10902 Public Law 601, Seventy-ninth Congress, ap- proved August 2, 1946, as amended, submits the following report showing the name, pro- fession, and total salary of each person em- ployed by jt during the 6-month period from January 1, 1960, to June 30, 1950, inclusive, together with total funds authorized or appropriated and expended by it: Total EONS Name of employce Profession ay, é&month period Willlam N. MeLeood, | Clerk..........-- ene | $5, 122 26 Jr Mabel Haller. _..-....] Professional staff...) 4, 551, 24 Roth Butterworth....| Assistant clerk... 22] 2,424 78 Witmer Kelley... -.-] Investigator (ap-] 3, 216.65 pointed Feb 1, 1050). Charles D, Farmer_...| Minority cletk....2. 3, 859 98 Harry Charlos._..--.- Messenper...-.-.-.- 43) 00 Funds authorized or appropnated for com- mitteo expenditures... 2.2.2... --2---- 22. e nee $2, None Amount of expenditures previously reported _. Amount capended fiom Jan. 1 to June 30, W50. 00 eee ee ee ene nee ne eee en ee 923 &7 Total amount expended from Jan. 1 to June 30, 150.2222. -- aaeee 923 87 Balance unexpended as of June 30, 1950 .. 2... 1,076 18 Joun L, MCMILLAN, Chairman. Sprcia, SUBCOMMITTER OF THE House DIs- rRicr COMMITTEE To INVESTIGATE CRIME IN THE DisTRIcT OF COLUMBIA JUNE 30, 1950. To the CLERK OF THE HOusE: The above-mentioned committee or sub- committee, pursuant to section 184 (b) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, Public Law 601, Seventy-ninth Congress, ap- proved August 2, 1946, as amended, submits the following report showing the name, pro- fession, and total salary of each person em- ployed by it during the 6-month period from January 1, 1950, to June 30, 1950, inclusive, together with total funds authorized or appropriated and expended by it: Total pring | . salury Name of employco Profession duiing 6-month period Hyman Fischback....| Counsel (voucher | $5, 009 00 submitted for wry. ices from Oct, 28, 1949 to Feb, 24, 150) John F, Wong..... e---| Investigator (salary) S08 26 (January and Feb- ruary 1950) P. Gabrielle Tarter_...] Secretary (salary) 94, 06 Wanuary, Febru. ary, and May 1050). Richard Ford, M. D..| Special employee 100 00 (March 1950), EXPENSES Hyman I, Fischback. 1,124 75 John F, Wook... 15R. 17 P.G, Tarter. 1015 Richard Ford - 130 08 Harry Sack -..- 10.00 dohn A, Edwards ..-. . 6.00 Chesapeake & Pato: |. ..--.00-- sce eee nee 14.00 mac Telephone Cu. Btationcry room .......|-.eeneeeeenenennneenes 7.9 Funds authorized or appropriated for com- mittee expenditures. ...---------- a. ee eee $10, 000. 00 =o. Amount of expenditures previously reported. 3, 653. 38 Amount exponded from Jan. 1 to Juno 30, 1050. 22 oe ane nee e eee eee wane e ween ewe ee « 8,843.28 Total amount expended from Nov. 4, 1949, to Juno 30, 1950. _..------------ eee eee 9, 997.96 Balance unexpended as of Juno 30, 1060------ 3.34 Joun L. MCMILLAN, Chairman. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE CommMirrer ON EDUCATION AND LABOR Jury 12, 1960. 'go the CLERK or THE HOUSE: The above-mentioned committee or sub- committee, pursuant to section 1384 (b) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, Public Law 601, Seventy-ninth Congress, ap- proved August 2, 1946, as amended, submits the following report showing the name, pro- fession, and total salary of each person em- ployed by it during the 6-month period from January 1, 1950, to June 30, 1950, inclusive, together with total funds authorized or appropriated and expended by !t: Total Rross Name of employee Profession ay 6month pertod Joseph Koski........-. Chief clerk and exec | $5, 422 98 utive assistant, John 8 Forsythe......{ General counsel] 5, 422 98 (professtonal staff). Joseph $8, Jarosz... Research specialist | 6, 422, 98 (professional staff), Frank E. Boyer.......] Investigator (profes- | 8,422 98 slonal staff) John O, Graham...... Minority clerk (pro- | 5, 422. 98 fessional staf), Frances A Los .....] Assistunt clerk ...... 2,859 30 Mary Pauline Smith..{..... a 2,728 02 Mary E. Gilbert San- 2, 728. 13 ders Barbara A, White... |.....00... seen ewen-| 2,728 92 Myitie 8. Locher. --- do... 2, 72> G2 Funds authorized or appropriated for ¢om- mittee expenditures 2222-22-20. -------.-. $30,000 00 Amount of expenditures previously reported. 13, 484 31 Amount expended from Jun. 1 to June 30, CS | a 8, 860 33. Total amount expended from Jan, 1, 1048, te June 30, 1950 20.6. 22, 353, 64 Balanee unexpended asx of June 30, 1950)... 7, 646 36 GraHamM A. BaRpdEN, Chairman, — COMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURES IN THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS JUNE 80, 1950. To the CLERK oF THE HOUSE: The above-mentioned committee or sub- committee, pursuant to section 134 (b) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, Public Law 601, Seventy-ninth Congress, ap- proved August 2, 1946, as amended, submits the following report showing the name, pro- fession, and total salary of each person em- ployed by it during the 6-month period from January 1, 1950, to June 30, 1960, inclusive, together with total funds authorized or appropriated and expended by it: Total grass o salury Namo of employee Profession durmg &month period Full committee... 22-2 | c eee een ee eancee| $467.04 Inter-Governientall, ....ceneeewennernene| 2, 062, 68 Relations Subeom- mittes, Congress-| man HERBERT C, BONNER, chairman. Public Accounts Subs |... ce eneeemenencenen-| 2,875. 09 comnittes, — Con- ressman FRanK® ARSTEN, chairman. Fofleral Relations With |. weet ceesceennwnnenne} 4, 480, 80 International Or- ganizations Subcom- mittee, Congress: man HENDERSON LANHAM, chairman, Government Opera |. .scocceccncscecenes-| 39, 650. 88 tions Subcommittee Congressman PorR- ter Hanpy, Jr., chairmau. JULY 24 Name of employee Executive and Legis- |.......---enn----0--/$17, 303, 57 lative Reorganiza- tion Subcommittee, Congressman CHET FOniFrecp, chair: man. Total spent from 66, 940. 00 Jan. 1 to June 30, 1950, arene An eer Balance unexpended Jan, 1, 1060__....-...... $58, 802. 98 Additional appropriation May 11, 1950.-... - 150,000 00 4 0) | ~-.- 208, 802 98 Amount spent from Jan. 1 to June 30, 1950... 66, 940. 00 Balanoe unexponded July 1, 1950. ..... 141, 862, 98 ‘Total mary 7. salary Name of employee Profession during 6-month period William A. Young ...] Staff director........ $5, 422, 08 Thomas A_ Kennedy .] General counsel. 5, 422. 98 Christine Ruy Davis _| Chief clerk.. ....2--| 6,422.98 Francs T. O’Donnell.} Minority counsel, 768, 54 Jan. 1 to 31, 1959, . J. Robert Brown _.... Research analyst. 3, 859 98 Martha C, Roland....| Assistant chief clerk] 4,436.04 Dolores I'o]’ Dotto..... Clerk-stenographer..| 2,031 72 Advienne C, Master- | Clerk-stenographer, | 1,603. 86 son, Jan, 1 to Apr. 14, 1950, Annahelle Zue......2.{ Minority clerk__....{ 3,671 26 Olive M. Wileroy....] Clerk-stenographer, 1, 237, 82 Apr. 15 to June 30, 1980, Teresa Barrett... --| Clerk-typist... 1, 845, 42 GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE, CON@= GRESSMAN PORTER HARDY, JR., CHAIRMAN Carl FT, Monsees... oo... Operations analyst..| $4, 850. 76 George Miller Rose_... Administrative ana- 3, 282. 06 yot. Jobn C. Viek J... 2. let e ee C0... ene neeeeee | 2,015, 58 Stephen 1), Carnes... . 2, &S2, 13 Hester H. Harper _._- 2,768 76 Herbert E, Wicken- 2, 424, 78 heiser, Ann F Cavanagh 22]. . 2, 931, 72 Joseph V. Machugh. | Legal analyst. 1, 607. 43 toApr 8, 1950. Qeorge Hf, Bowers, Ju.] Legal analyst .......] 2,207. 52 Chanles Futtover,... Administiativeana | 1,974, 55 lyst, Jan. 1 to Mar, 31, 1950 Mildred Ho Lang... Stenogiapher_.. -...| 2,015 58 Olive M. Willeroy..... Stenographer, Jan. 1] 1, 164 55 to Apr. 15, 1y60, Carlotta Dondero.....{ Stenographer, Apr. 699 11 17 to June 40, 1950 Eloise Gray Menefeo..| Stenographer, Jun, 212, 74 1-198, 1950, Gordon Pickottj ¥or Jegal services | 3,570.00 Peyton. rendored as spe cial counsel in du- qpiry into the aritime Com- mussion for period Jan, 2 tu May 31, 1950. Do.......-.-.---.-| For logal sorviees as 204. 00 special counsel in inquiry into Rural Electrification Administration, for_ period June 1-27, 1050. Sohn H, Dorsoy.......| For legal sorvices as | 3, 612,00 special counsel in inquiry intu the national service life-insurance pro- gran analysis of fiscal costs and operations, for Ryriod Feb, 12 to ay 24, 1980. Bobn H, Dorsey.......| For jegal services as 756. 00 special counsel In inquiry into the national service Hfe-insurancs pro- aul analysis of cal coxts and operations, for period June 1-27,
1950 Total Bross Namo of employee Professi Salary ploy Profession dming 6-month period EXPENSES ester WH. Harper. . 18 20 Herbert FE. Wickon- a 50 A ee nn F. Cavanagh 25,16 Charles Futterer _ 3 60 Carl TT Monsees. .. 102, 32 Stephen TD. Carnes.. 49 75 John H, Dorsey... 63 40 John C, Vick - 10 90 Southern Rallway 12 74 United Air Lines . 100 98 Stationery supplies... 08 OL Chesapeake & [ee 8.10 Potomac Telephone Co, Trumon Ward—mumm- |..............-------- 2,00 eographing. 2 OT) re 3Y, 660 83 EXPENSES OF FULL COMMITTEE Btatlonory supplies _..)... 2. wee eee eee 355, 76 Chesapeake & Poto- |... eee nee ne nee eee 112.18 mace Selephone Co, 2) ed eevee 467 94 INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE, CONGRESSMAN HERBERT C. BONNER, CHAIRMAN $2, 062 68 Hilory E. Pricvu.....--| Clerk. ..2..22..22.-- PUBLIC ACCOUNTS SUBCOMMITTEE, CONGRESSMAN FRANK KARSTEN, GHAIRMAN Harry E. Harper_..... Staff dieetor, Apr. | $2,016 390 1 to June 30, 1950 Ellis Barnard......2- Cletk stenographer, 705 15 Mar 29 to June 30, 1450, Stationery supplivs....|---------- ee eceenneeee 63 55 4 0) 0) ed a 2,875 UY FEDERAL RELATIONS WITH INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE, CONGRISS- MAN HENDERSON LANHAM, CHAIRMAN Franklin DD) Rogers.. [ Clerk ..2.2.------.-- $2, 85) 30 Maisie O. Hudnall... | Assistant clerk, | 1,531 30 Feb, 13 to June 30, 19 Btationcry supplics....|--.----.----.--- enene- 40 20 Total... eee [nee e meee eee weeeeen- 4,450 89 LEGISLATIVE REORGANIZATION CONGRESSMAN CHET HOLI- EXECUTIVE AND SULCOMMILTEE, FIELD, CHAIRMAN W Brooke Grav Staff director. $5, 42° 98 Julian Faby. Stal! member. 4, 551 24 Tlerbert Roback. . do. 4, 437 18 Dorothy DP. Mortson.| Clerk. 2, 935, 72 Stationery supplies... ]--. eee eee ee 50 45 iC es Se enneeee--| 17,303, 57 WiLtraAM L. Dawson, Chairman, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS JuLy 15, 1950. To the CLerK or THE House: The above-inentioned committee or sub- committee, pursuant to section 134 (b) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, Public Law 601, Seventy-ninth Congress, ap- proved August 2, 1916, as amended, submits the following report showing the name, pro- fession, and total salary of each person em- ployed by it during the 6-month period from January 1, 1950, to June 30, 1950, inclusive, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE together with total funds authorized or appropriated and expended by it: Total gross salary during é-inonth period Name of employoe Profession — Staff administrator._] $5, 423. 00 C, Burton Marshall...| Staff consultant (re- | 4,610 15 signed May 31, 1950), Tra FE. Bennett 2.2220. Staff consuitant.....} 5, 423,00 Sheldon Z Kaplan. --| 5,423.00 Goorge Leo Millikan..|... 5, 428 00 June Nigh... 20022... Winifred G. Osborne. Dorls Leone... Mabel Wofford Mary QG. Chaco Funds authorized or appropriated for com- mittee expenditures... ..2.222222.----- eee $50, 000 00 2, 850. 31 3,076 57 2, 850. 3 2, 142. 06 3, 58S. 50 Amount of oxpendilures previously reported... Amount expended from Jan, 1 to June «0, 950 G, 442, 04 R, 488 87 Total amount expended from Jan. 1, 1949, to Jane 80, 1950.0... 222 ee - -- 14,0381 81 Balance unexpended as of July 1, 1050. 35, 069, 19 JoHN KEE, Chairman, COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION JuLy 10, 1950. To the CLzrk or THE HOUSE: The above-mentioned committee or sub- committee, pursuant to section 134 (b) of the Legisletive Reorganization Act of 1946, Public Law 601° Seventy-ninth Congress, ap- proved August 2, 1946, as amended, submits the following report showing the name, pro- fcssion, and total salary of each person em- ployed by it during the 6-month period from January 1, 1950, to June 30, 1950, inclusive, together with total funds authorized or appropriated and cxpended by it: Total ary ' , kee salary Name of employee Profession during 6 month period Jeanne MeDonaph..w.] Clerk 22. Lele $4, 203 24 Marjorie Savage ...0.. Assistant ¢lork 4,124 95 Jack Watson wae-}ee - GOL, 3,086 71 Mameen Sandiford .- 2,824 (4) Jura Cannon. _ 2. Lanne 2,825 00 Merle Harriy.....-22.- Assistant clerk and | 2, 823 0u stenographer, Mary T. NorTon, | Chairman, COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE JULY 11, 1950. To the CLerK oF Tite HOUSE: The above-mentioned committee or sub- committee, pursuant to section 134 (b) of the Logislative Reorganization Act of 1946, Public Law €01, Seventy-ninth Congress, ap- proved August 2, 1946, as amended, submits the following report showing the name, pro- tession, and total salary of each person em- ployed by it during the 6-month period from January 1, 1950, to June 30, 1950, inclusive, together with total funds authorized or appropriated and expended by it: Total £rOs8 salary during 6-month period Name of employoo Profession CLERICAL STAFF Flton J, Layton......-] Clork....- -.-.-----| $5, 422. 08 onn R. Ward. Assistant clerk. 3, 004. 14 Royice Reno...... wewelerne GO... ene aeswenl 2,569, 62 10903 Total salary sel salary Namo of employes Profession during 6-month poriod CLERICAL aTar¥—Con. Georgia G. Qlasmann.| Assistant clork-ste- | $2,204. 40 nographer, Helen A, Grickis......[...- do. oe ee 2, 207. 52 Frances W. Galvin...) Assistant clerk-ste- | 2, 106,12 noprapher (au- thorized H. Res. 57 Roy P, Wilkinson..... Assistant clork......| 1,017, 84 PROFESSIONAL STAFF Arlin FE. Stockburger..| Aviation and en- | 5, 422.98 gineering consult- ant Andrew Stevenson....{ Expert) oo... --| 5, 422. 68 Kurt Borchardt....... Professional t+ | 5,422. 98 ant, Sam G, Spal.......... Rosearch specialist. | 4, 551. 24 Funds authorized or appropriated for com- mittee expenditures (funds authorized under H, Res, 157)... eee eee ee $60, 000. 00 Amount of expondi(ures previously reported — 11,324 22 Amount expended from Jan. 1 to June 30, 1880. 5, 964.18 Total amount expended from Jan, 1, 1949, to June 30, 1080.20. . 17, 288. 40 Balance unexpended as of June 30, 1950_. 42, 710. 60 ROBERT CROSSER, Chairman. COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY JuLy 12, 1950. To the CLERK oF THz HoUsE: The above-mentioned committee or sub- committee, pursuant to section 134 (b) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, Public Law 601, Seventy-ninth Congress, ap- proved August 2, 1946, as amended, submits the following report showing the name, pro- fession, and total salary of each person cms ployed by it during the 6-month period from January 1, 1950, to June 30, 1950, inclusive, together with total funds authorized or appropriated and expended by it: Total Nume of employce Profession LOSS, salary Dick, Bese Bffrat..... Chief clerk. 2.0... $5, 422 08 Conunittee counsel Legislative assistant. Bernhardt, Co Murray ‘ 5,422 98 Beaterman, Walter M 5, 422. 98 Foley, William K-22. Commuttec counsel] 5, 422 08 Lee, Walter Ro.. Legislative assistant | §,422 04% Smodjey, Velma. Assistant chief clerk] 5,422 98 Benn, Violet Tl. 1,417, 03 Clerk stenographer... Berger, Anne J Christy, France Collier, Mabel L Hahn, Jane! 2,527 87 2, 407 20 2, 279 94 1,248 60 Kaslow, Berta... 8, 743 O8 Lumon, Lacie P 2, 270, 94 } Purzuant to I. Res dot. J, Funds for preparation of U. 8. Code and Revision of the Laws A. Preparation of new edition of U. 8, Code (no venr): Unexpended balance Jan, 1, 1) $13, 036. 89 Exponded... 22.022. seeeeeenee - 0 Balance June 30, 1950.......... 13,036 80 —_——— B, Preparation of U, 8. Code: Unexpended balance Jan. 1, WOO. Loe eee $145, 248, 12 Expended......... 5,813.10 Balance June 80, 1950... -neeee. 140, 435 02 So ©. Revision of the Laws 1950: Unoxpended bal- ance Jan 1, 1W40_.. $6, 749. 02 Deficiency appro: rlation 1960......- 845 00 bration —— 7,001.02 Expended ......--..4. waneveee  6,972,16 Balance June 30, 1950... 22... 121, 98 spores meee
10904 1, Funds for preparation of U. 8, Code and Revision of the Laws—Continued D. Preparation of new edition D. O, Cade (no year): Authorized by deficiency ap- propristion 1960 aeene Expended....... Balanco June 30, 1050... 2, Funds authorized or appre for com. Bes expenditure Rea. 156, $30, 000. 00 0 3 }, 000 00 =e es, 415, and H. Res. 647 (pursuant 7 Reg, 137) ..------eeneeeeee een eeneneee 85, 000. 00 Amount expended. ..-..2-...- een eee 39, 703 37 Balance unexpended June 30, 1950.... 45, 206 03 aco 8. Funds authorized or appropriated for com- mittee erpenditure hy TT. Ros, 246 (pur- sunt to HE, Res, 23x) 46, 000 00 Amount exponded. 2. eceesneuneeeres 26,016 51 B, alunce uneapended as of June 30, wee e ee ewe ence nen nen e ween ee ee 19, 983. 49 EMANUEL CELLER, Chairman, —_— COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES JULY 11, 1950. To the CLERK OF THE HOUSE: The above-mentioned committee or sub- committee, pursuant to section 134 (b) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, Public Law 601, Seventy-ninth Congress, ap~ proved August 2, 1946, as amended, submits the following report showing the name, pro- fession, and total salary of each person em- ployed by it during the 6-month period from January 1, 1950, to June 30, 1950, inclusive, together with total funds authorized or appropriated and expended by it: Total Bross salary Name of employee Profession during 6-month period John M, Drewry.....- General counsel... $8, 422. 98 Lymn E Mote_......- Assistant counsel._..] 4,551 24 Rogimald 8. Losee..... Cnef investigator... | 4,482.12 Gus S, Curus.....-...- Investigator to the | 4,482 12 minority, Frances Still... 22... Chief clork.....22... 8, 859 98 Marie Wilson... Seeretury.....-. -] 3,148 98 Madonna Haworth Agoistant clerk. 2,608 45 Frances B, Hoover | es 2, 236 40 Leonard }, Phaka..... c ‘er to the minor- | 3,U04 14 ty 33, 691. 41 Epwarp J. Harr, Chatrman, SUBCOMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE PANAMA CANAL TOLLS (Pursuant to H. Res. 44, 81st Cong., 1st sess.) JULY 11, 1950. To the CLERK OF THE HOvsE: The above-mentioned committee or sub- committee, pursuant to section 134 (b) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, Public Law 601, Seventy-ninth Congress, ap- proved August 2, 1946, as amended, submits the following report showing the name, pro- feesion, and total salary of each person em- ployed by it during the 6-month period from January 1, 1950, to June 80, 1960, inclusive, together with total funds authorized or appropriated and expended by it; Total ross salary durin, 6-mont period Nawe of employee Profession Stenographer.......- Madonna Haworth... CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Funds authorieed or appropriated for com- mittee expenditures... -..2-n-nneneeweeese 5, 000. 00 Ee ae Amount of expenditures previously reported. 7, 560. 82 Amount expended from Jan, 1, 1950 to June 80, 1960... oe ance nen ne er enn eer er eneeenennee 500, 69 Tota) amount expended from Feb, 28, 1949, to June 30, 1950.... 2.6.2... 061 51 Balance uneapendod as of Juno 30, 1980. .22. 6, 938. 49 Epowarp J. Hart, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Martne and Fisheries, BPECIAL INVESTIGATING SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES COM-~- MITTEE (Pursuant to H. Res. 215, 8ist Cong.) JULY 11, 1950. To the CLERK oF THE HoUsE: The above-mentioned committee or sub- cominittee, pursuant to section 184 (b) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, Public Law 601, Severty-ninth Congress, ap- proved August 2, 1946, as amended, submits the following report showing the name, pro- fession, and total salary of each person em- ployed by it during the 6-month period from January 1, 1950, to Juna 30, 1950, inclusive, together with total funds authorized or appropriated and expended by it: Total aruss Saliry Nanie of employee Profession during 6-month . period Charles A, Miller. .... Investigator... 0.2... $4, 205. 64 Funds authorized or appropriated for com- mittee expenditures... .......--2--22--- ee ee $50, 000. 00 eect ses Amount of expenditures previously reported. 8, 718. 74 Amount expended frum Jan, 1 to June 30, 0 13, 432 64 Total amount expended from June 30, 1049 to June 30, 1050.2... eee eee ee 22, 151 38 Balance unexpended as of June 30, 1950...... 27, BAB, 62 Epwarp J. Hart, Chairman, COMMITTEE ON POst OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICR JuLY 13, 1960. To the CLERK oF THE HOUSE: The above-mentioned committee or sub- committee, pursuant to section 134 (b) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, Public Law 601, Seventy-ninth Congress, ap- proved August 2, 1946, as amended, submits the following report showing the name, pro- fession, and total salary of each person em- ployed by it during the 6-month period from January 1, 1950, to June 30, 1950, inclusive, together with total funds authorized or appropriated and expended by it: Pe ES nc DEC ee Total KOSS salary during 6-month period Name of employee Profession George M. Moore. Frederick C. Belen, John B, Price... Lucy K. Daloy.. fis layne M, Hoffman... lian Hopkins.......]----- do. Ann Hayden.......... EMPLOYED UNDER H, R&S. 114, 115 AND 472 Russell A. Heddleston.| Staff director........ Reginald I. Heath en Investigator... Henry C, Cassel... .. -do. - - Jean H, O'Brien..2..-] Stenographor......-. JULY 24 Funds authorized or appropriated for com- mnittes oxpenditured. .....-- ween ee anew nee $50, 000. 00 Bi treme nF Amount oxpended froin Jan. 1, to Juno 30, 1950. 8, 614, 65 Balance unexpendod as of June 90, 1950. 41, 485, 45 Tom MURRAY, Chairman, — COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS JuLy 11, 1960. To the CLerK or THE HovsE: The above-mentioned committee or sub- committee, pursuant to section 134 (b) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, Public Law 601, Seventy-ninth Congress, ap- proved August 2, 1946, as amended, submits the following report showing the name, pro- fession, and total salary of each person em- ployed by it during the 6-month period from January 1, 1950, to June 30, 1950, inclusive, together with total funds authorized or appropriated and expended by it: Total ross ss) salury Nano of employoo Profession durmg 6-month period Goorge TH. Soule....... Technical consult- | $4, 422. 08 ant, Saul Corwin (resigna- | Counsel.......-.--.. 903, 83 tion effective Feb. 1, 1950), Arthur James Brookshire employed ag investi- gation clerk to coni- mittee and charge- able to specie fund, Gross salary during 6-month pertod $2,424.78. Preston E. Peden_...-}-..-- (ee 5, 332. 74 Mary L, Steele (resize | Clerk. ...... ene nn ee 461. 91 nation offective Jan, 16, 1950). Claude E Ragan....-}...--d0...2. 02.2. e eee Naney Arnold. ..2-..-}2.... do... Virgama MeMichacl..|_....do.... Geraldine Faker. .....]..---d0..... Betty Lee Angus....2-}2.2-- C Cree Funds authorized or appropriated for com- mille OxpeNdItUres...- 20-2 eaene ene e eee $80, 000, 00 = Amount. of expenditures previously reported. 4, 563. 63 Amount expended from Jan, 1 to June 30, WO)... cenneeeceeeecceeesennneeesencenne, 0, 289,23 Total amount expended from Apr. 1, 1949, to June 30, 1950......-----. eee 13, 852. 86 Balance unexpended as of Junie 30, 1980.22... 16, 147, 14 J, HaRpIn PETERSON, Chairman, COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WoRKS Jury 1, 1950.. To the CLerK or THE Hovsse: The above-mentioned committee or sub- committee, pursuant to section 134 (b) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, Public Law 601, Seventy-ninth Congress, ap- proved August 2, 1946, as amended, submits the following report showing the name, pro~ fession, and total salary of each person em- ployed by it during the 6-month period from January 1, 1950, to June 80, 1950, inclusive, together with total funds authorized or appropriated and expended by it: Total eros salal Name of employee Profession duriiy &mont period Thomas E, Massie. ...| Counsel..........-.. $4, 348, 88 Joseph H, McGann, | Clork..2.2.22....0..) 4,343, 88 Robert F, MoConnell.| Assistant clerk...... 8, 208, 82 Joseph H. McGann, |.....do........00002 2, 798, 88 Mt Margaret RB, Glabsionaga 2, 786, 88 Beater,
