1950 I therefore move that the Senate con- cur in the House amendments. Mr. WHERRY. I have no objection, The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is on agreeing to the motion of the Scna- tor from Nevada. The motion was agreed to. GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS, 1951 The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (HR. 7786) making appro- priations for the support of the Govein- ment for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1951, and for other purposes. Mr O’MAHONEY. Mr. President, I should like to have the attention of the Senator from Arizona, The appropria- tion bill which is now before the Senate, in the items dealing with the Bureau of Reclamation, has abandoned the form vhich was used in prior years, so that individual projects are not mentioned. Mr. HAYDEN. That change was made at the suggestion of the House of Repie- sentatives, What appear in the bill now are lump sums_ In order to obtain a break-down of the lump sum, one must examine the House committee report and the Senate committee report Mr, OMAHONEY. I should like to have the attention of the minority lead- er, also, please. Last year when we passed the Interior Depaitment appropriation bill, 1t con- tained two legislative limitations upon the expenditure of funds which were ap- propriated for the Missour: River Basin. The first of these was one upon which the junior Senator from Nebraska and the present speaker agreed with respect to the Glendo unit That amendment reads as follows, being a provision of the existing applopriation bill for the fiscal year 1950. Provided further, Tha. in order to promote agreement among the States of Nebiaska, Wyoming, and Colorado and to avoid any possible alteration of existing vested water nights, no part of this or of any prior appro- priation shall be used tor construction or for further commitment for construction of the Glendo unit or any feature thereof, until a definite plan report thereon has been com- pleted, reviewed by the States of Nebraska, Wyoming, and Coloiado and approved by Congiees Provided further, That no part of this o: prior appropriations shall be used for construction, nor for further commitments to constiuction of Moorhead Dam and Reser- voir, Montana, or any feature thereot until a definite plan report thereon has been com- pleted, reviewed by the States of Wyoming and Montana, and approved by the Congress: Mr. President, the purpose of the two amendments was to provide that since the streams involved are interstate streams, there should be, in the spirit of the existing law, complete agreement be- tween the Bureau of Reclamation, rep- resenting the Federal Government, and the States affected, before any expendi- ture should be made for either of these units. The definite plan report and the re- view and the approval required of Con- gress have not been had in either case. Nevertheless, a reading of these two amendments will show that they refer only to limitations on the appropria- tions carried in the appropriation bill for 1950 and prior appropriations. In order to make a proper legislative enactment, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE there should now be an amendment to this bill providing that no part of this appropriation shall be expended for either purpose. But inasmuch as last year's bill required the preparation of a definite plan and report, to be submitted to the States and to be approved by Con- Bress, it will not be necessary. Mr. HAYDEN I was about to suggest that, since the Senators from Nebraska, Wyoming, and Colorado were in perfect accord last year, nothing should be done until the authorities im their several States have had an opportunity to ex- amine and agiee to these matters Ob- viously the Bureau of Reclamation should spend no money for the units re- ferred to by the Senator from Wyoming, until the States have satisfied them- selves Ido not think 1t 1s necessary to incorporate such a provision 1n the bill, because the understanding is pertectly clear, It was expressed here on the floor that it should be binding on the Recla- mation Service Mr. O’MAHONEY. I am satisfied that by the legislative recognition of this situation, and in view of the legislative history of the matter, the Bureau of Reclamation will recognize what we are doing, just as the Bureau has always re- garded a statement in a report as being a directive to be followed. Mr HAYDEN. Obviously, if the directive of last year could not be com- plied with within the time available, and the States have not had an oppor- tunity to examine into this matter, nothing should be done, on the face of 1t, until an understanding 1s arrived at. Mr WHERRY Mr. President, will the Senator yield’ The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Wyoming yield to the Senator from Nebraska? Mr. O'MAHONEY JI yield. Mr. WHERRY. I think we appreciate the action of the Senator from Wyo- ming m calling attention to this provi- sion It apparently is not in the bill I deeply appreciate the remarks of the chairman, with whom I am in entire agreement. Iam also in agreement with the distinguished Senator fiom Wyo- ming. I hope there will be no objection, since it was done last ycar. Personally, if there is no objection, I should like to see this language included im the bill. My reason for it is that there has been a great deal of question as to whether a committee report governs in such cases. That question has been raised on the Senate floor and discussed at length in the consideration of the Interior Depart- ment appropriation bill. I appreciate the legislative history which is being made now, upon which there is absolute- ly complete accord. In view of the fact that all the States went to such length and a compromise was reached, on which they are in total agreement, even though it be legislation on an appropria- tion bill, since it was included in an ap- propriation bill once, I wonder whether the distinguished Senator from Wyo- ming will prepare the amendment and offer it for insertion in the bill. That is the least we can do. If it is thrown out on a point of order, we can do nothing about that, but at least I should prefer to have it in the bill, 10771 Mr. O'MAHONEY. Mr. President, I personally believe that Js the proper way of accomplishing what is desired. I be- lieve the most expeditious way of hand~ ling it then is for me to ask unanimous consent, inasmuch as this is a legislative matter, that a legislative amendment may be added to this bill, providing that no part of the current appropriation may be expended for the purposes set forth, with respect to the Glendo unit and the Moorhead unit in the appropriation bill for 1950. Mr. HAYDEN. Mr. President, what the Senator is now proposing is that we repeat the text of last year’s bill, is it not? Mr. O'YMAHONEY,. Exactly. Mr. WHERRY. Then if any Senator wants to object to it or to debate it, he will have a perfect right to do so. But certainly I shall not object to such a@ unanimous-consent proposal. The VICE PRESIDENT. Is the Sen- ator from Wyoming proposing to make it a part of the bill? Mr O'MAHONEY. Yes. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator will state his request. Mr O’MAHONEY My request is for unanimous consent to insert in this bill the complete text of the two amend- ments which were approved by the Con- g1ess last year with respect to the Glendo unit and the Moorhead unit in the Missouri River appropriation The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there ob- jection to the Senator's offering such an amendment, which is an amendment to perfect the bill? The Chair hears none, Will the Senator send his amendment to the desk to be stated? Mr. O’MAHONEY. Mr President, the amendment which I propose will be found marked on pages 21 and 22 of the appropriation bill for 1950. I ask that these two amendments be now stated. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, reserv- ing the right to object, 1s the umendment in the exact form of the amendment which was inserted in the bill last year? Mr. O'MAHONEY. They will be stated by the clerk precisely as they appear in the present law. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Secre- tary will state the amendment. The Leais.ative CLerK. At the proper place in the bill, it is proposed to insert: Provided further, That in order to promote agreement among the States of Nebraska, Wyoming, and Colorado, and to avoid any possible alteration of existing vested water rights, no part of this or of any prior ap- propriation shall be used for construction or for furthe: commitment for construction of the Glendo unit, or any feature thereof, until a definite plan report thereon has been completed, reviewed by the States of Ne- braska, Wyoming, and Colorado, and ap- proved by Congress: Provided further, That no part of this or prior appropriations shail be used for construction, nor for further commitments to construction, of Moorhead Dam and Resetvoir, Mont, or any feature thereof, until a definite plan report thereon has been completed, reviewed by the States of Wyoming and Montana, and approved by the Congress. The VICE PRESIDENT. The ques- tion is on agreeing to the amendment, The amendment was agreed to,
10772 Mr. O’MAHONEY. Mr. President, on page 152 of the report which was sub- mitted by the Appropriations Commit- tee on the Interior Department appro- piiation bill, there is a proviso, to which my colleague, the junior Senator from Wyoming, and I have both agreed, which reads as follows: KEYHOLE DAM, WYO. The 1951 estimate for this project appears under phase A in the amount of 3,179,000, which has been allowed by the committee. Howevei, representations have been made to the committee that the water supply on the Belle Fourche River is such that under the Wyoming-South Dakota compact of Febru- ary 18, 1943, it may he difficult to fill this proposed reservoir Under the terms of the compact between the two States, there is no hmitation upon the number of small reser- voirs which may be built in Wyoming. It is the opinion of the committee that a com- prehonsive study of the future water supply should be made before construction is un- dertaken. Mr. President, this matter has been the subject of a great deal of considera- tion by the water authorities of the State of Wyoming. I have in my hand a letter from the State engineer, Mr.L C. Bishop, together with a photostatic copy of a letter which he received from Dis- trict Engineer Francis M. Bell, of the Geological] Survey of the Department of the Interior, with respect to this matter. There is no question that under the com- pact between the two States, Wyoming has the right to build these small reser- voirs. What the effect may be upon the water supply, I do not pretend to know. Some residents of the State say that there will not be sufficient water. But the State engineer of Wyoming writes me, in this letter, as follows: The enclosed copy of a letter received re- cently from Mr Francis M. Bell, district en- gineer, United States Geological Survey, Den- ver, Colo, is self-explanatory. This itnfor- mation from Mr. Bell was at the request of Mr. James Munro, of Sheridan, who repre- sents some of the landowners above Keyhole dam site, and who insists that there will be no water for the reservoir because under the Belle Fourche River compact, all of it will be held back in stock reservoirs. I do not agree with Mr. Munro on this. I ask unanimous consent that the en- tire text of the State engineer’s letter may be printed as a part of my remarks, I read it, because I want to emphasize the essential nature of the recommenda- tion made in the committee's report, that the Bureau of Reclamation undertake a close scrutiny of this water supply be- fore any construction is initiated. There being no objection, the letter, with its enclosure, was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: State or WYOMING, Stare ENGINEER’s OFFIcz, Cheycnne, July 5, 1950. Hon. Josep# ©. O'MAnonry, Senator from Wyoming, Senate Office Building, Washington, D C. Dear Jor: This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of July 1 with reference to the water supply for the Keyhole Reservoir. It 1s my own opinion based on a review of the report of the United States Bureau of Reclamation, the records of the United States CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Geological Survey and my own knowledge of the water shed above Keyhole Dam site that the average flow above the dam will average between 20,000 and 26,000 acre-feet per year. The enclosed copy of a letter received re- cently from Mr. Francis M. Bell, district engi- neer, United States Geological Survey, Den- ver, Colo, is self-explanatory. This infore mation from Mr. Bell was at the request of Mr. James Munro, of Sheridan, who repre- sents some of the landowners above Keyhole Dam site, and who insists that there will be no water for the reservoir because under the Belle Fourche River compact, all of it will be held back in stock reservoirs. I do not agree with Mr Munro on this. The Bureau of Reclamation estimates the 1929-47 uverage runoff of the Belle Fourche River above Kerhole Dam at 28,500 acre-feet with a maximum of 243,000 acre-feet in 1929, and a minimum of 8,100 ucre-feet in 1934, In a stream with such large variation in its runoff, a large capacity reservoir is necessary as you know to held over irrigation water for the short years and control the floods if and when they come. Since you have a copy of the definite plan report of the Keyhole unit, Cheyenne divi- sion, South Dakota, Missouri River Basin project, I will conclude by saying that our office is in general agreement with this re- port although we do believe that the height of the water level of the dam could well be reduced 10 feet, and thus save a million dol- lars or more in the cost of construction. This we agree will impair the flood-control value to a gieat extent, and also reduce the carry-over Capacity, which, according to past records, will be needed We urged this at the hearing in Moorcroft, but the Bureau officials did not see fit to make this change. As you Know in allowing the permit, we required an outlet to be constructed at the bottom of the pool and a compromise was later made with the Bureau officials whereby & 24-inch outlet may be placed at elevation 4,034 or 14 feet above the bottom of the pool, and about 1,000 acre-feet of water held as dead storage. The original plan proposed a dead storage of about 10,000 acre-feet. Yours very truly, L. C Bisuop, State Engineer. Untrep States DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, GEo.LocicaL Survey, Denver, Colo, June 5, 1950. Mr. L, C. Brsrop, State Engineer, Cheyenne, Wyo Dear Mr. Bisuor. I am sending to Mr, Eis- enhuth at Sheridan a copy of your letter of May 31 relative to average flow of the Belle Fourche River and by copy of this letter am suggesting that he obtain a series of compare ative measurements at the Moorcroft gage and at the Keyhole Dam site. Since the Moorcroft gage is located at the upper end of the proposed reservoir, it is my personal opinion that measurements will show no de- cided increase in flow between the gage and the dam site unless there are some spring-fed streama in the intervening area. Apparently the acditional area involved is less than 200 square miles Unfortunately, the Moorcroft record itself is too short to permit any accurate determi- nation of average annual discharge. The Moorcroft record is in two periods, the first of which is broken. During the second pe- riod the gage was at a different location. The longest record in that part of Wyoming is on the Powder River at Arvada, and al- though that is a much larger stream it seems reasonable to assume that over a period of time both streams would behave in a aimilar manner. On this assumption, average dis- charge may be computed for each period of record for Moorcroft and for the two periods JULY 21 considered as one, The calculations are as follows: WIRST PERIOD Average discharge Moorcroft, equals 79 cubic feet per second Average discharge Arvada, 1924-32 equals 534 cubic feet per second. Average discharge Arvada, 1916-49 equals 426 cubic feet per second. Computed Moorcroft, 1916-49 equals 63 cubic feet per second equals 46,500 Af. (ap- proximate). 1924-32 SECOND PERIOD Average discharge Moorcroft, equals 255 cubic feet per second. Average discharge Arvada, 1944-49 equals 830 cubic feet per second. Average discharge Arvada, 1916-49 equals 426 cubic feet per second. Computed Moorcroft, 1916-49 equals 83 cubic feet per second equals 23,900 Af. (ap- proximate). 1944-49 BOTH PERIODS Avecage discharge Moorcroft, 1924-32, 7944-49 equals 56 cubic feet per second Average discharge Arvada, 1924-32, 1944- 49 equals 447 cubie feet per second Average discharge Arvada, 1916-49 equals 423 cubie feet per second. Computed Moorcroft, 1916-49 equals 53 cubic feet per second equals 39,400 Ai. (ap- proximate). The wide range in these values Indicates that the original assumption is not entirely correct. ‘However, it seems reasonalle to assume that the longer the period of com- parison the more accurate would be the re- sult On this basis the average Moorcroft discharge would be 389,400 acre-feet It should be pointed out, however, that in« cluded in this figure are 2 years of extremely high run-off, If those 2 years were not con« sidered, the figure would be reduced to 22,200 acre-feet which closely approximates the fig- ure obtained by using only the last 6 years of record Thus, it would appear that the true average annual discharge is somewhere between 22,000 and 39,000 acre-feet. In view of the influence on the average discharge of the extremely high run-off years of 1924 and 1929, another comparative study may be made using median discharge rather than mean. On this basis it may be deter- mined that the median discharge (likely to occur 60 percent of the time) is about 21,500 acre-feet. Since this method 1s sta- tistically incorrect this figure cannot be giv- en full weight despite the fact that personal judgment indicates it may not be too far out of line Because of the short, broken record at Moorcroft a detailed analysis of precipita- tion-run-off relations would be required to obtain an idea of the correct annual dis- charge at the Keyhole dam site or at Moor- croft, Superficial studies of available streame flow records as shown above indicate that in an ordinary period of years run-off would average about 22,000 acre-feet. However, the occasional occurrence of an extraordinary wet year such as 1924 would greatly increase the average. Information contained herein should be considered as preliminary and provisional. The results of comparative measurements may throw additional light on the subject, Very truly yours, Francis M. Bert, District Engineer, Mr. O’MAHONEY. Mr. President, as the chairman of the subcommittee, the distinguished Senator from Arizona, will recall, on pages 837 to 841 of the Senate hearings on the measure a justification was presented by the Bureau of Recla- mation for the proposed development of &@ cooperative farm upon the Riverton
