c) as amended Mr. JENNINGS. Mr. Chairman, this subscction (c) grants the power of this agency to enter into a contract or author- ize the entering into of a contract by any agency or individual in this country with any agency or any individual in a foreign country and with reference to the na- tional defense. It is my deliberate opin- ion that we are surrendering a power here to an unknown agency to do some un- known thing which might wreck the whole future of this country. We have had one instance where Alger Hiss, who sat by President Roosevelt’s side at Yalta when the Yalta Agreement was entered into, and who sat at the head table at San Francisco when the United Nations Charter was formed, turned out to be a traitor. How do we know what manner of men, either at home or abroad, we are going to get to represent us in these ne- gotiations? How do we know to whom we are committing the future safety and defense of this country? Were any member of this House to go out and surrender the right to his se- curity and the security of his family and everything he owned in the way of property to some unknown person, the wife of such a person would be fully war- ranted in employing a lawyer to take legal steps to have her husband com- mitted to an insane asylum and to have @ guardian appointed to handle her hus- band’s property. The vast powers Chairman, I
2600 placed in the hands of this proposed Fed- eral agency and its unknown cost to our people in their treasure and the blood of their sons and daughters staggers the human mind, and is filled with frightful consequences. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Tennessee has expired. Mr. HESELTON. Mr. Chairman, may I be recognized for part of the time at my disposal? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized. Mr. HESELTON. Mr. Chairman, a few minutes ago I read to the committee something of the work the Navy is doing in Egypt. May I suggest that if we had had this information during the last war we would not have lost as many lives as we did from not knowing how to combat tengu fever and similar diseases. Medi- cal Research Unit No. 3 at Cairo, Egypt, passed to the Navy from the United States Typhus Commission in January of 1946. It is engaged in research in local medical problems and diseases of military importance in the Middle East, Africa, Europe, and India. Specific projects are in collaboration with the Egyptian Government, the United States Public Health Service, the War Depart- ment, and the Department of Agricul- ture. Let us not tie our hands in trying to combat military diseases. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentle- man from Tennessee. The amendment was rejected. Mr. WADSWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, and this will be my last on this bill. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. WapswortTH: On page 13, strike out lines / to 11 inclusive, and insert in lieu thereof: “To acquire by loan or gift personal prop- erty useful in the exercise of authority granted by this act.” Mr. WADSWORTH. Mr. Chairman, in reading over this bill and in striking out this paragraph I am wondering why it is necessary for this Foundation to acquire real property, to acquire it by purchase and then if it so desires, to sell it. I can understand how they would be glad to accept loans or gifts of personal property, such as scientific equipment; but when we come to the point that we authorize this Foundation to purchase real estate—it may be a plot of bare land or it may be a great office building, and then sell it as it may please, it seems to me we are going beyond the necessities of this Foundation. Instead of giving them the outright power to purchase real estate I propose that it read: To acquire by loan or gift personal prop- erty useful in the exercise of the authority granted by this act. It seems to me that covers whatever power this Foundation may need. Mr. PRIEST. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York. Mr. Chairman, this particular section has been gone into for 4 years by this and other committees. I may say to the dis- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE tinguished gentleman from New York that there is not likely to be many occa- sions when it would be necessary to ac- quire any real estate, but it might b2 necessary in connection with some proj- ect carried on by an industrial labora- tory or in a university to acquire a small piece of land and this makes it possible that that be done. Without belleving it is likely to be done, and emphasizing that the bill itself prohibits the Founda- tion from operating a pilot plant or lab- oratory of its own, the committee has felt all along it would be wise to give them that authority if it is found neces- sary. Mr. WADSWORTH. That opens up quite a vista. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. WapswortH]. The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. WaDswortTH) there were—ayes 46, noes 78. So the amendment was rejected. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog- nizes the gentleman from Pennsylvan:a (Mr. Fuiton]. Mr. FULTON. Mr, Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. FuLTton: On page 16, line 9, after subsection (2) add a new subsection (3) to read as follows: “Agreements made by the United States under the authority of this act with other governments and with international organl- zations shall be registered with the secre- tarlat of the United Nations in accordance with the provisions of article 102 of the United Nations Charter.” Mr. FULTON. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to make the bill conform to the point 4 program bill. This amendment is section 6 on page 7 of the point 4 program bill. So anyone who does not want Yalta to hap- pen again and does not want to go against Wilson’s promises of “open cov- enants openly arrived at,” should vote for this amendment. Mr. PRIEST. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr, FULTON. I yield to the distin- guished gentleman from Tennessee. Mr. PRIEST. I am sure my good friend from Pennsylvania is very sin- cere in offering this amendment. The only agreements contemplated under this provision in the bill would be agree- ments that would involve research of a secret nature which we feel should not come under the category of technical agreements under point 4 which has not yet been approved by the Congress. I am sure the gentleman has the best in- terests of the country at heart in offering the amendment, but the very purpose of the bill is to enter into these agreements if it might be necessary for research of a restrictive nature and it would not be re- strictive if all of it were filed with the United Nations or anyone else. Mr. FULTON. Mr. Chairman, I shall not press my amendment, but may I ask a@ question? Why does the act give the Government power to hold patents in the name of a nominee, not being named. Also, why does the act permit the Foun- dation to have agencies run not only MARCH 1 pilot plants but possibly plants for the production of materials? In addition, why do they prevent the legislative branch of the Federal Government from holding any office without pay on the di- visional committees and special commis- sions? The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania has ex- pired. The question is on the amendment of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Futon]. The amendment was rejected. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog- nizes the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. LEComprTe}. Mr. LECOMPTE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the time allotted to me be given to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Jupp]. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Iowa? There was no objection. Mr. JUDD. Mr. Chairman, I take this time to ask several questions of the chairman of the committee in order to clarify certain points in the record. I spoke to the chairman about them yes- terday. The first is on page 2 of the bill. You will note this language be- ginning on line 4: The Foundation 1s authorized and directed to develop and encourage the pursuit of a national policy for the promotion of basic research and education in the sciences. That same phrase “and education in the sciences” appears On the next page, in line 23. What are we to understand by “edu- cation in the sciences”? Is that Nmited to the provision of scholarships and fel- lowships for individuals as set forth in section 10, or does it go beycnd that? Mr. PRIEST. It is limited to the scholarships ind fellowships set forth in section 10. Mr. JUDD. Then the Foundation would not be able, under this language, for example, to endow chairs in univer- sities or subsidize colleges or other in- stitutions for carrying on general edu- cation in the sciences? Mr. PRIEST. Without any reserva- tion, I will say to the gentleman, it would not. Mr. JUDD. Thank you. On page 19, subsection (h), beginning with line 11, it says: Funds available to any department or agency of the Government for scientific or technical research, or the provision of facili- ties therefor, shall be available for transfer with the approval of the head of the depart- ment or agency involved, in whole or in part, to the Foundation— Does that mean that they cannot be transferred without the approval of the head of the agency? Mr. PRIEST. That is what it means. Mr. JUDD. The Science Foundation cannot go to any other agency and say “This function really belongs to us” and, in effect, seize it? Mr. PRIEST. They cannot. Mr. JUDD. Where it says “approval” does that mean approval in writing? Mr. PRIEST. I would think so. That would be my opinion.