1950 Total gross sulary durin 6-tmo0nt period Name of employeo Profession Mis Mary Elizabeth | Clerk-stenographer._| $2, 786, 88 cHee, Mrs Helen Dooley....|.....do 2,322 40 Funds authorized or appropriated for committee expenditures ooo. e ee eee ee eee eee $15, 000 Balance unexpended as of June 30, 1950.2... 22. 15, 000 WiLutlaM M. WHITTINGTON, Chairman. COMMITTEE ON RULES JUNE 21, 1950. T. the CLERK oF THE HOUSE: The above-mentioned committee or sub- committee, pursuant to section 134 (b) of th. Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, Public Law 601, Seventy-ninth Congress, ap- proved August 2, 1946, as amended, submits the following report showing the name, pro- Tession, and total salary of each person em- ployed by it during the 6-month period from January 1, 1950, to Juno 30, 1950, inclusive, together with total funds authorized or appropriated and expended by it: ac Total Bross + . salary Name of employee Profession during month period Wumphrey & Shaw...} Clerk. 222-2222. $5, 380 74 Morntt K. Kotin.....] Assistant clerk ...... 4, 551 24 Howard Dolan... Assistant to the | 2, 642. 04 eler! FElllodor M. Libonati _} Stenographor-clerk..| 3,018.60 Jano W, Snader._....- Minority clerk_.....} 3,018 60 ADOLPH J. SABATH, Chairman, —_— COMMITTEE ON UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES JuLy 18, 1950. To the CLERK OF THE HOUSE: The above-mentioned committee or sub- committee, pursuant to section 134 (b) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, Public Law 601, Seventy-ninth Congress, ap- proved August 2, 1946, as amended, submits the following report showing the name, pro- fession, and total salary of each person em- ployed by it during the 6-month period from December 31, 1949, to June 30, 1950, inclusive, together with total funds authorized or appropriated and expended by it: Total russ ¢ salary Name o! employee Profession during &month poriod EMPLOYEEA PAID BY VOUCHER Wilham A. Wheeler_..| Investigalor........- $4, 447. 56 Courtney Owens —_...]....- | 4 ITLS Charles E, MeKillips 3, OBR 22 William J. Jones. ..... 3,908 25 Alvin Stokes... 2 22-o fee. 3, 963 63 Tallian Howard. 2, 788 BS Helen Mattson... Mary Ann Moffett 2,031, 18 2, 424. 78 Aseolia Poore.. 8, 005. 76 Blanche McCa 2, 159, 20 Pearle Gay .. 2, BOM. 08 Jane Gordon .. 2,159 29 Helen MeCarthy_. 2, 804 08 Lorraine Nichols 2,424, 78 Rose Sanko..........- 2,424 78 Katherine Zlmmor- 2, 407, 20 man, Evelyn Hinshaw......| Clerk-stonogragher 665, 77 (Mar, 20 through $1, 1950), CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Total Bros . salary Name of employee Profession during 6-month period Ruth Tansill__.. 22.0. Clork-stenographer..| $2, 424 78 Jo B, Kennedy... 2... Clerk-typist..- 2, 421, 78 Virginia MeCraw...2_}.-.-.do 2,135 16 Catherine Crows 2202. File clerk... 2, 424, 78 Lucille Htzemald oo}... do... 2,424 78 Alyce Gartrell. ow... ado, 2, 304 08 Eileen Sonnett. -do. ~~) 2,279.05 Alice Walker... .-do... w.--| 2,424 78 Gladys Slack_... 2.222. File clerk (May 1 759, 08 throngh June 30, 1950), EMPLOYEES CARRIED ON PERMANENT HOUSE PAYROLL Frank 8. Tavenner, Jr | Committee counsel..| 5, 422 98 TLoulsd, Russell... Sentor inve tigator..| 6, 422 98 John Carrington. 2... Clerk. 22. - sel 4,781 60 Benjamin Mandel... Director ofresearch..} 4,970 94 Donald VT. Appell... Investigator... |) 4,724 07 Ann Turner... Chiefof files... 2. | 4,067 40 Carolyn Roberts Assistant chief of files | 2,714 46 Rosella A Pind Secretary to counsel 3, 197, 26 ‘Thelma Scearce.. Secretary to senior | 2, 907. 58 investigator. Juhette Joray. 2.222... Secretary to clerk....] 2,473.06 Funds authorized or appropriated for com- mattee expenditures....0-- 2-22 eee eee $350, 000, 00 Hi. Res. 78 Feb 9, 1949 22.2... eneee 214), 000 00 HH. Res 482, Mar. 23, 1050.....0.000.- 5 00 oy Amount of expenditures previously — re- ported, December 1948 to December 1949. Amount expended from Dee, 31, 1949, to June 30, 1950.0... eee eee 131, 267, 11 104, 614, 51 Total amount expended from Decem- ber 1948 to June 1950__._-2 222-22. 23h, BRE 02 114, 118 38 Joun S. Woop, Chairman, Commuitee on Un-Amerte can Activities. COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS JuLy 11, 1950. To the CLERK oF THE HOUSE’ The above-mentioned committee or sub- committee, pursuant to section 134 (b) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, Public Law 601, S2venty-ninth Congress, ap- proved August 2, 1946, as amended, submits the following report showing the name, pro- fession, and total salary of each person em- ployed by it during the 6-month period from December 31, 1949, to June 30, 1950, inclusive, together with total funds authorized or appropriated and expended by it: ~— Total fross. . salary Name of employee Profession during 6-month period Ida Rowan....2.0.0..- Chief clerk 1.2.12... $5, 422, 98 Edwin B. Patterson..| Professional nid_..2.| 5,422 98 Casey M, Jones....-.-|-.-. do ...... 5, 422 08 Karl Standish... 00.00. - do. ... 6,422 08 Paul K. Jones . ..... | Assistant clerk. | 4,551 24 Frances Montanye....} Clerk-stenographet..| 2, 448. 92 Mary Sehmldt Ponow.|.... do 2. 2. 2222222-] 2,424.78 Goorgo J Turner... Assistant clerk. 2, 497. 20 Noah S. Sweat........|.---s dO. eeeweeee | 1,847 05 2 Oe ee 34, O81. 11 J. E. RANKIN, Chairman, COMMITTEE ON Ways AND MEANS JuLy 12, 1950. T> the Cuerx or THE House: The above-mentioned committee or sub- committee, pursuant to section 184 (b) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, Public Law 601, Seventy-ninth Congress, ap- proved August 2, 1946, as amended, submits the following report showing the name, pro- 10995 fession, and total salary of each person em- ployed by it during the 6-month period from January 1, 1950, to June 30, 1950, inclusive, together with total funds authorized or appropriated and expended by it: Total erows orn 7 \ salary Name of employee Profession during &month petlod Charles W. Davis... Clerk (OC). 222. $5, 422, 98 Leo H, Irwine....22..- Professional assist- | 8, 721, 74 unt (P) , Stella O. Millet. 22. Assistant clerk (C). | 3,076 Gladys UL. Kullberg | Staff assistant (C).-. 880. 64 (from Jan, 1 to Feb, 24, 1950), Ralph CG Simmerson foo... do... eee wenee | 1,040.46 (from Jan, 1 to Mar, 31, 1950), Tlatriet Bo Lamb _.. a 2,207 52 Dons C. Miekelson |i... dO we. ce een 1, 878, (hom Mar, 1 to June 30, 1950), Johnnie Koonty (from |..... ae C07. 34 May 8 to June 30, 19950) Gordon Grand, Jr..... M nay Ity adviscr | 5,242.50 CP) Busan Alice Taylor... Minority Stenogra: | 2,377. 68 pher (C) Farry Parkers ool..l.. Messenger. ec eeee 1, 381,92 Som Hardy . .. we -d0.. 1, 630, 80 Esmer Durham....-.- caee Uo eee Funds authorized or appropuated for com- mittee expenditures. ..0222220.22- 2222. -- $25,000 00 Amount expended from July L to Dee 31, W49. ee eee eee eee eee 19. 50 Total amount expended from Jan. 1 to June 80, 1950.2. Lee a nee e ween we eee e eee 7,074 22 Balance aneypended as of June 30, 1950. R. L. Doucuwron, Chairman, 7, 925, 6S SELEcT COMMITTEE ON LOBBYING ACTIVITIES JULY 12, 1950. Tu the CLERK OF THE HOUSE’ The above-mentioned committee or sub- committee, pursuant to section 134 (b) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, Public Law 601, Seventy-ninth Congress, up- proved August 2, 1946, as amended, submits the following report showing the name, pro- fession, and total salary of each person em- ployed by it during the 6-month period from January 1, 1980, to June 30, 1950, inclusive, together with total funds authorized or appropriated and expended by it: Total grons salary during 6-month pertod Namo of employce Profession ne ree | ee Tancien Halmer.... 2... Staff director_.... . | $4,194 08 Thomas F, Flynn, Jr..| Assistant staff die | 3, 418 v8 rector Lonis Little.... 222... Legal investigative 4, 793, 16 otal, Benedict. F. Fitz- jo... O..eewneccenne.| 4, 182 12 Gerald, Jr. Joseph M. Mannix .. | . do 2, 708, 60 William Earl Griffin. .| Clerk. 3, 008, 14 Edward Wart. 22222. Resear n Tis, Sti Charles B Wolstein.. | Researeh director. ..[ 4,482 12 Trene Salmans._.--22..) Clerk-stenographer_. 325 68 Eva B Hester... $58 48 Vivien I McConnell. 572, 9 Rose Mary Basile_.... 180 BA Total. oc cel cence eee nee nnnenn} 2, X12, 89 Funds authorized or appropriated for com- mittee expenditures... 2-22-22. ween $65, 000, 00 Amount of expenditures proviously reported. 8, 825. 70 Amount expended irom Jan 1 to June 30, 1950... nee nee eee $2, 277, 24 Total amount expended from Jan, 1 to June 30,1840. 2. eee een eee 51, 097.13 Balance uneapended as of June 30, 1950 1. 2. 25, 877.17 Frani BUCHANAN, Chairman,
10906 SELEcT COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS June 30, 1950. To the Cixex or THE Hovuss: The above-mentioned committee or sub- committee, pursuant to section 134 (b) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1046, Public Law 601, Seventy-ninth Congress, ap- proved August 2, 1946, as amended, submits the tollowing report showing the name, pro- fession, and total salary of each person em- ployed by it during the 6-month period from January 1, 1950, to June 30, 1950, Inclusive, together with total funds authorized or appropriated and expended by it: Total grass Name of employee Profession ey 6-month period Victor P Dalmas Executive director. | $5, 422 08 Mildied Deen -| Stenographer _._ 22. 1, 8K8 86 Ots HO EIhs....... Speelal counsel for | 2,714 46 petroleum (part time) Biehard Ro Haas _...) Research assistant . | 1,8 82 Rowan Fo Howurd....[ Special investigator 30 30 (May 1 to 14) Inge Waiser,o. Jl.0.] Research assistant | 1,171 06 (Feb 10 to May 1h) Joseph W) Kaufman. .| Chief counsel... .._.] 5, 422 98 Engene Kelly ooo .l.. Rereareh assistant 1,263 62 (Jan Ito Feb 2k), Arthur B. Lucas......] Economist - consult- 625 00 ant (vations dates, Apr. 28 to June 30), TaVerne Mavnard..o.] Stenographer of 2,106 12 Vernon A, Mund ..2.] Economist - consult- 425 00 ant (June 12 tos), Bertha A Padgett co} Sceretury 22002 cole.) 2,424 78 Kathryn Fo Smith 222] Chief elork. 22022... 2, 805 RO Muty Nell Snow... Ty pist June 20 and 14, 46, 30 Ann K. Yost ....22.../ Stenographer (May 41 97 17 to 20) Walter Adams........ Economist - consult- 60. UU ant (June 26, 27, nud 24). Funds authorized or appropriated for com- Imittee expenditures... 0. 0..022-- ween ee $100, 000 00 i Sones e Amount of expenditures previously 1eport- Cd. wlll... ene ween ---- 55, 902. 60 Amount expended from Jun. 1 to June 30, WH) oe eee ee eee ee ee nee eee 33, 440 19 Total amount expended from Feb. 2, 1949, to June 30, 1950... 2222222222. = 90,382 79 Balance unexpended as of June 30, 1050... 2. 69, 617 21 WRIGHT PATMAN, Chairman. SENATE Turspay, Jury 25, 1950 (Legislative day of Thursday, July 20, 1950) The Senate met at 11 o’clock a. m., on the expiration of the recess. The Chaplain, Rev. Frederick Brown Harris, D. D., offered the following prayer: O God our Father, in hours of confu- sion and anxiety we are sure of no light but Thine, no refuge but in Thee. In these hard bestead and dangerous days we would find peace in the midst of the storm and cleansing for the baseness of our own hearts. In this hour of the Na- tion’s peril, sober us with a solemn sense of personal responsibility, with the reali- zation that Thy call to every man is to contribute to the world’s good his own life, strong and clean, honest, trust- worthy, and serviceable, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE As the bugles sound for the defense of precious things that are dearer than life, out of the depths we cry unto Thee, Thou Kindly Light. Our anguished hearts leap the scas to that far-away land where this very hour our own are con- tending so gallantly against the pagan powers of darkness. We pray that a sense of Thy presence may gird them as today they face unnumbered foes and in the tomorrows, when the gathering might of freemen shall push back the flood of ruthless aggression. We ask this in the calming assurance that con- quer we must, “For our cause it is just; And this be our motto: In God do we trust.” We ask it in the dear Redeemer'’s name, Amen. THE JOURNAL On. request of Mr. McFarLanp, and by unanimous consent, the reading of the Journal of the proceedings of Monday, July 24, 1950, was dispensed with. MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT— APPROVAL OF BILL A message in writing from the Presi- dent of the United States was commu- nicated to the Senate by Mr. Miller, one of his secretaries, and he announced that on July 24, 1950, the President had ap- proved and signed the act (S. 2079) for the relief of Mrs. Lydia L, Smith. MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE A message from the House of Repre- sentatives, by Mr. Chaffee, one of its clerks, announced that the House had passed the following bills, in which it requested the concurrence of the Sen- ate: H.R. 6240. An act to authorize the ap- pointment of a district Judge for the north- ern and southern districts of Indiana; and H.R. 6454. An act to authorize the ap- pointment of two additional district Judges for the northern district of Il{nois, LEAVE OF ABSENCE On his own request, and by unanimous consent, Mr. MILLIKIN was excused from attendance on the sessions of the Senate until Wednesday of next week. COMMITTEE MEETINGS DURING SENATE SESSION On request of Mr. McFar.anp, and by unanimous consent, the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on Labor and Public Works were authorized to meet this afternoon during the session of the Senate. ORDER FOR CALL OF THE CALENDAR TOMORROW Mr. McFARLAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate convenes tomorrow at 12 o’clock noon the unfinished business be tem- porarily laid aside for the call of the calendar for the consideration of meas- ures to which there is no objection, be- ginning where we left off on the last call, and including certain bills, the objection to which I understand has been with- drawn. The VICE PRESIDENT. Without ob- jection the Ust of additional bills will be JULY 25 printed in the Recorp at this point, in- dicating the calendar number and the bill number, The list is as follows: Calendar No. 1817, 8S. 1800, Calendar No. 1829, H. R. 1697. Calendar No, 1833, S. 3245. Calendar No. 1834, 8. 2484, Calendar No. 1835, 8. 2786. Calendar No, 1837, S. 3109, Calendar No. 1888, S. 3244. Calendar No. 1839, 8. 3246. Calendar No. 1840, 5. 3687. Calendar No. 1843, 8. 3682. Calendar No. 1844, H. R. 7266. Calendar No. 1845, H. R. 4390. Calendar No. 747, 8. 1837, Calendar No. 795, 8. 2294, Calendar No. 956, 8. 17. Calendar No. 968, H. R. 5647. Calendar No. 1272, H. R. 1056. Calendar No. 1596, H. R. 4653, Calendar No. 1813, 8. 1260. Calendar No. 1744, H. R. 5372, Calendar No. 1106, H. R. 4815. Calendar No. 1696, 8. 858. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, reserv- ing the right to object, there is no objec- tion on the part of the minority to adding these bills to the call of measures to be called, to which there is no objection. Of course, any Senator has the right to object to the consideration of any bill. However, I wish to ask the acting ma- jority leader whether it is his intention to resist or object to the consideration of any bill which was called and objected to previously, or am I to understand that no bills other than those to which there is no objection, including the list fur- nished this morning, may be considered? Mr. McFARLAND. I have only asked for unanimous consent for a call of the calendar from where we left off the last time, and to include in the call this list of additional bills. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator refers to bills to which there 1s no ob- jection. Mr. McFARLAND. Yes. Of course, any Senator may request unanimous consent at any time to take up other bills, to which any Senator, of course, may object. The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there ob- jection to the unanimous-consent re- quest of the Senator from Arizona? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered. TRANSACTION OF ROUTINE BUSINESS By unanimous consent, the following routine business was transacted: REPORT OF NATIONAL ADVISORY COUN- CIL ON INTERNATIONAL MONETARY AND FINANCIAL PROBLEMS—MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT (H. DOC. NO. 658) The VICE PRESIDENT laid before the Senate the following message frora the President of the United States, which was read, and, with the accompanying report, referred to the Committee on Banking and Currency: To the Congress of the United States: I transmit herewith a Report of the National Advisory Council on Interna- tional Monetary and Financial Problems covering its operations from October 1, 1949, to March 31, 1950, and describing in accordance with section 4 (b) (5) of the Bretton Woods Agreements Act, the
1950 participation of the United States in the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development for the above period. Harry S, Truman, Tue WHITE House, July 25, 1950. REPORT ON STOCKPILING PROGRAM The VICE PRESIDENT laid before the Senate a letter from the Acting Chair- man of the Munitions Board, Washing- ton, D. C., transmitting, pursuant to law, a@ report on the stockpiling program, and a confidential statistical supple- ment, which, with the accompanying papers, was referred to the Committee on Armed Services. PETITIONS Petitions, etc., were laid before the Senate, or presented, and referred as indicated: By the VICE PRESIDENT: A joint resolution of the Legislature of the State of Washington, to the Committee on Public Works “House Joint Memorial 3 “To the Honorable Harry S Truman, Presi- dent of the United States of America, and to the Honorable Senate and House of Representatives of the United States in Congress assembled: “We, your memorialists, the Senate and House of Representatives of the State of Washington, in legislative session assembled, most respectfully represent and petition as follows: “Whereas the war emergency has placed an undue amount of wear and burden upon the highways of the State of Washington because of the movement of army matériel and equipment; and “Whereas Fort Lewis and other military reservations and airfields are situated in the State of Washington, and “Whereas Fort Lewis is so sivuated that the movement of matériel and equipment to and from Fort Lewis results in an espe- cially heavy amount of wear and strain upon the highways of the State of Washington; and “Whereas much of such movement is in the form of excess weights over and beyond the legal weights established by law and have caused, are causing, and will continue to cause an undue amount of damage to the highways of the State of Washington; and “Whereas the United States Government has in the past recognized such excess use and deterioration of the highways by making suitable allowances to compensate the State of Washington for such use and deterlora- tion. “Now, therefore, your memorialists respect- fully pray that the Congress of the United States speedily take appropriate action to recompense the State of Washington for such wear and deterioration of its high- ways, and be it “Resolved, That copies of this memorial be immediately transmitted to the Honorable Harry S Truman, President of the United States, the Secretary of the United States Senate, the Clerk of the United States House of Representatives, and to each Member of Congress from the State of Washington, “Passed the house July 20, 1950 “Cras. W. Hoppe, “Specker of the House. “Passed the senate July 21, 1950, “Victor A. Meyers, “President of the Senate. A resolution adopted by the Asscclated Townsend Clubs of Pinellns County, at St Petersburg, Fla, favoring the enactment of CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE the so-called Townsend plan, providing old- age assistance, to the Committee on Finance. The petition of Mrs. Oda B. Thompson, of Collingdale, Pa, relating to her claim for compensation for certain inventions, to the Committee on the Judictary. TARIFF DUTY ON MOTORCYCLES AND PARTS—LETTER FROM WILLIAM H. BEYER Mr. WILEY. Mr. President, coopera- tion and unity must be the order of the day at home and abroad in this present Korean crisis. Certainly never before has it been more essential that we co- ordinate our efforts with the British Commonwealth of Nations, and with our other western allies. At the same time, however, it would be most unrealistic if we failed to appreci- ate the fact that the British are con- tinuing to look after their interests inso- far as domestic and foreign trade are concerned; and it is incumbent upon us to do hkewise. Naturally, we want to promote world commerce, but at the same time, we must consider American living standards. I have in my hand a letter received from one of the many Wisconsin unions which have contacted me regarding the issue of reasonable pro- tection of their jobs from further arbi- trary slashes in tariff duties. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the letter which came from Wilham H. Beyer, recording secretary of the Metal Polishers Union in Racine, Wis, be ap- propriately referred and printed at this point in the Recorp, because I think it 1s a typical “grass roots” expression on the tariff situation. There being no objection, the letter was referred to the Committee on Finance, and ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: MetTat POLISHERS, BUFFERS, PLATERS AND HELPERS INTERNA-= TIONAL UNION, LocaAL No 89, Racine, Wis., July 12, 1950. Senator ALEXANDER WILEY, United States Senate, Washington, D C. Dear Sir It has come to the attention of our union that the present import duty on British motorcycles and parts is and has been much too low, and hence may have serious effects upon our future wage scule and work- ing conditions Our standard of living must be maintained Our wage scale must remain high and since there is & very small possibility of the costs of material coming down, it is with deep concern that we urge you to exert all possible pressure on the Tariff Commission and the State Department so that the present tariffs will be raised, Competition is, of course, an American tra- dition, but since the standards of living here and in England are so vastly different, it is absolutely necessary that something be done Excessive imports at low rates of duty and based on devaluated currencies may jeop- ardize our jobs. Any action you may take on this will be greatly appreciated by all the members of this union Very truly yours, Wiituam H. Beyer, Recording Secretary. FEDERAL AID TO HIGHWAYS—TELEGRAM AND RESOLUTIONS FROM NORTHEAST- ERN REGION OFFICIALS Mr. TOBEY. Mr. President, I present for appropriate reference, and ask unan- ‘ 10907 imous consent to have printed in the REcorD, a telegram from Frank D, Mer- rill, commissioner, department of public works and highways, Concord, N. H., and five resolutions adopted by the confer- ence of Northeastern Region Highway Officials, at New York City, relating to Federal aid to highways. There being no objection, the telegram and resolutions were referred to the Committee on Public Works, and ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Concorp, N. H, July 18, 1950, Senator CHARLES W. Toney, Senate Office Building, Washington, D C.: Am air malling you resolutions special meeting Northeast Region State Highway Officials which are in effect a protest against further control by Federal Government on local matters pertaining to highways, as in- dicated by revised Senate highway bill. Res- olutions 1 and 4 are more of interest to New Hampshire than others. Our feeling 1s basically we are concerned with all matters presented by Senate bill and concur on many points, but fecl they are State problems which we can solve without supervision, New Hampshire last year paid in over $4,000,- 000 in highway-user taxes and received back slightly over €2,000,000 Cost of benev- olent supervision seems rather high, and we can struggle along without more of it, Frank D MERRILL, Commissioner, Department of Pub- lic Works and Highways, Resolution 1 Whereas the pending Federal aid highway legislation has established tentative for- mulas for the allocation of funds approe priated for highway purposes; and Whereas it is to the interest of better Na- tion-wide highway transportation that such allocations be established in respect to pre- dominant needs* Be it therefore Resolved, That in the authorization of Fed- eral aid highway funds, and Jn the allocation of such funds to the various States that the Congress of the United States give full con~ sideration to the needs of the more populous States where the need for such highways is the greatest, the cost of construction is the highest, and where the traffic lond is the heaviest; and be it further Resolved, That the amendments proposed by the Sonate of the United States, Commit- tee of Public Works, to the Federal Aid High- way Act of 1950, are utterly contrary to the transportation and highway needs of the Nation. Resolution 2 Whereas lines 8 to 10 on page 20 of Senate committee print H R 17941, dated June 29, 1950, beginning with the words “In the use of funds,” relates to matters which can only be resolved by engineering studies; and Whereas the inclusion of such provisions in Federal aid highway legislation would re- sult in endless red tape, confusion, and would improperly interfere in the States’ rights to determine the best methods of meeting and providing for their respective traffic problems: Therefore be it Resolved, That this section be not included in any Federal aid highway legislation to be considered and adopted by the Congress of the United States. — Resolution 3 ‘Whereas the pending Federal-ald highway legislation contains a section referring to the construction of bypass routes and public hearings thereon; and Whereas the matter of the construction of bypass highways is a problem which can only
10908 be resolved after traffic investigation, to- gether with engineering and economic studies, which could, if subjected to man- dated public hearings, become adversely col- ored because of nontechnical considerations: Be it therefore Resolved, That no Federal-aid highway legislation adopted by the Congress of the United States should mandate any State or Federal agency to hold public hearings in connection with the location, design, and construction of Federal-aid highways. Resolution 4 Whereas legislative provisions for the au- thorization, allocation, and expenditure of Federal-aid funds for the improvement of secondary highways are of extreme Impor- tance to all States; and Whereas the northeastern-region States highway officials have studied this matter diligently and have reached a unified conclu- sion as to the needs of their respective States im particular: Be it Resolved, That the authorization, alloca~ tion, and expenditure of Federal-aid second- ary-highway funds should be as provided in the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1944, as amended in 1948, and as set forth in H. R. 7041, and approved by the House of Representatives. Resolution 5 Whereas Federal-aid highway legislation pending in the Senate contains provisions which if enacted would require the entry of Federal agencios into the organization and administration of State departments, and Whercas such procedure would be an un- warranted interference with the inherent right of the various States to establish the internal workings of their own governmental agencies; and Whereas it is impractical and undemo- cratic for the Federal Government, by Fed- eral-aid legislation, to dictate the type of bureau or other agency that a State must establish within {ts highway or public-works department in order to become eligible for Federal aid: Be it Resolved, That any provision, directly or indirectly giving the Federal Government additional controls over and above those already provided should be deleted from pending Federal-aid highway legislation. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES The following reports of committees were submitted: By Mr. O'MAHONEY, from the Commit- tee on Interfor and Insular Affairs, H. R. 5098 A bill to authorize the leasing of restricted Indian lands for public, re- gious, educational, recreational, business, and other purpuses requiring the grant ot long-term leases; with amendments (Rept. Ne. 2153); H.R. 6958. A bill authorizing the Secre- tary of the Interior to issue # patent in fee to Francis Lee Edwards; with amendments (Rept. No. 2160); H.R. 6963. A bill authorizing the Secre- tary of the Interior to issue a patent in fee to Guy L. Heckenlively; without amend- ment (Rept. No. 2154); H. R. 6964. A bill authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to issue a patent in fee to Josephine Stevens Goering; without amend- ment (Rept. No, 2155); H.R. 7017. A bill authorizing the Secre- tary of the Interior to issue a patent in fee to Edgar 8. Bigman; with amendments (Rept. No. 2161); H.R. 7298. A bill authorizing the Secre- tary of the Interior to issue a patent in fee to Charlotte Getsdorff Kibby; without amendment (Rept. No. 2156); H.R. 7294. A bill authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to issue a patent in fee to CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Rebecca Collins Ross; without amendment (Rept. No. 2157); and H.R. 7934. A bill to reduce and revise the boundaries of the Joshua Tree National Monument in the State of California, and for other purposes; with amendments (Rept. No. 2166). By Mr. TYDINGS, from the Committee on Armed Services: H R. 7439. A bill to protect the national security of the United States by permitting the summary suspension of employment of civilian officers and employees of various de- partments and agencies of the Government, and for other purposes; with amendments (Rept. No. 2158). By Mr. McCARRAN, from the Committee on the Judiciary: H. R. 4989. A bill to provide for the pay- ment of Just compensation to John It Estate Limited, a Hawalian corporation, for the taking by the United States of private fish- ery rights tn Pearl Harbor, Island of Oahu, Territory of Hawaii; with an amendment (Rept. No 2159). By Mr. CONNALLY, from the Committee on Foreign Relations: S. 3862. A bill authorizing the Ogdensburg Bridge Authority, its successors and assigns, to construct, maintain, and operate a bridge across the St. Lawrence River at or near the city of Ogdensburg, N. Y.; without amend- ment (Rept. No. 2165); H.J.Res 434, Joint resolution providing for recognition and endorsement of the Cali- forma World Progress Exposition; with amendments (Rept. No. 2162); and H. J. Res. 453. Joint resolution authorizing the President to invite the States of the Union and foreign countries to participate in the First United States International Trade Fair, to be held at Chicago, Ill, August 7 through 20, 1950, without amendment (Rept. No. 2168). NATIONAL MINERALS ACT OF 1950—- REPORT OF A COMMITTEE Mr. O’MAHONEY. Mr. President, from the Committee on Interior and In- sular Affairs, I report an original bill, to stimulate exploration for and conserva- tion of strategic and critical ores, metals, and minerals, and for other purposes, and I submit a report (No. 2164) thereon. The VICE PRESIDENT. The report will be received, and the bill will be placed on the calendar. The bill (S. 3972) to stimulate explora- tion for and conservation of strategic and critical ores, metals, and minerals, and for other purposes, was read twice by its title, and ordered to be placed on the calendar. BILLS INTRODUCED Bills were introduced, read the first time, and, by unanimous consent, the second time, and referred as follows: By Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado: 8.3963. A bill for the relief of Emma Pomeroy Von Lewinski; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado (for him- self and Mr. MILLIKIN) : 8.3964. A bil! to amend the authority given the Secretary of the Interlor by the act of June 25, 1947, to construct the Paonia recla- mation project, Colorado, and for other pur- poses; to the Committee on Interior and In- sular Affairs. By Mr. CORDON: 8.3965. A bill to confer jurisdiction upon the Court of Claims to hear, determine, and render judgment upon the claim of the Lamm Lumber Co.; 8. 3966. A bill to confer jurisdiction upon the Court of Claims to hear, determine, and JULY 25 render judgment upon the claim of the For- est Lumber Co.; and 8. 3987. A bill to confer jurisdiction upon the Court of Claims to hear, determine, and render judgment upon the claim of the Al- goma Lumber Co. and its successors in in- terest, George R. Birkelund and Charies E. Siddall, of Chicago, Ill., and Kenyon T. Fay, of Los Angeles, Calif., trustees of the Algoma Lumber Liquidation Trust; to the Commit- tee on the Judiciary. By Mr. KEFAUVER: 8.3968, A bill to provide for the abatement of tax of certain trusts, the income and corpus of which are equitably owned by mem- bers of the Armed Forces who died on or after December 7, 1941, while in active service as a member of the military or naval forces of the United States or of any of the other United Nations and prior to January 1, 1948; to the Committee on Finance. 8.3969. A bill tor the relief of William Hoyt Brown; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. PEPPER: 8.3970. A bill for the relief of John 8. Muratis; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. TYDINGS (by request) : 8.3971. A bil! to amend the act entitled “An act to authorize certain administrative expenses in the Government service, and for other purposes,” approved August 2, 1946 (60 Stat. 806), and for other purposes; to the Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments. (Mr. O’MAHONEY, from the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, reported an orig- inal bill (8. 3972) to stimulate exploration for and conservation of strategic and critical ores, metals, and minerals, and for other pur- poses, which was ordered tu be placed on the calendar, and appears under a_ separate heading ) By Mr. SALTONSTALL (by request): 8.3973. A bill for the relief of Giovanni Pepe; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. SCHOEPPEL: 8.8974. A bill for the relief of Betty Minoru Kawachi; to the Committee on the Judictary. PRINTING OF BULLETIN ENTITLED “MO- BILIZATION PLANNING AND THE NA- TIONAL SECURITY” Mr. KEFAUVER. Mr. President, be- cause of the world situation and the great interest in economic mobilization, it is extremely fortunate that the Library of Congress has completed studies on Mobilization Planning. Dr. William Y. Elliott, of Harvard, has headed a group making the study. It is a document which should be widely distributed and will prove of great value in our present situation. I therefore submit at this time a Senate resolution to authorize the printing as a Senate document of Public Affairs Bulletin No. 81 entitled “Mobilization Planning and the National Security” prepared by the Legislative Reference Service of the Library of Con- gress. The resolution (S, Res. 319) was re- ferred to the Committee on Rules and Administration, as follows: Resolved, That Public Affairs Bulletin No. 81, entitled “Mobilization Planning and the National Security,” prepared by the Legis- lative Reference Service, Library of Congress, be printed as a Senate document. HOUSE BILLS REFERRED OR PLACED ON CALENDAR The following bills were each read twice by their titles, and referred, or placed on the calendar, as indicated: H.R. 6240. An act to authorize the ap- pointment of a district Judge for the north-
1950 ern and southern districts of Indiana; to the Committee on the Judiclary. H.R. 6454. An act to authorize the ap- pointment of two additional district Judges for the northern district of Illinois; ordered to be placed on the calendar. GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS BILL— AMENDMENT Mr. KEFAUVER submitted an amend- ment intended to be proposed by him to the bill (H. R. 7786) making appropria- tions for the support of the Government for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1951, and for other purposes, which was or- dered to lie on the table and to be printed. CANADIAN RIVER RECLAMATION PROJ- ECT, TEXAS—AMENDMENTS Mr, CHAVEZ submitted amendments intended to be proposed by him to the bill (H. R. 2733) to authorize the con- struction, operation,and maintenance by the Secretary of the Interior of the Canadian River reclamation project, Texas, which were ordered to lie on the table and to be printed. REFERENCE OF SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 08 On request of Mr. McFaruanp, Sen- ate Concurrent Resolution 98, to print additional copies of hearings in the in- vestigation of disloyalty in the State De- partment, submitted by Mr. WHERRY (for himself and Mr. Fercuson) on July 24, 1950, was referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration. INVESTIGATION OF EXCLUSION OF JOSEPH KRIPS AND WALTER CIESEKING FROM THE UNITED STATES Mr. LANGER submitted the following resolution (S. Res. 320), which was re- ferred to the Committee on the Judi- ciary: Resolved, That the Committee on the Judi- clary, or any duly authorized subcommittee thereof, is authorized and directed to make a full and complete investigation of the action of the Immigration and Naturalization Serv- ice in excluding Joseph Krips and Walter Gieseking from the United States. The com- mittee shall report to the Scnate at the earliest practicable date the results of its investigation, together with such recom- mendations as it may deem advisable. YOUNG AMERICAN MEDAL FOR BRAVERY—AMENDMENT Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, I send to the desk for appropriate refer- ence an amendment to House bill 157, authorizing the Attorney General of the United States to recognize and to award to outstanding courageous young Ameri- cans a medal for heroism known as the Young American Medal for Bravery, which is on the calendar, and will be reached when the calendar is called to- morrow. I ask unanimous consent that a statement preparcd by me concerning the amendment may be printed in the Recorp. In the statement I have also .ommented on Senate Concurrent R2so- Jution 35, requiring committee reports to include estimates of the probable cost of proposed legislation, which I submitted on behalf of the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Brioces], the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Byrp], and myself, XCVI—~ -€37 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE and which is now on the calendar. My statement applies to both those matters. I also ask unanimous consent that a copy of the concurrent resolution, as re- ported, be printed in the Recorp follow- ing the statement. The VICE PRESIDENT. The amend- ment will be received, printed, and lie on the table, and, without objection, the statement presented by the Senator from Michigan, together with a copy of the concurrent resolution, will be printed in the Recorp. The Chair hears no ob- jection. The statement presented by Mr. Fercuson is as follows: STATEMENT BY SENATOR FERGUSON Mr. President, I send to the desk an amend- ment to H. R. 157, a bill pending on the Senate Calendar, and ask that the amend- ment be read and Me on the table. This amendment, Mr. President, may ap- pear on the surface to be of minor conse- quence. But I think it is of tremendous importance to the Congress and to the Nation because of its basis in principle. H.R. 157 is a bill authorizing the Depart- ment of Justice to recognize and award to courageous young Americans a medal for heroism known as the Young American Medal for Bravery. It comes from the Judi- clary Committee, and as a member of that committee it received my attention there. I have absolutely no lack of sympathy for the purposes of this bill. I would not wish to retard its progress except for this one fact: It is a perfect example of the Congress of the United States bestowing a new function upon an executive department without any knowl- edge whatsoever of that function's prospec- tive cost. It so happens that an investigation of this particular function's cost reveals that the principal {tems of expense attached to it are not expected to involve more than 83,900 a year. Accordingly, my amendment proposes to limit the sums authorized for expenditure to $5,000 a year. Incidentally, the investiga- tion of cost was made by Congressman FRANK CHELF, of Kentucky, who is the author of the bill. I deeply appreciate the fact that he has recognized the basis of my previous reservations to the measure and has borne with me and in fact endorses my amendment. In a budget of billions the amount in- volved in this bill is of minor consequence. But I wish to repeat, Mr. President, that for Congress to enact any legislation without knowing its cost is to invite a fiscal fate for this Nation that is inexcusable. I happen to be one of those who has preached governmental economy ever since I came to the Senate, and I have honestly sought to practice it. I have studied the problem of effectuating economy at con- siderable length, I have been a party to all of the budget-trimming devices of recent years. There may be recalled the 5- and 10- percent reduction amendments I offered to each appropriation bill in the last Congress. I joined in drafting and introducing the proposed 10-percent reduction on the pend- ing appropriation bill. In common with every other student of the subject that I know, however, I have come to the conclusion that it is Impossible to reduce the cost of Government in any- thing hke the measure desired by the people of this country simply by whittling at appropriations. It is all very well to talk about cutting the deadwood out of Government offices. That needs to be done. But a flat 10-percent re- duction in all Government civilian employ- mont would realize an annual saving of only about $646,000,C00, or about 14, percent of the entire Fedoral budget. 10909 As @ member of the Appropriations Com- mittee I am keenly aware of this problem. Each year I sit in those committee sessions, and I and other members search and probe for means to reduce appropriations. We are sometimes successful, for there is a great deal of padding that goes into budget esti- mates. But the fat which we can trim is small in proportion to the whole. And each time that we run head-on into that dead end we are told just this: “Well, Mr. Senator, you authorized the program. We are only carrying out the law, and that costs money.” Right there, Mr, President, is the core of the whole prablem. Inefficlency adds to the cost of Government, but the main cost comes from the scope and size of Government and its functions. I suggest, Mr. President, that one of the most constructive things that Congress could do would be to review all legislation on the statute books which authorizes or re- quires expenditures and to start from there to weed out some of the things that are absolutely unessential or least essential. I have in mind such things as surveys whose results are published years after the period of any real usefulness, the rafts of Government publications that serve only limited demands and specialized interests, and the host of information activities that merely propagandize some governmental project. I do not propose that Government revert to merely maintaining post roads and cus- toms services. There are a@ lot of things in which Government is engaged that I object to. But realities are to be faced, and Gov- ernment rarely retraces its steps. In recent years Government has assumied a vast range of functions, some of which were sought by people who had a purpose in building up a powerful, centralized authority, and others which were imposed by citizens and groups of citizens for whom Government meant a relief to some burden they were carrying. What I am appealing for is that in des- ignating the functions which Government is to pursue we should also weigh the fiscal consequences of those programs. I am com- pletely satisfied that many functions author- ized by Congress and otherwise considered worth while would never have been approved had their cost been made known. I am sure that the President's legislative program for this Congress was retarded in no small meas- ure by the revelation of Senator MCCLELLAN that -were it to be enacted it would saddle this Nation with a future annual expendi- ture of $25,000,000,000. Congress is constantly being berated for its failure to exercise greater control over the fiscal policies of this country. The defense is sometimes made that Congress is a cap- tive, in fiscal matters, of the executive de- partment, which prepares the budgets. But the ultimate responsibility must be shared by Congress itself, which authorizes the ac- tivities upon which the budget estimates merely place a dollar sign. Let me illustrate why the cost of Govern- ment increases year after year. I have here a table showing the “Increases in 1951 budget estimates for the Department of Agriculture pursuant to new logisiation en- acted by the first session of the Eight-first Congress.” This is not to single out the Department of Agriculture as exceptional. It is just that a highly informative table was supplied by that Department to the Senate Appropriations Committee, I will ask that the table be printed at the end of my re- marks. The summary shows that legislation which we enacted last year has increased De- partment of Agriculture appropriation re- quirements by almost $75,000,000. Going further into that subject, I want to analyze the cost of the farm housing pro- gram which Congress authorized last year as a chapter of the Housing Act of 1949.