1950 project. Included in the testimony is a letter from President Humphrey, of the University of Wyoming. The letter sets forth the interest of the university in the establishment of a development farm on the Riverton project under a cooperative agreement with the Bureau of Reclama- tion, Soil Conservation Service, the Bu- reau of Plant Industry, Soils, and Agri- cultural Engineering, and the Bureau of Agricultural Economics of the Depart- ment of Agriculture. I did not seek to offer any amendment, and I do not now, because the Reclama-~ tion Omnibus Adjustment Act, section 40, provides as follows: Provided, That in connection with the set tlement and development of each of these projects the Secretary of the Interior is nau- thorized in his discretion to enter into agree- ments with the proper authorities of the State or States wherein sald projects or divi- sions are located, whereby such State or States shall cooperate with the United States in promoting the settlement of the projects or divisions after completion and in the securing and selecting of settlers. So I think the legislative authority is quite sufficient for such a cooperative agreement if the State authorities and the Bureau of Reclamation sce fit to carry it out. It is an agreement which I heartily recommend. The Riverton project is one of the most productive and one of the oldest under the reclama- tion law, and it would be very helpful in encouraging settlement if such a co- operative furm should be established. Mr, President, I should like to say that I felt it would be very desirable if this farm should include a soil-testing sta- tion, but that is a matter to be worked out. Does the Senator from Arizona agree with the statement which I have made? Mr. HAYDEN. I am quite sure that the Senator's quotation from the law is correct. There was no budget estimate. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Secre- tary will state the next committee amendment, The next amendment was, on page 250, line 5, to strike out “$7,000,000” and to insert ‘‘$7,400,000.” STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION Mr, IVES. Mr. President, yesterday the Senate was treated to the spectacle of a blistering demonstration in a seem- ingly desperate effort to prove that a fraud and a hoax have been committed by one of its own Members. The effect of that demonstration will be determined in part by public reaction to the majority report of the Foreign Relations Committee’s subcommittee in- vestigating disloyalty in the State De- partment, when compared to the indi- vidual views of the junior Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Lonce], who has been a minority member of the subcom- mittee. It will be determined also by public reaction to any political motiva- tion behind the demonstration. Charges of a fraud and a hoax, with or without provocation, whether sub- stantiated or unsubstantiated, should not be allowed to serve as camouflage for dereliction in duty or failure in perform- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE ance on the part of those preferring the charges, Errors in commission by some should not blind us to errors in omission by others, The Cenate Committee on Forcign Re- lations had been given the task of con- ducting a full and complete study and investigation as to whether persons who are disloyal to the United States are or have been employed by the Department of State. Its duties and functions were not to be hmited or confined to an investiga- tion of the charges by the junior Sen- ator frora Wisconsin | Mr. McCartHy). To the contrary, if there was one func- tion not specifically assigned to the com- mittee, it was an investigation of the junior Senator from Wisconsin |Mr. Mc- Cartiry] himself. In fact, investigation of the McCarthy charges was purposely omitted from the text of Senate Resolution 231 as a result of debate in the Senate last February 21. That resolution as originally offcred was as follows: Resolved, That the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, or any duly authorized subcommittee thereof, ts authorized and di- rected to conduct a full and complete study and investigation as to whether persons who arc disloyal to the United States are employed by the Department of State as charged by the Senator from Wisconsin |{Mr. McCarty |. The committee shall report to the Senate at the earliest practicable date the results of its investigation, together with such recom- mendations as it may deem desirable. At that time I objected to the inclusion of the words ‘‘as charged by the Senator from Wisconsin |Mr. McCartry]”, and, speaking on the subject before the Sen- ate, I spoke, in part, as follows; and my remarks can be found on pages 2063 and 2064 of the CoNnGRESSIONAL REcoRD. I do not like to see this particular investi- gation Umited to the charges made by one particular individual. * * * If we are going into this matter, it scems to me that we very definitely should not limit the in- vestigation to those charges. If there are conditions in the State Department which ought to be investigated, they certalnly ought to be investigated in full, and the investiga- tion should not be Mmited in any respect. I wish to say that I intend at the proper time to move to amend the resolution offered by the distinguished Senator from Illinois [Mr. Lucas] by deleting the words “as charged by the Senator from Wisconsin |Mr. McCarrHy]." That would give us 4 clear in- vestigation of the type which Jt seems to me should be undertaken If an investigation at all is to be conducted. After some debate on the question, the Senator from Illinois [Mr. Lucas) made the following statement, which appears at page 2066 of the Rrecorp: I have conferred with the Senator from Texas [Mr. ConnaLty]|, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Foreign Rela- tions, and with other Members of the Senate. We believe that the amendment which was suggested by the able Senator from New York [Mr. Ive3] is in keeping with the best inter- ests of what we believe to be a thorough and fair investigation. I should like to modify my resolution by striking out * * ®* the words * © * “gs charged by the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. McCarTuy].” 10773 Subsequently, these words were strick- en from the resolution, and the resolu- tion in its final form was adopted on February 22, 1950. Not until yesterday, however, was the cat let out of the bag when the majority leader stated that the Democratic pol- icy committee drafted the resolution for this investigation. So there may be some who feel that if a@ fraud and a hoax have been perpe- trated on the Senate of the United States and the American people, such perpe- tration 1s evident in the apparently de- liberate action of the subcommittee in disregarding the will of the Senate, as expressed in the debate on February 21, and in Senate Resolution 231, as finally adopted by the Senate. The tone of the report and yester- day’s presentation by the chairman of the subcommittee |Mr. Typincs} show beyond question that the subcommittee’s investigation has been aimed primarily and exclusively at the Senator from Wis- consin |Mr. McCartuy). The individual views of the junior Senator from Massachusetts (Mr, Lonce! and yesterday’s statement be- fore the Senate by the senior Senator from Iowa [Mr. HIckENLOorER] offer compelling evidence that the subcom- mittee has not performed the function assigned by the Senate to the Committee on Foreign Relations. With this task, therefore, wholly un- completed and with no evident effort or even desire to complete it on the part of the majority responsible for it, this im- portant work should now be assigned to a body qualified to finish the undertak- ing as originally directed by the Senate. For this reason I strongly support and urge favorable action on the proposal of the junior Senator from Massachusetts IMr. Longe], or on any other appro- priate proposal, by which the job can be properly concluded. Mr. LODGE. Mr. President, I desire to express my appreciation to the Sena- tor from New York | Mr. Ives] for having so completely and indisputably cleared the record. Our subcommittee was spe- cifically directed by the Senate not to make its work an investigation of the Senator from Wisconsin {[Mr. McCar- THY], Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. LODGE. I yield. Mr. ANDERSON. Did I understand the Senator from Massachusetts to say that the subcommittee was instructed not to investigate the charges of the Senator from Wisconsin? Mr. LODGE. In effect, yes. Mr. ANDERSON. How does the Sen- ator come to that conclusion? Mr. LODGE. I came to that conclu- sion by listening to the record just read by the Senator from New York, which showed that the Senate voted to strike out the language of the original resolu- tion which provided that the committee should investigate the charges of the Senator from Wisconsin. Mr. ANDERSON. Does not the Sen- ator from Massachusetts realize that the Senator from New York was trying
10774 to broaden the scone of the investiga- tion and not to eliminate the charges of the Senator from Wisconsin? It was clearly stated by him that he wanted those charges investigated. Mr. LODGE. Yes. Mr. ANDERSON. Now the Senator from Massachusetts says the committee was not to investigate those charges. Mr, LODGE. Not to concentrate and focus on them. Mr. ANDERSON. How much should the committee have done? Mr. LODGE. I think they should have gone to the whole question of for- eign penetration, I will say to my good friend from New Mexico, and the com- mittee definitely did not do that. To create the impression before the coun- try that we have considered the whole question of foreign penetration, to use e not very kind expression—but it is true nevertheless—would be an attempt to bulldoze the country. Yesterday reference was mace a num- ber of times to what I thought about various phases of the investigation. As a matter of fact, I think every single reference was inaccurate and was based on partial quotations or quotations taken out of context. Therefore today I plan to set the Recorp straight about myself. I shall do so in four or five different parts, and I shall not yield while I am discussing a particular point. When I get through with the discussion of a particular point I shall be very glad to yield for questions. It is understandable that Senators should want to quote each other, but I think that when a Senator is in good health, and is here and not in Siberia, or some other place, it is better to let him speak for himself. The Senate heard statements made about my vote in the subcommittee in relation to the case of Mr. Philip Jessup. As I recall, we were asked to vote on whether or not the investigation had cleared him, or words to that effect. Let me say that I am very glad to take the word of General Eisenhower for the fact that Mr. Jessup is a splendid American. I would be very much surprised if an in- vestigation into Mr. Jessup were to reveal that he was not a splendid American. However, though I may be wrong about it, when the motion was made in the subcommittee I had the feeling that it was similar in effect to the question which a lawyer may sometimes ask a man as to when he had stopped beating his wife. I thought it was an attempt to be very clever about it, if Senators know what I mean, instead of being frank about it and playing it straight across the board on the merits. I will say that if Mr. Jessup had been investi- gated I would not have hesitated to vote my conviction on what the investigation showed. It ts certainly contrary to the facts, and not at all helpful to Mr. Jessup, to pretend that an investigation has been held when in fact no investiga- tion has been held. There were only two individual cases which the committee in- vestigated. One was the case of John Service, and the other of Owen Latti- more. The Owen Lattimore investiga- tion was, as I shall show in a minute, most incomplete. However, an attempt ‘was made to investigate him, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE The Senate was not told yesterday what happened after the vote was taken on Mr. Jessup. It seems to me it is al- ways much better when trying to give the story of what went on in one of the sub- committee meetings to give the whole story and let the Senate judge for itself, instead of trying to censor the account which the Senate gets. After the vote on Mr. Jessup was taken, which was a vote of three voting in favor of Mr. Jessup and two members of the commit- tee voting “present,” I moved that the committee report a resolution establish- ing a bipartisan commission to clear up this whole question once and for all. I still think the country demands some- thing of that sort. The motion was de- feated, with only two members voting in favor of it. So much for the last meet- ing of the subcommittee. Reference has been made to my posi- tion with regard to Owen Lattimore. It has been stated that I cleared him. I would prefer to have the word “cleared” set off in quotation marks, because it pops up all the time. I say to the Sen- ate very frankly that sufficient evidence was not developed with regard to Mr. Lattimore to enable me to clear him or not to clear him. The most I could say, as I said in my individual views—and it 4s all there for Senators to read—was that the evidence which had been de- veloped did not sustain the charge that he was the “top architect of American foreign policy in the Far East,” or that he was the “chief Communist agent in the United States.” The most pertinent questions about Mr. Lattimore were never asked. ‘They were questions which would have to be asked in executive ses- sion and we were never given a chance to have an executive session in which to ask those questions, although I tried many times to get those questions asked. The pertinent questions related to whether or not Mr. Lattimore influenced American foreign policy. It is per- fectly clear of course that he never held & major office in the State Department. That was not the point. The point was whether the unofficial influence which he may have had on the policy makers in the State Department was extensive, and if he did have that influence whether his influence was good or bad. That was an extremely pertinent matter. I should like to read a few of the ques- tions which I thought should have been asked with regard to this subject. Here are questions in the Lattimore case, which were not covered. I refer to my individual views: There is no authoritative and detailed presentation in the record from the State Department setting forth precise evidence, dates, etc., concerning Mr. Lattimore’s re- lationship in the State Department. The persons mentioned by Mr. Budenz as having ad relations with Mr. Lattimore have not been examined. There were some 16 in number, Those who headed the China desk in the State Department have not been questioned to determine whether Mr. Lattimore gave advice on United States policy on China, and whether his advice was followed. The United States Ambassadors to China who held that office during Mr. Lattimore’s period of activity have not been questioned along the same line, JULY 21 One can very well see that those are pertinent questions. They are questions which could not be gone into in public. The subcommittee has not discovered whether any new information has come into the possession of the Department of Justice respecting Mr. Lattimore since March 24, 1950, when the members of the subcommit- tee were allowed to see & summary of Mr. Lattimore’s file. On April 25, Mr. Budenz stated that he would furnish the subcommittee with names of Communists whom he knew to be in the State Department. That list has not come to the subcommittee, Investigation has not been made of all those whom Mr. Lattimore is supposed to have brought into the Institute of Pacific Relations. It seems to me that those are all legiti- mate questions which a trained commis- sion would go into, and which anyone would desire to go into who wanted to reach a dependable conclusion about this case. This went to the very heart of the whole Lattimore question and it is a pity from the standpoint of Lattimore and from the standpoint of the State De- partment and from the standpoint of the public that we were never allowed to go into that question. My position there- fore is a very simple one. It is that the record which we made does not sustain the charge against Lattimore and that the record which we made is most in- adequate and fragmentary. No good purpose is served by trying to twist that statement into an endorsement or into a clearing. As I said in my report, my conclusions regarding Lattimore were inescapably tentative, and I do not see how, with the very inadequate record which was made, it could be otherwise. Now I come to the matter of the 81 files. Senators heard it said yesterday that I said, after reading 12 of the 81 files, that because I was not a lawyer I was unable to appraise the files. I have great regard for lawyers, but I think a person with newspaper training is just as much qualified to read these files and reach conclusions on them, if anyone can reach conclusions on them, as a lawyer would be. The statement that I sald that ts ut- terly inaccurate. My statement of views in this matter is contained in full in my minority views, and neither there nor anywhere else have I said I could not reach a conclusion on the files be- cause I was not a lawyer. I was unable to reach conclusions on the files for per- fectly ebvious, simple, nontechnical rea- sons. I was unable to reach conclusions on the files because the leads were not followed up, the evidence was not de- veloped. Mr. McMAHON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr, LODGE. As soon as I finish this part about the files, I shall yield. I repeat, I was unable to reach con- clusions on the files because the leads were not followed up, the evidence was not developed, the credibility of the wit- nesses was not demonstrated, and all sorts of extremely damaging allegations about the subject of the files were neither proved nor disproved. That is not a question of being a lawyer or not being