1950 Mr. JUDD. The gentleman agrees that it is of sufficient importance that it ought to be approved in writing? Mr. PRIEST. Surely, I will make that statement of record, that it should be approved in writing. Mr. JUDD. On line 8 of the same page, it says “aiding institutions, agen- cies, or organizations which, if aided, will advance basic research.” What is to be included under the wording “‘aid- ing institutions,’ and so forth, besides giving grants for scholarships and fel- lowships? Mr. PRIEST. The only other thing that would be included, in my opinion— and I am sure that is the opinion of the committee—would be a question possibly of some additional equipment; if it is found necessary to carry out a certain research project, that it could be aided somewhat in that particular. Mr, JUDD. It does not include con- structing buildings, for example, or any- thing of that sort? Mr. PRIEST. It does not. Mr. JUDD. I hope I have time for one more question. It concerns the lan- guage on page 11 which provides that feHowships and scholarships shall be granted on the basis of giving the widest geographical distribution. What if this should happen? Suppose there is only one applicant from California, and he is a wealthy boy who can get this expen- sive education without a fellowship. On the other hand there are two applicants from New York. A fellowship had al- ready been granted to one, but the other is so poor he cannot get the training without help. Do you believe that the Foundation would have to give the sec- ond fellowship to the California individ- ual who is rich and could provide his own education rather than to the boy who is poor, just because the boy who is poor lives in an area to which other fel- lowships have already been granted? In short, is it more important to help those who need the help than just to have a wider geographical distribution? Mr. PRIEST. I would hope, of course, that those who need it, if they have equal ability, might receive consideration. It was thought, however, that there should be some emphasis placed on a geographic distribution, in order to avoid concentra- tion in any one area. Mr. JUDD. The gentleman does not think this language is a mandate that would make it impossible for the Founda- tion to help the needier boy even though that meant two scholarships in one place and none in another? Mr. PRIEST. No; I would hope they would do as you have suggested. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog- nizes the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. HESELTON]. Mr. HESELTON. Mr. Chairman, I should like to try to complete what the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Wo.t- VERTON] wanted to tell you during his ex- cellent presentation today, and give you two other pieces of evidence before we reach this vote. He was not able to say that the Hoover Commission recom- mended that a National Science Founda- tion be established. I wish you would look at some of the material I put in yester- day’s Rrcorp at page 2520. I call your CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE attention to this: On December 30 the National Defense Department said that they, the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force, are also supporting the pro- posed legislation for a National Science Foundation. That was in December 30. Our committee filed its report favorably June 14, Does anyone dare suggest that General Bradley, General Collins, Admiral Sher- man, General Vandenberg, and General Cates did not know what they were talk- ing about when they made that state- ment? Are we going to disrcgard that? Look at Dr. Bronk’s statcment: TI need not remind you that certain poten- tial enemies of this country are fully aware of the power of science in their efforts for military strength and military power. Then he adds: Because of that consideration alone I take it that a National Science Foundation ts of the utmost importance to the Nation and to the security of the Nation. Will you not before you vote look at the short 314-page statement of Dr. Karl Compton, who was there representing the National Mhlitary Establishment, and also as Chairman of the Research and Development Board and as president of MIT? You remember his magnificent war record. Docs not his voice count at all with us? Then read the six-paragraph letter signed by the chairman of the commit- tee on science legislation of the Engi- neers Joint Council, and scientists from California Institute of Technology, Johns Hopkins University, Carnegie Institute of Technology, University of Illinois, New York University College of Medicine, University of Minnesota, University of Colorado, and by Mr. Robert E. Wilson, chairman of the board, Standard Oil Co. of Indiana. I have tried my level best to get the evidence as I have it before you, because I know this is a tremendously difficult and a tremendously important decision. I hope no one will approach the vote that is coming now in a few minutes without a full understanding of its significance. In my considered and mature judg- ment we are facing now one of the most challenging conditions and one of the most threatening situations we have ever faced in this Nation. The National De- fense Department advised me this morn- ing that I was underestimating what they were doing in Russia. Yesterday I said that if they succeeded in their 5- year plan they would turn out by 1952 700,000 scientists. How many will we have if we do not pass this bill? I esti- mated about 400,000, and that estimate is high. They will have at least twice as many scientists as we have. Can we not understand that while that docs not nec- essarily mean they will win the race, if they have two times as many minds working on this, what can be the result? Twice as many opportunities of success. I plead for your support. Do not chain or cripple the advancement of American science. I sincerely hope I have been able to help you some in making this tremen- dous decision. I will be amply repaid if you can make it one to satisfy yourselves in the years to come. 2601 Since the vote was taken and the bill passed by such a Satisfactory margin, I received further information and want to place it in the Recorp of today for your consideration when the bill comes back from conference. It has to do with the estimates based on the best available in- formation as to the progress in Soviet Russia. I am sure you will all be in- terested in this official account that comes to me from the National Research Council. While the council was unable to pre- pare all the information I desired in view of the shortness of time betwecn my re- quest and the vote, I was advised as follows: : First, there apparently is a disagree- ment in the appraisals of the Russian program's progress and I think we can all understand that; however, the best information does indicate that the Rus- sians increased their training facilities during the war. They selected from 1,500 technical institutes, with enrollments even during the war of 425,000, the ablest graduates for full technical scientific training through to the doctorate on federal scholarships. Just contrast that with our unhappy record during the war when we made the mistake of drafting our able technical men and sending them into the armed forces. Four hundred and twenty-five thousand in Russia carrying through to doctorate on federal scholarships. From 1941 through 1945 we graduated with degrees of Ph. D., 7,479 able men and women. Is that not something for us to consider; Soviet Russia graduated more than 56 times as many doctors and scientists as we did even when they were fighting with their backs to the wall. Next, this 5-year plan was started in 1946 and in 1947, as I understand. So it is four-fifths completed. Even with their poo] of trained scientific men, they went ahead with this further plan of intensive training in this area. There is evidence that the number trained in 1950 in the sciences, in technology, will be twice the number graduated 3 years ago in 1947, The number of graduate students receiv- ing research training in the sciences in 1941 was 12,000. In view of the emphasis on this 5-year plan, it seems entirely probable that this number is very con- siderably greater at the present time al- though no exact evidence is available to us. I was advised that with regard to the information I presented to you yesterday it may be said safely that this is the most significant information our technical staffs can bring together. I am told that it indicates clearly that the recent heavy enrollments in engineering and sciences were a temporary situation produced largely by the GI bill of rights and the strong interest produced by the war in technical matters among our veterans, Present enrollment figures in our fresh- man and sophomore classes in the col- leges and universities show quite defi- nitely that the number graduated in these ficlds in the next 2 or 3 years will be sharply declining below the present level of demand for such personnel. This law creating this Foundation is the only solution available to us. I am sure that you understand the difficulties
