1950 ‘The world will judge our words by our ability to back them up. Every time we cut corners on a definite obligation, we sacrifice that much of our credit and our prestige in the eyes of the world. This is one of those situations where an international agreement that we made in good faith is compromised by one of our domestic laws. The purpose of this bill is to refund the sum col- lected as duties on reparations sold in this country for the relief of the Pre- paratory Commission for the Interna- tional Refugee Organization. These reparation sales are of a non- recurring nature. But first let us look at the background of this case. World war is frightening, even in ret- rospect, as we recall the millions of its hapless victims who were subjected to methodical and scientific persecution by the Nazis. When the survivors were finally lib- erated, large numbers of them were in desperate need of help to promote their rehabilitation and resettlement, Many of them had no government to represent them and to receive the repara- tions that would partially satisfy their needs. In 1945 and 1946, 18 nations—exclud- ing the Soviet Union—met in Paris to divide reparations. They allocated the nonmonetary gold found in Germany by the allied armed forces for the relief of those victims of Nazi aggression who could not be repatriated. The Preparatory Commission for the International Refugee Organization is the agency of the United Nations en- trusted with this task. This commission was authorized to sell the retrieved goods at the highest possi- ble value in order to secure funds for the relief of these homeless refugees. The property classified as nonmone- tary gold consisted of personal property such as jewelry, rugs, unmounted pre- cious and semiprecious stones, silver, watches, china and glassware, cameras, and the like, which had been seized by the Nazis from their victims, of whom countless numbers later died in concen- tration camps. This property was un- identifiable both as to previous owner- ship and national origin. The bulk of this property was brought to the United States by the commission in order to get the best price for it. It was sold in a manner that did not affect our domestic economy. At the same time there was every hope of securing maximum funds for the relief of refu- gees, That is, until the rigid United States customs laws were invoked, requiring the Preparatory Commission to pay duties of $120,000 on the importation of this prop- erty, thereby curtailing the net funds available after final sale and reducing the numbers of victims who might other- wise be helped. In other words, the Government of the United States promised to assist and then took a profit on its assistance. If we are to extend charity, it is best that we do so cleanly, and without any kick-backs, I prefer to think of the customs duties imposed on a special and limited type of CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE property that is brought to this country for the sole purpose of raising relief funds, as the blind and thoughtless ap- plication of a rule which can be corrected in the proper way. To pass this matter over lightly, is the way we would expect the Soviets to act in a similar situation, but not the United States. There is a moral issue here, which cannot be dismissed by a techni- cality. One hundred and twenty thousand dollars represents the sole hope of sal- vation for more than 100 refugecs, which we are taking from them, thoughtlessly up to this moment, but deliberately if we fail to refund this commission we have charged on a humanitarian endeavor. At the Paris Conference on Reparation, to which we were a party, the sale of nonmonetary gold found by the Allied armed forces in Germany to provide re- lief funds was approved by the signors to that instrument. A further sum, not to exceed $25,000,- 000, was allocated for the same purpose, said sum to be raised from a portion of the proceeds of German assets in neutral countries which are available for repara- tion. Furthermore, the governments of neutral countries were requested to make available for rehabilitation and resettle- ment those assets.,,in such countries be- longing to victims of Nazi aggression who have since died and left no heirs. In order to concentrate aid on the most needy and deserving refugees, it was decided to limit such aid to those who were vicitms of Nazi concentration camps, but not including those persons confined in prisoner-of-war camps. In the Five-Power Agreement of June 14, 1946, it was decided that assets be- coming available should be used not for the compensation of individual victims, but solely for rehabilitation and resettle- ment, All available evidence indicates beyond any doubt that the overwhelming major- ity of eligible persons under the provi- sions of article 8 are Jewish, since they were the principal targets of Nazi hate and terror. Eligible non-Jewish victims of the Nazi extermination policy are re- fugees from Germany and Austria who can demonstrate that they were perse- cuted by the Nazis for religious, political, or racial reasons. This latter category also includes German and Austrian na- tionals, similarly persecured, whose only hope of mending their broken lives, is in emigration to new environments. In all cases, loyalty to the United Na- tions is required, as a further test of eligibility. The conclusion that 95 percent of the heirless funds made available should be set aside to take care of the Jewish vic- tims, recognizes the fact that these funds are overwhelmingly Jewish in origin. The 5 percent made available for non- Jewish victims is based upon a lHberal presumption of heirless funds non- Jewish in origin, This is the broad picture of the com- mon agreement under which the Pre- paratory Commission for the Interna- tional Refiffee Organization operates. 10447 You and I are presently concerned with a part of that program and how it is being crippled by one of our own laws. To resolve this conflict and to live up to our word, it is necessary to pass legis- lation that will direct the Secretary of the Treasury to refund the $120,000 in customs duties that have been collected from the Preparatory Commission. The Committee on the Judiciary and the State Department recommend such action. The promptings of good faith and con- science tell us that this is the right and honorable thing for us to do. I hope and trust that the Congress will not default on this obligation and permit a technicality to cheat us of full per- formance. The enactment of H. R. 5863 means that we will carry out our pledge to the International Refugee Organization without short-changing the people it is trying to help, The cost of this is small, Its value is great. Mr. MICHENER. Mr. Speaker, we have no requests for time on this side. The SPEAKER. The question is, will the House suspend the rules and pass the bill? The question was taken; and (two- thirds having voted in favor thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. HOUR OF MEETING TOMORROW Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 11 o’clock tomorrow. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Mas- sachusetts? There was no objection. CALENDAR WEDNESDAY Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that business in order on Calendar Wednesday of this week may be dispensed with. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Mas- sachusetts? There was no objection. CALL OF THE HOUSE Mr. MARCANTONIO. Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present. The SPEAKER. Evidently a quorum is not present, Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, I move a Call of the House. A call of the House was ordered. The Clerk called the roll, and the fol- lowing Members failed to answer to their names: [Roll No. 207] Allen, Ill. Chatham Fogarty Allen, La, Chiperfield Frazier Andrews Christopher Gillette Angell Cole, N. ¥. Gilmer Barrett, Wyo. Combs Gordon Biemiller Cooper Gore Blackney Cox Gregory Boggs, La, Davig,Tenn. Hail, Breen Davis, Wis. Edwin Arthur Bulwinkle Dawson Hare Burdick Dingell Harris Carroll Eaton Hart Case, S. Dak. Engel, Mich. Havenner
Hébert McMillen, Tl. Ramsay Hedrick Miller, Calif, Regan Hil Miller, Md. Rivera Hinshaw Mitchell BSabath Hoffman, ™. Monroney wakt Holifield Morgan Soott, Hardie irving Morrison Shelley Jackson, Calif. Murray,Tenn, Sims Jennings Nelaon Smathers Johnson Norton Smith, Ohio Jones O#Bara, Ul, Thompson Kearns Passman Towe Keefe Patman ‘Vinson Keogh Perkins Welch Kilday Pfeiffer, White, Idaho Kirwan William L, Wickersham Lovre Phillips, Tenn. Wigglesworth Lyle Pickett Willis McCarthy Powell McConnell Quinn ‘The SPEAKER. On this roll call 334 Members have answered to their names, a quorum is present. By unanimous consent, further pro- ceedings under the call were dispensed with. DEPORTATION OF ALIENS FROM THE UNITED STATES Mr. WALTER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H. R. 10) to facilitate the deportation of aliens from the United States, to pro- vide for the supervision and detention pending eventual deportation of aliens whose deportation cannot be readily effectuated because of reasons beyond the control of the United States, and for other purposes, as amended. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The Is a second de- manded? Mr. CELLER. Unless a second is de- manded on the other side, I shall de- mand a second, Mr. Speaker. The SPEAKER. Without objection, a second is considered as ordered. There was no objection. Mr. MARCANTONIO. Mr. Speaker, a@ parliamentary inquiry. The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it. Mr. MARCANTONIO. The motion that was made was to pass the bill as amended. The amendments are a part of the bill as reported by the committee, or what is the situation? The SPEAKER. There are some ad- ditional amendments, Mr. MARCANTONIO. Not reported by the committee? The SPEAKER. The Chair assumes that the gentleman from Pennsylvania who made the motion was authorized by the committee to make the amend- ments. Mr. MICHENER. Mr. Speaker, a par- Hamentary inquiry. The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it. Mr. MICHENER. Is this bill called up under a straight suspension of the rules? The SPEAKER. Yes. Mr. MICHENER. Was the motion that the bill be called up under suspen- sion of the rules, together with amend- ments? The SPEAKER. That is correct. Mr. MICHENER. How many amend- ments? Under the .rules, they must designate the amendments. The SPEAKER. The Chalr under- stands there are committee amendments CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE and amendments to the committee amendments. Mr. CELLER. Mr. Speaker, a parlia- mentary inquiry. The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it. Mr. CELLER. I think the House should know whether those amendments were approved by the Judiciary Com- mittee. The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. WALTER] will be able to answer that. Mr. CELLER. I have no recollection, as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, that those amendments were approved by the committee. 5 The SPEAKER. ‘The gentleman at least makes a motion to suspend all the rules and pass this bill with amend- ments, which the Chair thinks is a proper motion. Mr. CELLER. Can that motion be made to suspend the rules and pass the bill with amendments, if those amend- ments are simply the amendments of the proposer of the bill who makes the motion and not amendments of the com- mittee? The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Water] made the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill with amendments. The Chair has recognized the gentleman for that purpose. nyt Mr. MICHENER. Mr. Speaker, a pare lMamentary inquiry. The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it. Mr. MICHENER. Ihave never known a time when you could maintain a mo- tion of that type. The number of amendments must be specified, not just the general statement “with amend- ments.” The SPEAKER. If the gentleman in- sists, the Clerk will report the bill as amended. Mr. MICHENER. I do not insist, but I should like to know whether there is going to be at least definite amendment or whether it is to be left indefinite. The SPEAKER. The Chair would as- sume that in the 20 minutes allotted to the gentleman from Pennsylvania he would discuss the amendments, Mr. CELLER. Mr. Speaker, is it in order for me to ask that the amendments be read? The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report the bill as amended, The Clerk read as follows: Strike cut all after the enacting clause and insert the following: “That section 20 of the Immigration Act of February 5, 1917, as amended (89 Btat. 890; 57 Stat. 553; 8 U. 8. C. 158), is hereby amended to read as follows: “wc. 20. (a) That the deportation of aliens provided for in this act and all other immigration laws of the United States shall be directed by the Attorney General to the country specified by the alien, if it is willing to accept him into its territory; otherwise such deportation shall be directed by the Attorney General within his discretion and without priority of preference because of their order as herein set forth, either to the country from which such alien last entered the United States; or to the country in which is located the foreign port at which euch alien embarked for the United States JULY 17 er for foreign contiguous territory; or to any country in which he resided pricr to entering the country from which he entered the United States; or to the country which had sovereignty over the birthplace of the alien at the time of his birth; or to any coun+ try of which such an alien is a subject, na- tional, or citizen; or to the country in which he was born; or to the country in which the place of his birth 1s situated at the time he is ordered deported; or, if deportation to any of the said foregoing places or countries is impracticable, inadvisable, or impossible, then to any country which is willing to ac- cept such alien into its territory. If the United States is at war and the deportation, in accordance with the preceding provisions of this section, of any alien who is deport- able under any law of the United States, shall be found by the Attorney General to be impracticable or inconvenient because of enemy occupation of the country whence such alien came or wherein is located the foreign port at which he embarked for the United States or because of other reasons connected with the war, such allen may, at the option of the Attorney General, be de- ported (1) if such alien is a citizen or sub- ject of a country whose recognized govern- ment is in exile, to the country wherein is located that government in exile, if that country will permit him to enter its terri- tory; or (2) if such alien is a citizen or sub- ject of a country whose recognized govern- ment is not in exile, then, to a country or any political or territorial subdivision thereof which is approximate to the country of which the alien is a oitizen or subject, or, with the consent of the country of which the alien is a citizen or subject, to any other country, If deportation proceedings are instituted at any time within 6 years after the entry of the alien, such deportation, including one- half of the entire cost of removal to the port of deportation, shall be at the expense of the contractor, procurer, or other person by whom the alien was unlawfully induced to enter the United States, or, if that can- not be done, then the cost of removal to the port of deportation shall be at the expense of the appropriation for the enforcement of this act, and the deportation from such port shall be at the expense of the owner or owners of such vessels or transportation lines by which such aliens respectively came, or, if that ts not practicable, at the expense of the appropriation for the en- forcement of this act. If deportation pro- ceedings are instituted later than 6 years after the entry of the alien, or, if the depor- tation is made by reason of causes arising subsequent to entry, the cost thereof shall be payable from the appropriation for the enforcement of this act. A fallure or refusal on the part of the masters, agents, owners, or consignees of vessels to comply with the order of the Attorney General to take on board, guard safely, and transport to the destination specified any alien ordered to be deported under the provisions of this act shall be punished by the imposition of the penalties prescribed in section 18 of this act: Provided, That when in the opinion of the Attorney General the mental or physical condition of such alien is such as to require personal care and attendance, the sald At- torney General shall when necessary employ a suitable person for that purpose, who shall accompany such alien to his or her final des- tination, and the expense incident to such service shall be defrayed in the same man- ner as the expense of deporting the accom- panied alien ts defrayed. Pending final de- termination of the deportability of any alien taken into custody under warrant of the Attorney General, such alien may, in the discretion of the Attorney General (1) be con- tinued in custody; or (2) be released under bond in the amount of not jess than 8600, with security approved by the Attorney Gen-
1950 eral; or (8) be released on conditional parole. It shall be among the conditions of any such bond, or of the terms of release on parole, that the alien shall be produced, or will pro- duce himself, when required to do so for the purpose of defending himself against the charge or charges under which he was taken into custody and any other charges which subsequently are lodged against him, and for deportation if an order for his deportation has been made. When such an order of de- portation has been made against any alien, the Attorney General shall have a period of 6 months from the date of such order within which to effect the alien's departure from the United States, during which pertod, at the Attorney General’s discretion, the alien may be detained, released on condi- tional parole, or upon bond in an amount and specifying such conditions for surrender of the alien to the Immigration and Natural- ization Service as may be determined by the Attorney General. If deportation has not been practicable, advisable, or possible, or departure of the alien from the United States has not been effected, within 6 months from the date of the order of deportation the alien shall become subject to such further supervision and detention pending eventual deportation as is authorized hereinafter in this section. “*(b) Any alien, against whom an order of deportation, heretofore or hereafter issued, has been outstanding for for than 6 months shall, pending eventual deportation, be sub. ject to supervision under regulations pre- erlbed by the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization, with the approval of the Attorney General. Such regulations shall require any alien subject to supervision (1) to appear from time to time before an officer of the Immigration and Naturalization Service for identification; (2) to submit, if necessary, to medical and psychiatric ex- amination at the expense of the United States; (3) to give information under oath as to his nationality, circumstances, habits, associations, and activities, and such other information whether or not related to the foregoing as the Attorney General may deem fit and proper; and (4) to conform to such reasonable written restrictions on his con- duct or activities as are prescribed by the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturali- zation in his case. Any alien who 1s found by the Attorney General to have willfully failed to comply with such regulations, or to have willfully failed to appear or to give in- formation or submit to medical or psychi- atric examination if required, or to have knowingly given false information in rela- tion to the requirements of such regulations, or to have knowingly violated a reasonable restriction imposed upon his conduct or ac- tivity, shall be thereafter detained in ac- cordance with subsection (c) until such time as the Attorney General orders other disposition of the allen’s case. Nothing in this subsection shall preclude the Attorney General at any time from directing removal of any alien of the classes described in sub- section (c) from supervision under this sub- section to detention as prescribed in sub- section (c). “*(¢) Any alien who is deportable under (1) the Act of October 16, 1918, as amended (40 Stat. 1008, 41 Stat. 1008, 54 Stat. 673, 8 U. 3. ©. 137); (2) the Act of Tebruary 9, 1909, as amended (35 Stat. 614, 42 Stat. 596, 21 :U. 8. C. 171, 174-175); the Act of Febru- ary 18, 1931, as amended (46 Stat. 1171, 54 Btat, 678, 8 U. S. C. 156a); (8) Bo much of section 19 of the Immigration Act of 1917, as amended (380 Stat. 889-890; 54 Stat. 671- 678, 56 Stat. 1044; 8 U. S. C. 155) as relates to criminals, prostitutes, procurers or other immoral persona, anarchists, subversives and similar classes, may, in the discretion of the Attorney General, be denied the privilege of rolease as provided in subsection (a) and in. stead the alien may be taken into custody CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE . and transported to such place of detention as may be designated by the Attorney Gen- eral and there, or at any such other place or places as may therafter be designated by the Attorney General, be detained, though not at hard labor, pending eventual deportation, or until departure from the United States otherwise shall have been arranged, or until the Attorney General, upon sufficient evi- dence of good cause, shall order supervision of the alien under subsection (b).” In de- termining whether good cause has been shown to justify releasing the alien and ordering his supervision under subsection (b), the Attorney General shall take into account such factors as (1) the age, health, and period of detention of the alien; (2) the effect upon the natidnal security and public peace or safety; (3) the likelihood of the allen’s following a course of conduct which made or would make him deportable; (4) the character of the efforts made by such alien himself and by representatives of the coun- try or countries to which his deportation is directed to expedite the allen’s departure from the United States; (5) the reason for the inabilitly of the Government of the United States to secure passports, other travel documents, or deportation facilities from the country or countries to which the alien has been ordered deported; and (6) the Cligibility of the alien for discretionary relief under the immigration laws. “(da) Any alien subject to detention under subsections (b) or (c) of this section may be released, in the discretion of the Attorney General, from detention under sub- section (c) and placed under supervision under subsection (b), on a showing which shall satisfy the Attorney General that the alien has obtained a travel document or made other approved arrangements to leave the United States, and, if considered neces- sary, upon giving a departure bond condi- tioned as prescribed by the Attorney Gen- eral, with good and sufficient sureties ap- proved by the Attorney General. Should any alien return to the United States after having departed pursuant to this subsec- tion and be excluded and his deportation following such exclusion be impracticable, or if he enters the United States unlawfully, he shall again be taken into custody and, re- gardless of the charges upon which he was deportable, shall be thereafter subject to treatment in accordance wtih subsection (c). In any such case, the previous warrant of deportation against him shall be considered as reinstated from its origina] date of issu- ance. The Attorney General is hereby au- thorized and directed to errange for appro- priate places of detention for those aliens required by this section to be taken into cus- tody and detained. Nothing in this section shall be construed so as to prevent any alien detained under subsection (c) of this sec~ tion, from questioning, on petition for writ of habeas corpus filed in the district court of the United States of the district wherein he is detained, the validity of such detention. “‘(e) Before the Attorney General may order the release under supervision of any alien detained under subsection (c), he shall prepare and file with all the other papers relating to such case, a synopsis of the evi- dence upon which such order is to be made, and the reasons for such order. “'(f)Tf any alien subject to supervision or detention under subsections (b) and (c) of this section is able to depart from the United States, except that he is financially unable to pay his passage, the expense of such pass- age to the country to which he is destined may be paid from the appropriation for the enforcement of this act, unless such pay- ment is otherwise provided for under this act. “*(g) No court shall have jurisdiction to release on bond or otherwise any alien de- tained under any provision of law relating to the exclusion or expulsion of allens at 10449 any time prior to a decision of court in his favor which 1s not subject to further judi- cial reviews.’ ” Mr. EBERHARTER (interrupting the reading). Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry. The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it. Mr. EBERHARTER. Does the time necessary to read the amended bill come out of the time for discussion? The SPEAKER. It does not. Mr. EBERHARTER. Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry. The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it. Mr. EBERHARTER. Will the House have an opportunity to vote separately on the amendments just read? Was that only one amendment that the Clerk read or was it several? The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Pennsylvania made a motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended, the amendment being to strike out all after the enacting clause and insert other matter. Mr. EBERHARTER. Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry. The SPEAKER. The gentleman will State it. Mr. EBERHARTER. May any further amendments be offered now? The SPEAKER. No. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. WALTER] is rec- ognized. Mr. WALTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Speaker, at the outset I should like to state to the House that the detention provisions of this bill apply only to those cases where deportation orders have been issued for the deportation of prostitutes and procurers, of dealers in narcotics, of those criminals who have served over a year and a day in the penitentiary, and subversives. It certainly seems to me that in pro- tecting the sovereignty of this Nation the least we can do is to take out of circula- tion, pending such time as they can find @ country that will accept them, the class of people that I have just men- tioned. There are outstanding today nearly 3,000 orders for deportation of that type of person, and by the refusal of a foreign country to take them back or by their refusal to attempt to obtain the necessary travel documents they enjoy complete freedom of movement and ac- tion because they are released on bonds of $500. Furthermore, if it is represented to the court, and the court believes it, that they are unable to provide bonds, they are released on their own recog- nizance. The records are full of cases of people who have committed one crime upon another, after the order of deporta- tion has been issued. As a matter of fact, the attention of the subcommittee of which I happen to be a member was called to the case of a man who was re- cently sent to the electric chair after he had twice been ordered deported because of armed robberies. No particular hard- ship is going to be worked on anyone because, bear this fact in mind, it is not mandatory on the Attorney General to hold people in detention. He is given discretionary power. If in his judgment