1950 @ lawyer, it is simply a question of com- mon sense. Now, Mr. President, let me give three examples of the files I read. I will say to the Senate that we were not allowed to take any notes out of the White House, but when I got back to my office after being at the White House, I would dictate memoranda to a dictaphone, from memory, and I believe the account I am now giving is substantially accu- rate. But, of course, not being able to take a note out of the White House, one cannot be absolutely sure about any de- tail being accurate. Example No. 1 was an employee whose loyalty was vouched for by two persons whom I happen to know personally and in whom I have confidence. In fact, they are two members of the press. On the other hand, the file contained the following unfavorable allegation against lum: First, that a Communist who was well known to the FBI stated that the subject was a Communist; second, that another man who had worked in a well- known newspaper office in a big city in the east, stated that the subject was a Communist; and, third, that the subject was a member of an organization the officers of which were Communist. My natural personal inclinations were to abide by the judgment of the two men who vouched for this individual. On the other hand, one could not possibly ignore the unfavorable allegations. Yet there was nothing in the file which had any material bearing on the three cate- forical charges of communism As far as the information in the file was con- cerned, the investigation apparently erded right there. To say that I was in the position of a juryman and that my only job was to decide on the basis of the file alone whethcr the man was guilty or innocent is utterly to miss the point A Senator whois a member of an investigating com-~ mittee is not 1n the position of a judge or Jjuryman and, even if he were, he would have to have all relevant points cleared up before he could make up his mind The handbook guiding the pro- cedure of loyalty boards makes it clear that the loyalty boards are not required to make any findings of fact—those pro- ceedings are included in cach person’s file—or to obtain rebuttals or answers to allegations which may be made, but are simply required to announce their con- clusion, it being prescribed in directive IV, page 25, that the board “shall state mercly the action taken” They do not have to say why. This does not make for a record which is illuminating to someone who has not seen any of the witnesses and who is lhmited in his knowledge of the facts to what he may find in the file. Example No. 1 also raises the question clearly to my mind, as to whether in this case the announced policy of resolving all doubts in favor of the Government have been followed, but Senators can see that in that example alone it is impos- sible, at least it is from my viewpoint, for a man who has not made up his mind already to look at that file and reach a conclusion. Mr. McMAHON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. LODGE. I will yleld when I get to the end of the discussion of the 81 files. I announced, before the Senator from Connecticut came into the Cham- ber, that my remarks would be very brief, and would be in three or four parts, and that at the end of each part, I would yield, Mr. MCMAHON. Will the Senator in- dicate when he gets to the end of that part? Mr LODGE. I shall be delighted to doso, Iam giving three examples taken fron the files I read to show how hard it is for someone who approaches the matter with an open mind to reach a conclusion. Example No 2° In this file a statement occurred that the subject married a girl in a foreign city and then took her to another foreign city and abandoned her. Upon reading this statement, I made mental note of it, expecting that as my reading of the file progressed the state- ment would be either confirmed or de- nied. I read the whole file and there was no further mention of it. It was just left hanging If one 1s limited to read- ing the file alone, it is obviously impos- sible to reach a2 conclusion regarding the character of this man without knowing whether this allegation is true or false. Example No 3: This case contained an allegation that the subject had asked a high-placed State Department official to put in a word with another high official in behalf of two former Communist em- .Ployees of the State Department. I Searched the whole file and found no confirmation or denial or explanation of this allegation This file also con- tained an FBI statement ‘‘from a reliable informant” that the subject had asscci- ated with a very ‘vell-known Communist Indeed. This was also neither demed nor explained. I think it 1s to be noted, speaking of these files, on which so much emphasis was pul yesterday, much more than I would have put, that the Senator from Maryland, as appears on pages 10710 and 10711 of the Recorp, makes it perfectly clear that neither he nor the Senator from Connecticut nor the Senator from Rhode Island read all the files them- selves, It is really not necessary, and haidly fitting, to point the finger at me when they themselves did not read them. Mr, McMAHON. Mr. President—— Mr. LODGE. It is noteworthy that the majority in them report—and I ask Senators to look at the report—did not make a case by case description of cach file together with their verdict on each file. There is simply the broad state- ment, in effect, that “God's in His heaven and all’s right with the world.” I realize that we were forbidden by Presidential order from taking notes out of the White House, but we were furnished with a listing of the files and it is possible from memory to reconstruct one’s opinion of each one and it would have added greatly to the completeness and the authorita- tive character of the majority report if each one of the 81 files had been com- pletely described, without, of course, giv- ing the name, and an opinion expressed on each one. That would have been a thorough, conscientious, and authorita- tive way of handling the question. As 10775 it is, there is just a broad, sweeping state- ment which in no way meets the objec- tions which I consider to be funda- mental, The question here is not that of being a lawyer, brilliant or otherwise. We did need technical help, but 1t was not help from a lawyer. It was help from FBI personnel, who could have given real as- sistance in interpreting some of the no- tations which were in these files from the FEI. If any of my colleagues have never seen one of those files, I may suggest that they are extremely complicated, very voluminous, and the FBI notations ap- pear in a special format, a special style. As a matter of fact, on May 10, 1950, I requested that an FBI man be detailed to be present all the time in order to re- spond to questions as to what the signifi- cance was as to the different items that occurred in the files, and I was flatly turned down by Mr. Peyton Ford, the Assistant Attorney General He flatly turned down that request. We were also denied any help from the subcommittee’s professional staff or from our own staff. I have discussed the state of these files confidentially with persons who have had long experience in the Government service, persons who are respected by everyone in this Chamber, persons whose experience has been very broad, They had to discuss the matier on & confidential basis, but they con- firmed my view that the files were not sufficiently developed, were not sufficiently complete to enable a person to reach a conclusion based on the files alone. It seems to me that only a person whose mind was made up in advance could possibly reach a conclusion based on the files alone. Mr. President, if the bipartisan trained commission which I advocate is created, it could investigate all p2rsons making allegations, such as are men- tioned in the files, and disprove or con- firm the allegations. This would mean an average of about 10 witnesses per case, which would mean a total of about 800 persons to be examined. This is the thorough, conscientious, businesslike way to do this job. It will probably take a full-time commission of trained men a good 6 months, but at least when it was done we would have definitive results. I now yield to the Senator from Con- necticut [Mr. McManon]. Mr. McMAHON. The Senator, of course, appreciates the fact that the re- ports of investigations which he found in the files he did consult—and, inci- dentally, for the Senator’s information, the Senator from Connecticut has con- sulted every one of them—— Mr. LODGE. Every single file? Mr. McMAHON. Every single file. Mr. LODGE. I think the Senator from Connecticut ought to tell the Sena- tor from Maryland about that, because the Senator from Maryland did not know that. . Mr. MCMAHON. That Is allright. He can get it out of today's Recorp. Mr. LODGE. The Senator from Mary- land said: The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Moo MaHon) and I think our colleague, the Sen- ator fiom Rhode Island [Mr. Green], shared
10776 the work a little, and took each other's word, when we got to a file, for certain parts of it. That is what the Senator from Mary- land said yesterday. When the Sena- tor tells us that, I believe him, of course, Mr. MCMAHON. Of course, the Sen- ator appreciates the fact that when he is criticizing the extent of the investiga- tions, reports of which he found in the files, he is criticizing the work of the Fed- eral Bureau of Investigation, which was charged with developing all the factual evidence after word was given to them to conduct a full field investigation. Mr. LODGE. I do not admit that, I will say to the Senator from Connecticut. Mr. MCMAHON. Very well. That speaks for itself. At any rate, the FBI got the order to make the investigation. They made it. And with respect to what they found, contrary to the statement which was given to the press and to the world, the files were complete, and their complete investigation was in the files, Mr. LODGE. No. Mr. MCMAHON. The Federal Bureau of Investigation does not stop its inves- tigation of any person whom it is charged with investigating until it is satisfied that it has developed all of the facts capable of being developed. If they have not done their job and the Senator is criticizing it, he is welcome to do it, but I will disagree with him. Mr. LODGE. No; the Senator from Connecticut, I think, unwittingly is cre- ating a false impression. There were many files in which there was no full field investigation by the FBI whatever. Of course, a full field FBI investigation, as we have been told hundreds of times, is a summary of information they have obtained, and is not an evaluation. They never evaluate the information, They never make a recommendation. So there can be no question as to whether one agrees or whether one disagrees with the opinion of the FBI, because the FBI ‘does not express an opinion. That is one point I want to make. The second point is this—— Mr. KEM. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. LODGE. Let me complete my answer to the Senator from Connecticut, and then I shall be glad to yield to the Senator from Missouri. The second point is this: The files con- tain rumors and reports from the FBI in addition, in some of the files, to the re- sults of fleld investigations. There were admittedly rumors and reports. Now, of course, the FBI is not going to vouch for every single rumor and report. No investigative agency is going to do that. So, when I say that a rumor about a man is neither proved or disproved in the file, that is no criticism of the FBI at all. That is no criticism of anybody. It simply means that that file is not suf- ficiently complete to enable one to reach aconclusion. That is all there is to that. _I now yield to the Senator from Mis- sour. Mr. KEM. I should like to ask the Senator from Massachusetts if it is not true that it was developed by the Fer~ guson committee in connection with its investigation of the failure of the De- partment of Justice to investigate and CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE prosecute the Kansas City vote fraud perpetrators, that there are several types of investigation conducted by the FBI. That there is a so-called full investiga- tion. There is a so-called limited in- vestigation. Then there is an investiga- tion in which the FBI is directed to as- certain certain facts only and then re- port back to the Department of Justice. Mr, LODGE. Yes; I understand that to be true. I should like to say, before I leave this subject and go on to my next point, that I would be very much sur- prised if Mr. J. Edgar Hoover would ever make a statement underwriting these 81 files. I doubt very much if Mr. J, Edgar Hoover would ever be prevailed upon to say that these files, in their present state, are sufficiently well developed and suf- ficiently complete to make it possible for somebody to read the files, and not do anything else, and reach a conclusion. Mr. McMAHON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield at that point? Mr. LODGE. Yes. Mr. MCMAHON. Of course, the sub- jects who were investigated by the Fed- eral Bureau of Investigation were thor- oughly investigated, in the opinion of the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. I know that is true, be- cause if he did not think all investiga- tive efforts had been made which would develop the facts the investigation would have been carried further. I should like further to say to the Sen- ator from Massachusetts that, of course, he totally loses sight of the fact that in many of the cases witnesses were heard before the loyalty boards and looked in the eye. Of course, the Senator has made reference to the fact that in one of the cases witnesses whom he knew personally, on whom he placed great reliance, made certain statements upon which he placed great reliance, I be- lieve the Senator said there were three witnesses, whom he did not know, who gave a different view. That is something which occurs in every courtroom in the land on every trial day, where there are more witnesses on one side than on the other. That is why findings of facts by trial courts are binding upon the appel- late court, because the facts have been determined after witnesses have been seen and heard. There may be one wit- ness or two witnesses, such as those who testified favorably to Phil Jessup, and then there may be hundreds of witnesses who may tell of rumors and bring in innuendoes against Phil Jessup abso- lutely contradicting the statements of General Eisenhower and of General Marshall. Yet I will take the word of a Senator in this body on the other side of the aisle, the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Vanpenserc], who referred to Jessup and his magnificent perform- ance in combating Vishinsky and Mol- otov before the Foreign Relations Com- mittee. That is in the record of the Foreign Relations Committee. That is the kind of American Phil Jessup is. Mr. LODGE. Mr. President, I have the floor, and I shall be glad to answer the questions of the Senator from Con- necticut, but I do not like him to make three assertions and then not allow me in my own time to reply to the asser- tions, That is a little unreasonable, I JULY 21 think the Senator was not here when I spoke about Mr. Jessup, so I will repeat what I said, which is that I am delighted to take, and do take, the word of General Eisenhower and of General Marshail that Mr. Jessup is a fine, loyal American. I will go one step further, and say that if we should investigate Mr. Jessup and were to find anything bad about him I would be tremendously surprised. I will say that I think the job Mr. Jessup has done in the United Nations has been wonderful. But I will not say that we have investigated Mr. Jessup when we have not. The Senator will never get me to say that, never. We did not in- vestigate him. Why try to say we in- vestigated him when we did not, except for a desire to be clever and try to put people on the spot? Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. LODGE. I will not yield to the Senator from Washington until I re- spond to the statement the Senator from Connecticut made. Then I shall be glad to yield to the Senator from Washington. Furthermore, there is no use in trying to create the impression that I am criti- cal of the FBI or of the loyalty boards. I am not critical of the FBI or of the loyalty boards. I have just as much ad- miration for the FBI as has the Senator from Connecticut. However, I think it is a great pity—and I believe the Senator from Connecticut will agree with me on this—that these 81 persons were not cleared by the Loyalty Board before they “were taken in by the State Department. I think all of them should have been cleared first by the Loyalty Board. In my opinion, that would have been much better, rather than to hurriedly at the last minute, order an investigation of their loyalty simply because the investi- gation was begun in the Senate. The FBI {s a wonderful tool; but I think the administration should use it with foresight and with intelligence. The Senator from Connecticut made three points, Mr. President, and I am answering them. Then I shall yield for interruptions. In my opinion the personnel of the loyalty boards is good; I have confidence in them. However, I still say that the file, as it stands, with the leads not fol- lowed up and the evidence not developed and the allegations neither proved nor disproved, makes it very difficult to reach a final conclusion. Mr. KEM and Mr. MAGNUSON ad- Gressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hory in the chair), Does the Senator from Massachusetts yield; and if so, to whom? Mr. LODGE. I yield first to the Sen- ator from Missouri, and then I shall yield to the Senator from Washington. Mr. KEM. Mr. President, I should like to ask the Senator from Massachusetts, who, I know, shares with me admiration for the FBI and for its Director—and I think all Americans have that feeling— if it ds not true that the statute which created the FBI places it under the juris- diction and control of the Department of Justice, and if at every step in an in- vestigation the activity and the work of the FBI and its Director are under the control of the Attorney General,