2602 of our trying to obtain exact informa- tion for your consideration. I am grate- ful, andI am sure you are, to the National Research Council for its efforts to assist us. I might add that I understand that the Russians have set up a technical training program under which certain schools and universities teach only a cer- tain subject so that everything relating to that single subject is taught at that one school. Consequently, to get the full information I desire would obviously en- tail considerable research. However, I know that they and other associations of scientists as well as our governmental services are doing everything possible to develop all of this information and J trust it will be available to our conference committee. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog- nizes the gentleman from California (Mr. HinsHaw]. Mr. HINSHAW. Mr. Chairman, your Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce both in full committee at certain times and at other times by a subcommittee has had this subject under careful scrutiny and discussion for a period of at least 5 years. We have heard from everyone in the United States who was interested sufficiently to let it be known to the committee and who asked for time to appear or go on record in writing. We have brought this bill to you almost unanimously. I think there are perhaps two or three Members in the committee who may not be wholly satisfied with the bill. We brought it to you in the Eightieth Congress. That Congress passed the bill. There is a slight difference between the bill pre- sented then, which passed both Houses, and this bill. This bill is so drawn to meet the objections, which we did not consider too serious, of the President of the United States. They related to the manner of appointment of the Executive Director. The Hoover report urges that such a bill as this be passed. The Hoover Com- mission report urgently recommends the passage of a bill of this kind. I hope the House will pass the bill today by an overwhelming majority. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California has expired. All time has expired. Under the rule, the Committee rises. Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed the chair, Mr. THompson, Chairman of the Com- mittee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that Com- mittee, having had under consideration the bill (H. R. 4846) to promote the prog- ress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense; and for other pur- poses pursuant to House Resolution 321, he reported the bill back to the House with sundry amendments adopted by the Committee of the Whole. The SPEAKER. Under the rule, the previous question is ordered. Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will put them en gross. The amendments were agreed to. The €PEAKER. The question is on the engiossment and third reading of the bill. The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time and was read the third time. Mr. HALE. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit, The SPEAKER. Is the gentleman opposed. to the bill? Mr. HALE. Iam, Mr. Speaker. The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report the motion to recommit. The Clerk read as follows: Mr. HALE moves that H. R. 4846 be re- committed to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce with instructions to devote further study to the problem involved. Mr. PRIEST. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the motion. The previous question was ordered. The SPEAKER. The question is on the motion to recommit. Mr. HALE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. The question was taken; and there were—yeas 134, nays 240, not voting 58, as follows: [Roll No. 74] CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE YEAS—134 Abernethy Gavin Norblad Andersen, Gillette Norrell H Carl Golden Passman Andresen, Goodwin Pfeiffer, August H Graham William L. Arends Gross Phillips, Calif. Auchincloss Gwinn Pickett Barden Hagen Potter Barrett, Wyo Hale Rankin Bates, Ky Hall, Reed, Il Bates, Mass. Edwin Arthur Reed, N Y. Beall Harden Rees Bishop Harvey Rich Bonner Hobbs Riehlman Brehm Hoeven Rivers Brown, Ohio Hoffman, Mich. Rogers, Mass. Burieson Horan Sadlak Byrnes, Wis. James St George Cump Jenison Sanborn Carlyle Jennings Saylor Case, S Dak. Jensen Scrivner Chatham Jonas Shafer Chiper fleld Jones, N C Short Church Judd Simpson, Ml. Clevenger Kearney Simpson, Pa, Cole, Kans. Kearns Smith, Kans. Cole, N Y. Kilburn Smith, Va Colmer Larcade Smith, Wis. Cooley Latham Stanley Corbett LeCompte Stockman Cotton Lichtenwalter Taber Crawford Lovre Thomas Curtis Lucas Velde Dague McConnell Vursell Davis, Ga McCulloch Wadsworth D'Ewart McGregor Weichel Dondero McMillan.8 C Wheeler Doughton MeMillen, Ill. Whitten Elston Mack, Wash Wier Fellows Martin, Iowa Wigglesworth Fenton Martin, Mass Williams Fisher Mason Wilson Ind. Ford Meyer Winstead Fulton Miller, Md Wolcott Gamble Morton Wood Gathings Nicholson Woodruff NAYS-——240 Addontzio Brown, Ga. Combs Albert Bryson Cooper Allen, Calif. Buchanan Cox Andrews Buckley, Ill. Crook Angell Buckley,N.Y Crosser Aspinall Burdick Cunningham Bailey Burke Davenport Baring Burnside Davies, N. Y. Barrett, Pa. Burton Davis, Wis. Battle Byrne, N.Y. Dawson Beckworth Canfield Deane Bennett, Fla. Carnahan DeGraffenried Bennett, Mich Carroll Delaney Biemiller Case, N. J. Denton Boges, La. Cavalcante Dingell Bolling Celler Dollinger Bolton, Ohio Chelf Dolliver Bosone Chesney Donohue Bramblett Christopher Doyle Breen Clemente Durham MarcH 1 berharter Keogh Philbin liott Kerr Phillips, Tenn. Engel, Mich. Kilday Polk Engle, Calif. Kirwan Poulson Evins Klein Powell Fallon Kruse Preston Feighan Lane Price Fernandez Lanham Priest Flood Lemko Quinn Fogarty Lesinski Rabaut Forand Lind Rains Frazier Linehan Ramsay Garmatz Lodge Rhodes Gary Lynch Ribicoff Gordon McCarthy Richards Gorski McCormack Rodino Gossett McDonough Rogers, Fla. Granahan McGuire Rooney Granger McKinnon Roosevelt Grant McSweeney Sasscer Green Mack, ILL. Scott, Gregory Madden Hugh D,, Jr Halleck Magee Scudder Hand Mahon Secrest Hardy Mansfield Sheppard Hare Marsalis Sikes Harris Marshall Sims Harrison Merrow Spence Hart Michener Staggers Havenner Miles Steed Hays, Ark. Miller, Calif. Stefan Hays, Ohio Miller, Nebr. Stigler Hébert Mills Sullivan Heffernan Mitchell Sutton Heller Monroney Tackett Herlong Morgan Talle Heselton Morris Tauriello Hill Moulder Thompson Hinshaw Multer Thornberry Holifield Murdock Tollefson Holmes Murphy Trimble Hope Murray, Tenn. Underwood Howell Nelson Van Zandt Huber Nixon Vinson Hull Noland Vorys Irving Norton Wagner Jackson, Wash O’Brien, Ml. Walsh Jacobs O'Brien, Mich. Walter Javits O'Hara, Ill Welch Jenkins O'Hara, Minn. Werdel Johnson O’Konski White, Caltf, Jones, Ala. O'Neill Whittington Jones, Mo O'Sullivan Wickersham Karst O’Toole Widnall Karsten Pace Willis Keating Patman Wilson, Okla Kee Patten Withrow Keefe Perkins Wolverton Kelley, Pa Peterson Yates Kelly, N Y. Pfeifer, Young Kennedy Joseph L. NOT VOTING—58 Abbitt Furcolo Plumley Allen, 1. Gilmer Poage Allen, La. Gore Redden Anderson, Calif Hall, Regan Bentsen Leonard W. Sabath Blackney Hedrick Sadowski Blatnik Herter Scott, Hardie Boges, Del. Hoffman, Ill. Shelley Bolton, Md. Jackson, Calif Smathers Boykin Kean Smith, Ohio Brooks King Taylor Bulwinkle Kunkel Teague Cannon LeFevre Towe Chudoft Lyle Whitaker Coudert McGrath White, Idaho Davis, Tenn Macy Wilson, Tex Douglas Marcantonio Woodhouse Eaton Morrison Worley Ellsworth Murray, Wis. Zablocki Fugate Patterson So the motion to recommit was re- jected. The Clerk announced the following pairs: On this vote: Mr Eaton for, with Mr. LeFevre against. Mr. Wilson of Texas for, with Mr. Blackney against. . Mr. Hoffman of Illinois for, with Mr Ander- son of California against. Mr. Boykin for, with Mr Kunkel against. Mr. Towe for, with Mr. Herter against. Mr. Allen of Illinois for, with Mr. Jackson of California against. Mr. Kean for, with Mr Sabath avzainst, Mr. Smith of Ohio for, with Mr Morrison against.