10450 one of the class of people I have just mentioned ought to be held for para- mount national reasons, he may detain him, but he is not obliged to hold any- body, although I trust that in every case of a subversive or a hardened criminal he will. Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. WALTER. I yield. Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I have asked the gentleman to yteld to point out for the benefit of the House that this bill was reported on August 4 of last year and has been before the Rules Commit- tee for nearly a year; that the gentle- man’s subcommittee and the Committee on the Judiciary did make a good case before the Rules Committee in favor of this bill; and that in my opinion the great majority of the Rules Committee favored reporting it, but somehow or other there was always delay, delay, de- lay, and there was never an opportunity for the Rules Committee to vote on this measure. Mr. WALTER. That of course fs true. Today on the floor we witnessed the charge, at least by innuendo, that amendments had been attached to this bill that were not considered by the com- mittee. As a matter of fact, I was di- rected by the committee to seek the rule with these amendments included in the il. Mr. BROWN of Ohio. When the bill was presented to the Rules Committee, it was in the same amended form in which it has been presented to the House today. That is the bill upon which the hearings were held before the Rules Committee, the bill as amended. Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. WALTER. I yield to the gentle- man from New York. Mr. LYNCH. Will the gentleman ex- plain whether or not any appeal from & court could be had under the bill, or whether it would be possible for the De- partment to keep a person detained ad infinitum? Mr. WALTER. No. The remedies available under existing law would in no wise be affected. More than that, the bill was amended by striking out section 2, which insures a hearing under the Administrative Procedures Act, which act was held to be applicable in depor- tation cases by the Supreme Court of the United States in a recent decision. No, it certainly seems to me that we have coddled this class of people far too long. I do not know of any other way to deal with the situation, but deal with them we must if we are going to protect the sovereignty of this great Nation. Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. WALTER. I yield to the gentile- man from Iowa. Mr. GROSS. Do I correctly under- stand that this applies only to convicted aliens? Mr. WALTER. The detention pro- visions of this bill apply only to aliens who have been convicted of the crimes I have mentioned and against whom a CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE warrant of deportation has actually been issued. Mr. CELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 minutes. Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to op- pose a bill of this character. The main purposes of the bill are laudable, but the procedure that is enunciated in this bill to carry out a laudable purpose, to my mind, is palpably unconstitutional. The amendments that you have just heard to this important bill are most serious in import. They are lengthy, in- tricate, involved, and certainly should be considered maturely and unhurriedly, and not with 20 minutes of opposition. It is not easy for mé to stand here and to point out even the titutionality of this bili. But somebody has it to do, and, as chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, I am going to do it, re- gardless of the consequences or the op- probrium which may be heaped upon me for doing so. I speak undaunted, un- afraid, because I know I am right. Mr. Speaker, this bill provides that the worst kind of people have no rights, Well, that is not so. Even a man guilty of treason has rights, and the dope ped- dler or murderer has a right to trial by jury before he be imprisoned. He has the rights enunciated in our Bill of Rights. But this bill cancels out all those rights, and in effect says certain classes of people, like narcot?é#-law violators and criminals and prostitutes and procurers and other immoral persons—I do not know what “other immoral persons” may mean—and “anarchists, subversives, and other similar classes’—I do not know what that means—shall be subject to the penalty of detention—indefinite deten- tion, although “not at hard labor.” But the Attorney General is given the right to say that any one of those classes of persons can be detained for a limited period or for an unlimited period. He has the right to designate the place where they shall be detained. He may have them detained in this country or he may have them detained outside the country. He may induce Great Britain, for example, to set up a place of deten- tion or a stockade on the island of Mau- ritius in the Indian Ocean. He may per- suade the French Government, under penalty of having Marshall plan aid cut off—and that is, of course, an extreme case—to set up a Devil’s Island off French Guinea, where these persons may be shipped. I wish to goodness we could ship them there. But we cannot and act according to constitutional safeguards, My purpose in appearing here is to warn you against running amuck as far as our Constitution is concerned. The point is, can we do the things sanctioned by this bill under our Con- stitution? Shall we give that unin- hibited and untrammeled power to the Attorney General to do those things? If you imprison a person, whether you im- prison him at hard labor or not, the courts have held time and time again that this is punishment and it is punish- ment which cannot be inflicted unless there is trial by jury, confrontation of witnesses, indictment by a grand jury, JULY 17 and all the other safeguards which are involyed in the judicial process. Mr. MARCANTONIO. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr, CELLER. I yield. Mr. MARCANTONIO. In response to the question asked by the gentleman from New York {Mr. Lync#], and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Wat- rer], Mr. Lyncw inquired specifically whether or not a person who is picked up by the Attorney General and incar- cerated or detained had any right to review—any kind of review? Mr. CELLER. He has only the right of review by habeas corpus. Mr. MARCANTONIO. And that is not either a trial or a hearing, is it? Mr. No, sir—that only means the court has a right to see whether or not the Government has fol- lowed the process laid down by the Con- gress. Mr. MARCANTONIO. By law, that is. Mr. CELLER. By law only. They cannot inquire beyond that. Mr. MARCANTONIO. So that if this bill became law, the court would be com- pelled to dismiss the writ of habeas corpus and rule that the law has given the Attorney General the power to in- carcerate or detain persons who may make application for the writ. Mr. CELLER. That is correct. Mr. O'TOOLE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. CELLER. I only have a few min- utes to explain my position. I hope the gentlemen will forgive me if I do not respond readily to their inquiries. I yield to the gentleman from New York. Mr. O'TOOLE. These people that the gentleman has enumerated have already been convicted by a jury, have they not? Mr. CELLER. Yes; and I am coming to that. Suppose a dope peddler is be- ing detained. He has served his sen- tence after trial and conviction. The Attorney General seeks to deport him under our laws. It is within the sov- ereign right of the Government to deport any undesirable person to his country of origin, but his country of origin refuses to give him travel documents. This is all after he has served his sentence. The country of the port of embarka- tion or the country through which he passed en route here, refuses to give him travel documents. Then what happens to this dope peddler who has served his sentence? Under this bill the Attorney Genera! would have the power to put him on Ellis Island. That is additional pun- ishment. He can put him under bond under the bill; put him under surveil- lance, interrogate him as to his activities, cancel the bond, renew the bond, and, in addition, clap him into some stockade or concentration camp and keep him there. Now, that is imprisonment. ‘You cannot imprison under the Constitution without a jury trial, You can do all this short of imprisonment at Ellis Island as else- where, I say, if you want to get rid of the Com- munisis, if you want to get rid of those who are illegally here—and I want to
1950 get rid of them—do it legally, constitu- tionally. Do not think for a moment I am standing here trying to obstruct the processes that would rid us of these un- desirable aliens—but if you would do that, do it right; do it according to the Bill of Rights. Do not do it in disregard of the Constitution. You must provide, then, that mere presence in this country illegally is a crime. And that being a Communist is a crime, and the two put together would then entitle the illegal entrant to the right of a trial by jury. Give him rights to that extent. But, unfortunately, our Judiciary Committee in its zeal, because of the shadow of Russia, has imperiled consti- tutional rights. Heaven knows what crimes we ourselves may commit in our haste because of this overwhelming shadow of Russia. We deprive ourselves of our rights because of this shadow. But I am going to stand here, regardless of the criticisms heaped upon me, as chairman of this great Judiciary Com- mittee, and Iam going to point out these transgressions to you. Apparently this Russian shadow makes us lose all sense of proportion. A great Nation made great of a great Constitution scuttles that great Consti- tution because of that shadow. In fight- ing the shadow we will have shorn our- selves of our locks. I cannot fail to call attention to the following quotation in the famous Wong Wing case (163 U. 8S. 237), a case almost exactly on all fours with this, involving Chinese laborers. The case goes back to 1895. This Congress, in its unwisdom, passed a statute which said that Chinese Jaborers, whenever and wherever found, might be placed in a correctional insti- tution, imprisoned by an administrative officer. The Supreme Court said as follows: But to declare unlawful residence within the country to be an infamous crime, pun- ishable by deprivation of liberty and prop- erty, would be to pass out of the sphere of constitutional legislation, unless provision ‘were made that the fact of bullt should first be established by © judicial trial. It is not consistent with the theory of our Govern- ment that the legislatufe should, after hav- ing defined an offense as an infamous crime, find the fact of guilt and adjudge the pun- ishment by one of its own agents, More recently than that is the case of United States against Moreland, de- cided in 1922, where we find the follow- ing excerpt: Moreover, the commitment in the Wong Wing case was not under sentence of a court or after conviction by & jury. It was by dil- rection of a commission of the United States. Just as in this bill it shall be by the Commissioner of Immigration and Nat- uralization, and his superior, the Attor- ney General. The SPEAKER. The time of the gen- tleman has expired, Mr. CELLER. Myr. Speaker, I yield myself five additional minutes. To continue, the excerpt reads: The punishment by imprisonment was thus imposed under an Executive order, and hence was clearly void under the Constitu- tion, whatever its character or incidents, its duration, or the place of confinement. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE The authors of this bill seek to avoid the taint or charge of imprisonment without trial by saying that the deten- tion shall not be at hard labor. What kind of legal abracadabra is that? What kind of lega! subtlety is it that states that you can change like magic something that is unconstitutional into something that is constitutional? Here we have the words in the case of United States against Moreland, supra, “re- gardless of the character of the impris- onment.” Regardless of the incidents, regardless of its duration, regardless of the place of confinement, it is still im- prisonment and cannot or should not be had unless there is a trial by jury. Mr. JAVITS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. CELLER. I yield. Mr. JAVITS. The gentleman has mentioned the question of criticism or opprobrium, I would say to the gentle- man that every Member of this House feels that the gentleman when he speaks of the Constitution and attacks it on that ground is making a conservative argument and is to be commended rather than sharply criticized for bringing these facts to the attention of the House. Mr. CELLER. Thank you, Mr. Speak- er. Illegal residence is no crime in the sense that it can be punished by im- prisonment. If travel documents cannot be obtained then we must say that the {legality of the residence is a crime and punished in the same way as a crime like burglary, robbery, or anything else. But under these decisions which I have just read you cannot imprison unless you ac- cord the offender the right of trial by jury, which is not done under this bill. I dislike to oppose anything that is espoused by my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Alabama _ ([Mr. Hosss], one of the ranking members of my committee I have the greatest re- spect for him, but I am sure that he will forgive me if I disagree with him and disagree mightily with him, because I think it would be wrong for this House to pass a bill of this character merely because we cannot constitutionally Jail people without judicial process. Yes; we have the right, and the courts have so held, temporarily to detain aliens; we can hold them at Ellis Island for a day, or a week, or a month, pending the de- termination of their rights, but we can- not hold them indefinitely. Under this bill the Attorney General can hold them for 1 day, 1 year, or for life. We know that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. We give absolute power here. Mr. HUBER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. CELLER, I yield. Mr. HUBER. How long ago would the alleged offense have to have occurred to escape the penalties of this bill? Mr.CELLER. A person would be sub- ject to the provisions of this bill if he committed one of the enumerated of- fenses within a period of 10 years prior to the issuance of the warrant of depor- tation. Mr. HUBER. Then a young person could commit an offense but lead an ex- 10451 emplary life throughout the subsequent years and still be deported under this ill, Mr. CELLER. The power is there to detain him for an indefinite period if he could not be deported. Mr.HUBER. Detained, I mean. Mr. CELLER. He could be detained and imprisoned. I am sure the distinguished gentleman who occupies the office of Attorney Gen- eral presently would not be guilty of any wrongdoing in that regard, but the power is there and we must be very vigilant as to the powers we grant. Mr. EBERHARTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. CELLER. I yield. Mr. EBERHARTER. The word “sub- versive” is in this bill. Subversives can be deported or detained. Is there any definition in the bill of the term “sub- versive”’? Mr. CELLER. There are a number of definitions in the decisions as to what “subversive” is; and the immigration statutes do contain criteria of subver- sion. I am not worried on that score, but Iam worried in other respects. The SPEAKER. The gentleman has consumed the additional 6 minutes. Mr. CELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself three additional minutes. Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. CELLER. I yield. Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. I can see something of the gentleman's argu- ment that there might be some question as to the legality of the bill because it grants discretion to someone. Could not the bill have been drawn to make it ar- bitrary and lock these people up right off the bat without Jetting them run around? Mr. CELLER. I suppose the gentle- man would wish to purge them, as Stalin oes, Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. I would lock them up. I would convict them and keep them locked up. Mr. CELLER. And ape the activities of the Communist nations against which we inveigh? Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. I do not want any traitors running around our country. Mr. CELLER. And you would do what Stalinites would do and what the Com- munists would do. I do not want that to happen. In endeavoring to kill com- munism I do not want to kill our own liberties. Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. The gentleman made reference to me. I say that js his talk. Mr. CELLER. I decline to yield further, I speak of the undue power that ts lodged in the Attorney General. He may be a benevolent Attorney General, but the time may come when we may have a malevolent Attorney General. We do not pass these statutes for temporary purposes. We pass them to endure for years, not for a month or a year. I do not know who the successor of the pres- ent Attorney General may be. He may be an arbitrary person. Powers once
10452 granted, however benevolent, have a habit of getting out of control. Let me repeat what Judge Brandeis well said in that regard: The greatest danger to liberty turks in the insidious encroachment of men of seal, well meaning but without understanding. Let me also quote from the minority report of the committee: In our opinion, this bill would, if enacted into law, introduce into the American system of jurisprudence the anomaly of providing prison terms which in some cases might amount to life imprisonment for persons who, through no fault of their own, are un- able to obtain travel documents to foreign countries. It contemplates the creation of detention camps in this country, release from which becomes dependent entirely upon the whim of an administrative officer, since the bill provides no legislative standards for ad- ministration, It sets up a procedure for the arrest and in some cases permanent deten- tion of persons in a way which contravenes well-established principles of the United States Constitution. This legislation is at variance with Amert- can traditions of due process. It smacks too much of the lettres de cachet of the Bourbon monarchs or the concentration camps of to- talitarian governments. Such provision for concentration camps or stockades should only be invoked when gravest danger threat- ens the sovereignty of the United States. This committee, however, has not received evidence of the existence of any such menace. What is the offense for which this bill pro- poses to subject an allen to indefinite “super- vision and detention"? In many instances simply the failure or refusal of the country of the alien's nationality or last place of res- idence to issue passport of travel documents permitting the alien to journey from this country to a foreign land. The alien becomes subject to this bill, with all its hardships, even though he may make the most sincere efforts himself to obtain his passport or other authorization to return whence he came. * * * Also deportation may be to a nonnative country where the language, customs, and mores may be strange or unknown to the deportee. Deportation is possible even to a country where one's life may be endangered. That is conceivably possible where @ non- Communist or anti-Communist is forced to go back to Soviet Russia or a satellite coun- try of Soviet Ruseia there to be purged or liquidated. That to my mind is “cruel and unusual punishment” in violation of the eighth amendment to the Constitution. As was indicated by the late lamented Mr. Jus- tice Murphy in his concurring opinion in the Bridges case (826 U. 8. 135, 163-164) : “It fs no answer that a deportation pro- ceeding is technically noncriminal in nature and that a deportable alien is not adjudged guilty of a ortme. Those are oversubtle niceties that shed their significance when we are concerned with safeguarding the ideals of the Bill of Rights The impact of depor- tation upon the life of an alien is often as great, if not greater, than the imposition of a criminal sentence. A deported alien may lose his family, his friends, and his livelihood forever. Return to his native land may re- sult in poverty, persecution, and even death. There ig thus no justifiable reason for dis- earding the democratic and humane tenets of our legal system and descending to the practioes of despotiam in dealing with de- portation.” Mr. WALTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massa- chusetts [Mr. McCormack]. Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, we all appreciate very much the technical position taken by our distinguished CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE friend from New York [Mr. Cerixr] in opposition to this bill. We all know that he js just. as good an American as anyone else. But I am constrained strongly to disagree with him on the technical posi- tion that he takes. It seems to me that this bill with the amendment that has been offered is a reasonable and justifiable bill under the conditions that exist in the world today. The gentleman from New York says that the bill was reported out of his commit- tee under hysteria of the Soviet Union, I suppose; but in looking at the bill I notice it was introduced on January 3, 1949, and was reported out of committee on August 4, 1949. That is 8 months of consideration. Iam, sure that the mem- bers of the Committee on the Judiciary, all of whom we respect, addressed them- selves very seriously to the consideration of this bill. The gentleman talks about the rights of these people. They can thank God they are in America. But what about the rights of Americans who have been arbitrarily ordered out of countries abroad? Only a few weeks ago Arch- bishop O’Hara of the Savannah-Atlanta archdiocese in Georgia and an official diplomat of the Vatican, for example, was ordered out of one of the satellite controlled countries of the Soviet Union. What about the man who has violated the law, a hardened criminal? The country in which he was born will not take him back. Here is another thing to think about: What about other Amer- icans that he might later assault, attack, rape, or murder? What about the man who is a Communist? They have all received the benefit that everyone of us is entitled to under the Constitution before this bill if it becomes law goes into operation. They are all entitled to a trial and they have received that, whether in the criminal courts, all that you and I can get, or in the civil courts if deportation proceedings are brought against them. What I am thinking about is, What are the rights of the United States of Amer- ica to protect itself against those who would destroy the institutions of govern- ment that we have? This bill only oper- ates after they have obtained the bene- fit of every right the Constitution guar- antees to a person, Further, they are entitled to a hearing under the provisions of the administra- tive procedures law, and they are entitled to what you and I are entitled if we are arrested or apprehended, and we think our rights have been invaded, the right of a petition of habeas corpus. Those are the things that run through my mind and I think, under the circum- stances, with the amendment confined to the classes that it is, it is an entirely justiflable and necessary law. Mr. WALTER. Mr. Speaker, I yleld 5 minutes to the gentleman from Nebras- ka (Mr. Sreran], (Mr, Sreran asked and was given permission to revise and extend his re- marks and include excerpts from hear- ings before the Committee on State, Justice, and Commerce Departments.) Mr. STEFAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. R. 10, known as the Hobbs bill, which has as its purpose the de- JULY 17 portation of aliens from the United States and provides for the supervision and detention pending eventual deporta- tion of aliens whose deportation cannot be readily effectuated because of reasons beyond the control of the United States. I feel that the passage of this bill is long overdue because of critical conditions that now exist. It is my understanding that the Department of Justice has been urging passage of this bill for a long time. I have read the minority report on this bill, but I feel that the conditions now are considerably changed from the time the report was written. ‘When the Director of Immigration ap- peared before our Appropriations Com- mittee justifying appropriations for the present fiscal year, he indicated alarm over the fact that he was unable to cope with the alien criminal problem because these alien criminals were allowed to wander over our country at large. He indicated at that time that he needed legislation to cope with this very serious problem. He stated about 300 of these alien criminals had been sentenced by our various courts for deportation be- cause of various crimes committed. Among them were over 100 alien crim- inals who come from countries behind the tron curtain and each one of these approximately 100 alien criminals was reported in the Department files as sub- versives or Communists. He expressed alarm over the fact that these alien-sub- versive-Communist criminals appeared to be well supplied with funds and were wandering over our country at will. He thought at that time it was absolutely necessary that a law be passed giving the Attorney General the power to incar- cerate these dangerous alien criminals until such time they can be deported. Only a few days ago, I contacted the De- partment of Immigration again and asked for the status of these approxi- mately 100 alien criminals from behind the iron-curtain countries, and I was in- formed that the situation was worse at this particular time than it was 6 months ago because the Department had lost track of at least 20 of them. The ad- dresses of some other were not known. In other words, we have at this time the names of 102 alien criminals recorded as subversives and Communists, well supplied with funds, who are wandering around the country at will, but we do not know where all of them are. It is high time that these Communists be rounded up and placed in jail to partially safe- guard the United States, Mr. Speaker, the committee of which I am a member has the duty to appro- priate funds each year for the Depart- ment of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Membership of our committee is well aware of the great danger to our country from the presence of thousands of subversives who are pres- ently here and who represent a fifth column of potential saboteurs. As one member of this committee having studied this matter over a period of years, I feel that it is high time some action should be taken by way of passage of legislation similar to H. R. 10. The Communist Party in the United States has gone underground. We are officially informed that the party's membership as of Feb-
1950 ruary 7 of this year was more than 54,000, that the fact remains that the party leaders themselves have been boasting openly that for every member there are 10 or more others who follow the Com- munist Party line and who are ready and willing and able to do the party’s work. This means that there is a potential fifth column of 540,000 people dedicated to the Communist philosophy which all of us know has as its objective the over- throw of our Government by force and violence. H. R. 10, if enacted into law, would help plug a wide breach in the internal security of this country—a breach through which the Communists, over the years, have poured traitor after trai- tor into the heart of America. The in- ability of the United States Government to deport undesirable aliens, men and women known to have pledged their al- legiance to a foreign ideology, repre- sents a tragic and inexcusable restric- tion upon the right of a free people to de- fend themselves against a deadly enemy. H. R. 10 should be passed promptly. To delay is to court disaster. The present immigration laws, with reference to the detention and deporta- tion of undesirable aliens, are grossly inadequate. The hands of American au- thorities are tied; the evil work of the Communists aided and abetted. The Communists, as might be expected, have played—and are still playing—this loop- hole in the internal security laws of the United States for all it is worth. They realize that once the foreign agent ar- rives in this country, nine-tenths of the battle is won. Even if he is identified and exposed, well, getting him out is a tedious, and in some instances, an un- successful fight. Even though he has been proven a menace to our country, under our present laws, he cannot be placed in detention quarters contin- uously until deportation, but may be re- leased on bond. As long as he is in this country he is still available for use by the enemy. The continued presence of these undesirable aliens in this country represents an alarming danger to our national security. Communist strength in the United States, both open and undercover, is drawn, to a certain extent, from aliens. Many of these individuals have been here for years—yet they have never be- come citizens. They do not want to be- come citizens—to do so might necessitate the revealing, in some form or other, their past Communist connections. Rather, they prefer to live as aliens, with- out the obligations of citizenship. In this capacity they can do their most ef- fective work for the Kremlin masters. Many of these undesirable aliens are undoubtedly trained espionage and sab- otage agents. Some undoubtedly have attended special Communist schools where they have been taught the tech- niques of civil war and revolution. Many undoubtedly have served the Russian es- pionage apparatus in other areas of the world. These individuals, now living in the United States, are experienced, pro- fessional operators, directing the activi- ties of local party members or lesser members of the espionage ring. They have been sent for a purpose—and they CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE will utilize every available technique, legal or illegal, to remain until that mis- sion is completed. The present immi- gration laws, which make most difficult their deportation, represent the cloak behind which they so obligingly hide. Typical of the type of Communist agent who as an alien worked inde- fatigably against the interests of the United States is Gerhart Eisler. Eisler, as we all now well know, was a most im- portant Communist, a faithful Soviet servant and a bitter foe of everything we hold dear. The roll call of undesirable aliens could be extended to include a number of individuals now occupying important positions in the Communist Party in the Uni States, The world situation is tense—the ene- my is working to destroy American de- mocracy. To allow the Communists to snuggle, without fear of deportation, within the bosom of this Nation, is man- ifestly inexcusable. American authori- ties must have the tools to handle this grievous situation. To identify and ex- pose these aliens is most vital, but it is not enough. America must have the power to expel these parasites who uti- lize our freedom as a cloak from which to slay free government, ALIENS FROM IRON-CURTAIN COUNTRIES Mr. Stzran. Now, Mr. Commissioner, as re- gards to deportatio: f aliens, those to be deported back to t place of origin, those originated in countries behind the iron cur- tain? Mr. MrLLeR. We almost universally fall to get travel documents from their respective countries, Mr. Steran. How many do you have in the United States you cannot deport because they cannot have any place to go? Mr. KE.iy. I think we have between 3,500 and 4,000 total. Mr, Sreran. What country are they sen- tenced to be deported to? Mr, Ketriy. Well, the tron-curtain coun- tries, Poland. Russian cases. Mr. STEFAN. Russia, Poland, Mr, Keiiy, Czechoslovakia, the Baltic States, Hungary, Poland, and so forth. Mr. Sreran. And you do deport them be- cause they cannot get a travel order to get into those countries; is that right? Mr. KELLY, That is right. Mr. Steran. They are left here on bond? Mr. Keuiy. No. Mr. STEFAN, Are they mixed up with our citizens? Mr. Kevty. That are at large. Mr. STEFAN. You do not know where they are, do you? Mr, Ke.iy. Well, we do our best to keep them located. Mr, Steran. What were they charged with? Mr. Kewiy. I think approximately a hun- dred cases were deportable under the act of 1918 as amended. SUBVERSIVE ALIENS Mr. Steran. What is that? Mr. Keuty. Former membership in pro- scribed organizations, subversive activities. Mr. Sreran. Communists and people with subversive ideas who believe in overthrowing Government by force and violence, and you have no check on them, and they are scat- tered in society in the United States, is that true? Mr. Ketuy. We have them all under bond. Mr. Stevan, They are loose under bond? Mr. Ken.y. Yea, sir. Mr. Srzvan. How many? Mr. Kuxty. Approximately 100 in the group, and I cannot give you the breakdown as to The majority of cases are 10453 causes of deportation as to the remainder, but many of these are criminals, Mr, Sreran. Here we have 3,500 aliens who have been sentenced to be deported back to where they came from, 100 of whom are peo- pie with subversive ideas. Why can you not send them back to Russia? Mr, Ketty, We have no way of getting them back without travel documents, no steamship company will accept them as pas- sengers if they cannot land them. Mr. STEFAN. So we are helpless here in the United States and they are running at large. They believe in overthrowing our Govern- ment by force and violence. Mr, Murcer. There are other types, like those hundred or more Hungarians that seem to be well fixed with money and that sort of thing. There 1s no way that I know of of getting rid of them. Mr, Kx.iy. There is legislation before the House that is designed to correct them. Mr, Steran. What does that do? Mr, Kexuy. It would authorize us to keep them under surveillance or detain them. Mr. STeran, You do not know where these 8,500 people are, do you? Mr. KELLy. Not all of them. Mr. Stevan. They are scattered all over the United States; are they not? Mr. Ketiy. As to those who have complied with the alien registration law, we do have a record on them, and I suppose we have a record on & substantial number; as to the subversives, we have a record on each one of them. Mr. STEFAN. These are not Mexicans. ‘These people come from where communism was born, Mr. Kewiy. These are mostly Europeans; yes, eir. Mr. WALTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Keatinc]. Mr. KEATING. Mr. Speaker, H. R. 10 would amend existing laws relating to the deportation of aliens in such a way as to permit the Attorney General to have an effective control over under- sirable aliens who, at the present time, cannot be deported because of reasons beyond the control of the United States, There are nearly 3,000 of these undesir- able aliens roaming the country, free to come and go as they please, either be- cause their native country or they them- selves will not cooperate to facilitate their departure from this country. Of these 3,000, 1,293 deportation or- ders against these aliens are based on criminal charges, while another 112 were ordered deported because of subversive activities. H.R. 10 would give the Attorney Gen- eral power either to incarcerate these aliens in some place of detention which he would choose or to keep in constant touch with them through periodic per- sonal reports. This authority is necessary if the At- torney General is to have the proper means of dealing with these recalci- trant cases, since often when the aliens find that the United States is unable to deport them, because their native land is unwilling to take them back, then they themselves make no effort to obtain the necessary papers to permit them to be deported to other countries. However, if these undesirables were faced with the prospect of detention for an indefinite length of time, they might have a little greater incentive to find a country which would be willing to have them. Certainly each sovereign State has the right to decide which aliens it shall
10454 exclude, The privilege of residence here is not a right possessed by every alien who may come to our shores. Another loophole which this bill closes Js the one dealing with the granting of bond during judicial proceedings to de- termine the deportability of aliens. H. R. 10 provides that no court shall have the jurisdiction to release such an alien on bond or otherwise until the final judicial determination in his favor, If such a provision had been contained in existing statutes, the escape of Ger- hart Eisler would not have taken place. Certainly by this time the nature and character of the work in which subver- sive elements engage must be obvious to all, They are a menace to our way of life, and, indeed, to our national secu- rity. It is ridiculous to be fighting them in South Korea, and yet to be forced to allow them to roam at large here at home, enjoying the privileges of free- doms which they are actively attempting to overthrow. Perhaps it is understandable that this bill should have failed of passage in pre- vious Congresses, since then the nature of the Communist threat was not s0 clear, but now there should be no ques- tion that a bill of the nature of H. R. 10 is urgently needed. We cannot afford to allow these Com- munist agitators and organizers to con- tinue their work to disrupt our industrial plants, which may soon be mobilized for war production or to undermine civilian morale with their untruths and distor- tions. We would be betraying our pledge to the boys who are fighting on the Asiatic front if we allowed their ef- forts to be sabotaged on the home front. The sacrifices which they are daily mak- ing demand that we take steps here at home to ensure that the victories which they win will not be hollow ones. We must make certain that our country re- mains free from fifth-column activities so that our will to fight Communist ag- gression wherever necessary is not sapped by clever sabotage and Commu- nist propaganda. Passage of H. R. 10 must be an integral part of any effort to control these sub- versive activities, Mr. FELLOWS. My. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. KEATING. I am very happy to yleld to the distinguished gentleman from Maine, who is one of the minority members of this fine Subcommittee on Immigration that reported this bill. Mr. FELLOWS. The gentleman from New York is a first-class lawyer. What does he think of the claim that this bill ig not constitutional? Mr. KEATING. In my judgment, the bill is constitutional. In the first place, it has been held time and again that pro- ceedings under the immigration law are civil proceedings and not criminal pro- ceedings. If they are civil proceedings, they are covered by the Administrative Procedure Act, and there is no right to trial by jury. Secondly, any detention under this act ig not imprisonment, It is temporary tn character and can be terminated at any time when the detained alien is able to arrange with some country to accept him. Furthermore, his detention can be tested CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE in court through the medium of a habeas corpus proceeding. It seems to me that it must be the law that detention is a necessary incident to the undisputed right of deportation which has been re- peatedly held to be an inherent and in- alienable right of every sovereign and in- dependent nation. Mr. CELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield one-half minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. MARCANTONIO]. Mr. MARCANTONIO. Mr. Speaker, we have had this bill before us for the past 10 years, and it has never become Jaw. Even though it:passed once in this House, the Senate refused to dignify it with any consideratipn and every other House since 1939 hag followed the Sen- ate’s action. It has never become law because a reasoning Congress, not moti- vated by hysteria, has rejected and fre- fused to consider this violent assault upon the Constitution of the United States. Now, of course, it is proposed to pass it, to project it upon us in hysteria, with the beating of war drums, and the Constitution will be again flagrantly vio- lated. The action of this House today only proves again that defense of tyranny abroad only means reaction at home. We witnessed the destruction of the civil service rights of Government em- ployees last week, the civil rights legis- lation was killed the other day for the re- mainder of this Congress. The week be- fore the administration broke the rafl- road strike, tearing the rights of labor into shreds. Yes, this bill is proof of what happens to the civil liberties of the people in the midst of a war which is not in the interests of the American people. I propose to continue to resist every phase of this disastrous operation des- peration as a duty to my fellow country- men. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to permission, I include at this point the following memorandum on H. R. 10 prepared by the Committee on Immigration and Nat- uralization of the National Lawyers Guild: Ten years after the Hobbs bill first came up in Congress the present bill, H. R. 10, is before the Judiciary Committee. The pres- ent bill makes three proposals which are foreign to our traditions. P 4 Deportable aliens are to be sent not alone to the country of their nativity, citizenship, or residence—in certain instances to the port whence they shipped to the United States—but “to any country which will agree to accept such aliens into its territory.” (Sec. 20 (2), p. 9, P. G. ‘i. 20.) One of the issues raised in the Wickersham Report on The Enforcement of the Deportation Laws by Reuben Oppenheimer was the cruelty involved in sending alien Communists resident in the United States to countries where their lives were endan- gered even though they might be citizens of such countries (pp. 121-123), The report atope to say “the board of review insisted upon making deportation a death sentence.” Under H. R. 10 not only can deportation be made a death sentence, but it may result in deportation to a country, the language and customs of which the alien knows nothing, This ts in spirtt at least “cruel and unusual punishment” in violation of the Bighth Amendment to the United Btates Constitu- tion, As was said by Mr. Justice Murphy in his concurring opinion tn the Bridges case (826 U. 8. 135, 168-164) : JULY 17 “7+ ia no answer that e deportation pro- ceeding is technically noncriminal in nature and that a deportable alien ls not adjudged guilty of a ‘crime.’ Those are oversiibtle niceties that shed their significance when we are concerned with safeguarding the ideals of the Bill of Rights. The impact of de- portation upon the life of an alien is often as great, if not greater, than the imposition of a criminal sentence. A deported alien many lose his family, his friends, and his livelihood forever. Return to his native land may result in poverty, persecution, and even death. There is thus no justifiable reason for discarding the democratic and humane tenets of our legal system and descending to the practices of despotism in dealing with deportation,” . a The Attorney General is given power of detention over all aliens. Deportable aliens whose deportation cannot be effected within 6 months are, under H. R. 10, subject to the discretion of the Attorney General as to whether they are to be held in custody, paroled under supervision, or released on bond. During the first 6 months it 1s also put within the Attorney General's discre- tion whether they will be held in custody, conditionally paroled, or released on bond. Buch provision is in violation of the elghth amendment to the United States Constitu- tton providing against the Imposition of “ex- cessive bail.” It also flouts the recent deci~ gion of the circuit court of appeals of the second circutt, which held that the Attorney General under the present law had in the firat instance the right to determine whether to release an alien in deportation proceed- ings on bond but that his discretion was subject to review so as to establish that he was not abusing it (U. S. ex rel Potash v. District Director (169 F. (2d) 747)). If deportation has not been effected within 6 monthe “pending eventual deportation” any alien against whom a warrant of de- portation has issued shall be subject to su- pervision under regulations prescribed by the Commisstoner of Immigration and Natura- lization, with the approval of the Attorney General. “Such regulations shal) require any alien subject to supervision (1) to appear from time to time before an officer of the Immi- gration and Naturalization Service for iden- tification; (2) to submit, if necessary, to medical and psychiatric examination at the expense of the United States; (8) to give information under oath as to his circum- stances, habits, associations, and activities; and (4) to conform to such reasonable writ- ten restrictions on his conduct or activities as are prescribed by the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization in his case.” 3 18ec. 20 (b), p. 18: In connection with the problem of whether incoming immi- grants are persons of psychiatric inferior- ity, the Immigration and Naturalization Service has given some psychiatric examina- tions. The unsatisfactory character of these examinations is set forth in CoxiGRrEessionaL Recorv, January 9, 1928 (unbound), pp. 1260 et. seq., especially the statement of Mr. Criizr, in which he says: “Psychiatrists tell me that infinite care and painstaking effort ig required in these psychiatric tests. A proper examination takes hours, and some- times days. The examining agents cannot and would not devote that length of time and care. They have not the time, in the frst ace, The best type of psychiatrist is the gn, cordial, affable specialist who can draw out his patient, He must act with finesse and never be heavy-handed. Con- sider the low wages paid in Government service, and I defy anyone to show a pay- chiatrist worthy of the name in the Public Health or Immigration Service. I do not say this in derogation of these services, but facts are facts, anc we have none such” (p, 1251).