1950 Mr. LODGE. I think there can be no doubt about that. The FBI is under a politically appointed Attorney General, just as the Navy is under a politically appointed Secretary of the Navy, in roughly, the same sense, So it was that when I was at the White House, I tried to have the FBI man sit in with us there and help us interpret some of the notations, but I had to go through Mr. Peyton Ford, the Assistant to the Attorney General, and he turned down the request. He had the power to say whether the FBI could go there and help a United States Senator or whether it could not do so. Mr. President, I now yield to the Sena- tor from Washington, Mr. MAGNUSON. First, let me state that I am leaving Washington at 8 o'clock this evening to go back to my home State — for obvious reasons. [Laughter.] Mr. LODGE. I do not know what they are, but I am sure they are good ones. Mr MAGNUSON. All this discussion has been very interesting I have read the report-——. Mr, LODGE. Which report? Mr MAGNUEON. I have 1ead both reports—both the minority views of the Senator from) Massachusetts and the mayority report. When I reach home tomorrow morn- ing, I shall be asked a question by the people of the State of Washington, and I think perhaps the Senator from Mas- sachusetts can answer it for me now; at least, I should like to take his an- swer back with me_ It 1s a very simple question: Did the Senator from Massa- chusetts in his investigation find any Communists in the State Department? Mr. LODGE. No; I did not. Mr.MAGNUSON, Thats the answer, Mr. LODGE. No; I did not I should like to go a little further. Mr. MAGNUSON. I appreciate the Senator’s position, in that he does not think the inquiry 1s complete. Mr. LODGE. Let me answer the Sen- ator’'s questi6n in a little more detail, please. I did not find any Communists in the State Department, but I went to all the lengths to which I think any man could go, In that I personally interviewed the State Department agents and special agents covering a large part of the United States, Europe, Africa, and the Middle East, and I asked every one of them whether they knew of any Communists in the State Department. All of them said they did not. As I said yesterday, I think the great error of judgment and the great laxity occurred in 1945 and 1946. I have made that very clear. The Officials of the State Department who testified before us, and who are nonpolitical, all make that same statement. I do not know why we do not admit that a great mistake was made in 1045 and 1946, and that since then a sincere effort has been made to correct it. I believe the State Department has the basis of a good security system, but, in my judgment, it can be invigorated and improved along the lines of the report which was signed by the Scnator from CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Rhode Island [Mr. Green] and myself. Let me say that it is the only feature of this whole wretched, miserable business on which there has been any bipartisan agreement in regard to what should be done to improve and strengthen the State Department sct-up. I think that is en- couraging. Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr President, I thank the Senator from Massachusctts for his reply. Mr, LEHMAN and other Senators ad- dressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER Does the Senator from Massachusetts yield; and 1f so, to whom? Mr. LODGE. Mr. President, I now yield to the Senator from New York, who was first on his fect, I believe Mr LEHMAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding to me. I won- der whether the Senator from Massa- chusetts recognizes the implications of his refusal to clear Philip Jessup. Noth- ing, absolutely nothing has been proved against Mr. Jessup. No sound basis for any charge has been found. Neverthe- less the Senator from Massachusetts is not willing to clear him Mr. LODGE. Oh, no; the Senator from New York misunderstands me. I said I was not willing to say I had inves- tigated Mr, Philip Jessup when I had not, The Senator from New York was not here when I made the statement, I believe. I said that I fully accept General] Mar- shall’s and General Eisenhower's opin- 1on that Philip Jessup 1s a good Ame1l- can; but I said I could not say that I had investigated him when I had not The Senator would not want me to say I had investigated him 1f I had not done so Mr LEHMAN. Of course not. How- ever, the Senator from Massachusetts certainly seemed to imply or left the 1m- pression that there should still be some doubt in the minds of the American }co- ple in regard to the loyalty of Philip Jessup. Mr, LODGE. Oh, no; that 1s in error. Mr LEHMAN, Iam glad to have that assurance from the able Senator from Massachusetts, but that was certainly the impression I received. Mr LODGE Then the Senator from New York certainly received the wrong impression, because nothing I have said or done would warrant such an impres- sion. I am delighted that the Senator from New York has asked the question, so that I can correct the musappre- hension. Mr, LEHMAN. Mr, President, if the Senator from Massachusetts will per- mit me to make a brief statement at this point, let me say that I deeply regret the dangerous iniquitous and intolera- ble position 1n which individuals in Gov- ernment service have been placed by the sweeping, unsupported, and completely unproven and unprovable charges made on the floor of the Senate and in other places by the jumior Senator from Wis- consin. Until the junior Senator from Wisconsin reflected on the loyalty of Philip Jessup, no one had ever raised @ question about his patriotism or in- tegrity and in the months since the jun- io: Senator from Wisconsin first leveled 10777 his charges against Philip Jessup, I have heard not a single responsible person support those charges. On the other hand, we have had the testimony of four Secretaries of State and the testimony of General Eisen- hower in regard to Philp Jessup’s loyal- ty and responsibility and Members of this body, one Senator after another, to the number of four or five, rose on this floor and testifled to their confidence in Philip Jessup. Yet the fact that the junior Senator from Wisconsin has reflected on Mr. Jessup’s loyalty has gone through the country and has raised doubts in the munds of many Americans regarding his loyalty and his value as a public servant, I think this proves the iniquity, the danger, and the unjustifiable nature of the accusations which have been made, but have not been proved, judging by the report of the Tydings committec. It 1s incomprehensible to me that any= one would even question the loyalty of a man like Philip Jessup. Mr. LODGE. Mr. President, I am glad to say to the Senator from New York that I have never questioned Mr. Jessup’s loyalty, and I accept what Gen- eral E1senhower and General Marshall and the Senator from New York say about him. I would be very much sur- prised 1? anything reflecting on Mr. Jes- sup’s loyalty were revealed. I admire his public record. However, 1 am not going to say that I have investigated him, when I have not. Mr IHYE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr LODGE I yield. Mr. THYE. I should like to ask the Senator whether the Department of Jus- tice furnished any explanation or was of any assistance in clarifying any of the questions which may have come to the Senator's mind when he was examining the files? Mr. LODGE. The Assistant Attorney General, Mr. Ford, was of assistance; yes. He was there. Mr. THYE. Did he offer explana- tions? Mr. LODGE. Yes. I want to be abso- lutely fair to him. He put in much of his time and went to a good deal of trouble. He is a very agreeable man. He undertook to furnish answers to ques~ tions which arose. But, of course, what I wanted there was not that, I did not want somebody at the Cabinet level. I wanted somebody from the FBI who was a@ carcer maa. If we are having an in- vestigation into submarines, we do not want the Secretary of the Navy; we want an Annapolis man who has spent his life in the submarine category. I wanted trained FBI men there. Mr. THYE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for another question? Mr. LODGE, I yield. Mr, THYE. Would it not have been more helpful and more assuring to the general public if the Senator could have reported to the Senate today that the FBI had answered every question asked by the €enator concerning the files, and if the Senator could have reported to us that the President had said, “I will send the files to you. You, asa Unitec States
10778 Senator, elected by the people, sworn to defend the Constitution, have just as much right to examine a file as a file clerk would have.” If the President had taken that attitude, we could have had greater assurance in making our report to the people that the investigation had been thorough and that the facts had been obtained. Mr, LODGE. I think that is true. It is always much better to be generous and candid and open about these matters. Yesterday I referred to the remark made by former Senator Wheeler, of Montana, in connection with the oil scandals under the Harding administration. Senators may recall that he, Senator Walsh, of Montana, and others con- ducted a vigorous investigation which re- resulted in a number of people going to jail. Senator Wheeler sald—and I quoted him yesterday—that President Coolidge simply opened up all the files -of the Department of Justice, and there they were, open to inspection by mem- bers of the opposition party. He let them look at everything. The country had confidence in the result. I may add, it did not hurt President Coolidge one bit. Mr. ANDERSON and Mr. McMAHON addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hot- LAND in the chair). Does the Senator from Massachusetts yield; and if so, to whom? Mr. LODGE. The Senator from New Mexico was on his feet first. I yield to him, I shall next, yleld to the Senator from Connecticut, Mr, ANDERSON. Mr. President, lam sure the Senator from Massachusetts will understand that the questions I am about to ask are based upon a desire to get some information, and that I retain the highest esteem for him, both as @ citizen and as a Senator. Mr, LODGE. I thank the Senator. Mr, ANDERSON. The Senator has made a remark or two about the fact that the committee did not investigate Jessup I want to say that the replies made by the Senator to the earlic: ques- tions about Jessup were complctely satis- factory to me, and I would not be in- clined to cast any reflections upon them, The Senator stated his faith in Mr. Jessup. But did the Senator or anyone else in the committee ask for any further justification of Jessup, after the testi- mony of General Eisenhower and Gen- eral Marshall? Mr, LODGE. That, I do not recall. That occurred during a time when I was absent because of a tragic accident which smote my family, when a young man who was close to us was drowned near our home. I was not present on the day when the Jessup investigation took place, so I cannot answer the question from personal knowledge. Mr. ANDERSON. Does the Senator not feel that if there was any question of the thoroughness of the investigation, it should have been raised while the com- mittee was at work? Mr, LODGE. Oh, I think so. I think that almost all the questions I now raise were raised by me while the committee was at work. If the stenographic re- port of the committee is ever printed in full—and I hope it will not be printed CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE unless it is printed in full—the Senator from New Mexico will see a great long list of questions raised by me, and they were raised while the committee was at work. I think that is quite right. Mr, ANDERSON. In his statement, the Senator from Massachusetts said he believed that Lattimore had never held a major office in the State Department. Did the investigation show that Latti- more had ever held a minor office in the Department? Mr. LODGE. Yes. There was testi- mony on that point. He was a repara- tions commissioner to Japan, I think, in 1945, which I would say was a minor State Department office. Would not the Senator say that? Mr ANDERSON. I question whether he was ever a State Department em- ployce. No one else was able to find that testimony. Mr LODGE. I think the statement was that he was on a reparations com- mission to Japan Mr. MCMAHON. Mr. President, would the Senator like my assistance on that question? I happen to know the facts, Mr. LODGE. Yes; I should be glad to know that, because, as I recall, there never got into the record a factual statement from the State Department as to exactly the status of Lattimore and the facts of Lattimore’s connection. I wanted to get such a statement, but never got it Mr. McMAHON. I think it is in the record I think I can find it in the record, Mr, LODGE. If it is, I shall be glad to be shown where it 1s, because I have not been able to find it. Mr. McMAHON. Perhaps I can re- fresh the Senators’ recollection. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Massachusetts yield to the Senator from Connecticut? Mr. LODGE. I yield to the Senator from Connecticut, that he may enlight- en me and may elucidate this point. Mr. McMAHON, The facts and the history of Lattimore’s mission to Japan were that Edwin Pauley, who was the head of that commission, had him as- signed to him as one of his experts. It was quite a large mission. As a matter of fact, he was paid by the State Depart- ment, but it was an independent mis- sion working out of the White House, I do not believe there was any other con- nection with the State Department per se, other than the fact that he was paid by the State Department, Mr. LODGR. I have found the infor- mation, which is the most that I have been able to find in the record. The State Department describes Lattimore as being “associated with a mission out- side the United States” for a period of 4 months in 1945. I am quite sure that that is all the record says on that point. I yield to the Senator from New Mexico. Mr. ANDERSON. I was very much interested in the Senator’s statement that the FBI does not express an opin- jon. I want to say that I was connected with an investigation of this same type in the House of Representatives, and it was a matter of deep concern to me that JULY 21 there was no one able to express an opinion on behalf of the FBI. Does the Senator from Massachusetts not feel that we must some day develop machin- ery so that, after the FBI has gathered its information, someone connected with an official agency can speak out and say, “yes: we think this man is or is not a dangerous person for the Government to employ”? Mr. LODGE. I share the feeling of the Senator from New Mexico as to the sort of hopeless sensation which comes over one when he reads all the state~- ments which have come to him, second- and third-hand, and then nobody reaches any kind of conclusion. The Senator, who has been Secretary of Agri- culture, has had to confront that prob- lem from an administrative standpoint, and he has had much more experience with it than I have. I certainly should be glad to join with him and to work with him to try to establish a system which would be a little tighter, and under which responsibility would be fixed a little more definitely in the hands of those who have the greatest knowledge Mr. ANDERSON Does the Senator recall that early in the period of the war the Congress of the United States voted approximately $700,000 to be appro- priated to the FBI to make an investi- gation of the loyalty of people and re- port to the Congress? Does he recall that the report to the Congress does not mention a soul as disloyal—not one—be- cause of the very fact that the FBI does not express an opinion? Mr. LODGE. Yes. Mr. ANDERSON. I want to say to the Senator that I questioned Director Hoover on that a great deal in connec- tion with the loyalty investigation in which I was engaged as a member of the House of Representatives Appropriations Committee. His answer was precisely what the Senator from Massachusetts has just now given, that the FBI does not express an opinion; it collects facts. It is not a jury. . Mr. LODGE. That is correct Mr. ANDERSON. I recognize the probable correctness of what the Direc- tor has said, but it seems a shame that $700,000 was spent and not one person could -be identified as in any way dis- loyal, of all those who were investigated. Mr. LODGE. It is very disconcerting to a great many Department officials in Washington who have talked to me about it, and it certainly is very discon- certing to a Senator who is charged with the responsibility of investigating and reaching a conclusion. Mr. CAPEHART and Mr. TAFT ad- dressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Massachusetts yield; and if so, to whom? Mr. LODGE. I yield first to the Sen- ator from Indiana, and after that I shall yield to the Senator from Ohio. Mr. CAPEHART. Is it not a fact that Supreme Court Justice Frankfurter and Supreme Court Justice Reed, Mr. Foster Dulles, and, I think, Mr. Acheson testified in good faith as to the charac- ter of Alger Hiss, prior to the time he was convictcd?