1950 Mr. Coudert for, with Mr. Shelley against, Mr. Bulwinkle for, with Mr. McGrath against. Mr. Redden for, with Mr. Hedrick agatnst. Mr. Macy for, with Mrs. Douglas against. Mr. Taylor for, with Mr. Chudoff against. General pairs until further notice: Mrs. Woodhouse with Mr. Patterson. Mr. Whitaker with Mr. Hardte Scott. Mr. Teague with Mr. Boggs of Delaware. Mr. Sadowski with Mr. Leonard W. Hall. Mr. Allen of Louisiana with Mr. Ellsworth, Mr. Cannon with Mr. Murray of Wisconsin, Mr. Tackett, Mr. CHELF, and Mr. Povt- son changed their votes from “yea” to “nay.” Mr. GILLETTE changed his vote from “nay” to “yea.” The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. The SPEAKER. The question is on the passage of the bill. Mr. PRIEST. Mr. Speaker, on that I ask‘for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. The question was taken; and there were—yeas 247, nays 126, answered “present” 1, not voting 58, as follows: CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Prica Sikes Wagner Priest Sims Walsh Quinn Spence Walter Rabaut Staggers Welch Rains Steed White, Calif. Ramsay Stefan Whittington Rhodes Stigler Wickersham Ribicoff * Sullivan Widnall Richards Sutton Wirglesworth Rodino Tackett iis Rogers, Fla. Talle Wilson, Okla, Rooney Tauriello Withrow Roosevelt Thomas Wolcott Satscer Thompson Wolverton Scott, Tollefson Yaten Hugh D., Jr. Trimble Young Scudder Van Zandt Zablock} Secrest Vinson Sheppard Vorys NAY8—126 Aberncthy Gathings Patterson Andersen, Gavin Pfeiffer, H. Carl Gillette William L. Andresen, Golden Phillips, Calif, August H. Goodwin Pickett Andrews Graham Potter Arends Gross Rankin Auchincloss Gwinn Reed, Ill Barden Hagen Reed, N Y. Barrett. Wyo. Hale Recs Bates, Ky, Harden Rich Bishop Hobbs Riehlman Bolton,Ohio Hoeven Rivers Bonner Hoffman, Mich Rogers, Mass. Brehm James Sadlak Brown, Ohio Jenison 8t. George Burleson Jennings Sanborn Byrnes, Wis Jensen Saylor Camp Jonas Scrivner Carlyle Jones, N. 0. Shafer Chatham Kearney Short Chiperfield Kearns Simpson, Ill, Church Kilburn Simpson. Pa. Clevenger Larcade Smith, Kans, Cole, Kans. Latham Smith, Va. Cole, N. ¥. Lichtenwalter Smith, Wis. Colmer Lovre Stanley Cooley Lucas Stockman Corbett McConnell Taber Cotton McCulloch Taylor Crawford McGregor Velde Curtls McMillan, 8 C Vursell Dague Mack, Wash Wadswort. D’Ewart Martin, Iowa Weichel Dondero Martin, Mass Werdel Doughton Mason Wheeler Elston Meyer Whitten Fellows Miller, Md. Wier Fenton Morton Williams Fisher Nicholson Wilson, Ind. Ford Norblad Winstead Fulton Norrell Wood Gamble Passman Woodruff ANSWERED “PRESENT’—1 Harvey NOT VOTING—58 Abbitt Furcolo Poage Allen, Ill, Gilmer Poulson Allen, La. Gore Reddcn Anderson, Calif Hall, Regan Bentsen Leonard W. Sabath Blackney Hedrick Badowsk! Boggs, Del Herter Scott, Hardie Bolton, Md. Hoffman, Ml. Shelicy Boykin Jackson, Calif. Smathers Brooks Jacobs Smith, Ohio Bulwinkle Kean Teague Cannon Kunkel Thornberry Chudoff LeFevre Towe Coudert Lyle Underwood Davis, Tenn. McGrath Whitaker Douglas Macy White, Idaho Eaton Marcantonio Wilson, Tex. Eleworth Morrison Woodhouse Engle, Calif. Murray, Wis. Worley Fugate Plumiley So the bill was passed. The Clerk announced the following pairs: On this vote: Mr, Jacobs for, with Mr. Harvey against. [Roll No. 75] YEAS—247 Addonizio Engel, Mich Kirwan Albert Evins Klein Allen, Calif. Fallon Kruse Angell Feighan Lane Aspinall Fernandez Lanham Bailey Flood LeCompte Bar'ng Fogarty Lemke Barrett, Pa. Forand Lesinski Bates, Mass. Frazier Lind Battle Garmats Linehan Beall Gary Lodge Beckworth Gordon Lynch Bennctt, Fla. Gorski McCarthy Bennett, Mich. Gossett McCormack Blemiller Granahan McDonough Blatnik Granger McGuire Boges, La. Grant McKinnon Bolling Green MeMilien, Ill. Bosone Gregory McSweeney Bramblictt Hall, Mack, 11. Breen Edwin Arthur Madden Brown, Ga. Halleck Magee Bryson Hand Mahon Buchenan Hardy Mansfield Buckley, 11. Hare Marsalis Buckley, N.Y. Harris Marshall Burdick Harrison Merrow Burke Hart Michener Burnside Havenner Miles Burton Hays, Ark. Miller, Calif, Byrne, N. ¥. Hays, Ohio Miller, Nebr. Canfield Hébert Mills Carnahan Heffernan Mitchell Carroll Heller Monroney Case,N J Herlong Morgan Case, 8. Dak. Heselton Morris Cavalcante Hill Moulder Celler Hinshaw Multer Chelf Holifield Murdock Chesney Holmes Murphy Christopher Hope Murray, Tenn. Clemente Horan Newson Combs Howell Nixon Cooper Huber Noland Cox Hull Norton Crook Irving O'Brien, Tl. Cropser Jackson, Wash. O'Brien, Mich. Cunningham Javits O'Hara, Il. Davenport Jenkins O’Hara, Minn. Davies, N. ¥. Johnson O’Konski Davis, Ga. Jones, Ala. O'Neill Davis, Wis. Jones, Mo O’sullivan Dawson Judd O'Toole Deane Karst Pace DeGraffenrieqd Karsten Patman Delaney Keating Patten Denton Kee ° Perkins Dingell Keefe Peterson Dollinger Kelley, Pa. Pfeifer, Dolliver Kelly, N. Y. Joseph L, Donohue Kennedy Philbin Doyle Keogh Phillips, Tenn. Durham Kerr Polk Eherharter Kilday Powell Elliott King Preston Mr. LeFevre for, with Mr. Eaton against. Mr. Blackney for, with Mr. Wilson of Texas against. Mr, Anderson of California for, with Mr. Hoffman of Tlinols against. Mr. Kunkel for, Mr. Boykin against. Mr. Shelley for, with Mr. Coudert against. 2603 Mr Herter for, with Mr. Towe against. Mr. Jackson of Caltfornia for, with Mr. Allen of Ilinols against. Mr. Sabath for, with Mr. Kean against. Mr. Morrison for, with Mr. Smith of Ohio against. Mr. Shelly for, with Mr. Coudert against. Mr. McGrath for, with Mr. Bulwinkle against. Mrs. Woodhouse for, with Mr. Redden against Mrs. Douglas for, with Mr. Macy against. General pairs until further notice: Mr. Sadowski with Mr Boggs of Delaware. Mr. Teague with Mr Leonard W Hall. Mr Engle of California with Mr. Ellsworth. Mr Cannon with Mr, Murray of Wisconsin. Mr. Allen of Louisiana with Mr. Poulson. Mr. HARVEY. Mr. Speaker, I have a live pair with the gentleman from In- diana [Mr. Jacoss]. If he were present he would have voted “aye.” I voted “nay.” I withdraw my vote and vote “present.” The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. Mr. PRIEST. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of the bill (S. 247) to pro- mote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and wel- fare; to secure the national defense; and for other purposes. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Ten- nessee? There was no objection. Mr. PRIEST. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. Priest: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the provisions of the bill H. R 4846 as amended. The amendment was agreed to. The bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read the third time, and passed and a motion to reconsider was laid on the table. By unanimous consent, the proceed- ings whcreby the bill H. R. 4846 was passed were vacated, and the bill was laid on the table. Mr. CROSSER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have five legislative days in which to extend their remarks on the bill just passed. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Ohio? There was no objection. EXTENSION OF REMARKS Mr. ROGERS of Florida asked and was given permission to extend his re- marks in the Recorp and include a list of State agencies authorized to approve surplus commodity applications held by Commodity Credit Corporation. Mr. RODINO asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the Recorp and include an editorial. Mr. WERDEL asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the REecorp. Mr. CUNNINGHAM asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the Recorp and include an editorial appearing in the Des Moines Register.