10910 I knew that it provided for repayable loans and grants for improvement of farm hous- ing in an amount of about 655,000,000 a year. What I did not know, and what I am sure no other Senator knew, was that the program would call for various agencies of the Government to come in this year and ask for $6,224,435 to administer the pro- gram. Here is just how that happened. The Farmers Home Administration, which administers the loans and grants that were authorized, requested $4,637,000 for salaries and expenses. The Bureau of Agricultural Economics asked for $40,000 “for economic research on methods of reducing ccsts of farm construc- tion, the size of housing investment which can be supported by farms of different sizes, types, and income potentialities, and effect of farmers’ circumstances and preferences with respect to types of housing," and $185,- 000 “for surveys to determine farm hous- ing needs and progress being made to meet these needs" That is a total of $225,000 for thyt Bureau. The extension services of the Department of Agriculture wanted $775,000 ‘for technical advice and assistance in farm housing and other farm buildings.” The Bureau of Plant Industry, Soils, and Agricultural Engineering wanted §25,C09 for “studies to determine methods of safe- guarding farm buildings from decay,” and $195,900 for “development of plans and specifications and research on methods of re- ducing costs of construction,” a total of $220,900. The Bureau of Human Nutrition and Home Economics wanted $51,000 for ‘development in cooperation with BPISAE (that is the Bu- reau of Plant Industry, Soils, and Agricul- tural Engineering) of suitable house plans and studies of minimum requirements for space and efficient arrangement for carrying on household activities.” Then, of course, the Office of the Solicitor in the Department of Agriculture had to be in the act. He wanted $320,000 ‘for legal services.” And finally, there was the inevitable re- quest of the Office of Information “for pub- Heations and informational services,” $15,535. Mr. President, when we pass a piece of leg- islation without knowing the cost it will en- tail we are in effect issuing a blank check, to be cashed at a later date wtih the Agures written in. I object strenuously to that pro- cedure, When I write a personal check I want to know what will be deducted from my bank account. The American people are also entitled to know what will be deducted from their bank accounts when we write checks in the form of legislation authoriz- ing new governmental activities. One positive way of telling them that amount is to place the figure itself in the authorizing legislation as a maximum amount, That is what I have proposed to do with H. R. 157 as an illustration of a paramount necessity. It may not always be practicable to write @ precise limitation into the bill itself. In my opinion that does not excuse the Con- gress from making every effort to inform it- self of the expected cost of any piece of legislation, For that reason I have intro- duced Senate Concurrent Resolution 35, which is now pending on the calendar. I earnestly hope we can get action on it in this session. That measure would require that every bill reported out of a legislative committee he accompanied by a statement of the proposed legislation’s cost over a 5-year period of op- eration, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Considering the fiscal problems with which this Government is confronted, that cost in- formation is vital to the evaluation of any piece of legislation. Without knowledge of the cost of the leg- isiation upon which it is passing, Congress cannot exercise the fiscal control which is its constitutional responsibility, and it can never hope to see the day when government economy is a reality, and not a promise. The concurrent resolution (8. Con. Res. 35) is as follows: Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That section 133 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, as amended, is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subsec- tion: “(g) All bills and joint resolutions re- ported from committees of the Senate or the House of Representatives shall be accom- panied by reports in writing, which shall be printed; and there shall be included in each such report or in an accompanying docu-~- ment an estimate from the department or other agency of the legislative, executive, or judicial branch of the Government primarily concerned with the expenditure of any funds required to meet the probable cost of carry- ing out the legislation proposed in such bill or resolution over the first 5-year period of its operation or over the period of its oper- ation if such legislation will be effective for tess than 6 years. “(2) Estimates received from departments or agencies under this subsection may be submitted by the committees to the Bureau of the Budget for review, and such reviews, when practicable, shall be included within the accompanying documents before sald bills and joint resolutions are reported. "(3) The Appropriations Committees of both Houses shall maintain compilations of all such estimates, and semiannually shall print those compilation (together with any comment of the Bureau of the Budget) in the form of anticipated legislative budgets for each of the ensuing 5 fiscal years for the information of the Congress.” ENROLLED BILLS PRESENTED The Secretary of the Senate reported that on today, July 25, 1950, he presented to the President of the United States the following enrolled bills: S. 1027. An act for the relief of the Merit Co; 8.1049. An act for the relief of Amy Alex- androvna Taylor and Myrna Taylor; 8.1792, An act for the relief of Thomas Nicholas Epiphaniades and Wanda Julia Epiphantades; 8.2243. An act for the relief of Tevfik Kamil Kutay; 8. 2864. An act to authorize certain ad- ministrative expenses for the Department of Justice, and for other purposes; and 8. 3987. An act to authorize the President to extend enlistments in the Armed Forces of the United States. GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS—AMEND~ MENT Mr. PEPPER submitted an amend- ment intended to be proposed by him to the bill (H. R. 7786) making appropria- tions for the support of the Government for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1951, and for other purposes, which was or- dered to lie on the table and to be printed. JULY 25 ADDRESS BY GOVERNOR WARREN, OF FLORIDA, BEFORF THE INVESTMENT BANKERS ASSOCIATION [Mr. PEPPER asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorp an address de- livered by Governor Warren, of Florida, before the Investment Bankers Association at the Biltmore Hotel, New York City, on June 22, 1950, which appears in the Appendix. ] COMMENTS BY HOWLAND H. SARGEANT ON REPORT ON FIFTH GENERAL CON- FERENCE OF UNESCO [Mrs. SMITH of Maine asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Rxcorp a letter signed by Howland H. Sargeant, chairman, United States delegation, commenting on the report on the Fifth General Conference of UNESCO, recently held in Florence, Italy, which appears in the Appendix.) TRIUMPII MOSCOW'S IF WE BECOME POLICE STATE—-EDITORIAL FROM THE BRIDGEPORT SUNDAY HERALD [Mr. BENTON asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorp an editorial entitled “Triumph Moscow's if We Become Police State,” published in the Bridgeport (Conn.) Sunday Herald, July 9, 1950, which appears In the Appendix. | THE PRACTICE OF GENOCIDE BY THE AUTHORITIES OF THE SOVIET UNION | Mr. LEHMAN asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorp a statement by Prof. Lev E. Dobriansky, president of the Ukrainian Congress Committee of America for Ratification of the Genccide Convention, which appears in the Appendix.] FEDERAL PRISON SYSTEM--ARTICLE FROM THE CHATTANOOGA NEWS-FREE PRESS {Mr. KEFAUVER asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorp an article entitled “No Loafers,” with reference to the Federal prison system, written by J. Pope Dyer, and published in the Chattanooga News-Free Press of June 29, 1950, which appears In the Appendix.] MILITARY TRAINING~-EDITORIAL FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES AND LETTER FROM DANIEL A. rOLING [Mr. McFARLAND asked and obtained leave to have printed in the RecorD an editorial entitled “Universal Military Train- ing,” and a letter from Dr. Daniel A, Poling on the subject of military training both from the New York Times of Sunday, July %3, 1950, which appear in the Appendix. AMEFICAN POLICY IN THE FAR EAST— ADDREES BY DR. EMORY W. LUCCOCK [Mr. SCHOEPPEL asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorp an address delivered by Dr. Emory W. Luccock, pastor of the First Presbyterian Church of Wichita, Kans, before the Wichita Rotary Club on July 3, 1950, which appears in the Appendix.] FILM FLUMMERY—ARTICLE BY BOSLEY CROWTHER [Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado asked and ob- tained leave to have printed in the Recorp an article entitled “Film Flummery,” written by Bosley Crowther, and published in the New York Times on July 23, 1950, which appears in the Aprondix.] THE HAMILTON-JEFFERSON PATHWAY TO ECONOMIC PROGRESS-—-ADDRESS BY BERTRAM M. GROSS [Mr. SPARKMAN asked and obtained Icave to have printed in the Recozp an uddress on
1950 the subject The Hamilton-Jefferson Path- way to Economic Progress, delivered by Bertram M. Gross, Executive Secretary of the President's Council of Economic Advisers, be- fore the Institute of Public Affairs, Univer- sity of Virginia, Charlottesville, Va., July 18, 1950, which appears fn the Appendix.} MAINTENANCE OF LAND AND WATER RESOURCES—STATEMENT OF PACIFIC COAST COUNCIL OF IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE OF AMERICA, INC. (Mr. MORSE askec and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorp a statement of Pacific Coast Council, Izaak Walton League of America, Inc., to Water Resources Policy Commission, which appears in the Appen- ix.] RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FEDERAL POWER POLICY BY PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC CO, [Mr. MORSE asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorp recommendations for Federal Power Policy, prepared by Thomas W. Delzell, Chairman of the Board of the Portland General Electric Co., which ap- pear in the Appenaix.] COMMUNISTS IN THE UNITED STATES— OFFICIAL FBI FIGURES . [Mr. MARTIN asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorp the official figures as to Communists in the United States, by States, prepared by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which appear in the Appen- dix.) COMMUNISTS IN THE UNITED STATES AND THE WAR IN KOREA [Mr. MARTIN asked and obtained leave to have printed in the REcoRD an editorial en- titled, “The Enemy at Home Is Dangerous: Uncover Him!” published in the Philadelphia Inquirer, July 25, 1050, which appears in the Appendix. } RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORA- TION—ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE AU-~ THORIZATIONS Mr. MAYBANK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Recorp a letter from the Recon- struction Finance Corporation, signed by Mr. Harley Hise, Chairman of the Board, relating to the appropriation for the administrative expenses of the Re- construction Finance Corporation. There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the REcorp, as follows: RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION, Washington, July 21, 1950. Hon. Burnet R. MAysank, Chairman, Treasury-Post Office Sub- committee of the Committee on Appropriations, United States Scn- ate, Washington, D. C. Dear SENATOR MayBaNK: In the Senate de- bate on H. R. 7786, as reported on pages 10166 and 10167 of the ConcresstonaL RECORD of July 14, 1950, there appeared to be some misunderstanding on the part of certain Senators speaking in opposition to the pro- posed amendment restoring $700,000 of the House reduction of $1,100,000 in the admin- istrative expense authorization of the RFC for the current fiscal year. I am writing to clarify some of the points raised, with the thought that this information will be help- ful to you in the forthcoming joint confer- ence on H. R. 7786 with members of the House Committee on Appropriations. First, I should like to discuss the budgetary implications of Reorganization Plan 22, which provides for the transfer of FNMA to the Housing and Home Finance Agency on CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE September 7, 1950. As you know, funds for administrative expenses of the RFC are not appropriated by the Congress. Instead, the annual appropriation bills authorize the Cor- poration to make necessary expenditures for this purpose, subject to specific Mmitation, out of corporate funds. This same authority extends to FNMA, as a subsidiary of the Corporation, and the dollar limitation estab- lished by the Congress covers the adminis- trative expenses of both the RFC and FNMA, When FNMA is transferred, the administra- tive expense limitation will be apportioned between the RFC and HHFA by the Director of the Bureau of the Budget, and RFC will have left only the amount necessary to carry on its rematning programs. I point this out to emphasize that the transfer of FNMA under Reorganization Plan 22 will not effect a reduction in the combined budget of RFC and FNMA, and it is the combined budget which the Congress is presently considering, rather than the budget of only the RFC. We are not in a position at this time to provide you with the exact dollar amount which will be transferred to HHFA for the FNMA program. As you Know, mortgage activities of FNMA are integrated with the loan operations of the RFC, and an extensive analysis of expenses and assignment of per- sonnel will be necessary before an equitable segregation of administrative funds can be accomplished. Tentatively, however, we estimate that approximately $4,000,000 will be transferred, of which 83,200,000 will pro- vide for salaries of some 750 employees to be transferred to HHFA. You will note that this is less than the amount shown in the budget document, and it 1s also approximately $1,500,000 less than the current rate of ex~- penditure of the FNMA program. As I stated before, FNMA activities are integrated with other lending activities of the Corporation, and in our organization are administered by the same supervisory personnel responsible for the proper administration of other RFC programs. In the allocation of administra- tive costs as stated in the budget document and other reports, this overhead expense 1s properly prorated between RFC and FNMA. Obviously, however, the Corporation could not transfer any appreciable number of its management group or top supervisors to another agency without seriously endanger~ ing the administration of its loan activities An analysis of our administrative costs indi!- cates that approximately 80 percent of the total represents nontransferable overhead, which accounts for the difference between our estimate of $4,000,000 to be transferred to HHFA and the current rate of expenditure of FNMA amounting to approximately $5,500,000. Next, I should like to comment bricfly on the Senate's restoration of $700,000 of the $1,100,000 reduction in our authorization recommended by the House. The major item to be considered in this connection js the cost of custodial and fiscal services performed for the Corporation by the Federal Reserve banks, Our budget originally provided $650,000 for this purpose. The House reduced that amount by $600,000 on the basis that these services should be discontinued im- mediately and the work transferred to the field offices of the Corporation. As wo stated during the hearings before your subcom- mittee, we are in complete accord with the House recommendation that custody of the security documents of the Corporation should be taken over from the Federal Re- serve banks, but because of the thousands of documents involved, transfer cannot be accomplished immediately. The Senate has restored $300,000, or one-half of the $600,000 reduction recommended by the House. I believe that this will provide the Corporation with sufficient funds to reimburse the Fed- eral Reserve banks until an orderly transfer can be accomplished, probably by December 10911 31, 1950. There has been a recent develop- ment in this take-over of the custody funo- tion which may alter our plans somewhat. Representatives of HHFA have requested thet we do not transfer the custody of mort+ gages from the Federal Reserve banks to our fleld offices until they have had an oppor- tunity to investigate thoroughly the type and cost of services performed by the banks. This request does not, I am sure, represent any basic disagreement on their part with the recommendation of the House Committee on Appropriations, but is made rather for the purpose of deferring any procedural changes until they have had an opportunity to evaluate all phases of the FNMA operations and have concluded their planning with respect to the FNMA organization and pro- cedures for transfer to their agency. The remaining $400,000 of the $700,000 in- crease passed by the Senate represents a partial restoration of House reductions in personnel and related expenses. In view of the continuing heavy workload on loan ap- plications and mortgages, I consider the restoration of this $400,000 of primary im- portance, Our original estimate provided for an increase of 90 man-years, and while the $400,000 will provide for only a part of that increase, it will help materially in eliminating backlogs of work in our field offices. I should like to express my gratitude for your eminently fair and impartial considera- tion of the Corporation's budget require- ments, and I sincerely hope that the author- ization of $26,700,000 as passed by the Senate will stand in the bill as finally enacted. Any lesser amount will certainly have an adverse effect on the proper administration of the Corporation’s programe. Sincerely yours, HaAr.Ley HIsE, Chairman, CALL OF THE ROLL Mr. McCARTHY obtained the floor. Mr. WHERRY. Mr, President, will the Senator yield so I may address an inquiry to the acting majority leader? Mr. McCARTHY. Yes. Mr. WHERRY. I should like to ask the acting majority leader whether he intends to have a quorum call. Several Senators have requested that a quorum call be had when the Senator from Wis- consin took the floor. I would rather have the acting majority leader suggest the absence of a quorum. Mr. McFARLAND. Does the dis- tinguished Senator from Wisconsin de- sire a quorum call? Mr. McCARTHY. It would be well to have one. The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator yield for that purpose? Mr. McCARTHY. I shall be very glad to yield for that purpose. Mr. McFARLAND. I suggest the ab- sence of a quorum. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Secre- tary will call the roll. The roll was called, and the follow- ing Senators answered to their names: Alken Kem Neely Darby Langer Schoeppel Donnell McCarthy Thomas, Utah. Gillette McFarland Wherry Hayden. McKellar Williams Hendrickson Martin Humphrey Mundt The VICE PRESIDENT. A quorum Is not present. The Secretary will call the names of the absent Senators. Mr. NEELY. Mr. President, I move that the Sergeant at Arms be directed
10912 to request the attendance of absent Sen- ators. The motion was agreed to. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Ser- geant at Arms will execute the order of the Senate. After a little delay Mr. Hory, Mr. Wat- xins, Mr. Butter, Mr. Myers, Mr. THYE, Mr, McManon, Mr. Frear, Mr. Suirx of New Jersey, Mr. Tart, Mr. MayBank, Mr. Rosertson, Mr. SPARKMAN, Mr. GEORGE, Mr, Ives, Mr. Mrnurkin, Mr. FLANDERS, Mr. Capenart, Mr. Brewster, Mr. Dovc- zas, Mr. Ertcker, Mr. STENNIS, Mr. JOHN~ son of Colorado, Mr. BENTON, Mr. ANDER- son, Mrs. SmirH of Maine, Mr. O’Manoney, Mr. HICKENLOOPER, Mr. O’Conor, Mr. Kerr, and Mr. JENNER en- tered the Chamber and answered to their names. Mr. Eripces, Mr. Byrd, Mr. CHAPMAN, Mr, Cuavez, Mr. Connatiy, Mr. CorDon, Mr. EasTuanp, Mr. Ecton, Mr. Fercuson, Mr, Grauam, Mr. GREEN, Mr. GURNEY, Mr, Hr1, Mr. Houianp, Mr. Hunt, Mr. JoHN- son of Texas, Mr. KErAvvER, Mr. KILcorE, Mr, Know anb, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. LEHMAN, Mr. Lopce, Mr. MALONE, Mr. McCarran, Mr. McCLELLAN, Mr. Morsg, Mr. Murray, Mr, Peprer, Mr. Russe,i, Mr. SALTON- STALL, Mr. Tuomas of Oklahoma, Mr. Torey, Mr. Typixos, Mr. Winey, and Mr, Youne also entered the Chamber and answered to their names. Mr. Mc#ARLAND. I announce that the Senator from California [Mr. Dow- NEY] is absent becausc of illness. The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. E1- LENDER], the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Fuericut!, the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Jonnston], and the Sen- ator from Illinois [Mr. Lucas] are absent on public business. The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Lone), the Senator from Washington (Mr. Macnuson], the Senator from Idaho (Mr. TayLor], and the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. WirHers] are ab- sent by leave of the Senate. Mr. SALTONSTALL. I announce that the Senator from Washington [Mr. Carn] and the Senator from Michigan {Mr. VANDENBERG] are absent by leave of the Senate. The Senator from Idaho [Mr. Dwor- SHAK] is absent on official business. The VICE PRESIDENT. A quorum is present. STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. President, I am about to do today what I had hoped it would not be necessary to do, namely, to use those portions of the State De- partment loyalty files which were devel- oped by the Federal Bureau of Investiga- tion. I picked out what I think js a typical case of the 81 examined by the Tydings-McMahon committee. I feel that the Senate and the country should know what js in a typical case which has been given a clean bill of health by the Tydings-McMahon committee. I dis- like doing this, Mr. President, I decided not to do it until after the committee finished its work. I hoped the commit- tee would go into the matter in some detail. My principal reason for not wanting to do it is that I feared it might CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE in some way embarrass the Federal Bu- reau of Investigation in future investiga. tions; that it might in some way hamper them. However, I have stricken from the secret file the names of all inform- ants and any other information which might in any way indicate who they are, While I did not discuss this matter with Mr, Hoover or any of his chief aides, or the heads of any other intel- ligence agencies, I did have in my office a@ man from one of the intelligence agen- cies and went over this matter with him in some detail. He assured me that sufficient materia] had been deleted from the report so as in no way to hamper any future investigation. Mr, President, while I have deleted the name of this individual, so that there will be no question that he is today work- ing in the State Department in a very important job, I shall hand the comrlete file, with nothing deleted from it, to the Senator on my right, the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Scuoepret], I shall also hand him the State Department tele- phone directory for 1950 containing the name of this individual. While the tele- phone directory does not indicate his im- portance, perhaps the Senator can get some idea of how he rates in the De- partment by the number of telephones he has. Incidentally, I had my staff call the Department yesterday, and call this man’s Office. He is still in the State Department. This is not one of the marginal cases, nor is it one of the worst cases. I tried to pick out a typical case from the 81 cases that were given to the committee. The Senate will recall that more than 5 months ago I stated that I had the names of 57 individuals who either are or recently had been working in the State Department, and who were either members of the Communist Party or cer- tainly loyal thereto and doing the work of the party. At various times I re- ferred to them as Communists or card- carrying Communists. I want to make it clear that when I refer to a card- carrying member I do not necessarily mean a man who has a little slip of cardboard in his pocket indicating that he has paid his dues. By a card-carry- ing member I mean the type of individual described in this FBI secret report which I hold in my hand. We find that the FBI placed in the Communist Party in 1937 one of their undercover agents. This man remained in the Communist Party until 1948. At that time he was expelled because, I assume, they suspected his being an agent for one of the intelligence agen- cies. The FBI lists this man as respon- sible and reliable. He is not listed as such by the Tydings committee or by me, but by the FBI. It will be noted on page 2 of the photo- stat, in the third paragraph, that this agent’s record was one of complete re- Hability. We find in this report that this FBI undercover agent, the man who was employed by the FBI and placed in the Communist Party, in his statement un- der oath states that this official in the State Department was a member of the party and was active in it. He states JULY 25 that this individual's wife also was a member of the party and was a member of and active in the Young Communist League. So when I refer to a card- carrying Communist, that is the kind of individual I refer to, even though there is nothing to show that he actually has a card in his pocket. After notifying the President and the Senate that I had the names of 57 in- dividuals, I supplied the committee with a résumé not only of the 57 cases but of a total of 81 cases. As I stated at the time, some of the 81 cases were marginal cases of in- dividuals who might well prove that they were completely loyal and that they were not members of the Communist Party, but there was evidence against them in- dicating the opposite. I notified the Senate at that time that it would be impossible for me personally to present sufficient evidence, separate and apart from the information con- tained in the Government files, to con- vict them of being Communists in a court of law. In other words, in order to prove them to be Communists, the files would have to be used, because for example, for me to reproduce the information in the file I hold in my hand would cost tens of thousands of dollars. This work was done by many agents. It was done by an agent in Minnesota, one in Michigan, one in New York, one in New Haven, one in San Francisco, one whose location is not indicated, one in Chicago, one in Virginia, and one in Washington, D. C. The name of the agent who did the work in Washington, D. C., is Thomas A. Con- roy, who I understand is one of the top FBI agents. As I told the Senate, it would be impossible for me to reproduce that information. If the committee was to do a good job they would have to take advantage of the millions of man-hours of the men who worked for the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency, Army In- telligence, Navy Intelligence, and other agencies. Apparently the Senate agreed with me at that time that it would be impossible for me to try to reproduce the evidence in these files. The Senate voted unani- mously that the committee should do the job, and the Senate voted the com- mittee almost unlimited funds and gave the committee authority to subpena not merely the raped or denuded State De- partment loyalty files but all the files in the intelligence agencies. The Senate felt that this job should be done honestly and above board. There is no reason why the committee should not have all the information about all the individuals accused of being Communists, and no reason why the committee should not have all the files including those of Central Intelligence, Army Intelligence, ONI, and Sccret Service. Mr. President, after the committee had been given this task and unlimited funds and authority with which to perform it, I gathered that my task would end at that point. However, when the Pres- ident decided to give the committee only the rifled State Department files I felt it necessary to try to produce independ-
1950 ently of the files some of the extremely Gangerous evidence against certain indi- viduals which is contained in the com- plete files. That was done with some degree of success, but with great diffi- culty and at considerable expense. While the committee was examining the 81 files I did not feel justified in pub- licly using the evidence in them. I felt it was necessary first to find the extent of the committee’s investigation of the files, the extent to which they were rifled, and so forth. In view of the fact that the committee has now finished its work and has now been discharged, and in view of the majority report that none of the 81 individuals named by me on the floor were found to be Communist or pro- Communist, I feel I have no choice but to make public the contents of a typical file of one of the 81 individuals named by me, so the Senate and the country may know what the committee had be- fore it and upon which its decision was based. In doing so, Iam mindful of the fact that I pointed out that the flles were thoroughly rifled prior to the commit- tee’s examination. However, the three majority members of the committee were unanimous in stating that the files had not been touched and that they were complete; and that all FBI material which had been furnished the State De- partment was reviewed by them. If such was the case, the material which I am giving the Senate and the country today was before the Senators and examined by them. Incidentally, Mr President, in connec- tion with the Tydings-McMahon com- mittee’s statement that they found no evidence on any of the 81 individuals indicating they were Communists or pro- Communists, and in view of the fact that they gave all the 81 individuals a clean bill of health, I think 1t should be noted that case No. 19 of the 81 was the case of Mr. William Remington. The Senate will recall that at the time the commit- tee took this action Mr Remington was working in the Department of Commerce with Mr. Lee. The Senate will recall that the Commerce Department and the State Department did quite a job of keep- ing from Korea and Formosa, and that area, the materials the Congress voted for them. At that time Mr, Remington was over there, secure in his job. I urged the staff of the commuttee that they give priority to the case of Reming- ton. I felt he was a dangerous man, as was the other one exposed in the Com- merce Department, Michael Lee. While Mr. Remington was not technically on the payroll of the State Department, his name was included, because he was work- ing so closely with the State Department there there was no way of Knowing whether he was under the orders of the State Department or the Commerce De- partment, unless one checked the payroll. Mr. President, the Tydings-McMahon committee took no action whatsoever on Remington. They said, “You go ahead and give us the proof.” Istated to them that they would find in his file the state- iments of men who were in the Commu- nist movement with him, showing that he also was a member of the Communist CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Party. This, of course, was given the same treatment as all the evidence I gave the committee. However, the House Committee on Un-American Activities, on its own, took this matter up and did an excellent job. It furnished the grand jury with information, with the end result that Mr. Remington was in- dicted for perjury in connection with his communistic activities. Mr. President, it seems rather un- usual, therefore—if we even take that one case alone, it is rather unusual— that the Tydings-McMahon committee could say that in the 81 cases, which in- cluded Remington, “We found no evi- dence of either communism or of anyone being pro-Communist,” even after the grand jury had indicted a man in con- nection with his communistic activities Mr President, I shall now read a typi- cal file of one of the individuals named by me. I call the attention of the Sen- ate to the fact that this FBI report shows that an FBI agent, an under-cover agent, joined the Communist Party in 1937 at the suggestion of the FBI; that he re- mained a party member until he was ex- pelled in 1948; that during that time he was found to be absolutely reliable He testified that this State Department of- ficial, whom we shall call Mr. X, was per- sonally known to him to be a member of the Communist Party, and that X had told him that he had been a member of the party before coming to this country. The State Department official, inciden- tally, was born in Moscow. It will be noted also that this FBI undercover agent made the unqualified statement that X's wife was also a member of the party both before and after her marriage to X, and that she was a member and active in the Young Communist League. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President—— The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr, Gi1- LETTE in the chair) Does the Senator from Wisconsin yield to the Senator from Nebraska? Mr. McCARTHY. Iam glad to yield. Mr WHERRY. Where was this testi- mony adduced by the FBI agent? Mr, McCARTHY. The testimony in the first three pages of the report was produced by Special Agent Thomas A. Conroy. Senators will note that in some cases I have stricken out the information indicating where a witness may reside. I did that purposely, so that I would not in any way endanger any FBI informant. Senators will notice this was received by the Civil Service Commission on Sep- tember 10 or 16—I cannot tell by the stamp which is the correct date—1948, The distribution was “To the Depart- ment of State, three copies.” So this was sent to the Department of State. I feel that in frankness I should have announced, as I have, that I do not think this material was in the file at the time of the examination. The Senators say it was, so we will take their word for that for the time being. I am sure the Senator from Nebraska will understand my reason for not trying to indicate exactly in what city some of this information was produced. I might say that at the time of the Coplon trial 10913 I felt that when the court ordered that the files be made available to the public, it was a great mistake to the court yes, but to the public, no. I felt that to di- vulge the names of the informants, the methods of operation, the method the FBI used in getting its men into the movement, may have set the Bureau back years. I have tried to avoid doing that in my presentation. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further? Mr. McCARTHY. I yield to the Sena- tor from Nebraska. Mr. WHERRY. I understand the Sen- ator to say now that the members of the investigating committee state that all this material was in the files when they examined the case. Mr. McCARTHY. The Senators re- peatedly said that the material was in the file when they examined the case, Senators will remember that the Sena- tor from Maryland [Mr Typrnas] went to the While House, looked at the 81 files—he said there were 81—some of them 4 or 5 or 6 inches thick. He came away in half an hour and said, “The files are complete. Everything is there ” I questioned that before, and I still ques- tion it. I produced the statements of four wit- nesses who worked in the State Depart- ment, who were part of a group of eight who worked for 6 months cleaning out the files. We have their signed state- ments to that effect. So far as I know, there is no reason why these individuals would he about it. I frankly do not think this material was before the Senators; but it was a part of the files. This file I have shows it was received by the Civil Service Com- mission, and forwarded to the State De- partment. It should have been there. I might say, in connection with whether the files were complete or not, that the Senate will recall that on the twentieth day of June the Senator from Maryland called a press interview. At that time he said that the FBI had made an investi- gation, a complete investigation, of all the files, and that all the files were com- plete in every detail. I of course knew that was not so, so I wrote to J. Edgar Hoover asking whether it was true, whether his bureau had made an in- vestigation of these files and had stated everything was in them, I have here a copy of J. Edgar Hoover's letter in reply. Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. McCARTHY. Let me finish this. I have a copy of J. Edgar Hoover's let- ter, which was written about 20 days after the Senator from Maryland stated the FBI had examined the files. Let me read one paragraph from the letter. Mr. Hoover said: The Federal Bureau of Investigation has made no such examination and therefore is not in a position to make any statement con- cerning the completeness or incompleteness of the State Department files. I yield to the Senator from North Da- kota. Mr, LANGER. The stamp on the paper the Senator has presented shows,
10914 does it not, that the United States Civil Service Commission received this report on September 14, 1948? Mr. McCARTHY. It is September 10 or 14 or 16, 1948. I cannot make out very well from the photostat the exact date. Mr. LANGER. A moment ago the Senator spoke about the four affidavits with which he supplied the Senate some time ago. As I remember those affidavits, the affiants said they were working in the State Department in 1945, Mr. McCARTHY. No; it was 1946. They were working there at the time the plans were being made for the President’s Joyalty program. They were working there from July or August until Decem- ber 31, 1946, So the rifling job they did would not have gotten this part of the file, which is dated 1948, But, as I told the Senate, there was a great house- cleaning job going on, a second one, be- fore the Senate committee started ex- amining the files, and I hope to have the affidavits on that, too. In connection with the first rifling job, the Senator will recall the President sent the loyalty order on the 27th of October, or Novernber—it was October, as I recall, before election. That was not to go into effect until the Senate appropriated money to put the program into effect. So that it would seem that the first rifling job that was done, the first house- cleaning job, was either in preparation for the President’s own loyalty program or perhaps in anticipation of the new Congress, which was taking over on January 1, 1947. The statements, it will be noted, refer to personnel files. At that time that was what they were known as, because there was no loyalty program, so there was no such thing then as a loy- alty file. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. McCARTHY. I yield. Mr. WHERRY. Is the Senator from Wisconsin now referring to the observa- tions the Senator from Wisconsin made that the files were rifled and that there were four affidavits signed to that ef- fect? Mr. McCARTHY. That is_ correct, though they were not affidavits. My in- vestigators do not have the right to ad- minister the oath. Mr. WHERRY. They were signed statements? Mr. McCARTHY. They were signed statements, Mr. WHERRY. Is that the same inci- dent the Senator from Maryland re- ferred to, that there were no signed statements to that effect, and even if they were, the men who were employed to do this job, did not know what they were doing, and did not know that the files were being rifled? Mr. McCARTHY. That is correct. The Senator from Maryland said the other day that the statements were all unsigned. I might say that when I gave the Senate the photostats of those statements, the signatures appeared on three of them. One of them was a Mr. Threadgill, who is now an agent for the Federal Bureau of Investigation. He, incidentally, did not take part in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE rifling task. He was in one of the ad- joining rooms. The clean files were brought to him and he made out new cards. His statement was to the effect, however, that State Department em- ployees came over and participated in cleaning out their own files. When the Senator from Maryland or anyone else says that these young men did not know what they were doing, I would suggest that the Senator call up Mr. Threadgill and have him come over to his office and sit down with him. He is a fine intelligent young man. He is @ competent and trusted FBI agent. There is no reason on earth why he should come over to my office and lie to me. The same is true in regard to another young man, @ Mr. Sullivan. He is a third year student at Georgetown in the Foreign Service School, He is a very intelligent young man. There is no reason why he should lie. The same can be said of the other two who signed statements. One of the individuals is a man who now works in the State Department. When I presented his statement to the Senate I did delete his name, because he said “If they know I signed this I will lose my job.” I sent that on to the President, and I told the President that if he would assure me that this young man would not lose his job for having told the truth, then I would be glad to contact the young man and get his per- mission to give the President his name. Incidentally, the President has never answered that letter, which is rather surprising in view of the fact that he has suggested that “if McCarruy has any information of wrongdoing in the State Department, if he has any infor- mation which should be brought to my attention, if he knows anything about the rifling of the files, if he knows any- thing about Communists, why does he not bring that information to me, the President of the United States?” So I have brought that information to him, and have been greeted by not even the courtesy of an answer. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. McCARTHY. I yield. Mr. WHERRY. The next question I was about to ask has to do with that matter. The Senator has answered my first question. But now another ques- tion has arisen. Did the committee in- terrogate or bring in Mr. Threadgill or the other men whose names the Senator furnished the committee? Mr. McCARTHY. Absolutely not. Just the usual State Department release saying that “McCartuy is lying, and does not have those statements.” Mr. WHERRY,. The committee could have interrogated them and found out for itself what those men were doing with the files? Mr. McCARTHY. Absolutely. There can be no question about it. Mr. JENNER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. McCARTHY. I am glad to yield, Mr. JENNER. Does the Senator know that yesterday the President of the United States made an appeal to the JULY 25 people in this crisis to report any cases of subversion, or espionage, or treason, and so forth. Did the Senator know that? Mr. McCARTHY. Yes; I read that. Mr. JENNER. Then I will ask the Senator: What good would it do the people of the country to report anything to the President of the United States in connection with subversion or treason or espionage? Mr. McCARTHY. It would appear that it would do no good, I will say to the Senator. I might say in that con- nection also we have here photostats of an FBI report showing they went to tremendous expense, that they went even to the point of putting men in the Com- munist Party, at great danger to those young men. One of the agents reported that one of the party members is a man up high in the State Department and he gave much evidence to back it up, Now, contrary to what some of our friends try to tell the country, the FBI has no power on earth to order this State Department employee discharged. They cannot even order his prosecution, Only the Justice Department can do that. For a long period of time they could not arrest him without permission of the State Department. I think that order has now been countermanded, Now they must merely get the permission of the Department of Justice. And whose permission do Senators think they must get over there? Mr, Peyton Ford's. One of the other things in connec- tion—— Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, before the Senator goes to another point will he yield? Mr. McCARTHY, Let me first say a word in connection with the Senator's question as to what good it will do to give this information to the President. I heard some of my friends from the other side of the aisle the other day say that if McCartuy were honest and sincere about this, if he were not trying to practice fraud and deceit upon the Senate, then he would have brought this information to the attention of the FBI. In that con- nection let me point out that here we have a complete FBI case. People brought information to the attention of the FBI. The FBI did an outstanding job. But what happens? Material is urown into a file and allowed to lie there. Let me tell the Senate what happened when this matter came to the Loyalty Board. Mr. WHERRY. Mr, President, will the Senator yield? Mr. McCARTHY, I yield. Mr. WHERRY. Myr. President, I should like to read the statement which was made by the distinguished Senator from Maryland, which appears on page 10711 of the ConcressIonaL Recorp, when the Senator from Maryland made his speech on last Friday. He said: Then the Senator from Wisconsin said they had been rifled in 1946, and he had some affidavits, which were unsigned. That is a positive statement. What is the Senator's answer to that statement by the Senator from Maryland?