1950 Violation of such regulations may result in detention at any place designated by the Attorney General until deported, which may be for life. In the case of alien criminals or radicals, as well as all those whose arrival has been within the last 10 years, regardless of the reasons for deportation, the Attorney Gen. eral is given power to transport him to such place of detention as may be designated by the Attorney General and there, or at any such other place or places as may thereafter be designated by the Attorney General, (the alien may) be detained, though not at hard labor, pending eventual deportation, or until departure from the United States otherwise shall have been arranged * * * (sec, 20C, p 14), The alien is given the right under H. R. 10 to question the validity of his detention by habeas corpus. This he would have, re- gardless of the law, and the law provides no grounds for holding the detention invalid, as everything is put wholly within the dis- cretion of the Attorney General Moreover, under section 20 (g) the courts are expressly denied jurisdiction to order bail unless a de- cision adverse to the Government has been made which is not subject to further review. The detention and supervision features of the bill propose radical changes in the treatment of aliens in deportation proceed- ings. The purpose of these detention pro- vistons—and it must be remembered that parole is in legal effect, imprisonment and “merely an extension of the prison walls” An- derson vy. Corall (263 U. 8, 193, 196)—is ap- parent They present not only an important issue of public policy, but also grave con- stitutional questions. What the bill, in its detention provisions, patently proposes to do is not to implement deportation but to establish a system of custody for allens in deportation proceed- ings, from the inception of the proceedings until they are held indefinitely after the warrant of deportation issues but cannot be executed. The indefinite detention provided in par- agraph (c) of section 4 of the bill is mani- festly criminal punishment quite as surely as it was in the case of Wong Wing v. U. S. (163 U.8 237-238), even though here the pro- vision for hard labor has been eliminated and indefinite detention (possibly in a con- centration camp) is provided rather than imprisonment fo. not more than 1 year. The Wong Wing case was characterized as fol- lows in a dissenting opinion by Judge Brandeis, which was not in conflict with or challenged by the majority opinion: ‘Moreover, the commitment in the Wong Wing case was not under sentence of a court or after conviction by a jury It was by direction of a commission of the United States. The punishment by imprisonmont was thus imposed under an Executive order, and hence, was clearly void under the Con- stitution, whatever its character or incl- dents, its duration or the place of confine- ment” (United States v. Moreland (258 U 8. 433, 443)). $0 84 The bill seeks to exempt the Immigration and Naturalization Service from the proced~- ural requirements of the Administrative Pro- cedure Act of 1946 (sec. 2 p. 17) Leav- ing out of consideration the fact that the service has consistently insisted that it was not covered by that act or required to comply with it (8 Monthly Review 103), it is plain that procedural due process as ¢m~ bodied in the Administrative Procedure Act 1s more important where human liberty and not mere property rights are involved, “Prob- ably more than any other Government agency the Immigration and Naturalization Service sets in bold relief the most difficult problems of interpreting the Administrative Proced~ ure Act” (58 Yale Law Journal, Federal Ad- ministrative Procedure Act, 670, 697). The CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE separation of functions has long been urged on the Service. Thus, in the Wickersham report, Mr. Oppenheimer writes (supra, p. 144); “Members of the same local office make the investigations, conduct the preliminary ex- aminations, decide whether an interpreter is needed, act as interpreter and as stenogra- pher, conduct the warrant hearing, and make a@ recommendation to Washington as to whether or not the suspect should be de- ported. Often the same individual acts In a number of these capacities.” The Secretary of Labor’s Committee on Administratitve Procedure in tts 1940 report on the Immigration and Naturalization Serv- ice, pages 78-82, criticized the Combining of the functions of detection and decision, of prosecution and judging. With a history like this the service, more than any other agency should welcome and abide by the requirements of the Adminis- trative Procedure Act. The Hobbs bill of 1949, nonetheless than the 1940 version, is & totalitarian measure? Civil Mberty is no less destroyed by indefinite imprisonment in jail by Executive order than by detention in a concentration camp. Under the Constitution all persons—aliens as well as citizens—are protected against the tyranny of government? Until now the American people have fully subscribed to the principle that no person is to be punished on account of race or color or alienage. They have recognized that the freedom of all is threatened when the Hberty of any group 1s abridged, If this tradition still persists— and if the Nation is made aware of the im- plications and the underlying philosophy of the Hobbs bill, it wil never become a statute, albeit an unconstitutional statute. NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD, Rosert J. SILBERSTEIN, Executive Secretary. May 25, 1949. (Mr. MaRcANTONIO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his re- marks and include a memorandum on the constitutionality of the bill ) Mr. WALTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may require to the gen- tleman from Illinois [Mr. VELDE]. Mr. VELDE. Mr. Speaker, the present world crisis demands that Congress im- mediately put into law H. R. 10, a bill to facilitate the deportation of aliens from the United States and to provide for the supervision and detention pending even- tual deportation, of aliens whose depor- tation cannot be readily executed be- cause of reasons beyond the control of the United States. I say that the present world crisis demands it, knowing full well that the bill will affect aliens who are not necessarily subversive or harmful to the security of the United States. The bill, if enacted into law and I assume that it will be, will prevent repetition of such infamous crimes as Gerhart Eisler skipping the country and conveying to a potential enemy information which he obiained while allowed to roam through our beloved country unhampered. The bill, of course, will be too late to remedy the injustice done to American people by his treacherous action. It will, how- * As observed by Mr. Ceiier in his minority report of the year, H. Rept. No. 397, 76th Cong,., 1st sess, the bill smacks too much of the lettres de cachet of the Bourbon mon- archs or the concentration camps of totali- tarian governments. 'Wong Wing v. United States; United States v. Moreland, both supra. See also Yick Wo. v. Hopkins (118 U. 8, 356 (1886) ); Truaz v. Raich, (239 U.S ss, 41 (1015)). 10455 ever, assure Americans that such treach- erous action on the part of enemy aliens or potential enemy aliens will not be re- peated. Those few radical left-wingers who oppose this bill yell to the high heavens that we are depriving aliens of substantial rights and would attempt to put an alien living in this country in the same classification with loyal nat- ural-born or naturalized citizens of America. It does not take much imagi- nation or intelligence to see through the purpose of this little left-wing group. In the present crisis they are alining them- selves with those undesirables and sub- versives in this country who would use the constitutional guaranties as a cloak for their attempts to overthrow our form of government by force and vio- lence. It is preposterous and hard to understand why any person who has the opportunity to represent real Americans in this Congress would stoop to such be- haviour. The Department of Justice informs us that there are thousands of aliens in this country who have violated our laws or who are potential saboteurs and espi- onage agents who cannot be handled ef- fectively under the present law. I be- lieve that the Department of Justice is stating the true facts regarding this issue. Who in the United States would be better qualified to recommend this legislation than the Department of Justice? Hav- ing had to deal with aliens throughout the history of this country and especially during the wartime periods, the Depart- ment of Justice has gained first-hand knowledge of the situation which can- not be overlooked now. This bill is cer- tainly not unconstitutional and I pre- dict if the question of constitutionality is ever tried, the decision of the Supreme Court will be unanimous. We have been extremely Mberal with aliens who have come to this country and probably most rightly so. We have been, however, too unwary of the allens who have been sent to this country for evil purposes and have classified them with millions of decent God-fearing im- migrants who have in the past made America as great as it is today. While this bill gives the Attorney General pow- ers to deal with that small group of aliens who are here for no good reason, they still have the guaranties of the writ of habeas corpus and Other legal rights which naturalized or native-born citizens of this country have. The left-wing group who are opposing this bill say that by passing it we are giving too much authority to the Attor- ney General, an administrative officer, to use judgment in the matter of {mprison- ing without bond or deporting undesir- able aliens. At the same time this little left-wing group are constantly demand- ing that Congress sacrifice more and more and deliver over more and more of its rights, as granted by the Constitution, to the executive branch of Government. They think nothing of voting all kinds of power in cther cases to the Members of the Cabinet and other independent administrative offices who rule, or are capable of ruling with an iron hand, our very lives and economy—but when we
10456 seek to control a group who are poten- tially able to destroy the very Constitu- tion under which they seek protection, then they yell to the high heavens. I say it is time that we began thinking of America and the interests of the mil- lions of American citizens who should be protected, and stop sympathizing with the disloyal people in our country who would destroy our American way of life. Mr. WALTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remaining time, 44% minutes, to the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Hosss}. Mr. HOBBS. Mr. Speaker, I wish it were possible in the limited time at my disposal to yield to all who might wish. I see the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Murdock), rising. Iam happy to yield to him, but, I beg pardon, I will have to con- fine my yielding solely to the gentleman from Arizona because I only have 4% minutes. Mr. MURDOCK. Mr. Speaker, I ap- preciate the fact the gentleman has yielded. Before I ask the one question I have in mind, I want to say I have the highest regard for the legal learning and great admiration, as well as appreciation, for the gentleman’s fine patriotism. This is the question: I remember in the spring of 1939 @ bill of this sort was before the House. I believe it was the gentleman’s own bill. I remember I thought highly of that bill and voted for it; my only re- gret has always been that it failed to become enacted into law then, as I hope it will be now. What is the relationship between the bill at that time and the present bill? Mr. HOBBS. I must thank the gen- tleman, both for his graciousness in his complimentary references to me, and for his vote for the 1939 version of the pending bill. This is the sixth or eighth time substantially this same bill has been offered by me. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Marcanronio] is right. It has been before the House for more then 10 years. However, the intimation of the distinguished chairman of our committee [Mr. Cz..8] is in error in his minority report on this bill when he says: “This bill was first offered in the Seventy-sixth Congress and died there. This is the fifth edition of the same bill.” The insinuation seems clear that this bill died when first offered, and had had no better luck since, when, as a matter of fact, it was passed by a vote of 288 to 81 by the same Seventy-sixth Congress, May 5, 1939, as this House is going to do today. There is nothing in the con- tention of unconstitutionality of this bill, as I will prove as we go along. Not only was it true as gospel, but as our distin- zuished majority leader so wel] said, how short is the shrift given Americans, dis- tinguished members of the diplomatic corps, or churchmen behind the iron surtain. Yet we seem impotent in such cases. But when our guests come tere, break their oath of entry, abuse our hospitality, violate our laws, and seek aid in the overthrow of our Govern- nent, it seems to be impossible to get hem to go home. So it is, as the then Attorney General, Hon. Tom C. Clark, aid in his testimony before our com- nittee, that if this bill had been law the serhart Eisler case could never have lappened. He also refreshed his recol- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE lection from the then head of the Im- migration and Naturalization Service, Hon. Ugo Carusi, and asked him how many foreigners who had been finally ordered deported but cannot be deported were then in our country. The reply was: “Five thousand of all countries.” Attorney General Clark filed a written statement with Chairman Emawvst CrL- LBR on May 20, 1949, which the chair- man, of course, filed with the committee. From that statement I quote: I am informed by the Immigration and Naturalization Service that as of April 15, 1949, there were 3,278 warranta of deporta- tion that were not enforceable. Of the aliens covered by these warrants, 2,147 were eo-called iron curtain ngtionals, and of that number 1,190 were Ruggians. Of the 8,278 deportation orders, 1,293 were based on crim- inal or immoral charges and 112 were issued under the act of October 16, 1918, as amended, which relates to subversive classes. Now that ts the case. Not only Ger- hart Eiser but every other alien who has committed a crime. As, for in- stance, Harry Bridges; not because of any hatred of Harry Bridges, but because he was convicted, by due process of law, of the crime of perjury in his applica- tion for his naturalization. His appltica- tion was granted, but having been grant- ed on perjury, his naturalization has since been canceled by proper court decree. Now his nation, Austfalia, says it will not take him back. Whether there be 5,000, 3,278, 500 criminal aliens free in this land of ours, who have been ordered deported, but who are thumbing their noses at Uncle Sam, and paying no attention to those orders, we should not longer fail to do our duty. I say that this bill should be passed. It ts constitutional. There can be no question about it. I will cite in my re- marks the cases that prove it. Mr. Speaker, the pending measure, H. R. 10, when it becomes law, will effectu- ate one single purpose: the restoration of the sovereign power of our Govern- ment to deport criminal aliens who have been finally ordered deported but who have never obeyed that order, the vast majority of whom are here enjoying just as much freedom as any law-abiding Citizen, although they have been ad- judged unfit to remain here after hav- ing been given their day in court and every right guaranteed by statute, Con- stitution, or known to American justice! Please let me emphasize at the very be- ginning of our consideration that depor- tation is not a criminal procedure. It is purely civil. No alien has ever been forced to come here. He agrees in his contract of entry that if we allow him to enter he will observe our laws and will not do anything inimical to our Government. If he abuses our hospital- ity and violates our laws or seeks to over- throw our government, it ought not to be considered too great a hardship for us to require that he go back home. Like Br’er Rabbit in the Uncle Remus story, he may protest, but the chances are he would be happy to be turned loose in his home briar patch. Mr. Justice Tom C. Clark, when he was Attorney General, appeared before our Committee on the Judiciary, pleading for JULY 17 the enactment of H. R.16. I hope every Member of the House will read his letter and testimony. Sut I wish to invite your attention te one statement which I quote from that letter. Referring to H. R. 10, he said: “Had the legislation here pro- posed been in effect, such incidents as occurred recently in the Gerhart Eisler case might have been avoided.” The Supreme Court has repeatedly and uniformly held that the right to exclude or to expel aliens, or any class of aliens, absolutely or upon certain conditions, in war or in peace, is an inherent and in- alienable right of every sovereign and in- dependent, nation. The exercise of that sovereign power by the United States of America should not be hampered, limited, nor thwarted by any other nation. If it be, by Just so much has our Nation lost its sov- ereignty and independence. The right to detain an alien subject to deportation is but a necessary incident of the right to exclude or deport. Such detention or temporary confinement is not imprison- ment nor punishment, so of course there can be no question of double jeopardy. The decisions of the Supreme Court which established these principles will be cited during the course of these remarks, giving the book and page. Mr. Speaker, Bishop Warren A. Can- dier, then the distinguished senior bishop of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, was holding a conference upon one occasion and he preached upon a text from that portion of the Seriptures containing the story of Ananias and Sap- phira. “God did not strike Ananias and Sapphire dead for lying,” that great preacher said. “God does not strike people dead for lying. If He did, where would I be?” A titter which grew into laughter swept that vast audience; that this distinguished prelate should thus in- volve himself. But immediately he con- tinued. “I will tell you where I would he. I would be standing here preaching to a bunch of corpses.” I am glad that God does not strike people dead for lying, but if He did, it would certainly relieve us of some of the responsibility we are trying to discharge by passage of this bill, far the Red press has been reeking with falsehood con- cerning this needed reform. One of the leading opponents of this bill, Mr. Lee Pressman, wrote a2 letter to every Member of Congress back in 1939 expressing a most reiterated point of op- position, which would be rather serious if it were true: This bill would authorize the detention of any alien who has been ordered deported, but who, through no fault of his own, is unable to secure a passport from the gov- ernment of his native country. Mr. Pressman continued: The result would be that such individuals would be placed in concentration camps for the rest of their lives. The first one of these quotations is not what men of long experience in the Im- migration Service tell me, They say that 9 out of 10 of the aliens who would be affected by this bill remain here as a re- sult of altpping a bribe to one of their local consular agents, or by collusion with their home governments. They re-
1950 main here, mark you, in spite of a solemn warrant of deportation duly made in conformity with our law, after full and fair hearing in which they had the right to be represented by counsel of their own choosing, and to disprove by any evidence they could adduce, the charges against them. The important ones, who have qualified as efficient propagand- ists for the overthrow, by force and vio- lence, of our Government and for the establishment of some communistic or anarchistic heaven on earth, have made themselves so valuable to Red Russia, for instance, that Russia will not receive them back, but wishes to keep them here on the job as a part of the fifth column. The unimportant ones—the small fry— have to go down and slip a hundred-dol- Jar bill to some local agent of their fore eign government and say: “Now re- member, this is not a bribe. I have been trying ever since Christmas to think of something nice to buy for you. Here is something I want you to take and use just as you see fit. There is just one thing I want you to remember, and that is I do not want to go back to Italy”— or to whatever may be his homeland. That is why most of them are still here, so the experts tell me. Occasionally there may be one who, through no fault of his own, is unable to secure a passport from the government of his native coun- try. I grant that, But may I inquire how Uncle Sam is to blame for that? Are the people of the United States to con- tinue being compelled to suffer merely because some criminal alien is so rotten, or so good a propagandist for rottenness, that his home folk refuse to take him back? And note this well: There is nothing in this bill which requires a detention of any alien until a passport for him can be secured. There are three other ways by which any alien covered by this bill may be re- leased from the detention required: First, by shipping as a seaman on some vessel bound for a foreign shore, without passport or other authority; second, by obtaining from some foreign government a visitor's visa; third, by ob- taining from some foreign government any other form of travel document when passport is not forthcoming. It is in- conceivable that many aliens will find it impossible to arrange for their depar- ture from the United States in one of these four ways. By making departure arrangements of any kind, any alien de- tained under this bill can escape further detention. Thousands of aliens are coming into our country every month. They know how to get in. Is it conceivable that they could not find a way to get out? Some of you may not agree with me, or with the law of this land, or with the determination of our duly constituted authorities that such deportable aliens should not be permitted to live here in freedom, merely because of the pretense that they cannot make departure ar- rangements of some kind. But I say to you that men like Cesare Valenti have never made a valuable contribution to the life of America, They have fre- quently taken lives which would. And CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE if the deportation proceedings now pending against him result in a final order of deportation, and if arrange- ments cannot be made for him to re- turn somehow to his native Italy, then I reiterate and insist that some such meas- ure as the pending one should require that he be separated from the free life of America, even though it means de- tention for life. Keep them here, if you wish, but I do not. The next question which naturally arises is: Why are they here? The ob- vious answer is that our laws have been set at naught. Our sovereign powers have failed. In some instances that fail- ure has been due to the whim of caprice of foreign governments; but in the main, they act with solémn assurance in veto- ing our right of deportation. They seem to know what they want, and how to get it. Collusion and bribery undoubtedly play their part in forcing us to retain these undesirables. But if none of these things be true, then the only alternative answer is that they are so bad nobody wants them, but the opponents of this bill. The next question is, What would this bill do? It would simply detain until the aliens themselves or their families or friends see fit to arrange for them to go home. The effect of this bill is, merely, to extend section 20 of the act of February 5, 1917, to cover cases, not then antici- pated, in which the deportees are so bad that no country will suffer their re- entrance. In such cases the beneficent provision of the pending bill is, that they are to be made parlor boarders of Uncle Sam until they can persuade their homefolk to let them come back home. Thereupon they get a free trip back home, at our ex- pense, and are as free as they ever were. This may be subject to the criticism that it would place an unwarranted bur- den on Uncle Sam and be too kindly treatment of the worst alien enemies who have outraged our hospitality and bitten the generous hand that fed them; but it cannot be justly said to be harsh, much less cruel. , This detention is in no sense penal. No punishment whatever is inflicted or pro- vided. Hard labor {fs expressly inhibited. Many a good citizen would welcome an exchange of lots with one of these alien enemy hand biters who will get three good square meals a day and a kindly, comfortable home as long as he wishes, The “sob sisters,” who have joined the Reds in fighting this bill, simply fail to appreciate the meaning of our sovereign right of deportation. Deportation means more than the making of an ineffectual order. It means banishment—the re- moval of the deportee from the free life of America. Until we banish and remove these poisonous alien elements from cir- culation in the bloodstream of our body politic we are but a laughing stock—our national sovereignty, in this regard, but a joke, As long as we acquiesce in the shamé- ful thwarting of our right of deportation, while every Nation that may wish thumbs her nose at us, and, by refusing to take back her poisonous dregs, con- verts them into free residents of our 10457 homeland, our Jaws are set at naught— our solemn adjudications are as vain as the hand-washing of Pontius Pilate. What does the word “deportation” mean? Of course, it comes from the Latin “deportare.” De—from; portare-— to carry or transport. The New Century Dictionary defines it in these terms: To carry away, transport, banish, to carry off, remove, especially: transportation from @ country by way of banishment or expul- sion. It means nothing less than banish- ment, and we must see to it that our Nation’s deportation orders resume that outmoded connotation. Every free and independent nation has the right of de- portation, indisputably. Yet in many cases in past years other nations pre- vented us from exercising that sovereign right. What are we going to do about it? This bill is an honest attempt to answer that question. Let us pass it. CONSTITUTIONALITY The Supreme Court of the United States has repeatedly held that the right to exclude or to expel aliens is an inher- ent and inalienable right of every sov- ereign and independent nation. As a sovereign and independent nation, the United States of America has that right, indisputably. Mr. Chief Justice Fuller, writing for the majority of the Supreme Court in the case of Turner v. Williams (194 U. 8. 