1950 Mr. LODGE, I do not know. I had no connection with that case, and I do not know. Mr. TAPT. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Massachusetts yield to the Senator from Ohio? Mr. LODGE. I yield. Mr. TAFT. I was interested in the Senator's example No. 1, a file which cecntains conflicting statements about one of the men who were being investi- gated by the subcommittee. I assume that those statements were read by the Senator from Connecticut as well as by the Senator from Massachusetts, since he has stated that he read these files. What I want to ask is this: Here is an employee whose file showed that two persons said that they had confidence in him. Were those two persons then called by the committee to ascertain upon what they based their opinion? Mr. LODGE. Oh, no, no. Mr. TAFT. Was the FBI man who made the investigation called by the committee to testify as to what he found? Mr. LODGE. No; not at all. Mr. TAFT. It was stated that a Com- munist who was well known to the FBI said that a certain man was a Com- munist. Was that Communist called before the committee to ascertain the basis of his cpinion that this man was a Communist? Mr. LODGE. No. The conditions un- der which we saw the files would have made such a procedure impossible, Mr. TAFT. Were those names given in the files? . Mr. LODGE. Yes: but we saw the files on a completely confidential basis, so it would have been impossible to have called anyone, Mr. TAFT. Was not the sole purpose of seeing the files to get leads which the committee could follow up? Mr. LODGE. That was what I thought, and that has been my conten- tion right along. I approached it with a perfectly open mind, hecause I had never done that kind of work before. Allegations were left hanging. The common sense thing to do was to send for the people, have them appear before the committee, and ask whether the statement was true. Mr. TAFT. There is a reference to a man working in a well-known news- paper office who was stated to be a Com- munist. Was he ever called before the committee? Mr, LODGE. No. Mr. TAFT. The thing which im- presses me is that the committee was trying to find out, presumably, whether Subject No. 1 was a Communist. How could it find out without calling persons and asking them the reasons for their opinions or views? Mr, LODGE. Ido not think it is pos- sible to say that a thorough and con- scientious job could be done unless that condition were fulfilled. But the condi- tions under which we were allowed to see the files, which were conditions of complete confidence--and we were not allow2d to make any notes and were bound in honor not to reveal any CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE names—I promised not to reveal any names—those conditions made it impos- sible to have that kind of a follow- through. If we establish a bipartisan trained commission, for which so many of us voted yesterday, whereby all wit- nesses and persons with pertinent in- formation could be called, the leads could be run down, Mr. McMAHON, Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. LODGE. I yield. Mr. McMAHON. I assume that the Senator from Massachusetts—— Mr, LODGE. Is the Senator asking me a question? Mr. McMAHON. Yes. I assume the Senator does not wish to leave uny im- plication in the Rrecorp which might have been raised by the comment of the Senator from Missouri with reference to the way in which the Federal Bureau of Investigation performs its duties—— Mr. LODGE. That question is not clear to me. Mr. McMAHON. The insinuation, as I got it, was that the Attorney General had veneral supervision over the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and that, there- fore, there was a possibility, in fact, a probability, that the FBI and the Attor- ney General were in cahoots not to make a full and complete investigation. The Senator does not want to leave any such imphcation, does he? Mr. KEM. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. McMAHON. I am not interested in the Senator from Missouri; I am in- terested in the Senator from Massachu- setts. Mr. LODGE. I have the floor, and I obtained it for the purpose of rectifying inaccuracies which were uttered with reference to myself yesterday. I stated my views concerning the FBI. I have the highest regard for those men, who are career men, like the mcn in the Army and the Navy. Obviously the Cabinet level and the political level stand be- tween them. Mr. McMAHON. But the Senator would agree, would he not, that the job which was given to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, namely, the investiga- tion of these persons, was performed? Mr. LODGE. I would not agree that those people had been investigated by the Department of Justice before they were given their jobs. Mr. McMAHON. I did not ask that question. Mr. LODGE. Oh. Pardon me. Mr. MCMAHON. I asked whether the files from the Bureau of Investigation indicated, in the Senator’s opinion, that the FBI had done what it was ordered to do, namely, to investigate. Mr. LODGE. The files were not from the FBI; they were loyalty files from the State Department. Mr. McMAHON. Does not the Senator realize that the bulk of the files had been sent to the State Department by the FBI, and there was a report of their investigation? Mr. LODGE. I think that in those files there was some material from the FBI. There were hearings and proceed- ings before the State Department Loy- 10779 alty Board, and letters and memoran- dums from persons working in the State Department. I do not think it is accu- rate to say ox to try to create the impres- sion that those 'oyalty files were mostly the work of the FBI, because many of them were not. I am sure the Senator cannot find Mr. J. Edgar Hoover accept- ing responsibility for the development of those files. Mr. McMAHON. I wish to point out only that the investigative functions of the Government in loyalty matters rests with the FBI. What was developed in the cases is in the State Department files. It was after the investigations by the FBI and their statement of the facts which had been developed, that hearings were had before the Loyalty Board of the State Department. Mr. LODGE. I do not agree with that statement. There were several cases in the 12 files which I read in which the loyalty board held hearings, although a full FBI field investigation had not yet been made. I can remember one case. Ican remember the man’s name, I shall not give the name, because I promised not to give it. Mr McMAHON. Will the Senator tell me the name off the floor? Mr. LODGE. I shall tell the Senator off the floor. There was a loyalty board proceeding, and a full field investigation had not yet been made in May, There are many cases in which a field investi- gation has only recently been ordered because of these charges. Mr. McMAHON. If it is a definite statement of fact it is one which we can directly prove. But I wish to submit to the Senator that I think he wil) find that 90 percent of the investigations were or- dered in the regular course of business, before the junior Senator from Wiscon- sin, at Wheeling, W. Va., said there were 205 card-carrying Communists in the State Department known to the Secre- tary of State. With that statement I know the Senator from Massachusetts does not agree. Mr. LODGE. My view about the un- developed and incomplete state of those files is not a reflection on anyone par- ticularly. Certainly it is not a reflection on the FBI. I am sure the FBI will never accept any responsibility for the condition of those files. Of that I am positive. YI admire the FBI, and I do not think any criticism I have made here could in any way be inferred as being directed to the FBI. Nor do I think I should apologize for having read only 12 files. I think 12 out of 8lis a representative cross section. I reached my opinion that the files were in such an unfinished state as to make it impossible to reach a conclusion, after I had read six or seven. I then decided I would be absolutely sure, and I pulled out files at random until I had read 12. I am mor- ally certain that if I had neglected all my other duties as a United States Senator and had read all the 81 files, I would not have been any wiser than I was after I had read 12. Mr. KEM. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. LODGE. I yield to the Senator from Missouri,
10780 Mr. KEM. I should like to have the attention of the Senator from Connecti- cut. Will the Senator from Massachu- setts permit me to say, for the informa- tion of the Senator from Connecticut, that I did not insinuate that the De- partment of Justice has certain limited investigations by the FBI in which the hands of the FBI are tied. I state that as a fact, as developed by the testimony before the Ferguson committee, which was charged by the Senate with the re- sponsibility of investigating the failure of the Department of Justice to investi- gate and prosecute the Kansas City vote frauds. Perhaps the Senator from Connecticut does not remember the facts developed in the case. In that case, the then At- torney General of the United States ad- vised me officially as a Senator from Mis- souri that a full and complete investi- gation of the Kansas City vote fraud had been made by the FBI. Later, when the Ferguson committee undertook to in- vestigate the matter the Director of the FBI, Mr. J. Edgar Hoover, appeared be- fore the committee, and it developed through the testimony of Mr. Hoover that in certain cases, which were, gener- ally speaking, cases having political im- plications, the FBI were not given a free hand in making the investigation. In such cases they were permitted to inves- tigate only upon the express permission and direction of the Department of Jus- tice. In such instances they were di- rected to make certain limited investi- gations, that is, to interview certain witnesses and report back to the Attor- ney General. I may say in passing that it was unlikely that any of those wit- nesses would know anything about the facts which were really relevant to the investigation. What the Attorney Gen- eral in his letter to me had represented to be a full and complete investigation was in fact a limited investigation, in which the FBI was directed to interview certain specified witnesses only and then report back to the Department of Jus- tice. It further developed that when that limited investigation was made and the report made to the Department of Justice, the Attorney General directed the FBI to close its files, I want to say to the Senator from Con- necticut that I have told him the facts in language which is as clear and as ex- plicit as I can make it. So let us have done with any talk about insinuation. Those are the facts for anyone who wants the facts. Mr. McMAHON. Does the Senator insinuate—— Mr. LODGE. I should like to say—— Mr. McMAHON. Will the Senator from Massachusetts yield further? The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Massachusetts yield to the Senator from Connecticut? Mr. LODGE. I would appreciate it if the interruptions could be kept on the basis of questions related to this mat- ter. I yield to the Senator from Con- necticut. Mr, McMAHON. I should like to say to the Senator from Missouri that I hope in what he said there was no in- sinuation about there having been any CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE limited investigation ordered in any of these loyalty cases, because knowing nothing of the files, knowing nothing of the facts, and not having seen the files, J assume he would not want to leave that implication. Mr, LODGE. I have given my under- standing of the condition of the files. Mr. McMAHON. I should like to ask the Senator about his statement that no FBI man was present in the Cabinet room at the White House for consulta- tion on these files. Does the Senator recollect the statement made by the Sen- ator from Connecticut and the assurance which the Senator from Connecticut gave him, that having been the Assist- ant Attorney General in charge of the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice and having had occasion to deal with perhaps thousands of these files, if any hieroglyphics or Egyptian symbols were written on the files—and I have seen no such symbols—that perhaps they would be familiar to me and I could en- lighten the Senator with regard to them and that if I could not do so the deputy Attorney General who has the adminis- trative duties under his jurisdiction per- haps could answer the Senator's ques- tion? I would like to ask further—— Mr. LODGE. I should like to answer one question at a time. I remember something like that. Of course I was surprised that the Senator should even bring it up, because, while I have a great liking for the Senator from Connecticut and have great confidence in his in- tegrity, and although I also found Mr. Peyton Ford a thoroughly charming man and good American, it was obvious to me that no work we could do would command any confidence if we got opin- ions from people who are politically in- volved—the way all Senators are in- volved in politics—and that the only way an investigation of this kind could com- mand any confidence would be by obtain- ing the independent judgment of career men in the service of the FBI. That fact was so obvious to me then and it is so obvious to me today that I am surprised the Senator from Connecticut does not see it the way I do. Mr. McMAHON. The Senator and I are talking about quite different things. I thought it was the Senator’s conten- tion, which he made earlier, that there may be in the files certain symbols and figures of a code nature which he could not understand. I assume the Senator did not want an FBI man present to make an adjudication for him. I did not hear the Senator ask a single ques- tion of either Mr. Ford or anyone else present concerning any statement or any symbol in the files which the Senator did not understand. Mr. LODGE, I make it clear that Mr. Ford was not a satisfactory mentor so far as I was concerned, and that I would not accept him as a mentor. I think he is a thoroughly charming man, with whom I should be delighted to spend an evening socially, However, I did not think I would be doing the job properly by having Mr. Ford in that position. I was not interested merely in hieroglyph- ics, but in meanings. I was not merely putting the microscope on the files. JULY 21 Mr. MCMAHON. They are all written in English. Mr. LODGE. Yes; but there are words that have special meanings, as I have subsequently discovered. . Mr. MCMAHON, That is absurd. Mr, LODGE. It is what? Mr. MCMAHON. It is absurd. Mr. LODGE. I am sorry that the Senator from Connecticut should use such unbridled words, I shall not do the same. Mr. McMAHON. I shall when I be- lieve them justified. Mr. LODGE. I do not doubt it. There is one thing I should like to do in this discussion, and that is to keep a reasonable tone. I think we should get some of the pus and some of the poison out of this thing. If we start throwing adjectives at each other, it will not do any of us any good. Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. LODGE. I yield. Mr. MORSE. The Senator from Ore- gon considers one question to have great weight in evaluating this entire Mc- Carthy issue. The Senator from Massa- chusetts may have answered it when the Senator from Oregon was off the floor. If he did, I am sure he will not object to repeating his answer for the enlightenment of the Senator from Ore- gon. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would appreciate it if the Senator from Oregon would voice his question a little louder for the benefit of Senators who cannot hear the Senator from Ore- gon. Mr. MORSE. In the opinion of the Senator from Massachusetts did the Senator from Wisconsin submit to the committee any evidence which substan- tiates any of his charges against a single one of the persons whom he accused of being Communists? Mr. LODGE. As I stated before the Senator from Oregon came into the Chamber, there were only two individual cases which the committee investigated. One was the Lattimore case, and the other was the Service case. I have al- ready stated that the charge that Latti- more was Communist was not substan- tiated either by the Senator who made the charge or by the committee. I also think that the committee’s investiga- tion was inadequate and fragmentary. Mr. MORSE. Will the Senator per- mit me to repeat my question and point it from a slightly different angle? I should like to satisfy myself as to the merits of McCartuy's charges and the proof he offered in support of them be. fore I reach a final conclusion on this very serious matter. Am I correct in my understanding that, so far as the pre- sentation of evidence to the committee by the Senator from Wisconsin is con- cerned, he failed to present any evi- dence which supported his accusation of communism against a single person whom he charged with communism? Mr. LODGE. The committee did not investigate all the charges. The only two individual cases which were investi. gated were the Lattimore and Service cases. I have given my statement on