2604 Mr. TABER asked and was given per- mission to extend his remarks in the REcorp. Mr. HESELTCN asked and was given permission to revise and extend the re- marks he made in Committee today and include statistical information. Mr. HILL asked and was given per- mission to extend his remarks in the Recorp and include an editorial. Mr. PHILBIN asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the Recorp in two instances. Mr. LARCADE asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the REcorpD. UNJUST REPRISAL AGAINST ADMIRAL DENFELD Mr. PHILBIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts? There was no objection. Mr. PHILBIN. Mr. Speaker, the House Armed Services Committee is today re- leasing a report of its investigation of unification and strategy together with certain committee action relative to the removal of Admiral Denfeld. This re- port is a voluminous document and speaks for itself. I have been particularly interested in that part of the report which relates to Aceitmul Genfeid because I have been and am of the opinion that his removal was ill-advised, and may well gravely affect the inquisitorial powers of the House. Let it be remembered that Admiral Denfeld and his colleagues as well as the committee were given express as- surances by very highest Defense De- partment officials, prior to their testi- mony, that there would be no retaliation. Notwithstanding this fact, a short time after the testimony was given, the ad- miral was summarily removed. I believe with the majority of the committee that this removal was in the nature of a re- prisal and most regrettable. While it is true that Congress is pow- erless at this time to rectify the gross injustice which has been done to a great American who has faithfully served our Nation as an outstanding naval officer for more than 38 years, this challenge to the dignity and powers of the House can- not be overlooked or forgotten, Flagrant mistreatment of able, faithful naval offi- cers and disregard for congressional committees is too high a price to pay for unification. STATE RURAL REHABILITATION CORPORATIONS Mr. COLMER. Mr. Speaker, I call up House Resolution 382 and ask for its immediate consideration. The Clerk read the resolution, as fol- lows: Resolved, That immediately upon the adop- tion of this resolution it shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H. R. 2392) to provide for the liqul- dation of the trusts under the transfer agree- ments with State rural rehabilitation cor- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE porations, and for other purposes. That after genera] debate, which shall be confined to the bill and continue not to exceed 1 hour, to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Agriculture, the bill shall be read for amendment under the 56-minute rule. At the conclusion of the c. nsideration of the bill for amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted and the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage witbout intervening motion except one mo- tion to recommit. Mr. COLMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Brown], and pending that, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. CooLeY], chairman of the Committee on Agriculture. Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Speaker, the pur- pose of this bill is to provide for the final disposition of funds which were granted to the States in the years 1933 through 1935, for the purpose of providing relief and rehabilitation in rural areas. These funds were transferred to and became the property of the several States, or rather, to the corporations which were organized in the several States. Not all the funds were expended at the time when these relief and rehabilitation pro- grams were most active, and the remain- ing funds—amounting to about $50,000,- 000 in all—have been held in trust by the Secretary of Agriculture during the past several years under transfer agree- ments with the State corporations. These agreements were entered into between the rural rehabilitation corpo- rations of the various States and the United States of America. They are legally binding trust agreements under which specific assets of these State cor- porations are placed in trust with the Secretary of Agriculture for administra- tion by him within the various States, in conformity with the charters of the vari- ous State corporations, and under terms and conditions stipulated in the trust agreements. In 1946 the Congress directed in the Farmers Home Administration Act that these trusts be liquidated, but the law gave no directions nor established any policy as to the disposition of the funds arising through such liquidation. It is the purpose of this bill to establish a directive and a policy to be followed by the Secretary of Agriculture in liquidat- ing these trusts in conformity with both the terms of the trust agreements them- selves and the provisions of the Farmers Home Administration Act of 1946. There is no doubt that the assets in- volved are the property of the several States. <A large proportion of the assets are not in money, but are in the form of loans receivable, accounts and notes re- ceivable, and real property which has been acquired by the various corpora- tions in the course of carrying out the purposes for which the funds were established. The trust agreements were entered into by the various States at the invita- tion of the Federal Government. The trusts were established at the time when both Federal and State relief organiza- tions were being disbanded, and their MARCH 1 specific purpose was to permit the con- tinuation of the rural rehabilitation work being carried on with the funds. Many of the trust agreements provide explicitly that the assets shall be returned to the States at the end of a stated period or upon the failure of the Federal Govern- ment to carry out the stated purposes of the trust. This bill recognizes the validity of the claims of the various States to these trust assets. At the same time, it recog- nizes that some of the States may desire to have the assets administered through the Federal Government, much in the manner in which they have been han- died for the past several years under the trust agreements. The bill establishes two methods by which these assets may be disposed of in a@ manner consistent with this policy, and also consistent with the terms of the trust agreements: First. The outright return of the ‘as- sets to the State rural rehabilitation cor- porations or their successor agencies for administration in conformity with the original purpose and powers of the cor- porations; Second. The surrender of the assets to the Federal Government for use by the Farmers Home Administration within the respective States in general keeping with the rural rehabilitation purposes of the funds. The failure of the Federal Government to take decisive action and return the assets to the States would amount, in effect, to a breach of faith on the part of the United States. The Farmers Home Administration Act of 1946 directed the Secretary of Agriculture to liquidate these trusts but gave him no directive or policy to follow in such liquidation. The bill before us today provides such a directive, along lines of principles worked out by the Committee on Agriculture in the course of long consideration of this matter. The bill offers a just and equitable means of disposing of these trusts, and at the same time assuring that the funds will con- tinue to be used for their intended pur- pose in the manner that offers the most efficient administration in the case of each of the States. This bill was not reported with the unanimous approval of the committee. It is controversial, and I have every rea- son to believe that amendments and per- haps even substitutes will be offered. The bill does, however, present an im- portant issue which must be decided, one way or the other. The importance of the measure should commend it to your very careful consideration. Congress has heretofore directed the Administrator to liquidate these trusts but no direction with regard to the liqui- dation was given. If the trustee would only follow the specific provisions of the trust agreements there would actually be no necessity for legislation. At the time that we directed liquidation, no question was raised as to the rightful ownership of the funds and property in- volved. Sometime thereafter, however, someone in the Department of Agricul- ture hit upon the idea of recapturing the funds, the provisions of the agreement to the contrary notwithstanding. Even