279, 289) says: Repeated decisions of this Court have de- termined that Congress has the power to exclude aliens from the United States; to prescribe the terms and conditions on which they may come in, to establish regulations for sending out of the country such aliens ag have centered in violation of law, and to com- mit the enforcement of such conditions and regulations to executive officers; that the deportation of an alien who is found to be here in violation of law is not a deprivation of liberty without due process of law, and that the provisions of the Constitution se- curing the right of trial by jury have no application, Citing a number of supporting cases: Chae Chan Ping v. United States (130 U. 8. 581); Nishimura Ekiu v. United States (142 U. 8S. 651); Fong Yue Ting v. United States (149 U. 8. 698); Lem Moon Sing v. United States (158 U. 8. 538); Wong Wing v. United States (163 U. 8. 228; Fok Yuiug Yo v. United States (185 U. 5S. 296); Japanese Immigrant case (189 U. 8. 86); Chin Bak Kan vy. United States (186 U. 8. 193); United States v. Sing Tuck (194 U. 8. 161). Further quoting from the same opinion: Detention or temporary confinement as part of the means necessary to give rffect to the exclusion or expulsion was held valid, but so much of the act of 1892 as provided for imprisonment at hard labor without a judicial trial was held to be unconstitutional (idem, p. 291). The following quotation from the opin- ion of the Court in the case of Fong Yue Ting v. United States (149 U. 8. 698, 705) further establishes the general propo- sition: In the recent case of Nishimura Ekiu vy. United States (142 U. 8, 651, 659), the Court, in sustaining the action of the executive de- partment, putting in force an act of Congress
10458 for the exclusion of aliens, said: ‘It is an ac- cepted maximum of international law that every sovereign nation has the power, as in- herent in sovereignty, and essential to self. preservation, to forbid the entrance of far- eigners within its dominions, or to admit them only tn such cases and upon such con- ditions as it may see fit to prescribe.” In the United States this power is vested in the Na- tional Government, to which the Constitu- tion has committed the entire control of tn- ternational relations, in peace as well as in war. Quoting from the Chae Chan Ping ease, the opinion in the Fong Yue Ting case proceeds: Those laborers are not citizens of the United States; they are aliens. That the Government of the United States, through the action of the legislative department, can exclude aliens from its territory is a proposi- tion, which we do not think open to contro- versy. Jurisdiction over its own territory to that extent ls an incident of every independ- ent nation. It is a of its independ- ence. If it could not exclude aliens, !t would be to that extent subject to the control of another power, The United States, in their relation to foreign countries and their sub- jects or citizens, are one nation, invested with powers which belong to independent nations, the exercise of which can be invoked for the maintenance of its absolute inde- pendence and security throughout its entire territory, It is interesting to note that Mr. Jus- tice Brewer, in his dissenting opinion in the Fong Yue Ting case, sets out sub- stantially and clearly the very argu- ments which the opponents of by bill are now making. I quote from his dissent- ing opinion, page 733: I rest my dissent on three propositions: First, that the persons against whom the penalties of section 6 of the act of 1892 are directed are persons lawfully residing within the United States; secondly, that as such they are within the protection of the Consti- tution and secured by its guaranties against oppression and wrong; and, third, that sec- tion 6 deprives them of liberty and imposes punishment without due process of law and in disregard of constitutional guaranties, especially those found in the fourth, fifth, sixth, and eighth articles of the amendments. But the majority of the Court did not agree with Mr. Justice Brewer. They held the act constitutional. In the case of Colyer v. Skeffington (265 Fed. 17, 23) the following signifi- cant language is used: There is no constitutional limit to the power of Congress to exclude or expel aliens. He has no vested right to remain. Mark this well, from the same opinion: While deportation proceedings are not Criminal proceedings, aliens who are thereby deprived of their liberty may have their legal rights to liberty tested on habeas corpus proceedings. Reverting to the Fong Yue Ting deci- sion, this part, quoted with approval in the Colyer case, is iluminating: An order of deportation is not a punish- ment forcrime. * * © It is but a method of enforcing the return to his own country of an alien who has not complied with the conditions upon the performance of which the Government of the Nation, acting within its constitutional authority and through the proper department, has determined that his Continuing to reside here ahall depend. There are three cases which have been argued strenuously by the opposition, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE which, when casually read, may be con- sidered as authorities militating against the constitutionality of the pending bill: They are Wong Wing v. United States (163 U. 8. 228); United States v. Wallis (279 Fed. 401); and Petition of Brooks (5 F. (2d) 388). From the Wong Wing case I quote as follows: We regard it as settled by our previous decisions that the United States can, as a matter of public policy, by congressional en- actment, forbid aliens or classes of aliens from coming within their borders, and ex- pel aliens or classes of, aliens from thelr territory, and can, in order to make effectual such decree of exclusion or expulsion, de- volve the power and dut¥ of identifying and arresting the persons.‘ included in such decree, end causing their deportation, upon executive or subordinate officials, But when Congress sees fit to further pro- mote such a policy by subjecting persons of such aliens to infamous punishment at herd labor or by confiscating their property, we think such legislation, to be valid, must pro vide for a judicial trial to establish the guilt of the accused. No limits can be put by the courts upon the power of Congress to protect, by sum- mary methods, the country from the advent of aliens whose rece or habits render them undesirable as citizens or to expel such if they have already found their way into our land and unlawfully remain therein. But to declare unlawful residence within the coun- try to be an infamous crime punishable by deprivation of Mberty ahd property would be to pass out of the sphere of constitutional legislation, unless provision were made that the fact of guilt should first be established by a judicial trial. It is not consistent with the theory of our Government that the legis- lature should, after having defined an offense as an infamous crime, find the fact of guilt and adjuge the punishment by one of ite own agents. In Ez parte Wilson (114 U. 8. 428) this Court declared that for more than a century imovrisonment at hard labor in the State prison or penitentiary or other similar in- stitution has been considered an infamous punishment in England and America, and that imprisonment at hard labor, compulsory and unpaid, is, in the strongest sense of the words, “involuntary servitude for crime,” spoken of in the provision of the ordinance of 1787, and of the thirteenth amendment of the Constitution, by which all other slavery was abolished, and which declares that such slavery or involuntary servitude shall not exist within the United States or any place subject to their jurisdiction except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, Applying this reasoning to the fifth and sixth amendments, it must be concluded that all persons within the territory of the United States are entitled to the protection guar- anteed by those amendments, and that even aliens shall not be held to answer for @ cap- ital or other infamous crime unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, nor be deprived of life, iberty, or property without due process of law. Our conclusion is that the commissioner, in sentencing the a; to imprison- ment at hard labor at and in the Detroit house of correction, acted without jurisdic- tion, and that the circuit court erred in not discharging the prisoners from such im- prisonment without prejudice to their deten- tion according to law for deportation. et the Wallis case I quote as fol- WS: The right to deport does not include any right of indefinite imprisonment under the guise of awaiting an opportunity for de-~ portation, JULY 17 In the Wallis case the immigration authorities used as an excuse for their procrastination and failure to deport that alien that they could not get trans- portation back to England. The court said in effect, and very properly, “The war is over; your excuse will not hold water; your alleged inability to secure transportation is a sham; and 4 months is unreasonably long to detain this alien under the pretenge that you cannot get transportation for him.” But no such case could be presented under this bill. ‘Transportation is no longer a problem, It is landing permits that we lack. Foreign governments are denying land- ing permits for their own nationals, and by thus refusing are thwarting our Na~ tion’s sovereign right to deport those who have been adjudged by our con- stituted authorities unfit to live here, We cannot run other countries, but we should be able to run cur own. So, if we cannot send these, the worst aliens, who have been ordered deported, back home, we can at least keep them out of circulation until they arrange to leave, From the third case, I quote as fol- lows: The right to arrest and hold or imprison an alien is nothing but a necessary incident of the right to exclude or deport. There is no power in this court or in any other tri- bunal in this country to hold indefinitely any sane citizen or alien in imprisonment, except as a punishment for crime. Slavery ‘was abolished by the thirteenth amendment. It is elementary that deportation or exclu- sion proceedings are not punishment for crime. It will, of course, be noted at a glance that this decision in petition of Brooks is predicated and built upon the words “in imprisonment.” Therefore, we have no quarrel with this decision, since the Supreme Court of the United States has held in the Wong Wing case that de- tention of an alien pending deportation is not imprisonment. This is necessar- ily true, for everyone knows that im- prisonment is one of the well-recognized punishments for crime and usually in-~ cludes hard labor. The Brooks case it- self says: It is elementary that deportation or ex- clusion proceedings are not punishment for crime. And again: . The right to arrest and hold or imprison an slien is nothing but the necessary inci- dent of the right to exclude or deport. But even if all three of these supposed- ly adverse cases said and meant that the detention prescribed by this bill would be prima facie unconstitutional, because not specifically Umited, this bill could not be declared unconstitutional. The present bill has made absurd any such contentions by appropriate changes made to meet such hypercriticisms. These provisions not only eliminate all possibility of the requirement of hard Jabor of any detained alien but they also strictly limit the period of detention so that it could not possibly extend 1 minute beyond the conclusion of depar- ture arrangements. No one could be held in detention under the provisions of this bill longer than absolutely necessary to effectuate the deportation order aga:nst
1950 him. And, in the second place, in order to make sure that there would never be any unreasonable detention, it is pro- vided that the Attorney Genera] may at any moment, with or with rescinding the warrant of deportation, release any alien in detention. If there should develop sufficient evidence that the detention of any alien was being prolonged unreason- ably, so as to satisfy the Attorney Gen- eral that this unreasonable duration of detention had become good cause for re- lease, the Attorney General could so order. But I submit that none of these three cases is subject to the interpretation put upon it by the opposition. I am con- vinced that the Congress did not pass this Nation’s deportation statute in order to place a plaything in the hands of the immigration authorities. Deportation is not a game of tag, just for fun. It is not a trivial matter. It is a solemn duty. When, after full hearings, fairly con- ducted, in pursuance of the law we have laid down, our duly constituted author- ities decree the banishment of an alien, that decree ought to mean something. And that something should be no less than the complete separation from the free life of our Nation. It is well said by the Supreme Court in the Wong Wing case: Proceedings to exclude or expel would be vain if those accused could not be held in custody pending the inquiry into their true character, and while arrangements were be- ing made for their deportation. There is no authority contra, It is also well said in the case of Becharias v. United States (208 Fed. 143): Until tho man was actually deported, * +* * the proceedings was “pending” within the meaning of the law. It is thus supported both by authority and reason that Congress has the consti- tutional right to require detention of an alien ordered to be deported, while ar- rangements are being made for his depor- tation, during the whole pendency of negotiation for some kind of departure authority and until deportation shall have become an accomplished fact. DETENTION I8 NOT IMPRISONMENT We think it clear that detention, or tem- porary confinement,’ as part of the means necessary to give effect to the provision for the exclusion or expulsion of aliens would be valid. Proceedings to exclude or expel would be vain if those accused could not be held im custody pending the inquiry into their true character, and while arrangements were being made for their deportation. Detention is a usual feature of every case of arrest on @ criminal charge, even when an innocent person is wrongfully accused; but it 1s not imprisonment in a legal sense (Wong Wing v. United States (163 U. 8. 228, 238)). DETENTION 18 NOT PUNISHMENT | The right to arrest and hold or imprison an alien is nothing but a necessary incident of the right to exclude or deport. * * * 1s elementary the deportation or exclusion proceedings are not punishment for crime _ (Petition of Brooks, 5 F. (2d) 238, 239). DETENTION IS NEITHER DOUBLE JEOPARDY NOB DOUBLE PUNISHMENT Since we have seen clearly that deten- tion is but a part of the necessary pro- ceeding to effectuate deportation, and CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE that it is in no legal sense imprisonment, and not by any stretch of the imagina- tion can it be said to be punishment, it is manifestly absurd to prate of double jeopardy or double punishment by rea- son of the detention prescribed in this bill in aid of deportation. CONSTITUTION PRIMARILY FOR CITIZENS, NOT ALIENS Please let me conclude this discussion of the constitutionality of the pending bill by inviting your attention to that which probably should have been the first point emphasized. Our Constitu- tion and all its amendments were writ- ten primarily for citizens of the United States. It is true that in criminal cases, aliens being persons, they are protected by the same guaranties as are citizens, Of course, the courts have held many times that aliens are not entitled to trial by jury nor the ordinary rules of evi- dence nor procedure in deportation pro- ceedings. They are entitled to due process of law, both in criminal cases and in this strictly civil proceeding for deportation, but they have due process of law shown them in every case, and if the immigration authorities have not given the alien a fair hearing, or if for any other reason he feels himself ag- grieved, he may sue out the writ of ha- beas corpus at any time. But in a num- ber of cases it has been held that no alien has a primary,er inherent right to bail, and whatever right in this regard may accrue to him must be granted to him by Congress (United States v. Com- missioner (297 F. 946); United States v. Sing Tuck (194 U. 8. 161); Wong Wing v. United States (163 U. S, 228)). And in Li To Hong v. Ebey (25 F, (2a) 714) we read: An alien remaining unlawfully in this country, having no right toa hearing unless such a hearing is accorded him by Congress. So, from a consideration of the deci- sions from the highest court of our land and many other courts of the most re- spectable authority, it is as clear as the noonday sun that even the best of our alien population are not entitled to the same rights under our Constitution as is a citizen. Aliens who are not the best, but the worst, are entitled under our law to a great many more rights than they are willing to accord us, Every one of these rights is safeguarded and assured to every alien within the purview of this bill, Fairly construed, it cannot be held unconstitutional. Let us strain out and remove from the stream of our national life the polluting and poisonous elements. Aliens because they are alien? No—a thousand times no. Good immigrants have built our Nation. But not the four classes—white slavers, dope peddlers, criminals, and anarchists—which this bill, in kindly way, would urge to go back whence they came. These who have outraged our hospitality, broken our laws, debauched our youth, or plotted to over- throw our Government are not builders, They are wreckers. Their lives stain our flag. Like termites, they undermine and destroy. Good aliens, who come here as our Jaws provide they may, and who try to 10459 build—not destroy, pollute, or polson— ‘are welcome and appreciated. Millions of such are here. Who of us in this House is not an immigrant per stirpes? We all pay tribute of grateful homage to those millions of good aliens who have helped make America great. Few may be named, but all in mind. From Lafayette, Rochambeau, Alex- ander Hamilton, John Paul Jones, Com-~ modore John Barry, Count d’Estaing, Count de Grasse, Maj. Pierre L’Enfant, General von Kalb, Baron Von Steuben, Gen. Richard Montgomery, Haym Salo- mon, Gen. Thaddeus Kosciusko, Gen. Casimir Pulaski, Gen. William Alexander, Dr. James Craik, Robert Erskine, Gen. Alexander McDougal, Gen. Lachlan Mc- Intosh, Gen. Hugh Mercer, Gen. Arthur St. Clair, James Wilson, John Wither- spoon, Robert Morris, and Albert Gal- Jatin, down through the years to Dr. Sizoo, Dr. Peter Marshall, Mr. Justice Felix Frankfurter, Albert Einstein, and Eduard Benes, aliens have here wrought mightily for good. Alexander Agassiz, Hjalmar Hjorth Boyesen, Leopold Damrosch, Walter Damrosch, Pierre du Pont de Nemours, Mayor William R. Grace, Franklin K. Lane, Mr. Justice Sutherland, Peter Henderson, Ales Hrdlicka, Ludwig Lewi- sohn, Jacques Loeb, James McCosh, John Edward McCullough, Henry Morgen- thau, Hugo Munsterberg, Thomas Nast, John Boyle O'Reilly, Abraham Mitrie Rihbany, Anton Seidl, Pierre Soulé, Karl Spreckles, Matthew Vassar, Henry Vil- lard, Alexander Wilson, William B. Wil- son, James Wilson, Karl Bitter, Gustav Lindenthal, James J. Hill, Jacob A. Riis, Edward D. Baker, Samuel Gompers, Anna Howard Shaw, Eleuthere Irénée du Pont, Stephen Girard, Felix Adler, John Jacob Astor, Emile Berliner, Oscar Hammerstein, Otto Kahn, Franz Lieber, Ottmar Mergenthaler, Albert Abraham Michelson, Johann August Roebling, Jacob Henry Schiff, Carl Schurz, Charles Proteus Steinmetz, Nathan Straus, Theodore Thomas, Michael Anagnos, Joseph Pulitzer, John Philip Holland, Augustus Saint-Gaudens, Alexander Turney Stewart, Edward W. Bok, Knute Kenneth Rockne, Michael Heilprin, Judah Peter Benjamin, James Burnie Beck, Alexander Graham Bell, James Gordon Bennett, Andrew Carnegie, John S. Kennedy, James Pugh Kirkwood, James Laurie, Walter Lowrie, John Muir, Archibald Russell, Michael Pupin, John Ericsson, Louis Agassiz, Dr. Henry Detweiller, Meyer Guggenheim, Henry Rosenberg. We honor ourselves by honoring such men—American patriots. Do opponents cry against this bill, “undemocratic”? If it be undemocratic for us, the duly elected representatives of a sovereign people, to stop a loophole in our de- portation law through which hundreds of aliens have escaped their decreed banishment, then we should be just that undemocratic. Do somie say “un-American? If it be un-American to restore the last sovereignty of our Nation over de- portation, we ought to glory in being just that un-American.