1950 Mr. McCARTHY, I thank the Sena- tor for raising that question. I have been answering the State Department and the Tydings-McMahon Committee largelf¥ with documentation recently, so Iam going to do the same thing here. I ask if a page will call up my office and ask my clerk to send over the original signed statements. I will give the Sena- tor the signed statements, three with the signatures on, and the fourth which & present employee of the State Depart- thent signed. I cannot give the Senator his name. Mr. WHERRY. I think we ought to have that information. It ought to be a part of the Recorp. Either they are signed or unsigned. I should like to have the distinguished Senator give us that answer. I appreciate the fact that he is going to bring in the evidence. Second, the Senator from Maryland proceeded to say: It would not have made any difference if they had been signed. What is the Senator’s answer to that allegation or statement? Mr. McCARTHY. God only knows. I do not know. Here we have four repu- table witnesses who signed statements, who said, “We took out all the deroga- tory material.” They say the State De- partment employees came over and they were able to pick out the bad stuff out of their own files. And the chairman of the committee, who is supposed to be conducting an investigation, and who told the Senate that none of the files were rifled, that they were complete, says it does not make any difference if four of those former State Department em- ployees gave signed statements to the effect that they were members of the rifling squad. Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. McCARTHY. I yield. Mr. LANGER. As I remember, one of the affidavits said it was a project, and it gave the name of the individual who was in charge of that project. Mr. McCARTHY. That is correct. Mr. LANGER. Will the Senator tell us if he knows whether or not the man in charge of the project was ever sub- penaed by the subcommittee? Mr. McCARTHY. He was not I will say to the Senator. He is working in the State Department. My investigator tried to get in contact with him, but, natu- Tally, was unsuccessful, Mr. LANGER. I ask the distinguished Senator if he means to tell the Senate that the man who these four witnesses said was in charge of that project is still working for the State Department today? Mr, McCARTHY., ‘That is correct. First, let me make this clear. I am not sure that the man in charge of the proj- ect initiated it. In fact, I am reasonably certain he did not. I assume he was as- signed to that work by some of the top brass, and that it was merely a job he was given to do. There are eight all told; and I have affidavits from four. What I have just said is also true of the four whose names are given, who did the rifling jeb, They CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE were assigned to that task, and they had no way in the world of knowing whether it was right or wrong. So we cannot blame them. As to the man in charge of the imme- diate project, whether he was at fault I do not know. He should have been sub- Penaed, and should have been asked who told him to do the job; and he should have been required to produce, under subpena, the written instructions cover- ing what he was doing. Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further? Mr, McCARTHY. I yield. Mr. LANGER. Is that man still em- ployed by the State Department? Mr. McCARTHY. He is still employed by the State Department, so far as I can determine. Mr. LANGER. So he is available to the committee, is he? Mr. McCARTHY. Oh, definitely. Mr. KEM. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. McCARTHY. I am glad to yield. Mr, KEM. I should like to ask the Senator from Wisconsin if the file, a copy of which he has brought here, is one of the files which was made available to the committee by the FBI. Mr. McCARTHY. That is correct; it is 1 of the 81 which the committee had made available to it. Mr. President, I may say this is a typi- cal file; there is nothing unusual about it. I tried to pick out a typical case, not one of the marginal cases, not one of the extremes either way. Mr. LODGE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. McCARTHY. I yield. Mr. LODGE. I will say that during the 10 days or so that I was at the White House, at no time were all the files there together. The statement was made to us that the files were in use. There would be a pile of files on a large table But at no time were all the files there. Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the Sena- tor very much. Moreover, Mr. President, in connection with the question of whether or not the files were cleaned out, I think I should call attention to a letter—in view of the questions asked by the Senator from Ne- braska—which the Senator from Mary- land read on the floor of the Senate the other day, aS appears on page 10711 of the ConGRESSIONAL Recorp for Thursday, July 20—a letter allegedly from J. How- ard McGrath, and addressed to the Sen- ator from Maryland. The letter reads as follows: My Dear Senator: At my request the Fed- eral Bureau of Investigation haa conducted an examination of the State Department files which the members of your committee have been reviewing. Previously Deputy Attor- ney General Ford advised you, under date of June 16, 1960, thet the Federal Bureau of Investigation had furnished him a eopy of all loyalty material which had been furnished the State Department in these cases, that a check had been made under his direction, and that tt was found that all of the FBI reports and memoranda which had been fur- nished the State Department were contained in the file, 10915 I requested the Federal Bureat of Investi- gation to make a similar investigation of these files, in view of the further question raised several days ago by Senator McCartry regarding their completeness. The examina- tion, made on July 3~— That was before the Senatc committee had finished its investigation— by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, dis- closes that the files contain all FBI reports and memorandums furnished to the depert- ment in these cases prior to the time they were turned over to your committee— And so forth. Mr. President, it will be noted that this letter from J. Howard McGrath says that on July 3 the FBI conducted an investigation and found them complete. Again I call attention to the second paragraph of the letter from J, Edgar Hoover, in which he says that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has made no such examination and therefore is not in a position to make any statement concerning the completeness or incompleteness of the State Depart- ment files. In view of the fact that the date here is rathed important, I cannot believe that the Senator from Maryland purposely misread that to the Senate; I am sure he would not try to deceive the Senate and make it believe that the FBI had made an examination before he had fin- ished viewing the filles. Apparently J. Howard McGrath made a mistake—in- advertently, Iam sure; but a lot of mis- takes have been made. A minute ago the Senator asked whether the statements I had gotten from the three former employees of the State Department and a fourth, who now is in the State Department, were or were not signed. I now would like to hand to the Senator a copy of the state-~ ments, one signed by Paul E. Sullivan, dated July 6, 1950, with the phone num- ber, in his own handwriting; and wit- nessed by Mr. Surine, who is one of my investigators. Incidentally, Mr. Surine had been with the FBI for about 10 years, and worked on subjects having to do with disclosure of Communists a con- siderable part of that time. The second one is signed by Bernie Threadgill, Jr.; and the third one is signed by Francis Eugene O’Brien, dated, and in his own handwriting. And there is a fourth one, from which I have de- leted the name, because he is working in the State Department. The Senator will notice that not only were the statements signed, but each page was signed; and whenever a cor- rection was made, the correction was initialed. So there can be no question that these are the complete statements by these individuals. Mr. WHERRY. Mr, President, would the Senator say, then, that the Senator from Maryland was in error relative to whether or not the statements were un- signed? Mr. McCARTHY. Yes. Mr.WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to permit me to ask him a further question? Mr. McCARTHY. Yes. Mr. WHERRY One of these men is still with the FBI; is that correct?
10916 Mr. McCARTETY. Oh, yes. Let me make clear that the young man who is with the FBI had not been with the FBI at the time he was doing this job. The young man who is now with the Bureau did not take part in the actual rifling Job Senators will notice that he has drawn a diagram showing the room in which he worked, which was off of the main room in which the house-cleaning job was being done. Senators will notice that his statement is to the cffect that the cleaned files were brought to him; that he did not go into the main room, and did not know what was going on there; but what those in that room told him, was that the State Department cm- ployees were coming there to help clean out their own files. I want to make it clear that the other three individuals were members of the crew of e.ght who did the actual house- cleaning jobs. Mr. WHERRY. If the Senator will yield further, let me ask once again’ The signatures and names are here, and those persons could have been subpenaed and interrogated by the cu 'nimittee relative to the statements made 1n these affidavits. Is that correct? Mr. McCARTHY. Absolutely; there is no question about it. In fact, Mr. O’Brien and the other man, the one from the Georgetown Foreign Service School, said they would be glad to come withcut being subpenaed, and would bo glad to give the information. Mr. WHERRY. I thank the Senator. I think he is clearing up at least that error. Mr. McCARTHY. Let me say to the Senator that I hope to produce additional affidavits covering some of the handling of the files, at a later date. Mr LANGER. Mr, President, will the Senator yield? Mr. McCARTHY. I yield. Mr LONGER, As I recollect the evi- dence—and I have a fairly good mem- ory—that was not a jcb that lasted for 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 days, but it lasted for 6 months. Is that correct? Mr McCARTIIY ‘That is correct. Let me read to the Senator, if I may, a typical statement—for instance, take Mr. Sullivan’s statement: JuLyY 6, 1950. The following information is given by me freely and voluntarily without any promises whatsoever. I furnish this information be- cause it is the truth and I feel it is my patriotic duty to furnish the facts as I ex- perienced them. I am Hving at 1902 North Fiftecnth Street, Arlington, Va, at the present time. In August 1946, I was released from the United States Navy in California. I came to Washington, D C, and while in Washing- ton, D, C, I was looking for a job, I went into the Walker Johnson Building of State Department at Elghteenth and New York Avenue NW. I talked toa fellow in the State Department by the name of Holcombe. 1 got a temporary clerical job in the files et the Walker Johnson Building. These files were the departmental person- nel files located In the Walker Johnson Building. I started work in these files in September 1946. When I reported for duty I was told that I would be working on a project on these files. This project had been going on for some time before I started. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE There were at least cight porsons who were working on this project. I was not formally and specifically in- etructed as to what tho purpose of the proj- ect was, but from vhat I was instructed by the other clerks, I and the other clerks were to go thiough ecch personnel file and pull out all derogatory material from the files. In addition to the usual personnel forms, the files contained all kinds of letters, re- ports, memorandum concerning the individ- ual person As per instructions I received, all of the clerks on this project were to pull out of tho files all matters considcred derog- atory eliher morally or politically. The project was very confuscd— I assume 1¢ would be— but I and the other clerks pulled out of each personne! file any material which could be considered derogatory This material was removed and some wes thrown in waste- baskets by us and some was thrown in— And there is a deletion, which he has initialed— a cardbcard box I don't know what hap- pened to the derogatory material we pulled out from the files, but I do Know of my own knowledge thal a gcod lot of it was destroyed I do not recall details of each personnel Lle I examined, but the material I pulled out of the files pertained to either the morals of the person or in some way reflected on hi- or her loyalty. By “morals” this young man indicated that anything indicating sexual perver- sion wi. taken from the files. I con- tinue. q recall one thick report on one State Department employee who was accused of being a photographer and a member of some subversive organization which published some sort of news report This was removed froin the file and disposed of I worked trom September ‘till the end ot December 1246, working on this file project pulling out and disposing of the derogatory material as per my understanding given me, I left on December 31, 1946, and this proj- ect on the personnel files was still not fin- ished, but my temporary appointment ran out and my employment with the State De- partment ended I can't recall who the official in charge of these files was. I met him only a very few times, but I could easily recognize him if I saw him. I have read this statement of three pages and the facts are true to the best of my knowledge and belief. I may say to the Senator that one of the other statements contains the name of the individual who was head of the project. His name was George Copp. This is from the affidavit of Mr. Thread- gill, who says: This project was being performed appor- ently on some sort of dead line date because George Copp— At that point there are several dele- tions which are initialed— who was supervisor over the clerks on this project was often telling me and the others that we had to get the job done and that it had already passed the dead line * * © So that Mr. George Copp was head of the project. Mr. LANGER, Mr. President, will the Senator yield? The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Wisconsin yield to the Senator from North Dakota? Mr. McCARTHY. I am glad to yield. JULY 25 Mr. LANGER. ¢ am somewhat con- fused about whether the distinguished Senator was allowed to be present at all times while the committee was interro- gating witnesses. Will the Senator be kind enough to enlighten me? Mr. McCARTHY. Iam glad the Sen- ator asked that question. The answer is “No.” As the Senator knows, the usual senatorial practice 1s that when a Senaior is interested in a subject which is before a committee, he is not only allowed to be present, but also allowed to question the witnesses. As the Sen- ator will recall, at the time of the con- firmation of the head of the Atomic Energy Commussion, Mr. Lihenthal, the very able Senator from Tennessee, who was not a member of the committee, was present and conducted the cross- examination for 1 or 2 weeks. It has long been the practice, To begin with, I was denied the right to cross-examine—which I thought was a mistake, not because I felt I was more competent potentially as a cross-exam- iner, but I had been hving with this thing for 4 or 5 or 6 months and knew all the background. I felt I could be of some benefit to the committee. For example, when Browder came before the commit- tee, when Frederick Vanderbilt Field, a man who is a professed Communist, who has been financing communistic ven- tures, who to a great extent financed the publication run by the present Ambas- sador at Large, Mr Jessup, I wanted to ask some questions. I wanted to ask Field, for instance, to bring down his financial records so we could see which of the other pet projects of State De- partment employees was being financed by Communist money. The committee said, ‘‘No,” but that I could be present. The committee then went into executive session. I asked the chairman whether I would be allowed to attend the execu- tive session. Those were the executive Sessions, the Senator will understand, which were being attended by Mr. Latti- more and by his lawyer, Mr. Abe Fortas. Those were executive sessions, it will be understood, attended by a local lawyer, who had no connection with the Senate, and by Mr. Owen Lattimore. I asked the chair.nan whether I could attend those sessions. First, his an- swer was “No,” and I told him I would not produce any witnesses, that it would be impossible, that I had enough trouble getting witnesses, as it was. When I went out to see a witness and talked to him, he would at least want to know whether I was to be present to give him some semblance of protecticn, in view of the browbeating he had seen witnesses get before the committee. The Senator from Maryland said, ‘Well, yes, you can be present, but you cannot cross-ex- amine.” So the next day, when one of my wit- nesses was produced—I should not say “my witness,” but one of the witnesses I had named was produced—tI went into the committee room, and on my way to the room I found the Republican counsel, Mr. Morris, leaving the room. I said, “Where are you going?” He said, “Typinos kicked me out.”
1950 I said, “Who js in the room?” He said, “Oh, Lattimore and his lawyers are there, and Mr. Connatty, I think—and the committee members.” So I went in. I was notified by the Senator from Maryland that I would not be allowed to remain That was un- usual, so I insisted that he put it up to the committee and get a committee vote. I did not think the chairman should take it upon himself to expel another Senator, especially in view of the fact that Mr. Owen Lattimore was there. He refused to accede to my request. He said, ‘‘No, you have got to leave.” So I left the committee room. I think that answers the Senator’s question. I was not even allowed to be in the room while the witnesses whom I had requested to be present were called and examined. Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further? The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Wisconsin yield fur- ther to the Senator from North Da- kota? Mr. McCARTHY. further. Mr. LANGER. Prior to becoming United States Senator, if I may inquire, how long was the distinguished Senator judge of the district court in the State of Wisconsin? Mr. McCARTHY. I was technically a judge for about 7 years, actually, I was only on the bench for about 3% years, because I left the bench and went into the Marine Air Corps, Mr. LANGER. During that time, I assume, the Senator presided as judge at the trial of a great many lawsuits, did he not? Mr. McCARTHY A great many, yes. Mr LANGER. Does the Senator be- lieve that, had he been allowed to inter- rogate and to cross-examine the wit- nesses, & great many other facts would have been adduced? Mr. McCARTHY. In answer to that, let me say to the Senator what I said to the committee. I told the Senator from Maryland that if I were allowec to cross- examine Mr. Owen Lattimore and Fred- erick Vanderbilt Field, they would either indict themselves or perjure themselves, because I had the background informa- tion from which we could either bring out the facts that they would have to ad- mit, or else they would have to perjure themselves. Mr. LANGER. I thank the Senator. Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. President, it will be noted from this report—— Mr. McFARLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Wisconsin yield to the Senator from Arizona? Mr. McCARTHY. I am glad to yield. Mr. McFARLAND. Did the Senator furnish that background information to the minority members of the committee? Mr. McCARTHY. Did I furnish what? Mr. McFARLAND. The background information which the Senator said he had, and by which he could compel these men to perjure themselves. Did he fur- I am glad to yield CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE nish that same information to the minority members of the committee? Mr. McCARTHY. I worked very closely with the counsel, Mr. Morris, and while I did not give all information di- rectly to the Senator from Massachu- setts, or to the Senator from Iowa, I did discuss all important items of evidence with Mr. Morris, which I understand he passed on to the Senator from Massa- chusetts and the Senator from Iowa. But let me say that Mr. Morris was not allowed to cross-examine, but only al- lowed to be in the committee room. The Republican counsel was only allowed to be in the committee room, not allowed to cross-examine. I understand that, after the Senator from Massachusetts had said, and the Senator from Iowa, I be- lieve, said the same thing—and if I am wrong in this, I hope I shall be cor- rected—‘“Either the minority counsel will be allowed to cross-examine, or we are through with this farce” Then Mr Morris was allowed to cross-examine, but the committee hearings did not last very long after that. Mr. Morris was not al- lowed to cross-examine Mr. Browdcr. He was not allowed to cross-examine Mr. Field. Mr. LODGE. Mr President, will the Senator yield? The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Wisconsin yield to the Senator from Massachusetts? Mr. McCARTHY. I yield. Mr. LODGE I may say that Mr. Morris, the assistant counsel, appointed on behalf of the minority, was not al- lowed to cross-examine either Mr. Field or Mr Browder or Mr. Lattimore; which I thought was a very great pity, I may say to the Senator from Arizona, because it would have increased very much the amount of confidence in the committee’s findings. The public could feel that the witnesses had been questioned from all viewpoints, and I think it is a great shame that that did not happen. Ob- viously, Members of the Senate who have their duties to attend to on the floor and in other places, cannot possibly under- take to handle the enormous amount of detail that comes into a work of this kind. They have to be able to work through counsel. One of the serious handicaps in the whole procedure was the fact that not only was the minority counsel not allowed to cross-examine witnesses, but we were denied the use of the committee staff, our own personal staff, and the technical assistance of the FBI. I yield further to the Senator from Arizona. Mr. McFARLAND. As I understand the Senator's answer, he did not furnish this background information to either the Senator from Iowa [Mr. HIcKEN- Looper! or the Senator from Massachu- setts [Mr. Lopez]. Mr. McCARTHY. No; that is not cor- rect. Mr. McFARLAND. Did he or not? Mr. McCARTHY. Let me say to the very able Senator from Arizona that I am sure he will understand that if a lawyer is working on a case and has been preparing it for a long time, there is no 10917 way on God's earth that he can effec- tively call in someone else to do the job of cross-examination for him and say, “Bere, you cross-examine; I will give you the necessary information.” Any infor- mation that I had was passed on to the minority members through Mr. Morris. But the Senator knows that that does not equip or qualify a man to cross- examine in a case on which I had been working for months, One of the mem- bers of the committee, the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Lopez], whom I consider one of the ablest Senators, has had no legal training. It takes a pretty tough lawyer to make a man like Brow- der or Field talk. It cannot be done through written questions. The only reason in the world why the Senator from Wisconsin was not allowed to cross- examine was because someone was afraid of the facts. If those men were going to tell the truth, they did not have to be afraid of Senator McCarTHY’s cross- examination. The only reason McCar- THY was denied the right to cross-exam- ine was that someone was afraid of the facts Mr. McFARLAND If I correctly un- derstand the answer of the Senator, al- though he has not directly answered my question, he did not furnish the infor- mation personally to the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. LopGE] or the Sen- ator from Iowa [Mr MHicken.ooperl. The Senate and the world can judge of the ability of the Senator from Massa- chusetts and the Senator from Iowa. I think they are able Senators and are experienced in cross-examination; but as to that, the Senate and the country can judge. The fact remains that the Senator from Wisconsin did not furnish his background information vo them. Mr, McCARTHY. I will tell the Sen- ator again that all information which I considered pertinent was discussed with the minority counsel. It was done in that fashion because I could not take the time of the Senators; I could not go to see them every day. All information which I considered important was passed on to them through their counsel. Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Mr. Presi- dent, will the Senator yield? Mr. McCARTHY. I yield. Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Is the Sena- tor from Wisconsin aware of the fact that while much information was ac- quired by Mr. Morris, who was assistant counsel, recommended by the minority members, when he attempted to go around and about this part of the coun- try to secure witnesses to prove or to attempt to prove the information which the Senator from Wisconsin had fur- nished him, the majority members of the subcommittee cut out the exepnse account of Mr. Morris, refused to pay him, and ordered him to cease such ac- tivities, namely, going around to pick up witnesses to prove what he wanted to prove in attempting to bring out the facts in connection with the allegations which the Senator from Wisconsin had said could be proved if the evidence were secured? As I understand, Mr. Morris has not received his expenses since March.