1950 Lattimore. So far as Service is con- cerned, it is my conclusion that the case was not proved that he was disloyal. I think that the evidence with respect to the Amerasia case showed him to be & man who was gullible, indiscreet, and lacking in a sense of the realities of the situation. However, the evidence does not show him to be disloyal. Mr. MORSE. Did the committee make itself available to the Senator from Wisconsin to submit any and all evidence which the Senator from Wisconsin might have had that would have substantiated his charges as to any of those he accused, if he had the evidence? Mr. LODGE. The committee did not investigate any individual case except the two I have referred to. Mr. MORSE. My question is not whether the committee investigated, but whether or not the committee supplied the Senator from Wisconsin with a forum for the establishment of his proof if he had proof to offer. After all, the Senator from Wisconsin had the burden of proof, so far as his charges were con- cerned, and I want to know if he sus- tained it in a single case. Mr. LODGE. The committee gave the Senator from Wisconsin an opportunity to be heard; yes, they did; and that is well known. Mr. MORSE. So far as the opinion of the Senator from Massachusetts goes, the Senator from Wisconsin did not sub- mit to the committee any evidence that would cause the Senator from Massa- chusetts, as a member of the committee, on any evidence he submitted, to reach the conclusion that the Senator from Wisconsin had proved his charges against a single person accused? Mr. LODGE. That is not quite what Isaid. I say that he did not provide evi- dence to sustain the charges against Lattimore and against Service. I think the Service investigation was a complete investigation. I think the Lattimore in- vestigation was not complete, and there were certain questions which have not yet been answered. Mr. MORSE. I want the Senator from Massachusetts to know, as I am sure he does know, that I am merely seeking a basis for forming a final judg- ment as to whether or not the procedure in this case has been adequate, so far as providing the Senator from Wisconsin with a full opportunity to present proof in support of the charges he made on the floor of the Senate is concerned. The investigation is a twofold one. I think the committee had its own initiative du- ties to perform in regard to the investi- gation, and I believe the Senator from Wisconsin had a clear responsibility to present to the committee any proof he had that would substantiate the charges he made on the floor of the Senate. So my query goes to the question of whether or not he did or did not submit that proof, and whether or not, on the basis of such proof he did submit, the Senator from Massachusetts reached the conclu- sion that he had or had not proved his charges. *Mr. LODGE. I have already indi- cated to the Senator my conclusions about Lattimore and Service. As to XCVI——-679 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE whether. the Senator from Wisconsin had an adequate opportunity or not I think is a question the Senator from Oregon might ask him some time. He certainly had a chance to appear in public. My recollection is he was not accorded the opportunity, which is usually accorded Senators, to attend the private sessions 7 the committee. That is my recollec- on. Mr. MORSE. Did the committee at any time refuse to receive any exhibits, evidence, or documents which the Sena- tor from Wisconsin at any time offered to the committee for its perusal? Mr. LODGE. I do not recall anything along that line. Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President-—— The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hot- LAND in the chair). Does the Senator from Massachusetts yield to the Senator from Missouri? Mr. LODGE. I yield. Mr. DONNELL. On the floor of the Senate yesterday the distinguished Sen- ator from Maryland (Mr. Typtnecs], as appears at page 10712, in referring to Lattimore, said: My Republican colleague, the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Lopcr], in his minority views—I do not quote him verbatim—says the charges against Lattimore have not been proved Mr. President, I observe what I assume the Senator from Maryland had in mind, namely, that in the separate views of the Senator from Massachusetts is this language: In these circumstances, the only possible conclusion is that the investigation which the subcommittee conducted—and which was, as has been set forth above, definitely limited in its character—not only failed to prove the allegation that Mr. Lattimore was a Communist; it also clearly fatled to prove the charges that he was either “the architect of our far-eastern policy’ or “one of the top Communist agents in this country.” I desire to ask the Senator whether or not I correctly understood him a few minutes ago in two separate statements to say, in substance, that the investiga- tion made by the committee of Mr. Owen Lattimore in the opinion of the Senator from Massachusetts, was inadequate, fragmentary, and not complete. Mr. LODGE. That is my view. Mr. DONNELL. I ask the Senator whether or not he has this afternoon, while the Senator from Missouri perhaps was off the floor, quoted from the record the language of the report of the Senator from Massachusetts showing the frag- mentary, inadequate, and incomplete character of the investigation. Mr. LODGE. I think the Recorp will make that clear. Mr. DONNELL. Would the Senator have any objection if I should read at this point, so as to have it in black and white in the Recorp, the statement ap- pearing in the Senator’s separate views at page 331? Mr. LODGE. Not at all. Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, I shall then read it. This, I may say, is under the heading “Owen Lattimore,” and ap- pears at page 331 of the section devoted to Mr. Lattimore. I read: The subcommittee, however, was denied ‘ acceas to the so-called raw FBI file for rea- 10781 sons which are to me understandable, but it did see a summary. We aleo were denied the benefit of cross-examination in this case conducted by counsel representing the mi- nority, and the opportunity to question In private Mr. Lattimore, J. Edgar Hoover, and those who had presided over the China desk in the State Department and had been United States Ambassadors to China during the period when it was asserted that Mr. Latti- more was the “top architect” of United States foreign policy in the Far East. Whatever conclusions are to be announced in this case, therefore, must be based both on hearsay evidence and on incomplete in- vestigation, and are inescapably tentative. This is regrettable both from the standpoint of Mr. Lattimore and from the standpoint of the country. I ask the Senator whether or not he agrees with me that the statement made by the Senator from Maryland yester- day that the Senator from Massachu- setts had said that the charges against Lattimore had not been proved, cannot be correctly evaluated and cannot be complete unless the additional facts which I have read from page 331 are also set forth, to show the inadequacy, the fragmentary nature and the incomplete- ness of the investigation made. Mr. LODGE. I think the Senator is entirely correct. Mr. President, if there are no more questions---— Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. LODGE. I yield.to the Senator from Michigan. Mr. FERGUSON. On page 210 of the report of the subcommittee, which was filed in the Senate yesterday, appears what I call to the attention of the Sen- ator, so that I may ask him a question in relation to it. I read: On October 6,7, and 8, 1949, Mr. Lattimore, following preliminary correspondence with the Department of State, was one of a group of 25 private individuals participating in a round-table discussion arranged by the Office of Public Affairs for the purpose of exchang- ing views on United States foreign policy toward China. Is that the same meeting mentioned on page 684 of the hearings before the subcommittee of the Committee on Ap- propriations this year, 1950, in consid- ering the 1951 appropriations, under the heading, “Conference on United States policy payments’’? Mr. LODGE. I do not know. Mr, FERGUSON. It reads: The Office of Public Affairs, on behalf of the Secretary of State, has called together experts representing various points of view to consult with Department of State offi- cers on major policy questions. Under that it is stated: Conference on Problems of the United States Policy in China—October 6, 7, 8, 1949. Cost: Travel and per diems payments of consultants, $2,539.17 (estimated). Mr. Owen Lattimore, director of the Walter Hines Page School on Interna- tional Relations, is listed as one being present. Is that round table the same as the consultation on major policy questions? Mr. LODGE. I do not know, I am sorry to say to the Senator. I am not informed on that point. I would have to go back to my records and study that
10782 in order to make an authoritative an- swer. I would not wish to make a guess. Mr. FERGUSON. Was there any testimony before the committee that those who attended this meeting, as in- dicated on page 684 of the hearings be- fore the Senate Committee on Appro- priations, were paid on a per diem basis for consultation? Mr. LODGE. Ido not know. I yield the floor. Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. LODGE. I yield. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts yields to the Senator from North Dakota for a question. Mr. LANGER. I am very much in- terested 1n the four affidavits which were filed by the junior Senator from Wiscon- sin alleging that there was a project whereby the files of the State Depart- ment were thoroughly examined in 1945, and everyihing detrimental to employees was removed. Was any investigation raade of that by the Senator's subcom- mittee? Mr. LODGE. No; that came along just as we were finishing, The investi- gation was sort of petering out when that came along. We did not go into that. Mr. MUNDT. Mr President, will the Senator yield? Mr. LODGE., I yield Mr. MUNDT Before the Senator yiclds the floor will he not be good enough to give us a concise statement, particularized as well as he can, within the boundaries of the confidential na- ture of his consultation with the re- ports and files, as to the exact nature of the reports which he and the other members of the investigative committee were permitted to see? I ask that for this reason: At least the }umior Senator from South Dakota finds himself wholly confused as @ consequence of the collo- quy which took place this afternoon. It occurred to me that the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. McManon] would give the impression that the members of the subcommittee had had an opportunity to see the raw files and the full fleld reports made by the FBI ar it investi- gated the characters hsted in the 81 cases. On the other hand, the Senator from Couth Dakota recalls hearing the testimony of Attorney General McGrath and J. Edgar Hoover hefore the subcom- mittee in which they said that they would not, and they could not, and they did not believe it advisabie to present that kind of evidence to the Senator's subcommittee I think the country has at least a right to know whether a change of policy ensued, and whether members of the subcommittee were permitted to sze the full fleld reports and the raw files, or whether in the final analysis the members of the subcommittee saw only simple fragmentary reports sent to the State Department by the FBI. Mr. LODGE. The question of what is and what is not a raw file is an FBI technical question. I do not know whether we saw the raw file or not. We saw files in which there would be a slip of paper with a report about the man in them, and then there would be a let- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE ter from somebody, and there would be a State Department memorandum, and a whole lot of data. Whether that was all the data on the man, or whether the FBI had other things that were not in there I do not know. We did see those files, and I am perfectly prepared to be- hheve that they contained all there was as to a given man. But I do not know whether the FBI would say that that constituted the raw file or not. We saw full field reports in some cases. But there were other cases where such reports had not been made Mr MUNDT In some of the 81 cases it was obvious, was 11 not, from the FBI— that the FBI had not concluded its in- vestigation? Mr. LODGE Yes. Of course, I do not think one could say that this constituted a complete departure from previous ad- ministration policy, because while it was something new to let us see the files, we saw them under such stringent lmita- tions that we really could not follow up all the leads and take the file as a lead on which to base an investigation, which is, of course really why we want to have a full investigation, which could not pos- sibly be made when we were seeing them under a seal of confidence Mr MUNDT How was it possible for a Senate investigative committee to ar- rive at a conclusion and make a report to the American people that there was no evidence of disloyalty, on the basis of files and investigations which were not completed by the FBI? Mr. LODGE. That 1s what I cannot understand. Mr. MUNDT. It appears the commit- tee has not seen the full evidence How can it make a report either pro or con on that basis? Mr. LODGE. ‘That is precisely my point; and on that note of interrogation I will yield the floor, Mr. President. Mr SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Presi- dent, since the matter we are discussing is of such profound importance and since there seems to be some misunder- standing with regard to certain matters connected with it, as a Member of the Senate and especially as a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, I feel there is a duty to be performed in making perfectly clear some of the as- pects of this report. I regret exceedingly, more than I can express, that on certain votes yesterday the Senate divided on strictly partisan lines, We are dealing with a subject that should not be in the field of partisan politics, and yet almost inevitably it has gotten there. I do not believe, from fol- lowing this thing through, and from talking with persons familiar with the subject, that it is possible for us to deal with a matter of this kind with the type of congrcssional committee which was set up. So, before I proceed further, I want to identify myself with the sugges- tions of the Senator from Massachusetts {Mr. Longe], the Senator from New York [Mr. Ives] and the Senator from New Mexico (Mr, AnprRson!, in the recent discussions on the floor, that the only way we can deal with such questions is to have an objective, nonpartisan, commit. tee of the highest caliber of men who will not be in any way tempted in the slight- JULY 21 est, no matter what the conditions may be, to permit any political considerations to enter into their work. Earlier this year, when this matter first came up, I made the suggestion, and I repeat it now, that what we need is a commission of that sort, headed by men of the caliber of former President Hoover, Barney Baruch, and General Eisenhower. That 1s the only way we can bring to the American people a sense of security in such a controversy as this. In spite of everything that has hap- pencd, no matter how the report which was filed yesterday 1s received the peo- ple of the United States are still left, as I find from telegrains and mail addressed to me, with a feeling of uncertainty. Their attitude is, “Why can we not get at the truth of the charges or rumors which are going around, and if they are true, why cannot, we once and for all put an end to such conditions?” So I feel, unfortunate as it is that this debate has to go on while other matters of the utmost importance are pressing for consideration. We should clear 1n our own minds what the issues are, So, I am going to address myself for a few moments to one or two ques- tions which came up yesterday and which gave me, as a member of the Sen- ate Foreign Relaticns Committee, great concern. After a preliminary discussion, Mr. President, as to whether or not the re- port submitted by the Senator from Maryland {|Mr. Typines) yesterday was a report of the Foreign Relations Com- mittee or simply the transmission of a report of a subcommittee, the Vice Pres- ident ruled: The Senator from Maryland has sub- mitted the report as the report of the Com- mittee on Foreign Relations. I immediately rose and stated: Mr. President, as a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, I rise to take issue with the statement just made by the Senator from Maryland and say that the report is not a report of the Foreign Relations Com- mittee. I stress this only because I am advised, after making inquiry, that the report that came in yesterday will now be printed and circulated to the country as a report of the Foreign Relations Com- mittee If that be the case, and if 1t is not perfectly clear that this report is merely the report of the subcommittee, and of three members of the subcom- mittee at that, the country is going to be misled into thinking that the report represents the complete coverage of this vitally important matter, Mr. BREWSTER MY. President, will the Senator yicld, to permit me to make an inquiry? Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Iam glad to yield. Mr. BREWSTER. If the report is made as a report of the Foreign Relations Committee, would it be proper to char- acter:ze it—in the language which was used here yesterday—nas a fraud and a hoax? Mr. SMITH of New Jerscy. Mr. Pres- ident, I appreciate the Scnator’s ques- tion. If the report 1s labeled “Report of the Foreign Relations Commiuttee,” I
1950 think it would mislead the American people. Ido not wish to identify favselt with the charges which were made yes- terday, when various persons, especially some Mentbers of the Senate, were charged with engaging in a fraud and a hoax. I think it is most unfortunate that such language was used. Mr. CAPEHART, Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield. Mr. CAPEHART. Is it the opinion of the Senator from New Jersey, as a mem- ber of the Foreign Relations Committee, that the report will not represent the true fact to the American people if it is issued as a report of the full committee? Mr, SMITH of New Jersey. Definitely Mr. CAPEHART. In other words, the Senator from New Jersey thinks, does he, that the report, if issued as 1 report of the full Foreign Relations Committee, will definitely mislead the American peo- ple and will misrepresent the fact? Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Yes. Therefore, before the report is printed and before it is circulated all over the country, I think it should be made very clear, as the report indicates, that it is @ report of only three members of a sub- committee of the Foreign Relations Com- mittee, not a report of the entire Foreign Relations Committee. Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield. Mr. DONNELL. First of all, Mr. Pres- ident, inasmuch as the Senator from New Jersey is a distinguished member of the Foreign Relations Committee—— Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Presi- dent, let me say that I am a member of the committee; I do not express an opin- jon as to whether I am a distinguished member. Mr. DONNELL. I did not ask that question of the Senator, for of course it would be embarrassing to him. Does the distinguished Senator from New Jersey know whether the full For- eign Relations Committee has directed that the title page of the report which was filed yesterday be removed? I refer to the title page reading in part “Report of a Subcommittee of the Committee on Foreign Relations Pursuant to Senate Resolution 231"? Has any authority been granted by the full committee to remove that title page? Mr, SMITH of New Jersey. Not so far as I know; and I hope that title page will not be removed, because it desig- nates just what the report is. Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a further question? Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I am glad to yield. Mr. VONNELL. Has any authority been granted by the Committee on For- eign Relations, so far as the Senator from New Jersey knows, to remove, fol- lowing the word “Contents,” appearing on page m1, the words “Report of the subcommittee”? Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Not so far asIknow. I do not know that the com- mittee has acted in any of those matters at all. Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a further inquiry? &O. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Certainly, I yield. Mr. DONNELL. Without going through the entire report of the sub- committee, I should like to ask the Sen- ator from New Jersey whether the Com- mittee on Foreign Relations has author- ized any deletion from the subcommit- tee's report, on page 4, of the words: We, as members of the subcommittee— Or has the full committee authorized the deletion of the words, on page 29 of the report: The conclusions of this subcommittee in regard to each allegation made by Senator McCartuy are as follows— Or has the full committee authorized the deletion, on page 170 of the report of the subcommittee, of the following: Respectfully submitte.. Mitzarp E. Trprncs, Chairman. THEODORE FRANCIS GREEN. Brien McMAHON. Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. No; I think no such action has been taken. AS I said before, I hope no such action will be taken, because the passages the Senator from Missouri has just read properly designate what the report is. I am glad the Senator from Missouri has brought up these points, because they are the same points that I am making. Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a further inquiry? Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Iam glad to yield. Mr. DONNELL. Yesterday the Sen- ator from New Jersey referred to the fact that there is some sort of under- standing in the Committee on Foreign Relations that the records of its pro- ceedings will not be referred to or quoted on the floor of the Senate. Did I cor- rectly understand the Senator from New Jersey in regard to that matter? Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Yes; and I am about to speak on that point at this time. Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, will the Senator be so kind, when he dis- cusses that point, to discuss it in view of the fact that the Reorganization Act, which was passed in the Seventy-ninth Congress, being Public Law 601, gen- erally known as the LaFollette-Mon- roney Act, provides as follows, in section 133 (b): Each such committee shall keep a come plete record of all committee action. Such record shall include a record of the votes on any question on which a record vote is demanded, When the Senator from New Jersey discusses this question, will he discuss the question of how any committee record kept pursuant to the LaFollette- Monroney Act can be of the slightest assistance to the Senate unless the Senate has an opportunity to see the record—a record which, according to that law, must be kept. Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Iam glad the Senator from Missouri has brought up that point. The rule we have in the committee does not prevent any Senator from see- ing the records of the meetings of the committee; but the rule we have simply prohibits members of the commities 10783 from quoting hither and yon from the minutes of the committee’s meetings, less there be quotations out of contcxt. I was not present when that rule was adopted; but on at least one occasion a quotation was given out of context, and it did not give the correct impression. So we agreed, and quite properly so, that we would not quote from the com- mittee’s records; but we did indicate, as I think it’ was correct for us to do, that we could refer to what the committee’s records contained. Yesterday, Mr. President, I referred to the vote which was taken in the Foreign Relations Committee, first on the ques- tion of receiving the report of the sub- committee, and then on the question of discharging the subcommittee from the further consideration of Senate Resolu- tion 231. Then the question arose as to how the full committee should handle the report of the subcommittee. My recollection of the language of the motion made at that time was that the committee should transmit—not report, but transmit—the report of the subcom- mittee to the Senate, without recom- mendation. Mr. SALTONSTALL. will the Senator yield? Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield. Mr. SALTONSTALL. Does such ac- tion by the full committee comply with the verms of the resolution? Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Thatisa question. We discussed it in the full committee at great length. Of course it could be argued that we would be complying with the resolution by saying, ‘“‘We have examined the report of the subcommittee, and it is our re- port.” We have discussed that matter quite fully in the full committee. I have gone through the record of the committee's meeting, to see whether there was approval of that position, or whether there was a decision that the committee take a vote on the merits of that question, and whether there was epproval of this, that or the other posi- on. To follow up the questions asked me a few moments by the Senator from Mis- souri, let me say that I assume that every Member of the Senate is entitled to in- spect the records of any committee, un- less a matter of security is involved; for instance, a matter which the Armed Services Committee would not wish to have generally inspected, But, generally speaking, I have assumed—without ask- ing the question—that any Member of the Senate could examine the records of the committee. So, Mr. President, for the benefit of my colleagues, and to save their time, I shall read now the pages of the com- mittee’s minutes which show any action on the question of approval or disap- proval of the report of the subcommittee or on the question of whether the sub- committee should be discharged from further service under the terms of Senate Resolution 231, either with approval or or with disapproval, or in regard to whether the report of the subcommittee Mr. President,
10784 should ke accepted by the full com- mittee as its report; and I shall state the pages separately. Those matters were discussed in the committee; and it was agreed by all of us in the full com- mittee that we were not passing on the report in any way, shape, or manner. It was admitted, as the committee’s records show, that the members of the committee had not read the report, ex- cept possibly the chairman of the sub- committee; that at least the two minority members of the subcommittee had not even had the report submitted to them for their consideration, but that the re- port was simply submitted by the three majority members of the subcommittee as the report of the subcommittee, on the assumption that the minority mem- bers would not agree to it, and that therefore there was no use in consulting them about it. So the report came in as the report and the conclusions of the three majority members of the subcommittee. I am not arguing now whether the report is or is not a correct one; but I simply point out that the other members of the Foreign Relations Committee, who had not had an opportunity to read the re- port, could not accept the report or could not pass on its merits. So, Mr, President, after discussion in the full committee, it was simply decided that the report of the subcommittee should be transmitted to the Senate, without recommendation. Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield at this point? The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from New Jersey yield to the Senator from Missouri? Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield. Mr. DONNELL. I hold in my left hand a copy of what was filed yesterday, which has on the outside of it, “Report of a subcommittee of the Committee on Foreign Relations, pursuant to Senate Resolution 231.” I hold in my right hand a booklet which was just handed to me a moment ago, entitled “Report of the Committee on Foreign Relations, pursuant to Senate Resolution 231.” I ask the Senator whether any authority has been given by the Committee on For- eign relations so far as he knows to change the document which was filed yesterday, and of which I have a copy in my left hand, so as to read differently in the copy which is now being printed for public distribution throughout the United States. Was any such author- ity granted? Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I will say to the Senator that no such authority was given. The same report has just been handed tome. It surprised me, be- cause I had hoped I might make my point here before the final printing of the report was made. Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further? The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from New Jersey yield fur- ther to the Senator from Missouri? Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield. Mr. DONNELL. I call the Senator's attention to the fact that in my left hand I have a table of contents appearing on page mr, which reads ‘Contents—1. Report of the Subcommittee.” CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE I hold in my right hand a booklet— the booklet which was just handed to me—which has eliminated the words “Report of the Subcommittee.” Does the Senator know of any authority that the Senate has given or that the Committee on Foreign Relations or anybody has given for the deletion from the document that was filed yesterday of the words which I have referred to, and which were the subject of controversy yesterday on the floor of the Senate? Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. No; I know of none. I may say that I should like to finish my statement. The point I was making—— Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Let me finish this statement, please, and then I shall be glad to yield. I want to make my statement complete as to what was troubling me in this matter. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey declines to yield. Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I decline to yield for a moment until I finish this statement. Last night and this morn- ing I went through the transcript of the committee record. I tried to note the pages and the very place where these questions came up for approval or dis- approval, where, for instance, the ques- tions came up of whether we were re- porting for the committee or were reporting for the subcommittee. It was definitely set forth that the report of the subcommittee would be transmitted to the Senate without remarks of any kind, without comment. The pages where these references appear, in case Senators want to read the transcript, are pages 8, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 30, 31, 32, 33, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 48, 54, 57, 58, 66, 67,and 69. I have included reference to the pages showing the mo- tions which were made and agreed to in regard to these issues. The discus- sion is quite full, There is a constant repetition of this question of whether we were simply transmitting—and the word “transmit” was used advisedly— the report of the subcommittee or whether it was to be a committee report, Mr. CONNALLY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield at that point? Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I will yield jn a moment. I think we are justified in presenting this matter as a very im- portant issue because I am sure that no member of the Foreign Relations Com- mittee would want to mislead the public as to what was being put out by the com- mittee. I yield to the Senator from Texas, Mr, CONNALLY. I should like to ask the Senator a question. He says there was a motion about “transmitting,” and soon. What was the question that was voted on in the committee? The Sen- ator knows what was in the transcript, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. If the Senator will let me waive the rule and read from the transcript, I will read the motion. Mr. CONNALLY. No; the Senator has been giving his memory of these matters. What is the Senator’s memory about this? JULY 21 Mr, SMITH of New Jersey. On which vote? Mr. CONNALLY. On the final vote on this matter, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. The final vote was to transmit the report of the subcommittee to the Senate without recommendation. Mr. CONNALLY. The Senator is ab- solutely in error, as he will ascertain if he will consult the transcript which he has in his hand—the original transcript. The motion was that the committee report to the Senate. Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. The Sen- ator is correct. I apologize. Mr. CONNALLY. Very well. That 1s what I wanted to bring out. Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. The Sen- ator moved that the Senate Foreign Re- lations Committee report to the Senate, through the chairman, or through some- one designated by him, without comment. Mr. CONNALLY. That is correct. Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. But let me remark that that is the first place where the word “report” was used be- cause throughout these particular pro- ceedings, when the Senator from Florida (Mr. PeprPer} was discussing the question, he used the word “transmit.” Mr. CONNALLY. The committee did not vote on what the Senator from Flor- ida said. They voted on the question stated by the chairman. Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. It was the difference between the words ‘“‘transmit” and “report’—that is, to “transmit’’ or “report” to the Senate the report of the subcommittee without comment. I will not argue with the Senator about the words. Either way, it means the same thing. Everyone understood it. It was understood that we were transmitting the report of the subcommittee, and that the committee itself was taking no action on it because the members of the com- mittce admitted that they had not read the report. So how could they make a report they had not read? Mr. FERGUSON and Mr. DONNELL addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from New Jersey yield; and if so, to whom? Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield first to the Senator from Michigan, Mr. FERGUSON. Did the Foreign Relations Committee have any meeting between yesterday noon, when the report was submitted to the Senate, and the present time? Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. No; that is, I have no Knowledge of any meeting during that time. Mr. FERGUSON. The Senator from Michigan has just been handed—— Mr. DONNELL, Mr. President, will the Senator yield for just a second? I should like in a moment to propound a@ question. I observe that the Senator from Texas is leaving the Chamber. I should like him to know that I am going to ask a question in a minute which will indirectly, at least, be addressed to the Senator from Texas. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from New Jersey yield to the Senator from Missouri? Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I am glad to yield.
1950 Mr, CONNALLY. Mr. President, I do not answer questions unless they are addressed to me. Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, will the Senator from New Jersey yield that I may ask a question which I will address to the Senator from Texas, if I may have unanimous consent so to do? Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I ask unanimous consent that I may yield to the Senator from Missouri for the pur- pose of asking a question of the Senator from Texas, on condition that I do not lose the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none. Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, the question I desire to aks the Senator from Texas is this: Will he, at this point in the proceedings, permit the record to be brought to the Senate, particularly the pages which have been referred to and identified by the Senator from New Jersey, in order that there may be in the Recorp now what those pages show? I ask the Senator whether he will permit that? Mr. CONNALLY. What is the Sen- ator talking about? What pages? Mr. DONNELL. The pages from the transcript of the meeting of the Foreign Relations Committee. Mr. CONNALLY. I have no author- ity to do that, under the rule, which is well established. That rule was adopted a long time ago. It is to the effect that minutes of the committee, in executive session, cannot be used on the floor. I did not make the rule. But it was made, and that is the rule of the Foreign Re- lations Committee. I cannot break it, even under the persuasive oratory of the Senator from Missouri. Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, will the Senator from New Jersey permit me to ask one other question? Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I am happy to yield for that purpose, on the same condition. Mr. DONNELL. I should like to ask the Senator frorn Texas whether the rec- ord of the Foreign Relations Committee is available to any Member of the Sen- ate, in the office of the Foreign Rela- tions Committee, and if so, whether I may have his leave, as chairman of the committee, to make a personal exam- ination of the contents, copy the con- tents, and bring them to the floor of the Senate, either this afternoon or tomorrow? Mr. CONNALLY. No. The Senator may consult them, but when he asks that he be permitted to make copies and bring them to the Senate floor, my answer ts that that would be a violation of the rule. I have no objection to the Sen- ator’s going to the committee room and reading the record and finding out all it contains. Now, listen. Here is what happened in the committee, some time in 1949. There was colloquy in the committee. Mr. President, it is suggested to me that even this is a transcript of proceedings in an executive session of the commit- tee. But I can state that what I have indicated is the rule of the committee, It was a rule adopted by action of the committee, not by me. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, will the Senator from New Jersey permit me to address a further inquiry to the Sen- ator from Texas? Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I am glad to yield again, on the same condition. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and consent is given accordingly. Mr. CONNALLY. Mr. President, do I not have a voice in whether I shall yield or not? Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Texas to yield. I know his courtesy is such that he can always be depended upon to yield. Mr. CONNALLY. Go ahead. I yield, Mr. DONNELL. I should like to ask the Senator from Texas, Will the office of the Committee on Foreign Relations and the record to which I referred be open to any Senator, including myself, this afternoon and tomorrow? Before the Senator answers the question, I de- sire to say that if I go there, I am going to take a paper and pencil and copy what I read. With that notice, I ask the Senator whether the records will be open to me for that purpose? Mr. CONNALLY. They will be open to the Senator if he desires to go to the committee room, but I am not going to make any agreement or promise about what the effect of his going there may be. If the Senator wishes to take with him paper and pencil, that is his re- sponsibility, not mine. Inviting some- one into the office of the committee is like inviting him into one’s house. I simply invite a person into my house; I do not have to question him as to wheth- er he is going to steal the silver, [Laughter.] Mr. DONNELL. Mr. Fresident, will the Senator yield further? Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I shall be glad to yield if the Senator assures me that he will not steal the silver. Mr. DONNELL. I promise the Sena- tor from New Jersey that I shall not steal the silver. The delightful humor of the Senator from Texas is always appreciated. We all admire and regard with great esteem our distinguished colleague from Texas. His delightful humor is one of the rarest spots in senatorial experience-——— Mr. CONNALLY, Period. Stop right there, Mr. DONNELL. To my mind, Mr. President, this is not a case in which we should be dissuaded from duty, and I know the Senator does not attempt to dissuade any of us from duty by the mere humor of the situation nor by an iNtustration which obviously is not seri- ously intended. We are here as Members of the United States Senate to find out the facts, to find whether this docu- ment which is about to be circulated throughout the Nation is the report of the Committee on Foreign Relations, al- though, yesterday, when it was filed, it had on its title sheet the words “Report of a Subcommittee of the Committee on Foreign Relations.” We are here to find out whether the fact is that the records of the committee show that this is a re- port of the committee. It cannot be con- sidered that I would be gullty of steal- 10785: ing the silver or anything else if I should go to the committee and impress on a piece of paper what I find in order that it might remain at least partially in my memory. It is my expectation, inten- tion, and promise to the Senate that I shall go to the office of the Committee on Foreign Relations, request permission to see the files, and while I am there I ex- pect to copy a portion of the files which refer to this subject matter and to re- port what I find. Mr. CONNALLY. Mr. President, an- swering the Senator’s question, I am not the guardian of the conduct or personal actions of the Senator from Missouri. He says he is going to the office of the committee to read what transpired in the Committee on Foreign Relations, I request that he read page 69. Mr. DONNELL. I shall read it. Mr. CONNALLY. Read page 69 and note the question which was put to the committee by the chairman, and then note what follows as to the vote. What the Senator does is his responsibility and not mine; but if he is going to do any reading, I hope he will read that page, instead of reaching around somewhere else and ducking the main question. Read page 69. Will the Senator agree to do that? Mr. DONNELL. I shall read it with the utmost care and shall report to the Senate every word that 1s in it. May I say, also, that I do not believe any Member ofthe Senate, including my good friend from Texas, thinks I am going to duck around and try to evade the issue. I am going to the com- mittee to find out, if I can, what the action of the Committee on Foreign Re- lations was, with respect to this report, and to bring to the Senate information as to what the action was. Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Let me say to the Senator from Missouri that I think it will be a fine service which he will render, because if I have in any way misinterpreted the language of the transcript, I want it called to my at- tention, and I shall be glad to admit any mistake I may have made. Page 69 was one of the points I wanted to deal with. Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield. Mr. FERGUSON. The junior Senator from Michigan read from the original report which was filed yesterday, having taken it from the desk. The title page read as follows: Report of a subcommittee of the Commit- tee on Foreign Relations pursuant to Benate Resolution 231. Within the past 5 or 10 minutes a page has delivered to the junior Senator from Michigan a report, No. 2108, which has on the title page the following: State Department Employee Loyalty In- vestigation—Report of the Committee on Foreign Relations Pursuant to Senate Reso- lution 281. In other words, it now appears as being a@ report of the Committee on Foreign Relations. Does the Senator from New Jersey know whether there has been a meeting