10460 Make no mistake, that flag there—Old Glory~was not the product of silkwormas ° and a dye vat. Our flag—the most significant in all the world—is a living symbol of Amer- ica’s soul, We 150,000,000 people are in truth the flag. The purity of common purpose for peace and freedom, plus the morals of the many, put that white honor stripe in our living flag. Our lives besmirch it or keep it white. The red is not a stripe of shame, nor wrath, but of virility; of faming youth; of new, aspiring, conquering blood which flows in us and to us from the ends of the earth. That field against which the stars shine is put into our living flag by the loyalty and devotion of those of us who are “true blue.” Those stars are kept bright by the fervor of the love of those who “star” in our national life. More than a hundred million souls, by the quiet might of righteous living, keep this symbolic silken flag waving proudly over the real living flag their lives com- pose. Are we impotent to root out con- taminating influences which stain our flag? Do we lack the courage? Mr. WALTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have five legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks at this point. The SPEAKER. Without objection, it is so ordered. There was no objection. Mr. FURCOLO. Mr. Speaker, the issue is not whether this be a good bill or abadone. Rather the choice is whether we will be fair to America at the ex- pense of the subversive aliens covered in this bill or whether we will be fair to the subversive aliens at the expense of America. We must give full and complete pro- tection either to the few hundred people hurt by this bill or to the more than 150,000,000 this bill seeks to protect. ‘We must vote in the full realization that we risk either the liberty of a few non- citizens or the life of this action. Whatever choice there might be in peacetime, there certainly can be no choice in these days. If any person covered by this bill has cause to complain, it is not against America. His grievance is against the nation of which he is a citizen, to which he owes allegiance, and to which he is entitled to look for protection and jus- tice. That nation can immediately re- store to him every right and privilege that he may lose under this bill. Amer- ica will quickly cooperate to achieve that end, Under the circumstances, gladly or re- luctantly, we must vote for this bill. Mr. EBERHARTER. Mr. Speaker, the passage of this measure is a step to- ward either dictatorship or fascism. It would deny constitutional guaranties to certain accused persons, and give abso- lute power to one person to detain those accused of their freedom of movement for life. I shall vote against its passage. The SPEAKER. The question is, Will the House suspend the rules and pass the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Mr. MARCANTONIO. Mr. Speaker, on that I ask for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. The questton was taken; and there were—yeas $26, nays 15, not voting 89, as follows: [Roll No. 208] YEAS—826 Abbitt Fenton Abernethy Fernandes Addonizio Fisher Albert Flood Allen, Calif. Fogarty Andersen, Forand H. Oarl Ford Anderson, Calif Fugate Andresen, Fulton August H Purcolo Arends Gamble Aspinall Garmata Auchincloas Gary Bailey Gathings Barden Gavin Golden Barrett, Pa. Goodwin Bates, Ky Gorski Bates, Mass. Gossett Battle Graham Beall Granahan Beckworth Granger Bennett, Fla. Grant Bennett, Mich. Green Bentsen Gross Bishop Guill Boggs, Del. Gwinn Bolling Hagen Bolton, Md. Hale Bolton, Ohio Hall, Bonner Leonard W Bosone Halleck Boykin Hand Bramblett Harden Brehm Hardy Brown, Ga. Harrison Brown, Ohio Bryson Harvey Buchanan Havenner Buckley, Il. Hays, Ark Buckley, N.Y. Hays, Ohio Burdick Heffernan Burke Heller Burleson Herilong Burnside Herter Burton Heselton Byrne, N. Y. Hobbes Byrnes, Wis Hoeven Camp Hoffman, Mich Canfield Holmes Cannon Hope Carlyle Horan Carnahan Howell Case, N. J ull Cavalcante Jackson, Wash Chelf Jaco Chesney James Clemente Jenison Clevenger Jenkins Cole, Kans. Jensen Colmer Jones, Ala. Cooley Jones, Mo. Corbett Jones, N.C, Cotton Judd Coudert Karsten Crawford Kean Crook Kearney Crosser Keating Cunningham Curtis Kalley, Pa. Dague Kelly, N.Y. Davenport e@ y Davies, N. Y. err Davis, Ga. Kilburn Deane ing DeGraffenried Kruse Delaney Kunkel Denton e D'Ewart Lanham Dolliver Larcade tham Donohue LeCompte Doughton LeFevre Dougias Doyle Durham Linehan Elliott Elston. Lucas Engle, Calif, Lynch Evins McOormack Fallon McCulloch Feighsn McDonough Fellows McGrath McGregor McGuire McKinnon McMillan, B ©. Nicholson Nixon Noland Norblad Norrell O'Brien, Tl. O'Hara, Minn. O'Konski O'Neill O'sullivan O'Toole Pace Patten Patterson Peterson Philb: in Phillips, Calif. Poage Polk . Potter Poulson Preston Price Priest Rabaut . Rains Rankin Redden Reed, Ml. Reed, N. ¥. Rees Rhodes Ribicof Richards Richiman Robeson Rodino Rogers, Fla. Rogers, Mass, Rooney Badlak &t. George Sanborn Basecer Baylor Scott, Hardie 8 Btaniey™ on oe an ‘en Zan Stigier Velde Wiggieeworth Vorys Williams Sullivan Vursell ‘Wilson, Ind. Button Wadaworth ‘Wilson, Okla. Taber Wagner Wilson, Tex. Tackett Waish ‘Wins' Talle Walter Withrow ‘Tauriello Weichel Wolcott Taylor Werdel Wolverton e Wheeler Wood Whitaker Woodhouse Thornberry White, Calif Tollefson Whitten Young Trimbie Whittington Zablock! NAYS—15 Blatnik Holifield Celler Huber O'Brien, Mich, Chudoff Javits Powell Dollinger Klein Roosevelt Eberharter tonio Yates NOT VOTING—#89 Allen, Tl, Gregory Murray, Tenn. Allen, La. Hall, Nelson Andrews Edwin Arthur Norton Angell O'Hara, Tl. Barrett, Wyo. Harris Passmen Biemiller Hébert Patman Blackvey Hedrick Perkins Boggs, Bul Pfeifer, Breen Hinshaw Joseph L. Brooks Hoffman, Tl.  Pfelffer, Bulwinkle Irving William L Carroll Jackson, Calif, Phillips, Tenn, Case, 8. Dak Jennings Pickett Chatham Johnson Plum! Chiperfield Jonas Quinn Christopher Kearns Roameay Cole, N. ¥. Keefe Regan Cooper Rilday Rivers per vi Davis, Tenn. Kirwan Sabath Davis, Wis. Lovre Sadowski Dawson Lyle Sims Dingell icOarthy Smith, Ohio Eaton McConnell ‘Thompson Elisworth McMillen, IN. Towe Engel, Mich. Miller, Calif. Vinson Frazier Miller, Md. Welch Gillette Mitchell White, Idaho Gilmer Monroney Wier Gordon Morgan Willis Gore Morrison So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed. The Clerk announced the following pairs: Mr. Andrews with Mr. Allen of Titinois. Mr. McCarthy with Mr. Towe, Mr. Keogh with Mr. Angell. Mr. Mitchell with Mr. Barrett of Wyoming. Mr, Dawson with Mr. Phillips of Tennes- see. . O'Hara of Ilinois with Mr. Blackney. Biemiller with Mr. William L. Pfeiffer, Hébert with Mr. Case of South Dakota. Breen with Mr. Nelson. Carroll with Mr. Miller of Maryland. Regan with Mr. Chiperfleld. Irving with Mr. McConnell. Sadowski with Mr. Davis of Wiscon- REREER® BEBEREEE Hedrick with Mr. Lovre. Gore with Mr. Cole of New York. Frazier with Mr. Keefe. Morrison with Mr. Engel of Michigan. Welch with Mr. Gillette, Thompson with Mr. Jackson of Call- with Mr. Kearns. Mr, Gordon with Mr. Jennings. Mr, Gilmer with Mr, Hill. Mr. Boggs of Louisiana with Mr. Johnson. Mr. White of Idaho with Mr, Jonas. Mr. Sabath with Mr. Hoffman of Dlinois. Mr. Cooper with Mr. Hinshaw. Mr. Dingell with Mr. Smith of Ohio. Mr. Willis with Mr. Rich. Mr. Wier with Mr. Plumiley. Mr. Morgan with Mr. McMillen of Mlinols, Mr. Chatham with Mr. Kilaworth. Mr. Kiiday with Mr. Baton, BEB EF d 4 E 4 Z 3
1950 Mr. Barrett of Pennsylvania and Mr. Davenrort changed their votes from “nay” to “yea,” - The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. tail motion to reconsider was laid on the @. OUR LEFT HAND VERSUS OUR RIGHT HAND Mr. MASON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unan- imous consent to extend my remarks at this point in the Rzcorp. The SPEAKER. Is thére objection to the request of the gentleman from Dlinois? There was no objection. Mr. MASON. Mr. Speaker, today is the fifth anniversary of the Potsdam Conference. It was at that conference that President Truman sat down with “Pal Joey” to determine the future of the world. It was at that conference that President Truman became convinced that “Pal Joey” was not a bad sort of a fellow at all, but that he was “a man to ride the river with” as they say out West. As late as July 11, 1948, President Tru- man told an Oregon audience: “I like old Joe. He is a decent fellow, but he is a prisoner of the Politburo.” Because this is the fifth anniversary of the Potsdam Conference, and because of the situation we face today in Korea and Asia, and because the crisis in Asia today stems from the Potsdam and Yalta Confer- ences, this is an opportune time to take stock, to look over the past, and to won- der about the future. I propose to do that today—very briefly but very frankly—because I feel the American people should be given the salient facts that are involved in the present crisis. Mr. Speaker, Uncle Sam's left hand does not know what his right hand does. Uncle Sam’s hands lack coordination, are inconsistent; they work against each other. The result is costly and disas- trous. The following are a few examples of the inconsistency that prevails in the activities of Uncle Sam's two hands: First. Uncle Sam’s left hand, being close to his big heart, has decided through President Truman’s point 4 program to hand out billions to indus- try and business in all the backward na- tions of the world, guaranteeing the loans made for this purpose; but Uncle Sam’s right hand is proposing to strangle American industry and American busi- ness with new wartime controls and heavier taxes. Are Uncle Sam’s leaders in following this program either sensible or consistent? Second. Uncle Sam’s ieft hand at Yalta, at Potsdam, and elsewhere, handed to “Pal Joey” without hesitation and without strings (a) all of eastern Europe to incorporate behind the iron curtain, (b) $11,000,000,000 worth of war supplies to keep “Pal Joey” on his feet, and (c) all of Manchuria, the Kurile Islands, the half of Sakhalin Island— which paved the way for the present mess in Asia. As a@ result of this blind generosity, Uncle Sam’s right hand has had to spend some thirty-five billions through the Marshall plan for Europe, the Berlin airlift, and aid for China, Greece, and Turkey; but in spite of our spending “Pal Joey” has been able to XCVI—~659 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE ~ spread his control, by means of the cold War, over an additional 600,000,000 peo-~ Ple since World War II has ended. Should not Uncle Sam's left hand and his right hand get together and work to- gether on the things involving our so- called foreign policy? Third. Uncle Sam's left hand—the hand nearest the heart—has been cod- dling, supporting, and protecting Com- munists and Communist sympathizers in our own Government in Washington ever since F. D. R. recognized “Pal Joey” back in the early thirties, thus enabling these rats to gnaw away at our Government vitals and steal our precious war secrets; while Uncle Sam’s right hand has been carrying on a losing fight—the cold war —to contain and limit the spread of Communist influence and control over other parts of the globe. Does it make good sense to spend billions to try to control and contain communism else- where in the world, and at the same time coddle, and protect Communists at home? Mr. Speaker, why does Uncle Sam's left hand work contrary to his right hand? The answer, of course, is that our leaders are confused, shortsighted, and poorly fitted by background and ex- perience to handle either our foreign af- fairs or our domestic affairs—and they have made just as great blunders at home as they have abroad. Why cannot we Americans insist upon better team work between our left hand and our right hand? Uncle Sam’s hands are our hands. We condone, overlook, and excuse the mistakes our leaders make, and hand out unnecessary billions in taxes to pay for these mistakes. Then we blindly reelect the same leaders or similar ones to repeat the same mistakes over and over again. We fought World War I “to make the world safe for democracy”—‘'s war to end all wars.” Then our leaders, through the peace treaties they signed, created or made possible a Mussolini, a Hitler, a Stalin, and thus forced the world to go through hell again—World War II—in order to correct the mistakes made by our leaders in settling the problems of World War I. Mr. Speaker, are we facing world war TIT as a result of the mistakes our leaders made at Yalta, Potsdam, Cairo, and Teh- ran? If so, do we want these same lead- ers to carry on world war ITI, and do we want these same leaders to make the peace arrangements for us after world war IIT is over? These are serious questions that should be given serious consideration by all Americans. Is it not about time that we take it upon ourselves to make Uncle Sam’s left hand cooperate with and work with Uncle Sam’s right hand? They are our hands, and we are respon- sible for their actions and activities. PROGRAM FOR TOMORROW Mr, HALLECK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute, to inquire of the majority leader as to the program for tomorrow. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from In- diana? There was no objection. 10461 Mr. McCORMACK. The program for tomorrow will be general debate on the military assistance bill. toe Mr. H . Do I understand from that the reading of the bill will go over until Wednesday? Mr. McCORMACK. The first section of the bill will be read tomorrow, and on ‘Wednesday the bill will be read for amendment under the 5-minute rule. 1 am glad my friend asked the question so that I could advise the Members of the House that tomorrow will be confined to general debate. Mr. HALLECK, I have had a num- ber of inquiries on this side, so it is well that the Members may know definitely. CONGRESS SHOULD STAY ON THE JOB Mrs. HARDEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute. The SPEAKER. Is there obpection to the request of the gentlewoman from Indiana? There was no objection. Mrs. HARDEN. Mr. Speaker, the American people today are becoming in- creasingly fearful that the terrible events in Korea are leading up to a third world war and the possible destruction of the world as we know it. I do not propose to outline in detail the mistakes, the bungling, and, at times, the treachery which brought about the tragedy which confronts the Christian world today. Rather, I wish to voice the plea that this Congress rise to its re- sponsibility, forego all plans for adjourn- ment, and agree to stay on the job con- tinuously until both victory and lasting peace are in our grasp. American boys are dying in Korea, faced with tremendous odds and a brutal, Godless enemy. Our immediate task is to reverse those odds, to render every possible aid to those heroic few who man the defense lines of decency and right- eousness in far-off Asia. ‘Then, we must seek with all the means at our command to make certain that there will be no more Koreas, no more bloodletting, no more war. I, for one, do not wish to entrust this job entirely to the executive branch of our Government. Rather, I believe that we, as the elected Representatives of our people, must stay on the job to make sure that everything which must be done is done. It will involve personal sacrifice on our part. Some of us may lose our seats in this body because of our inability to re- turn home to campaign for reelection. But the life of a single American soldier is far, far more important than dozens of seats in Congress, and I propose that we cast personal comfort and ambition aside and stay on the job here in Wash- ington. KOREAN ACTION EMPHASIZES THAT ALL BRANCHES OF OUR ARMED FORCES ARE INDISPENSABLE Mr. VAN ZANDT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Taornsrrry). Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Pennsyl- vyania? There was no objection.