10918 Mr. McCARTHY. I understand he has never received his traveling ex- penses. Mr. HICKENLOOPER. I cannot say just when, but the committee refused to pay his expenses, has failed to pay them since sometime last March, and has told him to stop interviewing witnesses in connection with the very evidence which the Senator from Wisconsin said would prove the general matters in connection with the allegations. Mr. McCARTHY. There is no ques- tion about that. I want particularly to invite the attention of my very good friend from Arizona, who is in the ma- jority leader’s chair at this time, to the fact that the minority counsel, Mr. Mor- ris, was given information by me and was also given leads, and when he went out to contact witnesses whom we felt should be brought before the committee, the majority members of the committee refused to pay the usual train fare and expenses to which any counsel is en- titled, taking the position that Mr. Mor- ris should do only what Mr. Morgan asked him to do. I think we have all rec2ived a pretty good picture of the extent of the ability of Mr. Morgan as a whitewash artist, not only in this case but in the Pearl Harbor case In spite of that handicap, Mr Morris did develop evidence under the lcads which I gave him. Some he developed himself; some were given, I assume, by the minority members of the committce He developed 25 or 30 witnesses whom he wanted called before the committee. I understand that the Senator from Iowa [Mr. HICKENLOOPER] asked that the hearings not be concluded and that those witnesses be called. They were im- portant witnesses—witnesses who had valuable information on Communist in- filtration in the State Department. The Tydings-McMahon half of the commit- tee refused to permit the witnesses to be called. May I ask the Senator from Iowa if that 1s not substantially correct? Mr. HICKENLOOPER. There was no formal vote of refusal, but there was a failure to call those witnesses or to pur- sue the list of witnesses I had offered to produce for the committee. Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the Senator, To answer the question of the Senator from Arizona more fully, not only were we denied the right to cross-examine witnesses but the right to call witnesses was denied. It is rather difficult to find any explanation of this action on the part of the chairman of the subcom- mittee when he said to the minority, “Even though there are 25 or 30 wit- messes who can give valuable informa- tion as to traitors, Communists, and fel- Jow travelers in our State Department, we shall refuse to call them, and will call only those witnesses who will tend to disprove the statements which the Senator from Wisconsin has made.” Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. McCARTHY. I yield. Mr. LANGER. Will the Senator tell us if he knows whether Mr. Morgan, who CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE presumably gave orders to Mr. Morris, had any connection with the Dean Ache- son firm? Mr. McCARTHY. I frankly do not know. Mr. LANGER. From the speech of the junior Senator from Indiana [Mr. Jen- NER], I undcrstood Mr. Morgan had some connection, directly or indirectly, with tha. firm. Mr. McCARTHY. As I recall the spzech of the Senator from Indiana, I think he referred to a possible connec- tion with the Seth Richardson-Joe Da- vies firm, I have not investigated any- one except the Communists and fellow travelers in the State Department. I did not take the trouble to check the back- ground of the investigators. 7 know Mr. Morgan was with Seth Richardson as a member of the whitewash combine in the Pear] Harbor matter. Mr. LANGER. In the speech of the junior Senator from Indiana he stated that the father-in-law of the distin- guished chairman of the subcommittee was also a member of the firm. Mr McCARTHY. I think the Senator may have misunderstocd. Mr. LANGER. I mean the firm of which Mr. Davies is a member. Mr. McCARTHY. Oh, yes. Mr. Joe Davies is the father-in-law of the S2na- tor from Maryland. Mr LANGER. Mr. Morgan was either directly or indirectly connected with the Davies firm? Mr. McCARTHY. I cannot express an opinion pro or con on that, because, frankly, I do not know. have taken no time to investigate Mr. Morgan I think he is a very good whitewash artist. He should be rewarded by the adminis- tration, and undoubtedly will be. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. McCARTHY. I yield. Mr. WHERRY. In order to prove the case of the distinguished Senator from Iowa (Mr. HickENLOoPER] and the point which the Senator from Wisconsin is making, I think it is highly important to call attention to page 10818 of the Con- GRESSIONAL Record of yesterday. The Senator frora Massachusetts [Mr. Lopce] inserted in the Recorp at that point sev- eral pages—I forget how many— Mr. McCARTHY. Forty pages. Mr. WHERRY. The Senator from Massachusetts inserted 40 pages of the hearings before the subcommittee which had been deleted from the printed tran- script of the hearings either by Mr. Mor- gan or the committee. Does the Sena- tor recall reading at page 10818 the por- tion of the colloquy in which the Sena- tor from Maryland js attempting to have the committee get out a report. I read as follows: Senator Trpincs, That is ali right. I am willing to start on my report. What I would like to do is get it here and tell you what Iam going to say, and if you don’t agree with it, make one of your own, but I want a report on the work. I think our work is pretty well concluded, if you want my opinion. Senator HirckreNLooper. I don't think it has even started, Mr. Chairman. Senator Trpinas. You disagree with me? JULY 25 Senator Hicxen.oormr. I disagree with you. Senator Typines. But I disagree with you, so there we are, Mr, Morris— Mr. Morris is the assistant counsel of the committee. He has been referred to by the distinguished Senator from Iowa and also by the Senator from Wisconsin. Mr. Morrts. Senator, may I mention just once case here? Senator Typrnas. Mr. Morris, we can mention cases from now until doomsday. Mr. Morris. It 1s in the record, Senator, May I just finish? Senator Typincs Of cours3, you are not a member of the committee. When we want counsel to speak, we will ask them, but I am going to let you speak. However, that is a matter for the committee to decide. Senator Lonagz. I would like to hear what he has to say. Mr Morris There is a case of & man named Theodore Geiger. He has been an employee of the State Department. He is now one of Paul Hoffman's top assistants. He is doing work that ts quasi-State Depart- ment in character. I have gone and gotten some witnesses together who will testify that he was a member of the same Communist Party unit as they were, and I think that we would be delinquent if in the face of this evidence that is now on the record—— Senator Typincs Why didn't you tell us this? Why did you wait until this hour to tell me? Mr Morris I am not waiting Senator. One day Senator Green made me a witness and I put it all in the record. Senator Typincs. You haven't told me about it. This is the first I have heard about it. Mr Morris Senator, I assume that you are aware of everything in the record, Senator Typincs No. There are some things in the record I haven't been able to read. Mr Morris. Certainly Mr Morgan knows it. Ihave mentioned it several times to him. The Mr. Morgan referred to here is the man who is whitewashing this investiga- tion. I shall not read further from the col- loquy, because it is unnecessary to do so in order to prove the point made by the distinguished Senator from Iowa that here was the minority counsel who had introduced testimony that should have been investigated, but was not permitted to be investigated by the chairman. The important point is that when they printed the hearings they deleted 40 pages from the record. I say to the Sen- ator that the Senator from Iowa has proved his point that he had no coopera- tion from the Senator from Maryland in trying to run down evidence which the distinguished Senator from Wiscon- . sin had furnished. Here is a case where the minority counsel went out and got evidence, it was introduced into the rec- ord, but the distinguished chairman of the committee did not even let it be brought to the attention of the members of the committee. Then he attempted to delete it from the record that comes to the Senate. It was done either by the committee or by Mr. Morgan. With the experience I have had with him, I would not put anything past Mr. Morgan. I will say that it was either Mr. Morgan or the committee, and that fact proves
1950 the point made by the Senator from Iowa. Finally the Senator from Maryland said: Senator Typinas. Turn it over to the FBI or do something else with it, I would like to get a decision here. We don't want to waste this afternoon. That was said by the chairman o? the committee, who says his work is com- pleted and there is no need for further investigation. I should like to ask the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin if he knows who left out the 40 pages. Was it the chairman of the committee, the committee, or Mr. Morgan? Mr, McCARTHY. Ido not know. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. Morgan? Mr. McCARTHY. Morgan was in charge, but of course under thé orders of Mr. TYDINGs. Mr. WHERRY. At any rate, whoever left out the 40 pages is attempting to cover up evidence that was furnished by the minority counsel, who was deprived of submitting his evidence to the com- mittee, Mr. McCARTHY. Undoubtedly some- one on the staff or on the committee thought they would be able to keep it from the eyes of the public. The at- tempt seems so childish, because cer- tainly it must have been evident that the Senator from Massachusetts would find that 40 pages of important testi- mony had been left out of the report of the hearings. I may say for the Senator’s benefit, in connection with Mr. Geiger, that the day after the President made the state- ment that there were no Communists in the Government, we received a tele- phone call from one of the men who were in the same Communist cell as Mr. Geiger. He stated that he was rather appalled to read the statement made by the President and that he would be glad to come down to testify. One gets so many tips that one does not always place too much stock in some of them. However, I asked Mr. Morris to check into it, and he did, and found the informant reliable. Incidentally that is one of the trips for which the committee will not pay his expenses. He developed, I think, either three or four witnesses who were in Mr. Geiger’s Com- munist cell. They said, “We will come down and testify before the committee as to Mr. Geiger’s communistic activi- ties.” Mr. President, here is something that would be humorous, if it were not so tragic. A letter was written to one of the top officials of the ECA. The letter will be produced either here or in the House of Representatives. I believe it will be produced in the House. The offi- cial was asked if he would check on this man Geiger and he was told that we had this information about Geiger. Would the Senate like to know what the offi- cial’s answer was? He wrote back and said, “I called Mr. Geiger in, I looked him straight in the eye, and I said, ‘Mr. Geiger, are you a Communist?’ Mr. Geiger said, ‘No’. That ended his in- vestigation. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. McCARTHY. Iam glad to yield. Mr. WHERRY. I do not want to be- labor the point. However, the distin- guished Senator from Iowa said that minority counsel had not been paid since March and that he had heen told to take his orders from Mr. Morgan, which meant that he could not investigate evi- dence furnished by the Senator from Wisconsin. Is it not true that the com- mittee, or Mr. Morgan, directed an in- vestigation of the Senator from Wis- consin, and that they paid the trans- portation of the investigator to go to West Virginia and to Utah, trailing the Senator all around the country in an attempt to get evidence to smear the Senator from Wisconsin? I am sure that bill was paid. Mr. McCARTHY. They sent their in- vestigator to every hotel at which I had stayed on the trip. They got evidence as to where I stayed, and they got evidence as to the hotel room I occupied. Inci- dentally, they found that I had stayed alone. [Laughter.] They got affidavits from all the country. They went to Reno, and Las Vegas, Nev., Salt Lake City, and to West Virginia. The pro- cedure followed was rather unusual. Perhaps a crowd of a thousand or so per- sons had heard my speech in West Vir- ginia. The investigators went around and contacted a sizable number of the persons who had heard the speech and asked them, “Did McCartuy say 57, or did he say 205?” If the prospective wit- ness said I had mentioned 57, they said to him, “We daqn’t want you.” They then would go to the next person and ask him the same question. They were unable to find one person who had attended the meeting who would give them the an- swer they wanted. How many days and nights were spent in that investigation I do not Know. If Mr. Morris had been willing to go out and investigate me, his expenses would have been paid. Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. McCARTHY. I am glad to yield. Mr. LANGER. Is it not true that they were asking questions of the Senator’s brothers and sister? Mr. McCARTHY, Not a committee investigator. However, the President has had assigned to the White House— and I had not planned to go into this— for special duty two men for the purpose of trying to collate all the bad informa- tion they could get about me, Those men are paid by the taxpayers. If they had only come to me, I could have helped them out. I know more about McCartny than does anyone else. I could tell them that McCartny does not claim to be either a great saint or a great sinner. I can give them all the information they want. But I doubt the correctness of spending public funds for an investigation of McCarruy, un- less and until the Senate directs such an investigation—not that I am worrled about it, My. President, it will be noted from the FBI report that this State Department official’s wife lived with another woman 10919 who according to the FBI was a member of the Communist Party and who openly admitted membership in the Communist Party. It will also be noted at the Loy- alty Board hearing, which I shall later discuss, Mrs. X admitted that her two roommates were probably members of the Communist Party. One roommate was Mrs. Ades, the wife of the man who ran for Governor of Maryland on the Communist ticket, and who now lives in Baltimore. I note in my prepared re- marks that the other works now in the Department of Agriculture. I stand cor- rected on that. The other roommate of this lady, who was named as: a Commu- nist Party member, so far as I can deter- mine, is not in the Department of Agri- culture today. She was there very re- cently. Whether she is in some other Government department I do not know. We therefore have a case in which the FBI files show an important State Department employee admitting to an FBI undercover agent that he was a member of the Communist Party in Eu- rope and in this country. We also find that this agent has been found com- pletely reliable by the FBI over a period of years; that his job was to inform the FBI of the names of the members of the Communist Party and their activities. That was his task. We find his un- qualified statement that both this State Department official and his wife were long members of the party and active therein, and that the wife was also ac- tive in the Young Communist League. I call the attention of Senators to the dates on this report. They will find the report was submitted in September 1948. This was after the Eightieth Con- gress had adjourned, and it was about 8 months after the investigation by the House Committee on Appropriations, which was discussed by the Senator from Maryland the other day. Senators will note from this report that none of the investigations of the individual agents was conducted earlier than July 1948. I merely mention these dates to show that the Senator from Maryland was again rather badly mistaken when he said that all these files were old files that had been investigated by the Eightieth Congress, and that for that reason, of course, they were valueless. This part of the files was produced after the Hightieth Congress had adjourned. I do not think that is important, except in view of the Senator’s statement. I do not subscribe to the theory that a man is cleared merely because he has been previously investigated. I do not sub- scribe to the theory that if he was a Communist in 1946, 1947, and 1948 that is not important, and that it is only important if it is proved he is a Commu- nist in 1950. We must take his entire background, running back for years, to find out how dangerous he is. That is why the file stripping in 1946 was such &@ great disservice to the country. It would seem, therefore, that there could be no question whatsoever about the fact that here we have a clear-cut case of membership in the Communist Party by both a State Department offi- cial and his wife. There is other testi- mony in the file, testimony gathered by
10920 a total of nine different special agents of the FBI. Much of the balance of the evidence, however, is largely opinion evi- dence. Some of it is favorable to Mr. X and some of it unfavorable. Most of it would be considered in a court as nega- tive evidence, which courts and also committees, which have a _ working knowledge of the law, consider of little value as against positive testimony. If one or two reputable witnesses tes- tified that they actually saw John Brown committing a crime, it dces not make much difference how many witncsses may come into court and say they did not see him commit it. I use that as an ex- ample. In this case we have a fellow member of the Communist Party work- ing for the FBI who says, “I saw this State Department official at the Com- munist meetings. I know he joined.” Against that there are some people who say, “We did not see him join. We do not know whether he is a member or not.” One of the other individuals named in this report as a member of the Com- munist Party is also working in the State Depariment. I have the 1950 telephone directory, and I am going to read the file I have in my hand very shortly. I see the junior Senator from California [Mr, KNoWLAND] present. I call his atten- tion to the full report without names de- leted and to the State Department tele- phone directory which shows that an- other individual named by the FBI as a Communist was working in the State Department as of January 1 this year, and I call attention to the fact that my staff called the State Department as of yesterday, and he was still working there. Mr. President, I am forwarding this complete file to the House Committee on Un-American Activities, in the hope that it may take note of what is disclosed. This does not indicate that I am not in sympathy with ihe desire of some of my colleagues to obtain the appointment of a bipartisan commission to investigate this subject further. However, I frank- Jy do not have any hope whatsoever that there is any possibility of getting such a commission, because there would be dan- ger that such a commission might make 8 fair inquiry, and if the administration wanted a fair inquiry, it could have been had. A committee could have been ap- pointed here in the Senate which would have made such an inquiry. Therefore I am forwarding this file to the House Committee on Un-American Activities, in the hope that they may do as excel- lent a job on this case as they did on Mr. Remington. Mr. President, I desire to call the at- tention of the House Committee on Un- American Activities to the fact that we have here a clear-cut case of perjury, on several counts. Before the loyalty board, as appears on page 136 of the report of the investigation of the loyalty board, which I shall come to in a mo- ment, this man testified that he was not then and never had been a member of the Communist Party, I call the attention of the House com- mittee to the fact that we have almost uncontradictable evidence that he was not only a member, but an active mem- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE ber. So we here have a clear-cut case of perjury, and it seems that the most effec- tive way of gelling these Communists is to get them on charges of perjury. There is also another count of perjury upon which this man could and should be indicted. That is this: His landlord made an. affidavit to the effect that he and his wife had been living for some time with one well known Communist and another suspected of being a Com- munist. Their names are in the files I have handed to the Senator from Cali- fornia [Mr. KNowtanp!. We find that this man lived for quite some period of time with this high State Department employee. Does the Senate note the sig- nificance of that? We have an affidavit to the effect that this State Department employee lived with a man who was a member of the Communist Party. When this State Department employee ap- peared before the loyalty board he testi- fied that he knew this Communist “only recently” and “only casually.” Mr. President, let us now come to the picture of what happened when the FBI submitted this report. It was received in the Civil Service Commission in early September, and forwarded to the State Department. The State Department called for a loyalty board hearing, While the board, by a split decision, cleared him, it is rather interesting to note the reasoning followed by the members cf the loyalty board. They followed the reasoning that if a Communist is clever enough so he can fool any of his co- workers, and they come in and say “We think he js loyal,” then he should not be booted out. In other words, if he has been able to deceive his coworkers he should not be booted out. The board ap- parently operates on the theory that un- less the accused wears a long beard and looks like a Communist is ordinarily painted, so that from that picture he would be labeled by everyone as being a Communist he should be cleared for Gov- ernment service. Mr. President, I have before me a let- ter written by a lawyer to the loyalty board. He was Dean Acheson’s law partner, Dean Acheson’s law firm rep- resented this man before the loyalty board. This letter is interesting. Put- ting it mildly, it reveals a yery disturb- ing situation. From this letter, it ap- pears that the original loyalty board charge against this State Department official was that, “he acted in the in- terest of another government.” That was the charge. In other words, that he was an esplonage agent. However, after Mr. Acheson's law partner was hired, and before the hearing, this charge was dropped and a lesser charge made against him, namely, that he was a member of organizations cited by the Attorney Gen- eral as coming within the purview of Executive Order No. 9825. Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Wry in the chair). Does the Senator from Wisconsin yield to the Senator from California? Mr. McCAI' THY. I yield. Mr. ENOWLAND. So that the record may be clear, can the Senator indicate JULY 25 the date on which the law partner of the Acheson firm acted in behalf of this person? Mr. McCARTHY. I shall be glad to. I may say I do not know the date he was originally retained, but I can give the dates of some letters which indicate when h2 was active. Mr. KNOWLAND. Can the Senator give us approximately the date? Mr. McCARTHY,. There is a letter dated September 17, 1948, from which I will quote. He was charged, (1) with belonging to the National Federation for Constitutional Liberties, later known as the Civil Rights Congress, and (2) the Communist Party of America and in Eu- rope. In other words, after Acheson’s law partner came into the picture, they dropped the charges that he was serving another country. The board also charged him with close association with eight known Commu- nists. Note this The board charged him with close association with eight known Communixts including his own wife. He was charged with close asso- ciation with his wife, who was a well known Communist, I have heard many things abvut the State Department, but I thought it was still proper over there to closely associate with one’s wife. Whether he disproved that or not I do not know. But that was one of the charges, Let me quote from this lawyer’s let- ter—he was Attorney Westwood, in- cidentally, of Acheson's law firm—vwrit- ten to the loyalty board: I am returning to you herewi!th a letter preferring charges which was sent to Mr.— Naming the individual— by mistake. This letter is dated September 17, 1948. It contains a charge that Mr.— Naming the State Department offi- cial Acted in the interest of another govern- ment. When Mr, X— We will call kim Mr, X for the time being— inquired of you concerning this matter you referred him to Mr. Moreland. Subsequently on September 22, Mr. Moreland advised Mr, X that this letter was a mistake and re- quested its return in order that it might be destroyed. In other words, by mistake, it named a State Department employee as a Com- munist spy. They did not learn of that mistake until Acheson’s law firm got into the picture. Listen to this. The attorney said in his letter: T am sure you can appeciate our concern that the first letter be destroyed, and we would appreciate your acknowledgment that the oo of that letter (returned here- with) — That is the original letter in which the first charge is made— and we would appreciate your acknowl- edgment that the original of that letter (returned herewith) and all carbons have indeed been destroyed. Mr. President, I can appreciate their concern about that. This, of course, is not the first time that the Acheson law firm has been successful in defending