1950 if no legislation is enacted which directs the Administrator to liquidate the trusts in a manner which ifs not in keeping with the specific provisions of the trust agree- ments, the several State corporations will still have a cause of action and can still, in my opinion, recover the funds and the property involved. Some of the State corporations have ceased to exist and by nonuse have for- feited their charters, disbanded, and gone out of business, and are no longer in existence. Even so, the funds and property still do not belong to the Federal Government or any agency thereof. This bill provides that the corporations now in existence might apply for a re- turn of the property and money, that in States where the corporation has been Gisbanded or has gone out of existence, another corporation or agency might be created and might apply for a return of the property. The bill further provides that if within 3 years no application is filed for a return of the property, the money and the funds derived from a sale or liquidation of the property will go into the Federal Treasury, to be held in a revolving fund, to be adminis- tered by the Farmers Home Corporation and used in that particular State. I understand that an amendment will be offered which will add another provision to the bill, a provision which will au- thorize the State corporations or agen- cies, upon a return of the funds and property, to again transfer such funds to the Farmers Home Administration, to the end that that agency might admin- ister and use said property pursuant to such new agreement or contract as might hereafter be executed. I personally have no objection to such an amendment. The issue here involved is purely a legal issue. To do anything less than to keep faith with the trust agreements which have been cxecuted and are still in existence would be not only an illegal act but an immoral act. I therefore do not believe that we have any alternative other than to keep faith with the provi- sions of these solemn agreements. We definitely have no right to reclaim or to recapture these funds, or to take ad- vantage of the trust relationship which is now existing between the State corpo- rations and the Federal Government. The SPEAKER. The time of the gen- tleman from North Carolina’ [Mr. Coo.ey] has expired. Mr. COLMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman one additional minute. Mr. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. COOLEY. I yield. Mr. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN. Does the gentleman have any opinion from the Solicitor of the Department of Agri- culture recognizing the legality of these trusts? Mr. COOLEY. I do not care about the opinion of the Department of Agricul- ture or any solicitor. I think any lawyer in this House who will sit down and read one of these trust agreements will con- clude that we have no alternative other than to return the trust funds as pro- vided for in the trust agreement. I do not care how many solicitors in the De- XCVI——164 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE partment of Agriculture disagree with me, Mr. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN. The Department of Agriculture is the agency that eutered into the trust. Mr. COOLEY. The Department of Agriculture entered into the trust and in a laborious effort has tried to justify its position in asking for the return of these funds to the Federal Treasury. The gentleman knows that the repre- sentative of the Solicitor’s office made a very feeble effort before our committee in trying to justify his opinion. Mr. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN. But feeble as it may have been—— Mr. COOLEY. I agree it was feeble, but he did make the effort. The SPEAKER. The time of the gen- tleman from North Carolina has again expired. Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan | Mr. HorrmMan). A BLOW FOR NATIONAL DEFENSE Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Mr, Speaker, the first sentence of the Con- stitution carries the following words: All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States. It is the duty of the Congress to pro- vide for national defense. That, among other things, means that it is the duty of the Congress to provide the funds needed to establish and maintain an effi- cient Army, Navy, and Air Corps. To perform that duty, it is necessary that the individual Members of the Con- gress know the needs of the armed forces. Individual Members of Congress do not know, for example, whether the Navy needs battleships, carriers, cruisers, de- stroyers, submarines, nor, for that mat- ter, any other type of weapon. Hence, it is that, in order to enable the Congressmen to vote intelligently, they must seek and have the expert advice of those who have been taught by, served in, the Navy. Congressmen must have the advice of technically trained, experi- enced men and officers. Otherwise, they are just guessing. They are wasting the people’s money, causing it to be spent for weapons which are inefficient, on plans of doubtful value. Having under consideration the ques- tion of the needs of the Navy, how it should be armed, a committee of the House, realizing the necessity for expert testimony, recently called upon certain Navy officers for their opinions. One of the officers, Admiral Denfeld, in obedience to the request of the House committee, appeared before it, and out of the wealth of his knowledge and ex- perience, honestly and conscientiously, as requested by the committee, expressed his views. Because those views did not meet with the views of the Secretary of the Navy—a man who never was in the Navy, who never received technical Navy training, who never had had any experience what- ever in naval warfare—that Secretary arbitrarily fired him from his job. The effect of that action was to gag all other officers of the Navy, the Air Force, and the Army who might have views dif- fering from those of the civilian head of 2605 the Navy, the Air Force, or the Army, or of the politicians who control armed service thinking. To one who is not jealous of the right of free speech or who owes allegiance to some political machine within the Navy or the armed services organization, that might not appear to be too serious if one is willing to condone an unjust, arbitrary insult and injury to an officer who has served his country well and faithfully, and who but, in giving testimony, com- plies with the law of the land. But there is another and more harm- ful aspect to such action. The action of Secretary Matthews in removing Admiral Denfeld not only tends to intimidate all officers in every branch of the service from speaking their convictions to a congressional committee, but it deprives the Members of Congress of their most fruitful source of information, and leaves them without compass or rudder when they attempt to chart a course which will deteimine the strength of any branch of the armed services. The action of the Secretary of the Navy was a blow at our national defense. On March 1, the House Committee on Armed Services, after painstaking in- vestigation, released a report. The thirty-third paragraph of its Summary of Committee Views reads as follows: 33 The removal of Admiral Denfeld was a reprisal against him for giving testimony to the House Armed Services Committee. This act is a blow against effective representa- tive government in that it tends to intimi- date witnesses and hence discourages the rendering of free and honest testimony to the Congress; it violated promises made to the witnesses by the committee, the Secre- tary of the Navy, and the Sccretary of De- fense; and it violated the Unification Act into which a provision was written spe- cifically to prevent actions of this nature against the Nation's highest military and naval officers. The removal of Admiral Denfeld, in my opinion, is directly contrary to the terms of the Unification Act, and it demonstrates the intention of the po- litical brass in the armed services to dis- regard the laws enacted by the Congress, establish themselves as an over-all mili- tary government. With Communists in the State De- partment, with the armed services dis- regarding the law as written by the peo- ple’s representatives, it is imperative that the people awaken to the situation if the Republic is to be saved from de- struction, The removal of Admiral Denfeld is a violation of section 1505 of chapter 73, entitled “Obstruction of Justice” of title 18 of the United States Code. That sec- tion reads as follows: 1805. TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, COMPILATION—OBBTRUCTING JUSTICE Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communica- tion, endeavors to influence, intimidate, or impede any witness in any proceeding pend- ing before any department or agency of the United States, or in connection with any inquiry or investigation being had by either House, or any committee of either House, or any joint committee of the Congress; or Whoever injures any party or witness in his person or property on account of his 1948