10462 . Mr. VAN ZANDT. Mr. Speaker, as a Naval Reserve captain and a veteran of World War I and World War 1, I have always been in favor of any organization, agency, or department that adds strength to our national defense. While my career in the United States Navy is one of which I am proud, my ef- forts as a legislator have not been con- fined to that branch of the service. I have maintained a deep interest in the Army, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, Public Health Service, Coast and Geodetic Survey, and the Civil Air Patrol. The best way to examine a legislator’s position with respect to national defense is to examine his record. My legislative record is based upon 9 years of congres- sional service. Four of these years have been served since World War II. As you know, I am a member of the House Committee on Armed Services. This committee has jurisdiction in gen- eral, over legislation affecting all of the armed forces. We deal with Navy, Air Force, Army, and Marine Corps prob- lems, and in time of war the Coast Guard as part of the Navy. We do not deal with appropriations, as such. It is of interest to review what our committee did during the Eightieth and Eighty-first Congresses. I am particu- larly gratified that our activities bore no trace of favoritism toward any par- ticular branch of the service, and that at no time did we deviate from our sol- emn resolve to assist in maintaining an adequate national defense. In view of the Nation-wide interest in building superior air power as a vital arm of national defense, I should like to dis- cuss the efforts of the House Committee on the Armed Services in behalf of the Air Force. The National Security Act of 1947, which unified the armed services, was not considered by the House Committee on Armed Services, Because of the com- plex jurisdictional situations which exist in Congress, the House Committee on Ex- penditures handled the Unification Act. That is the law that made the Air Force @ separate department. But ft was the Committee on Armed Services, in 1949, that reported the legislation that made the Department of Defense a single de- partment and made the Departments of the Navy, Army, and Air Force parts of the Department of Defense. During the Eightieth Congress, we passed a law which, for the first time in the history of the Nation, provided inac- tive duty training pay for Army and Air Force Reservists on the same basis as that heretofore received by Navy and Marine Corps Reservists and members of the National Guard. I might add that I ‘was a member of the subcommittee that originally reported that bill to the full committee and the House. ‘We passed an act during the Eightieth Congress, known as Public Law 810, which provided retirement benefits for Reserv- ists in all branches of the service. This law applies to the Alr Force as well as the Army and Navy, and, in my opinion, has done a great deal to stimulate inter- est in our Reserve program. This legis- lation was perfected by a subcommittee of which I was a member. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE We enacted legislation during the Eightieth Congress which authorized the Secretary of the Air Force to proceed with construction at military installa- tions of many items needed for the fur- ther development of air power. For example, that law authorized the appropriation of $410,000 for the com- pletion of a supersonic wind tunnel] at the California Institute of Technology. It authorized the appropriation of $152,000 for helicopter engine testing facilities at Kelly Field, Tex. It permitted the ex- penditure of $2,746,000 for the construc- tion of rocket static testing facilities, a control tower and an all-altitude speed course at Muroe Air Field, Calif. It au- thorized millions of dollars for the con- struction of quarters, control towers, utilities, crash truck stations, jet engine testing facilities, gunnery ranges, ammu- nition storage facilities, rotor wing test- ing facilities, armament laboratory test- ing facilities, low-approach instrument landing systems, high frequency direc- tion-finding systems and radia range stations, just to name a few projects at various places through the United States. It also authorized the expenditure of millions of dollars for facilities in air fields outside the United States such as Ladd Field and Elmendorf Field, in Alaska, Adak Air Field in the Aleutian Islands, and other Air Force bases on the Marianas, the Canal Zone, Iceland, Bermuda, and so forth. We passed other legislation during the Eightieth Congress which affected the Air Force favorably just as it did the other services. We passed a bill permit- ting women to become members of the armed services. We passed the Officer Personnel Act of 1947, and we made Air Force General Spaatz a permanent 4- star general. So far during the Eighty-first Con- gress we have passed considerable leg- islation directly affecting the Air Force. We authorized the construction of a guided missiles proving range at Banana River, Fla. This proving range is an Air Force installation, although its facili- ties can be used by other services. It is the longest guided missile proving range known in the world today, and I whole- heartedly supported this measure. I was a member of the subcommittee that originally considered the bill. We authorized the construction of a radar fence around the United States. This law permits the Secretary of the Air Force to establish a land-based air warning system and control installations which will enable us to detect the ap- proach of enemy aircraft at long dis- tances. It is now under construction. The United States Air Force is charged with the responsibility for the defense of the United States against air attack, as a result of the so-called Key West conference of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and I completely supported the legisla- tion which authorized the Secretary of the Air Force to proceed with this highly significant defense project. I was also a@ member of the subcommittee that re- ported that measure. ‘We authorized a public works bill for all of the armed services during the Eighty-first Congress. Approximately $238,000,000 of the $596,000,000 author- JULY 17 ized in that law will go into Air Force projects in various parts of the world. We passed a new pay bill for all the armed services which equalizes the pay for all members of the armed services. This was the first complete review of the pay scales of the armed services in 40 years, and I might add that a very de- termined effort was made on the floor of the House to eliminate flight pay. I ob- jected to the elimination of flight pay. Had this special inducement pay been eliminated, it would have very seriously affected the United States Air Force. The unitary wind-tunnel bill, which was approved by our committee and the Congress, authorized the construction of nine transonic and supersonic wind tun- nels, Six of these tunnels were allotted to the NACA, two to the Air Force, and one to the Navy. It is significant to note that the Navy tunnel was 2 feet by 2 feet at a cost of $6,500,000; whereas the two Air Force tunnels were 8 feet by 8 feet tunnels at a total cost of approximately $70,000,000. While the Navy’s contribu- tion in the fleld of supersonic speeds has been outstanding, I supported the Air Force position in this legislation because of their primary interest in this fleld. I might also mention that this same law authorized the establishment of an Air Engineering Development Center, which will be operated by the Air Force. It will be devoted to research and development and evaluation studies in connection with every conceivable aspect of the op- eration of aircraft, guided missiles, and their components in supersonic flight. The ultimate plans for this installation envisage a supersonic center comparable in magnitude to Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in the subsonic fleld and pat- terned after similar centers for super- sonic experimental work in Germany. Eventually it should be one of the fore- most air development centers in the world. I was a member of the subcom- mittee that reported this extremely im- portant measure. At this point I should like to discuss the question of the 70-group air force about which we have heard so much. A bill was signed by President Truman on July 10, 1950, which for the first time would authorize by statute in peacetime an Air Force of not to exceed 70 groups. This does not mean that we are going to get it. The bill signed by the Presi- dent is merely an authorization. ‘We have heard a lot of talk about the 70-group air force. I would like to call attention to the fact that on April 7, 1948, or over 2 years ago, a subcommit- tee of the House Committee on Armed Services approved a resolution, which was forwarded to the President of the United States, to the effect that this Nation should have an Air Force with a minimum strength of 70 combat groups, supplemented by the necessary special squadrons, Air National Guard and Air Reserve groups. The committee further resolved that the funds necessary for a 70-group air force should be appropriated. I was a member of the full committee that unan- imously approved that resolution. It was the outgrowth of the findings of the Air Policy Commission, headed by the present Secretary of the Air Force,
1950 Thomas Finletter, the Joint Aviation Policy Board, the then Secretary of the Air Force, stuart Symington, the then Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force, Gen. Carl Spaatz, and many other officials charged with the responsibility for our national defense. And now, 2 years later, we are finally authorizing the statutory existence of a 70-group air force. Prior to that time, we fought for larger appropriations for the Air Force. My record in this matter is clear. I advo- cated the 70-group Air Porce in 1948. I voted for additional appropriations for the Air Force in 1948, 1949, and 1950, and I have consistently championed the cause of a large, hard-hitting-highly effective Air Force, just as I have cham- pioned the cause of the Navy and the Army and all the other services. In other words, I have been concerned about air power as deeply as any veteran who has experienced air attacks. No one has to sell the Air Force to me. I worked with the Fifth Air Force in the South Pacific during World War IJ, and I ad- mired their ability, courage, and effi- ciency. I was sufficiently concerned, however, as a result of disturbing reports and ugly rumors in newspapers and magazines, to join Chairman Car. Vinson of the House Armed Services Committee in requesting & complete investigation of all matters surrounding the B-36. The B-36 inves- tigation, that followed, and which re- sulted in what 4s officially known as the Report of the Investigation on Unifica- tion and Strategy, in the opinion of un- biased observers has done more to bolster the theory of unification than any single project since 1947. It cleared the air of ugly rumors and disturbing reports. It brought the issues out in the open, and our committee gave praise and criticism wherever we felt it was justified. I trust that those who desire to study the B-36 investigation with fairness and objectiv- ity will read the committee report again, in the light of current events, In this discussion I wish to briefly com- ment on my attitude with respect to the Navy. I favored a big flush-deck carrier, and I still do. In addition, I favor task forces, and the further development of the art of submarine warfare. I strongly advocate a well-trained, fully equipped, freely operating Marine Corps. I take the position that air power alone, despite its mighty contribution to our national defense, cannot wina war. We are using Infantry, we have called in the Marines, and we have ordered additional fleet units to join the task forces now in the North Pacific. In other words, we are operating in Korea as we must always operate in any kind of a conflict—on a team hasis. No single department, no single branch of the service, no single weapon of war ever won .& war or ever will win a war. In the words of the poet— It's not the individual, Nor the Army as 4 whole, But the everlasting teamwork Of every bicomtin’ soul. During my terms in Congress I have steadfastly maintained that all branches of the service must be given equal con- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE sideration. I do not mean that all branches of the service must receive the same amount of money, but I do mean that we cannot weaken one branch of the service to strengthen the other. In short, our national defense to be adequate depends upon all branches of our Armed Forces coordinating the over- all effort to protect this Nation. In such & common endeavor, each branch is in- dispensable, for together they are our only bulwark against the forces of ag- gression that if permitted will run hog- wild in this turbulent world without a moment's notice. ADJOURNMENT RUMORS Mr. CORBETT, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Wisconsin {Mr. ByrRNgs}] May ex- tend his remarks in the Recorp at this point. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Penn- sylvania? There was no objection. Mr. BYRNES of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, every Member of this Congress will agree that we are facing a serious crisis. The extent and magnitude of the crisis is unknown. We do know, how- ever, that there is the threat of total war. Under these circumstances who among us will contend that the Congress of the United States should close its eyes and proceed on 2 “business as usual” basis? Unfortunately there are some, because that is just what we are doing now.. Under these circumstances who among us will contend that Congress should close its eyes, hide its head in the sand, and go home? Unfortunately there are some, because the rumors of a recess or an adjournment rise from every corner of this Capitol. That we should even talk about going home, under these cir- cumstances, is, in my judgment, fool- hardy. Mr, Speaker, there is work to be done. There are plans to be drawn. The job of planning for the mobiliza- tion of wealth, of industry, of manpower is primarily the job of the Congress. It should not be left entirely to the President. These plans require careful study. The Congress should be at work on them now. I am not contending that such mo- bilization plans should be put into effect at this time. I do contend that these plans should be ready. They should be on the statute books for the time when they may be needed. LOBBYING ACT OF 1946 Mr. BUCHANAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentle- man from Pennsylvania? There was no objection. Mr, BUCHANAN. Myr. Speaker, for the first time since the Lobbying Act was passed, you will find in the Conargs- giowaL Recorp of i riday, July 14, which was placed upon the Members’ deaks this morning, the most complete compilation ever assembled of the information filed by Congress tn any calendar year under 10463 the Registration Act of 1946. It contains reports from 333 lobbying organizations which is more than was ever filed for any previous quarter. It contains 961 quar- terly reports from paid lobbyists or legis- lative agents, which was also more were ever filled in any previous quarter in the history of the act. Third, both the organizational and in- dividual lobbying reports filed this time are more complete and more candid and give infinitely more information, gen- erally speaking, than those filed for any quarter before this. CONGRESS SHOULD STAY ON THE JOB Mr. McGUIRE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and revise and extend my remarks, The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentle- man from Connecticut? There was no objection. Mr. McGUIRE. Mr. Speaker, in the past several weeks, there has been a great deal of talk about probable adjournment time for the Eighty-first Congress. That such talk could emanate from any Mem- ber of this body at the very time that our Nation is undergoing its most dangerous crisis since the close of World War II is shameful indeed. As long as our boys are combating the totalitarian enemy, as long as our Nation stands unprepared for the horrendous eventualities that are within the realm of possibilities, we have no right to pause in our legislative duties. Every member of this House must stand for reelection this November. Some face long drawn out campaign battles. But these are secondary to the national in- terest today. Our national requirements demand daily, attentive work for their solution, and we must prepare ourselves sufficiently so that the peoples of this earth will have a secure opportunity for & democratic and peaceful life. To do otherwise would lead only to national suicide. THE CHINESE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC Mr. JUDD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unani- mous consent to address the House for 1 minute and revise and extend my re- marks, The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentle- man from Minnesota? There was no objection. Mr. JUDD. Mr. Speaker, in an official broadcast from India the other day, Mr. Nehru, the Prime Minister of the Indian Government, stated that India as one of the nations which had given de jure rec- ognition to what he called the Chinese People’s Republic, had been working through diplomatic channels to secure that country’s admission to the United Nations. Mr. Speaker, communism in Asia is such @ threat to the United States that we are spending hundreds of millions of dollars and sending American boys to die in fighting it. It cannot be right for our Government to be passive in the face of efforts to build the Communist conspiracy up by giving Communist China the rec- ognition, respectability, prestige, and power that admission to the United Na- tions would give it. Therefore, I hope and
10464 trust that our State Department is prop- erly protecting the interests of the United States by working diligently through dip- lomatic and all other channels to make sure that the Chinese Communist regime will not be admitted to the United Na- tions, where it could only make trouble for the organization and for all peoples who want to work together to prevent further Communist aggression. SUPPORT FOR MILITARY FORCES IN KOREA Mr. FULTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentle- man from Pennsylvania? There was no objection. Mr. FULTON. Mr. Speaker, I urge the United States Government to send full aid, men, and materials, to Korea to make sure that our men there have the fullest support. I believe that “business as usual” must be out as long as the Korean question is unsolved and that the United States Government agencies and the Congress should proceed upon this basis. Gov- ernment agencies must act quickly and give the Korean supply problem the highest priority. We must give our fighting men at the front the full reassurance we are all 100 percent behind them with needed and overdue equipment, and the best we have. Let us really put our shoulders to the task and meet the challenge of the situation now. Mr. BUCHANAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. FULTON. I yield to my friend the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. BucHanan]. Mr. BUCHANAN. I commend my col- league from Pennsylvania and join with him in his request. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Pennsyl- vania has expired. FEDERAL SCHOLARSHIP PLAN Mr. FURCOLO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 15 minutes and to revise and extend my remarks and include a chart with figures. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentle- man from usetts? There was no objection. Mr. . Mr. Speaker, may it please the House: Back in January of 1949 I called the attention of the Con- gress to a plan I was proposing that, for convenience, I had termed the “Federal scholarship plan.” Although this session of Congress is drawing to a close, I still hope that legislation putting the Federal scholarship plan into effect may be passed by the Highty-first Congress. I wish to again call it to the attention of all the Members in the hope that they yu give my suggestion their considera- ion. The bill T have introduced to carry out the terms of my suggested Federal schol- arship plan‘is H. R, 5852. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE The aim of the Federal scholarship plan is to enable at least 6,000 high- school students a year to complete a col- lege education when in the absence of the Federal scholarship plan they would be unable to do so. The plan also serves the same purpose for at least 500 college students a year to continue through postgraduate work. For the sake of brevity, I will refer only to college and postgraduate higher education, although actually the plan is intended to include students who will continue their education after high school, whether it be in a college or some other institution of learning. The fig- ures used in the appended chart are based on a college period of 4 years or & postgraduate period of 4 years. Since many courses would not take that length of time, it is probable that the Federal scholarship plan would benefit 7,000 or 8,000 students a year, rather than the figure of 5,500 on which the plan is based. And, of course, there would necessarily be some corresponding minor adjustments to be made in the financial figures. The benefits of the Federal scholarship plan are intended to be furnished at no actual cost to the Federal Government. The Federal Government does provide money in the initial period of operation of the plan, but this money {s not pro- vided in the form of the usual appropria- tion. It is with this understanding that I say that the benefits are made possible by the Federal Government, but still at no actual cost to the Federal Govern- ment. The Federal scholarship plan is based on two major premises: First, no quali- fied high school or college student should be deprived of a higher education be- cause of financial inability to pay for it; and, second, in its present financial con- dition, the country is unable to provide that education free of charge. I hope that eventually the time will come when this country can offer higher education to scholastically qualified stu- dents at absolutely no expense to the student. Post-high-school education should be free to those of our students who want and are qualified to continue higher education. The country has not yet reached the stage where it feels able to provide higher education free of charge. Until that time comes, I advocate the expedient of what I am terming ‘the Federal scholar- ship plan.” We must not lose sight of the fact that the country suffers in losing the poten- tial qualities that have not been brought to fruition simply because thousands of individuals have been deprived of educa- tions to fit their individual abilities, It is a public problem directly affecting the welfare of the community, State, Nation, and world. It is for that reason that I am introducing legislation to inaugurate what I have termed “‘the Federal schol- arship plan.” The Federal scholarship plan provides for a method of advancing money to a limited number of qualified students by appropriation of Federal funds for that purpose, The money so advanced is to be repaid by the students at stated in- JULY 17 tervals over a period of 10 years, begin« ning after the educational period. The plan calls for the cooperation of the States in two ways: First, some financial assistance; and, second, selec- tion of students. The total yearly number of high- school students who will receive money for higher education is set at 5,000. The number of college students who are eligi- ble for Federal assistance to continue postgraduate studies is set at 500. Inci- dentally, the ratio of these figures can be adjusted to meet the educational needs of the country if a survey shows that the greater need is for postgradu- ate students. The amount of money to be advanced to those students continuing on from high school to college studies is fixed at & maximum of $1,000 per year. College students who are going on to postgradu- ate schools will receive a maximum of $1,500 a year, The maximum time period for either group is 4 years of college studies for high-school students; or 4 years of post- graduate work for college students. On the basis of a 4-year term, those granted aid for college or post-high- school studies will repay the Government at the rate of $250 a year for the first 4 years and $500 a year for the next 6 years, Postgraduate students will repay the Government at the rate of $250 a year for the first 2 years, $500 a year for the next 2 years, and $750 a year for the next 6 years. Repayments do not begin until the first year after the study period is completed. In the year after such payments have been completed so that the entire loan has been repaid to the Federal Govern- ment the student will make a “gratuity payment” equal to 10 percent of the total amount advanced to him by the Federal Government. For students who have accepted aid for less than the 4-year basis, the amount of repayment is deter- mined proportionately so as to be fully repaid at the expiration of 10 years from the time of completing their institutional studies, On the above basis, the Federal Gov- ernment would “appropriate” about $167,000,000 over a period of 14 years or a little less than $12,000,000 a year for the Federal scholarship plan. Fourteen years after the commencement of the Federal scholarship plan it is unneces- sary for the Federal Government to make further “appropriations” because the plan has then become a self-sustain- ing revolving fund that finances itself. The Federal Government does not get back its “appropriations” for the initial 14-year period until 10 years after the Federal scholarship plan is ended, when- ever that may be. The necessary “ap- propriations” for the first 14 years for the Federal scholarship plan are shown chonologically in the appended chart under “Appropriations.” In addition to the above Federal appropriations, those States that ac- cept the terms of the Federal scholar- ship plan will contribute at the ratio of $100 for every $1,000 advanced by the Federal Government. The total yearly contribution of all the States is shown