1950 State Department employees accused of communistic activities, For example, after Elizabeth Bentley had testified under oath that Lauchlin Currie was aid- ing her Soviet spy ring, Mr. Currie was represented before the House Committee on Un-American Activities by whom? By none other than the Red dean him- self—Dean Acheson. I might say in that connection, that while we do not have a complete list, we find that Acheson’s law firm repre- sented, and successfully in most of the cases, some 30 individuals accused of subversive activities and communistic connections. Do Senators note the sig- nificance of that? The law firm, the law partners of the boss of the State Depart- ment loyalty board, the law partners of the man who can hire and fire the mem- bers of that loyalty board, have appeared about 30 times in loyalty board hearings to defend men accused of communistic activities, And this case is one excellent example, : Alger Hiss was represented, not so successfully, before the House committee by John F. Davis. However, Davis stated to the committee that he was being as- sisted by Fontaine Bradley, another member of the Acheson law firm. It is perhaps needless to comment upon the unusual circumstance of Mr. Ache- son’s law partner's success in having the charge against this man reduced, even though the FBI had produced a clear- cut, irrefutable, uncontradictable case against him, and as a result of the activities of Acheson's law firm that man is today, at this very moment, in the State Department in an important posi- tion. Mr. President, as I previously stated in answer to some of my friends who have been asking when I intend to answer the committee’s report, when I intend to answer the speech by the Sen- ator from Maryland, I have no intention whatsoever of answering the commit- tee's report or answering the Senator's speech. I am not going to indulge in a name-calling contest with them. This task is far too important for that. How- ever, they will be answered by the pro- duction of facts from time to time. The fact that the committee thinks this matter has been closed docs not mean it has been closed. I say that so as to assure the people of the United States, the tens of thousands who have been writing to me, urging that we not suc- cumb to the pressure being put on by the Democratic majority, but that we continue this investigation and persist in our efforts to get out of the State Department the individuals who are re- sponsible for having American soldiers die today, if you please. I shall have to admit that I do not think there is any great possibility of ac- tually removing these men from the State Department, no matter how they are exposed. I assume that the man cov- ered by this file probably will continue with the State Department, and probably will get a promotion, after the exposure, However, I feel that by means of the bright Hight put on their activities we have perhaps slowed them up. I think perhaps we have slowed up Mr. Latti- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE more, the State Department’s adviser and Mr. Acheson’s good friend. The Senate will recall that up until recently the State Department was fol- lowing Lattimore’s advice. The Senate will recall that on June 17 of last year Mr. Lattimore became so brazen that he quit giving secret advice, and in an arti- cle in the paper Compass bragged about the fact that in China the State Depart- ment had been successful in allowing China to fall to communism, and at the Same time not letting it be known that we had pushed her. Those are the words of the State Department's adviser: those are the words of the man whom Acheson last August asked to submit a secret Memorandum to guide Ambassador Jessup. Lattimore goes on to say—and this is a public statement—that now our problem in Korea is to do the same thing which the State Department did so suc- cessfully in China; that we should let South Korea fall to communism and sell the South Koreans into slavery, but not let the world know that we pushed her. DOMINANT COMMUNIST CHINA-STATE DIPART@ MENT GROUP Mr. MALONE, Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. McCARTHY. I yield. Mr. MALONE. Would Mr. Lattimore be a part of the group that evidently was referred to by Mr. Dulles at a luncheon meeting with Republican Senators—ac- cording to two different columnists— when he is reported to have said that a certain group in the ascendancy in the State Department thought a dose of communism would be good for Asia? Mr. McCARTHY, I thank the Sena- tor for that question, I do not believe I am violating any confidence when I quote what Mr. Dulles said at that meeting. I do not recall that there was any request that it be off the record. Was there? Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. McCARTHY. Iam glad to yield, Mr. KNOWLAND. I do not wish to in- terrupt the Senator, but I should like to say that I was not at the particular Meeting the Senator attended. Mr. McCARTHY. I am sorry. Mr. KNOWLAND. I had attended one, 1 or 2 days previously, I think. How- ever, it was my impression—and I merely wish to raise the point at this time— that it was an off-the-record meeting with Mr. Dulles, to discuss frankly with those on this side of the aisle some of the information which he had received as a result of his recent trip to the Far East. Since there was no stenographic re- porter present, we might not be doing a service to Mr. Dulles or to ourselves, un- Jess we are very accurate in regard to the statements which were made. I know the Senator from Wisconsin would try to be; but I also know that we are getting into a field where there might be some misunderstanding. I merely men- tion that by way of general information. Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the Senator. I say that I have not discussed that meeting, not knowing whether it was on or off the record. However, the news- papers have carried stories as to what occurred at the mecting. 10921 Mr. MALONE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. McCARTHY. I yield. Mr. MALONE. Mr. President, the junior Senator from Nevada was re- peating what columnists have said. Mr. McCARTHY,. That is correct. Mr. MALONE. Which, as a matter of fact, since it has been made public both of us know to be accurate. Mr. McCARTHY. ‘Yes. Mr. MALONE. How the columnists got it is another story. But inasmuch as it has been made pub- lic, I merely asked the question. Mr. KNOWLAND, Mr, President, will the Senator yield? Mr. McCARTHY. I yield. Mr. KNOWLAND. I wish to make an observation. Of course, the Senator from Wisconsin can exercise his own judgment in regard to this matter, but let me say that sometimes, as a result ef meetings in the Armed Services Com- mittee or some other committee, colum- nists may—by guesswork or otherwise— produce a story which may contain a part of what has taken place in the com- mittee meeting. If by chance that should deal with security questions, informa- tion about which would be of value to the enemy, the fact that that was either officially confirmed or denied on the fioor of the Senate of the United States by Senators who were there, would give other persons information which they necessarily would not have from perhaps @ partially accurate report by columnists. The Senator from Wisconsin, who has had long service for his country, both in the Marines and otherwise, of course is fully cognizant of the implications of having someone give either confirmation or denial to a speculative story. Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. President, I may say that I have no intention of discussing what was said by Mr. Dulles regarding a military situation in any arca of the world. Mr. MALONE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. McCARTRY. I yield. Mr. MALONE. In view of the fact that nothing about this has been stated on the floor of the Senate, or no report has been made here as to what hap- pened, other than the statement by news- papermen that they thought a dose of communism would be good for China, and that since the Communists have since gained complete control of China, and also of North Korea, and in view of the fact that North Korea is on the move with the result that it requires a war on an all-out scale to remove them, it seems to me it is time that the subject is dis- cussed on the Senate floor. Mr. McCARTHY. I agree with the Senator, and I am inelined to discuss it. Do I correctly understand that the Senator from California thought the meeting held on the previous day was off the record, and that Senators were not supposed to discuss it? Mr. KNOWLAND. AsI said, I did not attend the meeting the Senator from Wisconsin attended, - Mr. McCARTHY. Yes. Mr. KNOWLAND. However, I under- stand that there were two meetings, and
10922 the only reason there were two was be- cause the room would not accommodate all the Senators at the same time. The meeting to which I was invited with a large number of other Senators, and at which I understand substantially the same material was discussed, was an off- the-record meeting, so that Mr. Dulles could frankly discuss with the Members on this side of the aisle the situation in the Far East. That was certainly true so far as the meeting which I attended is concerned, which I think was 2 days ahead of the meeting which the Senator attended. Mr, McCARTHY. I did not so under- stand our meeting, but in view of the further fact that the Senator feels that that was the understanding at the pre- vious meeting, Iam going to ask unani- mous consent—— Mr. FERGUSON, Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. McCARTHY, Iam glad to yield. Mr. FERGUSON. The Senator from Michigan came in late, having been at another meeting. The Senator from Michigan happened to be at both meet- ings. It was his understanding that only Mr. Dulles’ talk was off the record, if that has any bearing. I heard the Sena- tor from California state that he was at the first meeting, and that according to his understanding both meetings were off the record, although the Senator from Wisconsin has seen a column purporting to give a synopsis or really a statement of what took place at the meeting. But the Senator from Michigan understood it was off the record, Mr. McCARTHY. I wish to thank the Senator. In view of the fact that it had been discussed rather freely in the press, I thought we could discuss it here, be- cause it was such an important matter— a matter of life and death. However, under the circumstances, I ask unani- mous consent to have stricken from the REcorD any remarks which tend to give a picture of what occurred at this meet- ing with Mr. Dulles. Mr. McMAHON. I object. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objec- tion is heard. Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. President, re- gardless of what Mr. Dulles or anyone else said—I do not take any one man as my final authority on this subject— there is no doubt, there can be no pos- sible doubt, that there was and still is within the State Department a group who feel that a dose of communism— that is, of Communist Government— would be a good thing for Asia. We fol- lowed Lattimore’s advice in China; we followed Lattimore’s advice in Korea, un- til a very, very late date. As the Senate knows, we voted a total of $75,000,000, more than a ycar ago, in connection with the arms implementation program, to provide military assistance to the anti- Communist forces in Asia. Even though such assistance was voted almost unani- mously, as I recall, by the Senate and House, and although the law was signed by the President without a word of pro- test, the State Department under that group of untoucHables, that group who think that a dose of communism or Com- munist Government is geod for some CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE countries, have succecded in making sure that not one ounce of gunpowder, not one bullet would reach the only major anti-Communist arm in the east, which is the army of Chiang Kai-shek, Then, later, the Senate voted the sum of $27,600,000 for Korea, Iran and the Philippines. $10,300,000, as I recall, was set aside for military aid to South Korea. That was done last year. As the Senate will recall, that action again was almost unanimous. The President signed the law without a word of protest. Then what happened? Why did not South Korea get tanks? Why did she not get guns? Why did she not get airplanes? Why, afier $10,000,000 was appropriated by the Senate, do we find that only $200 was actually spent? That was spent in connection with some wire which has not arrived in Korea yet. EEVENTH FLEET ORDERED TO STOP NATIONALIST CHINA'S INTERFERFNCE WITH ENGLAND'S EHIPPING WAR SUPPLIES TO COMMUNIST CHINA Mr. MALONE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. McCARTHY. Iam glad to yield. Mr. MALONE, Doses the Senator con- nect the order given to the Seventh Fleet of the United States to prevent Nationalist China from interfering with the commerce or in any way interfering wiih the Communist Government on the mainland of China, with the fact that that would prevent the Nationalist Gov- ernment from interfering with or stop- ping or attemp.ing to stop the normal trade relations between England and Communist China, to which England ad- mittedly, until a few days ago, was ship- ping petroleum? Finally, under great pressure of public sentiment here and elsewhere, the ship- ment of petroleum was stopped—at least, it was so stated—but England is still continuing to send fabricated and manu-~ factured goods into Communist China, which action is in reality keeping the Communists supplied with material which they can send, as they undoubt- edly are doing, to North Korea, which material can be used in the war against American boys and girls now in Korea. This commerce is continuing, and our Seventh Fleet has orders to stop the Na- tionalists from interfering with the regu- lar business of the Communists—is it in our interest to protect England in ship- ping war supplies to our enemies? Mr. McCARTHY. I think the Senator raises a good point. He refers to that part of the Presidential order to the Seventh Fleet, ordering it to make sure that Chiang Kai-shek’s forces take no military action against the mainland. Mr. MALONE. That is correct. Mr. McCARTHY. As the Senator knows, this part of the order was the brainchild of Dean Acheson. As the Senator will recall, when it was sug- gested that we aid Formosa to prevent the creation of an entire Red Pacific, Dean Acheson at that time referred to it as a “silly venture.” That was the day, the Senator will recall, that he re- ferred to the Communist victories in China as “the dawning of a new day.” So he has been adamant in attempting to prevent any aid to Formosa, When JULY 25 the President made the about-face and said, “We will send the Seventh Fleet to prevent an invasion of Formosa,” then the Acheson crowd, while temporarily defeated, and while temporarily thrown into confusion, began to work. They succeeded in getting an order preventing Chiang in any way from interfering with the commerce of Red China. What ef- fect has that had? The Senator spent considerable time in World War I as a combat engineer. Combining his back- ground of experience with the news which is coming in today, the Senator knows that one of the reasons for the previous inability of the Communists to invade the island stepping stones to For- mosa has been due to the fact that Chiang’s air force has been able to keep the Communists from congregating enough small shipping and marshaling their forces on the mainland, So what we actually have today because of that Acheson order is that we have the Sev- enth Fleet protecting: the Communists so that they can concentrate their forces und marshal their shipping along the coast. : The results are already becoming ap- parent. The Senator has read in the press that the Communists are starting an all-out attack on some of the island stepping stones to the mainland. What will happen? What will happen when Chiang’s forces start to protect, through air action, their island defenses? I do not know. Mr. MALONE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further? Mr. McCARTHY. But that part of the order was a tremendous service to the Communists in China. If, of course, the Seventh Fleet stays there and actu- ally makes an all-out attempt to pro- tect Formosa, that will more than offset the temporary advantage which the Communists are today getting along the shore. Mr. MALONE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further? Mr. McCARTHY. I am glad to yield. Mr. MALONE. We would naturally ex- pect, Inasmuch as there has been war between the Communists, sponsored by Russia, according to our own adminis- tration, and the Nationalists, and they have now won in China and have estab- lished their government in China, that naturally, they would make war on any island they thought would be advan- tageous to them. We would expect that. OUR ALLIES FURNISHING WAR SUIPLIES tO COMMUNISTS The thing which we normally would not expect is that our ally, England, would continue normal trade in fabri- cated and manufactured goods neces- sary to keep the troops in Korea sup- plied with such goods not available else- where, and that, further, we would order the Seventh Fleet not to allow Chiang Kai-shek to interfere with such ship- ments, Does the Senator understand that is what is happening, with normal trade necessary to supply the front line army and the army behind the lines? Mr. McCARTHY. As I followed the Senator’s question, this is his position, that one of the things the Chiang air
1950 force was doing was to prevent the flow of British oil into areas where it could be used to keep the tanks of the North Koreans operating, I think it is fully admitted that British oil was keeping those tanks running. Up to the time the Seventh Fleet was ordered to prevent Chiang Kai-shek from operating between Formosa and the mainland, he was ac- complishing the stoppage of at least a part of the volume of British oil. I gather the Senator’s position is that since the order to the Seventh Fleet there is no one to blockade the Communist forccs and to keep out the British oil which they are using in their tanks, Mr. MALONE. That is the position. We now understand that England has stopped, at least temporarily, the ship- ping of petroleum into the Communist area, but she is continuing to ship fabri. cated goods which the Senator knows, from his experience in the Marine Corps in World War II, are absolutely indis- pensable to keep an army on the march. So we would expect our normal enemies to gain more ground, but we would hardly expect the particular ally, to whom we are furnishing $1,500,000,000 a year to create industry in their own countries, to ship manufactured and processed goods direct to Russia and to the iron- curtain countries, which are no doubt finding their way to Korea or wherever they are needed, with our allies’ trade- marks still on the goods, It is hardly understandable, to put it mildly. Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the Sena-~ tor. I wish to say, not in specific answer to his question, but with reference to the general situation, that I believe any fair- minded man, any man of average intelli- gence, who has a bit of horse sense, will admit that so long as the Acheson crowd is in the State Department, they will attempt to sabotage every effort we make to stop communism in Asia. As Latti- more said, “Let them fall, but do not let it appear that we pushed them.” That is why the Red Dean and others make speeches against communism in general, while at the same time thrusting the dagger into the back of all anti-Commu- nists in the East. They either do not realize what they are doing—and [ do not think that is possible—or else they are trying to create a Red Asia and a Red Pacific Ocean which will wash our western shores. OUR ALLIES ASSIST COMMUNIST CHINO-RUSSIA AND IRON CURTAIN COUNTRIES Mr. MALONE. Mr. President, will the Senator further yield? Mr. McCARTHY. I gladly yield. Mr. MALONE. Why confine it to China? For 212 years we have fur- nished to the 16 Marshall-plan coun- tries goods, industrial equipment, and money to better equip them for indus- trial production. On March 4, 1948, the junior Senator from Nevada placed in the Recorp one treaty made by England with Russia covering the equipment being furnished Russia, and there are now 96 trade trea- ties between the 16 Marshall-plan coun- tries and Russia, and the iron-curtain countries, furnishing them everything conceivable that would be needed to fight world war III. Why confine it to China? CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the Sena- tor for his contribution. Mr. President, at this time I have sev- eral documents which I ask unanimous consent to have inserted in the Recorp, to appear at the conclusion of my re- marks. One of them is an editorial from my home-town paper, the Appleton Post Crescent. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. (See exhibit 1.) Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, will the Benator yield? Mr. McCARTHY. I yield. Mr. MUNDT. With reference to what the Senator from Wisconsin has said regarding shipments to southern Korea, T should like to ask him whether he has made any study of the possible relation- ship of W. K. Remington and those asso- ciated with him with regard to ship- ments or the withholding of shipments to southern Korea. My reason for ask- ing the question is that when the junior Senator from South Dakota was a mem- ber of the House Committee on Un- American Activities, somewhat over 2 years ago, and the committee was going into the case of Remington, we found him at that time in the Department of Commerce in the strategic position of determining what kind of mulitary equipment and machine tools should be exported from the United States to Rus- sia. Subsequently, as the Senator will recall, he was removed from the Depart- ment of Commerce, then cleared by the loyalty board, and reemployed by the Department of Commerce. So I wonder whether the Senator from Wisconsin has explored the possibility that the little cell he established there might be re- sponsible for the withholding of mili- tary aid which for eight long months failed to reach Korea after being appro- priated for by the Congress. Mr. McCARTHY. I have made no detailed study of it, because that was im- possible; but one of the reasons why I named Remington in the list of 81 per- sons was because he was working s0 closely with the State Department. I think it would be impossible for me, without the power of subpena, to tie down the specific individuals who were responsible for the sabotage. But, cer- tainly, it was that small group in the Department of Commerce and in the State Department. Incidentally, I want to invite attention to the fact that the State Department official whose file was given the Senate today is working on the question of ex- ports to Russian satellite nations. Mr, MUNDT. If the Senator will yield further, when the House Commit- tee on Un-American Activities originally went into the Remington case, he was at that time largely engaged in authorizing the shipment of grinding tools and‘ma- chine tools to Russia, which at that time was Russia's most conspicuous weakness, He was associated with a former resi- dent of the great State of Wisconsin—an unfrocked preacher from Wisconsin, The situation became so bad that a labor union in Rochester, N. Y., went on strike and refused to manufacture armaments for Russia then being authorized for 10923 shipment by these two characters in the Commerce Department, who were later cleared by the loyalty board, as a prelude to being indicted by the grand jury. I was wondering whether in his care- ful investigation of this case the Senator from Wisconsin had been able to deter- mine why it was that for eight long months these shipments were withheld from the South Koreans. There must have been a studied effort on the part of someone. It could not have merely happened. It could not be merely an example of Government red tape or bu- reaucratic lethargy. It would seem to me to have been a deliberate effort on the part of someone to deny to the South Koreans the equipment which they need s0 badly today. It was equipment which Congress had voted in October and which the Koreans had not received in any degree at all uptoJune. Could the Sen- ator from Wisconsin shed any light on that sordid chapter of American history? Mr. McCARTHY. The only light I can shed on it is that when the Acheson crowd in the State Department, with their friends in the Commerce Depart- ment, decide that aids which Congress votes are not going to get to certain na- tions, they simply do not get there. However, the situation has existed longer than 8 months. We have an example of it in Formosa. Congress voted $75,000,- 000 for aid to Formosa, over the opposi- tion of Mr. Acheson, who said it was a silly venture. However Acheson had the last word. Congress appropriated $75,- 000,000, and the President signed the bill, but Mr. Acheson’s crowd had the last word. Because of their efforts not one penny’s worth of material got to Formosa. I cannot pin it down to any one individual. It is the group to whom I have referred. Mr. MUNDT. Is the Senator from Wisconsin aware of the fact that when the first Marshall aid program was au- thorized the House Foreign Affairs Com- mittee, of which I was a member, over the vigorous protest of the Department of Siate wrote a new title into the bill providing aid for what was then Nation- alist China, and that in conference be- tween the Senate and House conferees of the Foreign Relations and Foreign Affairs committees, on which the junior Senator from South Dakota sat, repre- sentative of the State Department pro- tested vigorously against that type of aid. However, the Senate receded and the position of the House was sustained. The bill as passed contained the so-called Chinese title. Despite the fact that Con- gress had again spoken, this time with respect to giving military and economic aid to Nationalist China, that aid was also withheld deliberately by someone in the State Department, and it failed to reach Chiang Kai-shek until he was prac- tically on his last legs and almost ready to evacuate the mainland and proceed to Formosa. Ig the Senator aware of that sequence of events? That is not mere happenchance. The American public has not been told the whole story. It has not been-told that deliberately time after time aid which had been voted by Congress over the opposition of the State Department was