2606 attending or having attended such proceed- ing, Inquiry, or investigation, or on account of his testifying or having testified to any matter pending therein; or Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communica- tion influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which such proceeding is being had before such department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which such inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Con- gress— Shall be fined not more than 85,000 or im- prisoned not more than five years, or both. Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Vermont {Mr. PLUMLEY] such time as he may require. Mr. PLUMLEY. Mr. Speaker, just so as not to get involved in a controversy with a lot of would-be scientists who were in a hurry to get me here to vote for that bill, I did not get here in time to do it, but I would have voted for H. R. 4846 had I been here. Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may desire to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts [Mrs. Rogers]. Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the special order granted me today may be transferred to tomorrow. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Massachusetts? There was no objection. LEAVE OF ABSENCE By unanimous consent, leave of ab- sence was granted as follows: To Mr. Fucarte, for March 1, 2, and 3, on account of official business. To Mr. AnsBiTT (at the request of Mr. Harrison), for today and the remainder of the week, on account of official busi- ness. To Mr. LEonarD W. Hay (at the re- quest of Mr. GAMBLE), for Wednesday and Thursday, on account of illness in the family. To Mr. Boces of Delaware (at the re- quest of Mr. WoonruFF), for an indefinite period, beginning February 27, 1950, on account of illness. ADJOURNMENT Mr. TABER. Mr. Speaker, I renew my point of order that a quorum is not present. Mr. COLMER. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn. The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 5 o’clock and 18 minutes p. m.) the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thurs- day, March 2, 1950, at 12 o’clock noon. OATH OF OFFICE, MEMBERS AND DELEGATES The oath of office required by the sixth article of the Constitution of the United States, and as provided by section 2 of the act of May 13, 1884 (23 Stat. 22), to be administered to Members and Dele- gates of the House of Representatives, the text of which is carried in section 1757 of title XIX of the Revised Statutes CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE of the United States, and being as follows: I, A B, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, for- eign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reser- vation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God. has been subscribed to in person and filed in duplicate with the Clerk of the House of Representatives by the follow- ing Members of the Eighty-first Con- gress, pursuant to Public Law 412 of the Eightieth Congress, entitled “An act to amend section 30 of the Revised Statutes of the United States” (U. S. C., title 2, sec. 25), approved February 18, 1948: Wiu1tiam H. Bates, Sixth District, Massa- chusetts; WILLIAM B. WIDNALL, Seventh District, New Jersey. EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC. Under clause 2 of rule XXIV, executive communications were taken from the Speaker’s table and referred as follows: 1276. A letter from the Chairman, District Unemployment Compensation Board, trans- mitting a report covering the administration and operation of the District of Columbia Unemployment Compensgation Board for the calendar year 1949; to the Committee on the District of Columbia. 1277. A letter from the Administrator, Fed. eral Security Agency, transmitting the An- nual Report of the Social Security Admin- istration, Federal Security Agency, for the fiscal year 1949; to the Committee on Ways and Means. 1278. A letter from the Secretary of the Interior, transmitting the eighth annual financial statement and report of opera- tions, pursuant to provisions of section 18 of the Boulder Canyon Project Adjustment Act (54 Stat. 774, approved July 19, 1940); to the Committee on Public Lands. 1279 A letter from the Assistant Secretary of the Navy, transmitting a list of organiza- tions, nonprofit and eligible, which have requested donations of material from the Navy Department under the provisions of section 2 of Public Law 649, Seventy-ninth Congress; to the Committee on Armed Serv- ices. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ON PRIVATE BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as follows: Mr. WALTER: Committee on the Judiciary. 8. 212 An act for the relief of John Joseph McKey; with amendment (Rept. No. 1722). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House. Mr. WALTER: Committee on the Judi- clary, 8.1413. An act for the relief of Maria Margarete Otto; without amendment (Rept. No. 1723). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House. Mr. WALTER: Committee on the Judi- clary. 8. 1552. An act for the relief of Ernest E. Heintz; without amendment (Rept. No. 1724). Referred to the Commit- tee of the Whole Houte. Mr. WALTER: Committee on the Judi- clary. H. R. 1609. A bill for the relief of Arne Gordon Westly; with amendment (Rept. No. 1725). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House. MaRcH 1 PUBLIO BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS Under clause 3 of rule XT, public bills and resolutions were introduced and severally referred as follows: By Mr. HERLONG: H.R. 7488. A bill to provide that the reg- istrant of a trade-mark shall be notified of the time of pending expiration and of the time to file an affidavit of continuing use; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. NELSON: H.R. 7489. A bill to provide for the con- veyance of a tract of land in Kennebec County, Maine, to the town of Chelsea; to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs. By Mr. YATES: H.R. 7490. A bill to amend the Railroad Retirement Act of 1937; to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. By Mr. REES: H.R. 7491. A bill prohibiting lithograph- ing or engraving on envelopes sold by the Post Office Department, and for other pur- poses; to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service. By Mr. HERLONG: H.R. 7492. A bill to amend the Career Compensation Act of 1949 so as to eliminate certain inequities in the provisions relating to the retention of compensation rates in effect prior to such act; to the Committee on Armed Services. By Mr. LATHAM: H.R. 7493. A bill granting exemption from income tax in the case of retirement an- nuities and pensions; to the Committee on Ways and Means. By Mr. PRIEST: H.R 7494. A bill to amend Public Law 74 of the Seventy-fourth Congress, as amended, with respect to the preparation of statistical and scientific studies and surveys, and for other purposes; to the Committee on In- terstate and Foreign Commerce. By Mr, DOYLE: H.R. 7495. A bill to terminate the war excise tax rate on theater tickets and other types of amusement and recreation; to the Committee on Ways and Means. By Mr. MULTER: H R. 7496. A bill to provide for fuel allo- cations and priorities during emergencies; to the Committee on Banking and Currency. By Mr. BLATNIK: H. J. Res. 429. Joint resolution to amend the National Housing Act, as amended, with respect to mortgoge insurance under sec- tion 608 of such act; to the Committee on Banking and Currency. By Mr. LARCADE: H J. Res. 430. Joint resolution to amend the Agricultural Act of 1949 go as to author- ize delivery of surplus farm commoditics to the States; to the Committee on Agriculture. By Mr. KEOGH: H. J. Res. 431. Joint resolution to permit certain war-service indefinite employees to acquire competitive civil-service status and permanent tenure by qualifying in noncom- petitive examinations; to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service. By Mrs. NORTON: H Con. Res. 182. Concurrent resolution au- thorizing the printing of a revised edition of the Biographical Directory of the American Congress up to and including the Eightieth Congress; to the Committee on House Ad- ministration. PRIVATE BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS Under clause 1 of rule XXII, private bills and resolutions were introduced and severally referred as follows: By Mr. AUCHINCLOSS: H.R. 7497. A bill for the relief of Sgt. Benjamin H. Martin; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