1950 on the appended chart under “States.” After the first 14 years of operation of the Federal scholarship plan the total expense to the States is figured at $1,- 150,000 a year or $50 for every $1,000 loaned to the student. The amount per State of course depends upon the popu- lation of the State—the students being apportioned among the States by popula- tion. The yearly contribution of an average State would be about $48,000 for the first 14 years and about $24,000 thereafter. The contribution of the States differs from that of the Federal Government in that the Federal Government’s contri- bution is simply a loan, where as that of the States is an outright gift. The money advanced by the Federal Government to the students is repaid by the students over a 10-year period in the amounts indicated on the chart under “Student repayments.” The amounts in that column of the chart are figured after deducting an estimated 10-percent loss on loans not repaid by students be- cause of death, poor risks, and so forth. By the fourteenth year, the yearly re- payments of students come to $20,700,- 000. In addition to that amount, the student also makes a gratuity payment to the Federal Government of 10 percent of the total amount of aid received by him. The total amount of this gratuity payment is $2,300,000, or, again deduct- ing the estimated 10-percent loss, $2,- 070,000. That gratuity payment is made the year after the student has repaid his entire loan. That amount ts shown on the chart under the column headed “10-percent gratuity.” The estimated expenses of administra- tion of the Federal scholarship plan are shown on the chart under “Administra- tion.” Beginning with the fifteenth year, and continuing at that yearly fie- ure after that time, the yearly adminis- tration expenses are estimated at a maximum of $500,000. A summary of the plan, as shown on the chart, indicates that when the plan gets under way a total of $23,000,000 a year is being given to approximately 20,000 college students and 2,000 post- graduate students. During the first 14 years the Federal Government has ap- propriated an average of $12,000,000 a year to make the plan possible. Begin- ning with the fifteenth year, the Federal scholarship plan is self-sustaining in that the yearly expenses of aid to stu- dents and administrative costs run to $23,500,000 a year and the Federal Gov- ernment is taking in approximately $23,- 920,000 s year, which consists of student repayments in the amount of $20,700,- 000 a year—after 10-percent bad-debt re- diction-——and $2,070,000 a year gratuity repayment—after 10-percent bad-debt reduction—and $1,150,000 per year from the States. That leaves a balance of ap- proximately $420,000 a year which would be available to the Federal Government either to reduce the amount of the States’ contribution or to cover an error in the estimated administrative expenses or bad-debt losses. The Federal scholarship plan must be considered beginning with the fifteenth year after fits inauguration, which is when it becomes a revolving, self-sus- taining fund, Beginning that year, the Federal Government makes no further appropriation but simply carries the total $167,000,000 appropriation during the initial 14-year period as an accounts receivable, which will be repaid in full 10 years after the completion of the Federal scholarship plan, whenever that may be. The Federal scholarship plan is not financed by one single appropriation in the true sense of the word. The money advanced by the Federal Government is not an appropriation, but is simply a loan, a continuing loan, If this continuing loan be interpreted as an appropriation, it is important to note that the appropriations by the Fed- eral Government are simply made for the initial period of the Federal scholarship plan. After the first 14 years the Federal scholarship plan is self-financed and the Federal Government makes no further appropriations. I will not at this time outline in detail the method of selection of students or the type of administration necessary. Brief- ly, the number of students allotted to each State would be in proportion to the population of the State. As far as pos- sible, the selection of students would be a function of the individual State, sub- ject only to the restriction that there be no discrimination based on race, creed, or color. As far as possible, the student himself would select the institution in which he wished to continue his higher education. The Federal Government’s administrative duties and expenses would simply be in connection with supervising the entire Federal scholarship plan to see that all students were given a fair op- portunity to compete within the State and that there was no discrimination based on race, creed, or color. I have felt that the students should be apportioned on a State rather than a National basis, so that students of those States on a lower educational level would not be foreclosed from the plan. If students are not apportioned among the States, the result of national competition might see students from the more highly edu- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE 10465 cated States being the only beneficiaries of the Federal scholarship plan. The Federal scholarship plan does not interfere in any way with the curriculum of any institution of learning. It does not put the Federal Government into the field of education. Using the same edu- cational system that we now have, it simply enables worthy students to con- tinue their education, where, in the ab- sence of the Federal scholarship plan, they would be financially unable tc do so. The Federal scholarship plan is in- tended to help only those students who meet two qualifications: (1) Their high- schoo] work established beyond question that they are good material for post- high-school study; and (2) they are un- able financially to pay for higher duca- tion, The Federal scholarship plan has suitable safeguards to see that those two requirements are not evaded. Let me emphasize that the Federal scholarship plan is in no way associated with and is not intended in any way to interfere with any Federal-aid-to-educa- tion program. Whatever is done to put the Federal scholarship plan into effect is not to be at the expense of Federal aid to education. Any Federal Govern- ment money used in the Federal scholar- ship plan is not to come from any Fed- eral-aid-to-education appropriation. There may be some who will feel that the Federal scholarship plan will not function because the students will not repay the loan. That is a possibility. I, for one, am willing to risk that possi- bility. I will have some statistics to pre- sent when the legislation comes up that I believe will warrant my stand. The Federal scholarship plan may perhaps be an answer to that part of the President's budget message—page 146, CONGRESSIONAL RecorD, January 10, 1949—that read as follows: It has become increasingly obvious that the national welfare demands that higher education be made available to more of our talented young people. We should now de- termine the soundest and most practical means of providing additional opportunities for capable young people who could not otherwise afford a college or university education. I respectfully submit my proposed Federal scholarship plan for the consid- eration of Members of the Congress, Federal scholarship plan {Basis of 6,000 college and 500 postgraduate students a year; college students $1,000 8 year, pos Repayments over 10-year period beginning after education completed aduntes $1,500 8 year, Expenditures Receipts Year Total Total 1 Appro- To college | TO post: | Adminis- expenses | From | Student re-| 10 percent | Teeeipts! | pristion C86 | praduute | tration Btutes | payments !| gratuity ? $5, 000,000 | $750, 000 | $150, 000 | $5, 900, 000 | $575, 000 0} $575,000 | $6, 325, 000 “| 10, 060,000 | 1, 800,000 | 175,000 | 11, 675, O00 | 1, 180, 600 0 {| 1,150,000 } 10, 536, 000 .| 1, 000, 000 | 2, 260, 000 | 200, 000 | 17, 450, 000 | 1, 725, 000 Oj 1,726, 000 | 15, 725, 000 20, 000, 000 | 3, 600, 000 | 225, 000 } 23, 225, 000 | 2, 000 Q | 2,800, 000 | 20, 925, ( 20, 000, 000 | 3, 000, 000 | 250,000 | 2i, 250, 000 | 2, 300, 000 0] 8,337, 500 | 20, 712, 600 20, 000, 000 | 8,000,000 | 275, 000 | 23, 275, 000 | 2, 300, 000 0] 4,775, 000 500, 20, 000, 000 | 8,000,000 | 300, 000 300, 2, 300, 000 0] 6,125,000 | 17,175,000 20, 000, GOO | 8, G00, 000 | 325, QUO | 23, 425, 000 | 2, 300, 000 0 | 7,475, 000 | 18, 850, 000 20, 000, 000 | 8, 000, 000 | 380, 000 | 23, 380, 000 | 2 300, AND © | 10, 062, 500 | 13, 287, 600 20, 000, 000 | 8, G00, 000 | 876, 000 | 28, 376, 000 | 2, 800, 000 © | 12, 875, 000 | 20, 500, 000 20, 000, 000 | 8,000,000 { 400,000 | 23, 400, 000 | 2, 300, 000 0 | 14,337, 800 | 9, 062, 500 20, 000, 000 | 3,000,000 | 425, 000 | 23, 428, 000 | 2, 30, 000 0 | 17,825,000 | 5, 600, 20, 000, 000 | 8,000,000 | 480,060 | 23, 480, 000 | 2, 300, 000 @ | 20, 412, 500 | 3, 037, 500 20, 000, 000 | 8,000,000 | 475,000 | 23, 475, 000 | 2, 300, 000 © | 23, 000, 000 475, 000 15.....-| 20, 000, 000 | 8, 000, 000 523, 600, 000 | 2, 160, 000 070, 000 |?28, 920, 000 40 een ennai ¥ Aftor 10-Lercent deduction for “bad detts.” 1 After fourtcenth year, figures are constant. § Burplus §420,(00,
10466 The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under previous order of the House, the gentie- man from Florida (Mr. Srxes] is recog- nized for 10 minutes, THE KOREAN SITUATION Mr, SIKES. Mr. Speaker, this is a time for calm and quiet determination at home—not a time for panic, Obvious- ly, things are not going well in Korea. But we are not through there. Do not forget we were spread thin. Our defenses have to cover three-fourths of the world. We have to depend upon ourselves alone for most of the job. There is not enough at any one point to enable us to fight a war—only enough for a delaying action in a case of full- scale aggression. But we are rapidly getting in position to do the job in Korea, and we will do the job. We will not be thrown out. These are the things to remémber. We are not in any trouble that we are unable to handle. It will take some time and require the tightening of belts. It will be necessary that we realize that the Communists are playing for keeps; that trouble may break out elsewhere and probably will. We shall need to accept partial mobilization; the substitution of tanks for automobiles on the assembly lines; some curtailment of profits as usual, Now just why are we in trouble in Korea. Wisely or unwisely, the South Koreans were not trained or equipped for war. It has been our purpose to build for peace. The American military advisory mis- sion in Korea had for its task the train- ing of Korean security forces to deal with internal security. The armament for such a mission, consequently, consisted of small weapons, a few coastal vessels, and no combat aircraft. Our troops were withdrawn last June in conformity with arrangements set- ting up the Republic of Korea. Several hundred persons, comprising the Ameri- can military mission, remained behind to train the Korean constabulary. The situation along the thirty-eighth parallel was only one of six in which the Russians maintained military build-ups, Those six Soviet-backed military build- ups were threats against the following countries: Iran, Indochina, Formosa, Germany, Yugoslavia, Greece—the whole Macedonian area. Because of its military power in being along the borders of these countries, the Soviet camp can move against any par- ticular target or groups of targets, Just as they did against South Korea. Obviously, the United States, with its ever-mounting responsibilities, could not maintain military forces of equal strength in being at all those particular areas, in addition to meeting the other requirements we have. For the past 18 months, northern Korean forces have been massed in strength on the north side of the thirty- eighth parallel. There were frequent border incidents involving as many as several thousand troops. In the face of this knowledge on our part, it was still possible for the aggressor to achieve tac- tical surprise, and this is understand- able. The Korean situation constituted CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE a calculated risk weighed against the over-all global military-political situa- tion, Once the North Korean forces moved against the Republic of Korea, the ag- gressor had a great advantage. He had superiority of numbers, equipment, fire power, and was aided and abetted by saboteurs, fifth columnists, and his cause was served by confusion and disorgani- zation, The history of aggressors in our day attests to the strong advantage which accrues to the ruthless international criminal when he violates all rules of international law, justice, and decency and resorts to naked force as a policy of acegrandizement. The decision of President Truman to join the fight was a recognition on his part of the moral issue at stake, as well as the political-ideological issues in- volved, above and beyond the actual mill- tary factors; when we moved into the battle as a result of his order as Co! mander in Chief we were in effect re- versing purely military policy. The pub- lic expression of opinion which attended the Chief Executive’s decison was con- firmation of the fact that the rank and file of Americans agreed with him that the time had come to call a halt to Com- munist aggression, and that, with other members of the United Nations, we were prepared to meet force with force to rid the world of this threat and restore peace. The task of getting adequate forces into Korea, once we had joined the fight against aggression, was a most formida- ble one. Railroad facilities left much to be desired, roads are a far cry from what we understand in America as modern highways; the logistics problems incident to a build-up operation, under such cir- cumstances, are enormous. We not only have the job of endeavor- ing to get troops there from Japan in as short a time as possible and rush them into the interior, but we also have to rush equipment and supplies in such volume as to enable them to fight an effective delaying action. In addition, and at the same time, we must get on with the task of bringing in the men, equipment, and supplies which would enable us to make a really firm stand at a selected line and in turn, when the situation allows, mount a counterattack. Our military efforts in Korea were, in the early stages, handicapped by poor weather, which worked against continu- ous air attacks. The break in the air attacks allowed the North Koreans to make hasty but adequate repairs to bridges and roads in the interval when poor flying weather militated against the effectiveness of our air arm. The Air Force was also handicapped because the several more important airports fell into enemy hands almost at the outset. The North Koreans, in contrast to the Republic of Korea’s internal security forces, massed and trained and heavily equipped purely military forces, These included units which saw former service in conjunction with the Chinese Com- munist forces, They were veterans, sea- soned in tactics, and trained to a specific, aggressive purpose. Their combat effi- JULY 17 ciency has weighed heavily against our limited forces. Everything considered, and despite the actual reverses suffered by our forces to date, an outstanding performance has been given by those United States forces who have been committed to action. Of necessity, we were outnumbered, out- fired in equipment, and harassed by fifth columnists turned snipers. Our forces were pressed into duty on unfamiliar ter- rain, with many natural hazards; in the face of strong, well-mounted, highly- trained and disciplined enemy forces. They have made the enemy pay a stiff price for his advances. Now, as the symbol of the free world’s determination to halt Communist ag- gression Korea is a testing ground of the will to freedom and survival—free of un- provoked international assault, Then what is next? To support more intensive action in Korea—and meet the threat of trouble elsewhere—it is becoming apparent that limited industrial mobilization will be necessary. Selective industrial mobiliza- tion probably could be carried out with- out great disruption; for example, tele- vision set manufacture could be diverted in favor of radar, and automobile pro- duction curtailed to furnish more tanks. The National Guard and the Reserves should be utilized in the conduct of the war, It ig even more important to take serl- ously the Korean lessons as they apply to defense planning. In addition to con- tinued contribution to the defense of western Europe we must be prepared for other prompt police actions. For the Russians, unless they are stopped in Ko- rea, can tie us down all over the world in a series of incidents without ever com- mitting their own troops. To counter this we need not only the military sup- port of other countries in the United Nations, but also a change in the com- position of our forces. In other words, we need to have both better intelligence and the trained men, supplies, and trans- portation necessary to get into action quickly. To do these things we at home must accept the fact that we are in the struggle too—the men on the Korean front cannot do the job alone. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under previous order of the House, the gentle- man from Tennessee [Mr. Gore] is recognized for 10 minutes. GORE FARM BILL Mr. GORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise on the floor of the United States Congress to refute a falsification of the record—a falsification of the contents of the so- called Gore farm bill. Untrue state- ments have been widely published in paid advertisements in the course of a senatorial Democratic primary cam- paign in the State of Oklahoma. I arise to state the facts in order to protect my own record and the record of a great majority of this body, who, along with our able, distinguished, and beloved col- league, the Honorable Mrxe Mownroney, voted for passage of this farm bill which bore my name as author. When the publication of these grossly unfair and untrue statements came to my attention, I wired the senior Member
1950 of the other legislative body at the other side of the Capitol, from the State of Oklahoma, advising him that these falsified advertisements had been pub- lished in support of his candidacy and that his own photograph had been used in these advertisements clearly implying his affirmation of the statements. I requested that the gentleman make cor- rection of the misstatements by telling the truth about the bill or publicly dis- associate his name therefrom. I also told the gentleman in my wire that unless he did so I would be compelled to set the record straight on the floor of Congress in order to protect my own record from being severely prejudiced. Thus far the gentleman has taken no such action, The canards have been left to stand; therefore, as I said a mo- ment ago, I now rise on the floor of Congress to refute them. In a bold and bald-faced manner, the advertisements describe the so-called Gore bill as providing price supports for farm commodities at only 60 percent of parity. Now that is utterly, completely, wholly, and deliberately untrue. These false advertisements have appeared in nearly all, if not all newspapers in the State of Oklahoma. It is apparent that this is done for the purpose of unjustly besmirching the record of one of the ablest and finest men ever to serve in the United States Congress, the Honorable MIKE MonroneEy. I say this is the pur- pose, because, in the advertisements, the gentleman from Oklahoma, Con- gressman MoNnRONEY, is charged with the heinous crime of supporting the Gore bill because, as the ads erroneously say, this was a 60 percent of parity bill. What is the truth? Well, the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. MonronEy] did support the Gore bill, but it was not a 60 percent of parity bill. As a matter of fact, he made the ablest and most influential speech made for the bill. Of course, many of my colleagues here today re- member that fine, eloquent argument he made. But, Mr. Speaker, he made no argument in favor of a 60 percent of parity price-support program. Not at all. It was in favor of continuing the existing 90 percent of parity price-support pro- gram that Representative MOoONRONEY spoke. In fact, Mrke MONRONEY never favored 60 percent of parity price support upon any commodity, except potatoes. I say this unreservedly because I know Mrxe Monroney’s record. He and I took the oath of office together in the United States Congress. We soon became fast friends and we have been together in the thick of many, many legislative battles. I have followed him on many, many im- portant decisions, and I will tell you now that I hold his judgment in highest esteem, I teamed with Mixe MoNnRONEY in the early days of World War I to in- crease the price-support program from 52 to 90 percent of parity on basic com- modities, Our amendment was accepted. Moreover, our amendment provided price support for a large number of nonbasic commodities which had never before had the benefit of price support. Mixz Mon-~ RnoNEY thought this was right, and we know what 2a hard fighter Mixer Mowroney is for what he thinks {s right. Yes; Mike Monroney played a very CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE important part in establishing the 90 percent of parity price-support program in the first instance; and, then last year, he made the strongest, the ablest, and the most effective speech in support of the Gore bill, which continued this 90- percent-of-parity price-support pro- gram. Why, then, should he, of all peo- ple, be charged with favoring a 60 per- cent of parity price-support program? Well, of course, it could be nothing but politics and the cheapest sort of politics at that. I call that hitting below the elt. Of course, I do not have to speak for Mike Monroney. He has already dem- onstrated that he can quite adequately take care of himself. But, I do feel the need to refute this falsification of the Gore bill, lest, by allowing these publi- cized falsehoods to go unanswered, other Members who voted for this bill, as well as myself, would be similarly attacked, and that is why I have risen today on the floor of Congress to set the record straight. Now, I have said that MikE MONRONEY made the most effective speech in favor of the Gore bill. He also made the most influential argument against the Bran- nan plan, and, mind you, Mr. Speaker, we offered the so-called Gore bill as a substitute for the so-called Pace-Bran- nan bill, which, as you know, embodied the principles and a large part of the objectionable features of the familiarly known Brannan plan. Yes, MIke Mon- RONEY was not only in favor of continu- ing the 90 percent of parity price-sup- port program, but he was very much against the regimentation and imprac- ticability of the Brannan plan. I, too, was against the Brannan plan. Now, who was it who voted for the so-called Gore bill along with Mmuxe Monroney and myself? At least three-fourths of all Congressmen from the real farm dis- tricts, whether Democrat or Republican, voted for the Gore bill. That brings up another falsification in these ads. It is plainly said that my bill was supported by the big-city Congressmen. Well, I have looked up the record on that and I find that very, very few Members from any large city in the entire United States voted for the so-called Gore bill as a sub- stitute for the Pace-Brannan bill. The facts are quite to the contrary and quite the reverse of these ads appearing in Oklahoma for the purpose of defaming and besmirching the record of a col- league of ours who js so loved and re- spected by the membership of this body. Now, as I said a moment ago, I do not feel that Muxe Monronry needs me to rise on the floor of Congress to defend him. That, I am not doing. The re- sults of the Oklahoma primary July 4 showed that Mme Monrongy can take care of himself in Oklahoma. But what about the rest of us who supported this sound farm program? Our records are prejudiced, too. I have a right and you have a right to have the record set straight. That is what I intend to do today. Now, tt Just so happens that the same gentleman in whose behalf these false advertisements were published has within the last few days introduced a farm Dill himself, What kind of bill is it? What 10467 is that farm bill? Is it the Brannan plan? Oh, no. He introduced that last year. Is he still for the Brannan plan? Well, that is not for me to answer. That is beside the point. What about the last bill that this gentleman introduced? It provides for an extension of the 90 per- cent of parity price support program. Now, that is exactly what Mixz Mon- RONEY and I did last year. If it was so wrong last year, why is it so right now? It is said that unless this is done now, the flexible price support program will go into effect next year. These flexible provisions of the law were not in the Gore bill which Mrmr Mowroney and I supported. Those provisions were added by the Agriculture Committee of another body which this same gentleman sup- posedly presided over as chairman prior to his departure for Sweden. If those provisions are so wrong now, why did the Agriculture Committee of the other body put them into the bill last year? If the provisions which Mike Monroney and I supported in the Gore bill last year were so wrong then, why are they so right now? If the Brannan plan was right last year, why is it that the same gentleman who introduced the Brannan plan last year would now introduce a bill entirely unlike the Brannan plan? Well, the answer to these questions is obvious. The people who supported the so-called Gore bill last year are faring pretty well with the electorate, while many supporters of the Brannan plan are dodging the issue in every conceiv- able way. What did the Gore bill provide? Here is what it provided. Here is the truth which I state in order that no one else will attempt such deception and falsifi- cation. Here are the facts. The Gore bill that passed the House last year pro- vided for two things: First, the extension of the existing 90 percent of parity price support program; second, repeal of the Hope-Aiken law of sliding scale sup- ports. It is under the provision of this so-called Gore bill, later becoming law, that prices of basic commodities and some others are today being supported at 90 percent of parity. It is not a per- fect program but it is the product of years of experience and farmer coopera- tion and is basically sound. LEAVE OF ABSENCE By unanimous consent, leave of ab- sence was granted to Mr. O’Hara of Iili- nois (at the request of Mr. McKinnon) for an indefinite period on account of official business, EXTENSION OF REMARKS Mr. JACKSON of Washington (at the request of Mr, MANSFIELD) was given per- mission to extend his remarks in the Appendig of the Recorp. Mr. McCORMACK (at the request of Mr. Priest) was given permission to extend his remarks in three instances and in each to include extraneous mat- ter. Mr. BREHM asked and was given per- mission to extend his remarks in two in- stances; in one to include an editorial. Mr. POULSON asked and was given permission to extend his remarks and include two editorials.