1950 By Mr. GWINN: H. R. 7498. A bill for the relief of Bob Kan; to the Committee on the Judiciary. H.R. 7499. A bill for the relief of Mrs. Fourere Kan; to the Committee on the Judi- Clary. By Mr. HERLONG: H.R. 7600. A bill to exempt certain real property in the District of Columbia from taxation in the District of Columbia, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the District of Columbia. By Mr. MURPHY: H.R 7601. A bill for the relief of Antonio Carreri; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. O'BRIEN of Michigan: H R.7502 A bill for the relief of Oscar (Oszkar) Nemenyi, Marianna Nemenyi (wife), and Thomas John Nemenyi (son); to the Committee on the Judiciary. PETITIONS, ETC. Under clause 1 of rule XXII, petitions and papers were laid on the Clerk’s desk and referred as follows: 1940. By Mr CANFIELD: Resolution of the executive committee of the Greater Paterson Council of Churches, Paterson, N. J., for a new crusade of peace which will arouse all people from apathy, fear, and fatalism; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. 1941. By Mr GORSKI: Petition relative to veterans’ hospital in Buffalo, N. Y¥., to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs. 1942 Also, petition relative to the St Law- rence project, to the Committee on Public Works, 1943. By Mr LANE. Petition of the Board of Aldermen, Chelsea, Mass., requesting Con- gress to enact legisintion for the Government to pay one-half of the train fare for enlisted men who have occasion to use trains and busses during furlouyhs; to the Committee on Armed Serviccs. 1944 By Mr. MILLER of Maryland: Peti- tion of Somerset County Pctroleum Indus- tries Committee, Princess Anne, Md, urging repeal of the Federal gasoline tax, to the Committee on Ways and Means. 1945. Also, petition of Worcester County Pctioleum Industries Committee, Berlin, Md, urging repeal of the Federal gasoline tax; to the Committee on Ways and Means. 1946. By the SPEAKER: Petition of Prof, Abelardo Bonilla, Legislative Assembly of Costa Rica, San José, Costa Rican, relative to the importance of consolidating the unity of all the nations of the American Continent to strengthen the cultural and political bonds between their people; to the Commit- tee on Foreign Affairs. SENATE Tuurspay, Marci 2, 1950 (Legislative day of Wednesday, February 22, 1950) The Senate met at 12 o’clock meridian, on the expiration of the recess. Bishop Ivan Lee Holt, president, Council of Bishops of the Methodist Church, St. Louis, Mo., offered the fol- lowing prayer: Almighty God, who in the former time Gidst lead our fathers forth into a place of opportunity, give Thy grace, we hum- bly beseech Thee, to us their children, that we may always approve ourselves a people mindful of Thy favor, and glad to do Thy will. Bless our land with hon- est industry, sound learning, and pure CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE religion. Defend our liberties; preserve our unity. Save us from violence, dis- cord, and confusion, from pride and arrogance, and from every evil way. Fashion into one happy people the mul- titudes brought hither out of many kin- dreds and tongues. Endue with the spirit of wisdom those whom we entrust in Thy name with the authority of gov- ernance, to the end that there may be peace at home, and that we may kcep a Place of influence among the nations of the earth. In the time of prosperity fill our hearts with thankfulness, and in the day of trouble suffer not our trust in Thee to fail. Grant us peace, Thy most precious gift. O Thou eternal source of peace. Bless our country, that it may ever be a stronghold of peace in the councils of the nations. May con- tentment reign within its borders, health and happiness within its homes. Strengthen the bonds of friendship and fellowship between all the inhabitants, races, and religions of our land. Plant virtue in every soul; and may the love of Thy name hallow every home and every heart. Piaised be Thou, O Lord, giver of peace. Amen, THE JOURNAL On request of Mr. Lucas, and by unan- imous consent, the reading of the Journal of the proceedings of Wednesday, March 1, 1950, was dispensed with. ME-=SAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT Messages in writing from the Presi- dent of the United States wore com- municated to the Senate by Mr. Miller, one of his secretaries. , MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE A message from the House of Repre- sentatives, by Mr. Swanson, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House had passed the bill (S. 247) to promote the progress of science; to ad- vance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national de- fense; and for other purposes, with amendments, in which it requested the concurrence of the Senate. The message also announced that the House had passed a bill (H. R, 7477) providing for the conveyance to the town of Nahant, Mass., of the Fort Ruckman Military Reservation, in which it re- quested the concurrence of the Senate. CALL OF THE ROLL Mr. LUCAS. I suggest the absence of @ quorum. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Secre- tary will call the roll. The roll was called, and the following Senators answered to their names: Aiken Ellender Kefauver Brewster Ferguson Kerr Bricker Flanders Kilgore Bridges Frear Knowland Butler Fulbright Langer Byrd George Leahy Cain Green Lehman Capehart Gurney Lodge Chapman Hayden Long Chavez Hendrickson Lucas Connally Hill McCarran Cordon Hoey McCarthy Darby Humphrey McClellan Donnell Hunt McKellar Douglas Ives McMahon Downey Jenner Magnuson Dworshak Johneon, Golo. Malone Eastland Johnson, Tex. Martin Ecton Johnston, 8.C. Maybank 2607 Millikin Saltonstall Thomas, Utah Morse Schoeppel ‘Tobey Mundt Smith, Maine Tydings Murray Smith, N. J. Watkins Myers Sparkman Wherry Neely Stennis Wiley O’Conor Taft Williams Robertson ‘Taylor Withers Russell Thomas, Okla. Mr. MYERS. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico |Mr. ANDER- son], the Senator from North Carolina {Mr, Granam], the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McFaruanp!, the Senator from Wy- oming [Mr. O’MAHONEY], and the Sen- ator from Florida |Mr. PEPPER] are ab- sent on public business. The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. BENTON] is necessarily absent. The Senator from Iowa [Mr. GIL- LETTE} and the Senator from Florida [Mr. HoLtanp] are absent by leave of the Senate on official business. Mr. SALTONSTALL. I announce that the Senator from Iowa IMr. HICKEN- LOOPER |, the Senator from Missouri {Mr. Kem], the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. TuyeEj, and the Senator from North Da- kota [Mr,. YOunG] are absent by leave of the Senate The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Van- DENBERG] is necessarily absent. The VICE PRESIDENT. A quorum is present. TRANSACTION OF ROUTINE BUSINESS Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, on yester- day the senior Senator from Virginia (Mr. Byrrp] received unanimous consent to obtain the floor on the convening of the Senate today. I ask the Senator from Virginia to yield so I may now make a unanimous-consent request. Mr. BYRD I yield. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Members of the Senate may be permitted to present pe- titions and memorials, introduce bills and joint resolutions, and present rou- tinc matters for the Recorp, without de- bate, and without speeches. The VICE PRESIDENT. Without ob- jection, it is so ordered. EUGENIO MAISTERRENA BARRENECHE— REENROLLMENT OF BILL Mr. MCCARRAN. Mr. President, I submit a concurrent resolution, and I ask unanimous consent for its present consideration. The VICE PRESIDENT. The concur- rent resolution will be read for the in- formation of the Senate. The concurrent resolution (8. Con. Res, 77) was read, as follows: Resolved by the Senate (the House of Rep- resentatives concurring), That the President of the United States be, and he is hereby, requested to return to the Senate the en- rolled bill (S. 204) for the relief of Eugenio Maisterrena Barreneche; that if and when the said bill is returned by the President, the action of the presiding officers of the two Houses in signing the said bill be deemed to be rescinded; and that the secretary of the Senate be, and he 1s hereby, authorized and directed, in the reenrollment of said bill, to make the following correction, namely, on page 1, line 6, of the Senate engrossed bill, strike out the numerals “1940" end in Meu thereof insert ‘1946.” The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there ob- jection to the present consideration of the concurrent resolution?