10786 of the committee to authorize the change in the wording which has been read to the Senator from New Jersey? Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. As I said to the Senator from Missouri, who asked the same question, there has been no meeting that I know of. The very thing I have been trying to bring before the Senate is that this change of title is not, in fact, the committee's action. When I opened my remarks I endeavored to bring to the attention of the Senate the fact that the hearings show it was the purpose of the committee to do nothing except to transmit to the Senate the re- port of the subcommittee. That was the purpose of my earlier statement. Mr, DONNELL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield. Mr. DONNELL. Does the Senator have before him a copy of Report No. 2108, which has been handed to us within the past few minutes? Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Yes, Mr. DONNELL. Will the Senator be kind enough to turn to page 4 and note the third paragraph on that page? Does he note there that while on the title page are the words “Report of a Subcom- mittee of the Committee on Foreign Re- lations,” on page 4, at the beginning of the third paragraph, it says: We, as members of the subcommittee. Does the Senator observe that? Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I observe it, now that the Senator has called my attention to it. Mr. DONNELL. Does the Senator also observe that at page 170 of Report No. 2108 there appear these words and names: Respectfully submitted. Miuianp E. Typinas, chairman. THEQDORE Francis GREEN. Bren McManon. Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. that. The Senator is correct. Mr. DONNELL. Were those Senators members of the subcommittee which has been referred to in the colloquy? Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. They were the majority members. The other members were the Senator from Massa- chusetts |Mr. Lopce] and the Senator from Iowa (Mr. HIcKENLOOPER], who did not sign this report. Mr. DONNELL. Has the Committee on Foreign Relations had witnesses be- fore it in this investigation, or have those witnesses come hefore the subcommittee? Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. They have come before the subcommittee, en- tirely, so far as I know. Mr. DONNELL. I should like to ask, without burdening the Senator with all the detail of it, if he will be kind enough to turn to page 5 of the report, under the heading ‘Initial phases of the in- quiry,” and state whether the first sen- tence reads as follows: The first witness to sppear before us was Senator McCartzy, I emphasize the word “us.” Senator see that? Mr, SMITH of New Jersey. I see that; and obviously it is the subcommittee’s report. I note Does the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. DONNELL. Will the Senator cast his eye down to the last paragraph on that page, which begins as follows: We requested the loyalty files concerning these individuals— And so forth. Does the Senator ob- serve that? Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. that. Mr. DONNELL. And the “we” refers to the subcommittee? Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. It must refer to the subcommittee, because, so far as I know, the full committee never requested any files. I invite the Sena- tor’s attention to the table of contents on page III, in which, in the second line, are the words “Conception of the sub- committee’s duty.” It then refers to page 4, That is corroborative of what the Senator from Missouri is trying to bring out, namely, that this document, although it is the report of the subcom- mittee, has been titled so as to appear to be the report of the whole committee. Mr.DONNELL. Will the Senator turn to page 47, which I have chanced to turn to—similarly to the manner in which the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Lopce] made his examination of the 12 or 15 files of the 81 files involved—and glance at the section headed “Conclu- sion’? I notice the following language: The evidence before thig subcommittee— And I underscore with my voice the word ‘‘subcommittee”— The evidence before this subcomm!ttee— And so forth. I call attention also to the beginning of the next paragraph: In consideration of the charges made against Miss Kenyon, this subcommittee— The Senator sees those words, does he? Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I see the same words. Mr. DONNELL. Does not the Senator agree with me that all of that illustrates the fact that the title page has been changed by the omission of the words “Report of a subcommittee of the Com- mittee on Foreign Relations,” which ap- peared on the document which was re- ceived yesterday and ordered filed by the Vice President? Does not the con- clusion follow irresistibly that this doc- ument is mislabeled when it is marked “Report of the Committee on Foreign Relations,” and that the document, to quote the Vice President yesterday, dis- tinctly speaks for itself, although he ruled that the document filed was the report of the full committee? Does not the conclusion follow irresistibly that the document is the report of the subcom- mittee, and that if it is handed out to the public as the report of the Commit- tee on Foreign Relations it is not a cor- rect representation to the public? Does not the Senator agree with that state- ment? Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I am in accord with the Senator's statement, and I thank him for helping to build up the point I wanted to make in opening my statement. In other words, I feared it would be a misrepresentation to the public if we did not clear up this vitally important question, namely, “Was the I observe JULY 21 Foreign Relations Committee instructed by committee vote to transmit a copy of the subcommittee’s report, or was it adopting it as its own report?” The Foreign Relations Committee never examined the report, and never had anything to do with it. It simply transmitted it to the Senate. As the Senator from Texas [Mr. Connatiy] pointed out, the words “report” and “transmit” were used interchangeably, but the motion of the Senator from Florida {Mr. Pepper] called for the transmission of the report to the Senate. There was no discussion of the meaning of the words. They meant exactly the same thing to us. Mr. BREWSTER. May I ask a ques- tion at that point? Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield to the Senator from Maine. Mr, PEPPER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator from Maine addressed the Chair, the Chair did not hear the Sen- ator. Mr. BREWSTER. I did not. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida. Mr. PEPFER. Will the Senator from New Jersey yield for a question? Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I am glad to yield to the Senator from Florida. Mr. PEPPER. I am sure the Senator from New Jersey would not suggest that the investigation of this matter by our subcommittee was not within the con- templation of the Senate resolution. A reading of the resolution itself discloses the following: Resolved, That the Senate Committee on Forelgn Relations, or any duly authorized subcommittee thereof, is authorized and di. rected to conduct a full and complete study and investigation— And soon. So the resolution adopted by the Senate specifically authorized the inquiry to be made by a subcommittee of the Committee on Foreign Relations, The chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, with the concurrence or by the direction of the committee itself, designated the distinguished sub- committee, consisting of five members, and named as its chairman the eminent Senator from Maryland [Mr. Tyc1ncs], The subcommittee discharged its duties, made its report to the full committee, and the full committee transmitted the report by unanimous vote to the Senate itself. Therefore, how can the Senator suggest that the resolution has not been thoroughly complied with? Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. In answer to what the Senator has said, of course we all know that the work could be done by asubcommittee. There is no question about that. The Senator from Florida must remember that lengthy discussion was had on the whole question. pn PEPPER. I did not hear the Sen- ator. Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. The Sen- ator from Florida used the word ‘‘trans- mit” all through the discussion. The understanding was that the report would be sent to the Senate for whatever it might be worth. It was admitted that
1950 no one had read the report except the Senator from Maryland. I do not think the Senator from Florida would say that he had read the report or that he was prepared to pass on the merits of the re- port. Mr. PEPPER. I read it as an indi- vidual. No one is claiming that the in- vestigation was made by the Committee on Foreign Relations as a whole commit- tee. The investigation was made by a subcommittee consisting of five members of the whole committee, who were named by the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations. It was the subcom- mittee that made the report to the full committee, and the full committee sent the report to the Senate. So I do not see how anyone can suggest any irreg- ularity. Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. There is no irregularity involved in the subcom- mittee’s making its report to the full committee, even though I did object to the report being released to the press be- fore anyone had seen it. I was told that the press had it last Friday, and I did not see it until Monday, but I will pass that over. Iam not objecting to the fact that the subcommittee made its report to the full committee. I am objecting strenu- ously to the implication that the full committee ever acted on the report, or ever took a vote on it, or did anything else except to transmit it. That was brought out throughout the discussion. The Senator from Mary- land used the word “transmit.” He stated he did not care to have approval or disapproval of the report. He merely wanted it transmitted to the Senate. It is now being printed as a report of the whole committee. I want to make it per- fectly clear that I cannot be a party to this being done, and I do not want my name to appear on it as subscribing to its being a report of the Committee on Foreign Relations. I object to that be- ing done. As a member of the full com- mitte I have a right to object. Mr. PEPPER and Mr. DONNELL ad- dressed the Chair. Mr, SMITH of New Jersey. I yield to the Senator from Florida. Mr. DONNELL. Will the Senator—— The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey has yielded to the Senator from Florida. Mr. PEPPER. Has the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee ever suggested that the full committee made the inquiry and that the full committee was making any recommendation to the Senate? No one has ever made any such claim. To my knowledge, the matter is here exactly as it actually transpired. The Senate adopted a resolution. I read from it again: Resolved, That the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, or any duly authorized subcommittee thereof, is authorized and di- rected to conduct a full and complete study and investigation— The subcommittee named by the full committee made the investigation, as au- thorized to do by the Senate. It made the investigation and submitted its re- port to the full committee. The full committee transmitted the report to the Senate, The report is here before the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Senate. An authorized agency of the Senate, a subcommitte, has made the in- vestigation, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yielded to the Senator for a question. If he wants to answer his own question in his own time, I have no objection. Mr. PEPPER. I add the words: “Is that not so?” Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. ator has met the technicality. No, it is not so, because the committee did not pass on the report. Therefore, to have it printed as a report of the Committee on Foreign Relations is mis- leading the entire American public. I merely desire to state that, so far as I am concerned, as one member of the committee, I had not had time to read the report when I received it. I was called to a meeting of the Foreign Rela- tions Committee before I had time to read it. It was sent to me the night be- fore, and I could not read it because I was busy. I went to the meetings. It was presented in a few words by the chair- man. I did not sign the report. None of us were asked to sign it. The question was raised whether we ought to approve it or disapprove it. The chairman of the subcommittee said that he did not want a Vote on approving it or disapproving it, All he wanted was to transmit it to the Senate, so it could be printed. That is all that came up in the committee at any time. Now, to have it printed as the re- port of the Committee on Foreign Rela- tions is misleading to the American pub- lic. It is something that we should not be doing in the Senate of the United States. Mr, PEPPER subsequently said: Mr. President, a moment ago I stated that the vote in the Foreign Relations Com- mittee with respect to the report of the subcommittee concerning the loyalty in- quiry was 11 to 0. I inadvertently made an error. The vote was 9 to 2. It was 11 to 0 to receive the report and dis- charge the subcommittee. Then the vote was 9 to 2 to report the report of the subcommittee to the Senate. Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield to the Senator from Missouri. Mr, DONNELL. I understood the Senator to say that he objects to this re- port going out as the report of the Com- mittee on Foreign Relations with his name attached to it. Mr, SMITH of New Jersey. Iam. Mr. DONNELL, Am I correct in un- derstanding that the Senator does not consider that this report, No. 2108, is the report of the Senate Committee on For- eign Relations. Is it not correct that the Senator considers, instead, that it 1s merely the report of the subcommittee? Am I correct in my understanding? Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I agree with what the Senator has said. That is the point I have tried to make. I think it is vitally important, Mr, MUNDT. Mr, President, in view of the fact that we have had the words “fraud” and “hoax” bandied around this Chamber in connection with this re- port, and with the allegations that there is Communist infiltration into the Gov- The Sen- 10787 ernment: and in view of the further fact that the Senator from New Jersey has told us candidly that if this document goes out as a report of the Senate Com- mittee on Foreign Relations, as the new jacket on the report now indicates, it will not be an accurate designation; and in view of the fact that he has told us, further, that the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations has never authorized such a report or the issue of such a jacket, numbered deceptively as “Report No. 2108,” it seems to me that such a misrepresentation must be a fraud and such a misrepresentation must be a hoax on the American public. It occurs to me that that is what the chairman of the subcommittee [Mr. Typincs] had in mind when he was using the words “fraud” and “hoax” in con- nection with the problem before us, and I ask the Senator from New Jersey if he does not agree that if we are to main- tain the authority of the United States Senate it 18 imperative that our docu- ments mean what they say and say what they mean, that if they are reports of committees they should so indicate? Certainly it is not just or honest or fair to the American public to permit a docu- ment to go out under the label of the Committee on Foreign Relations which the committee's own minutes indicate never has been approved, which ts a total misrepresentation and not a committee report at all. Mr, SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Presi- dent, that is the point of my bringing this matter up this afternoon. I did not know this jacket had been prepared. I anticipated it, because I had heard some- thing about it, and it seemed to me that it was proper to bring to the attention of the whole Senate what this is, and my desire to make vigorous protest against it. Mr. MUNDT. I hope the Senator from Missouri will carry out his public-service suggestion, as he has indicated he would, and that he will get the minutes of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and make them available to the Senate and to the public, so that this kind of ‘‘hoax” and this type of “fraud” may not be perpetrated on the American public un- der the authority of the Committee on Foreign Relations of the United States Senate. Mr. FLANDERS and Mr. DONNELL addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from New Jersey yield; and, if so, to whom? Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield first to the Senator from Vermont. Mr. FLANDERS. I desired to ask the Senator from New Jersey if he would ask unanimous consent that he might yield only while I made a motion without his losing the floor, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Does the Senator desire me to yield so that he may make a motion? Mr, FLANDERS. Yes. Mr, SMITH of New Jersey. I will ask the ruling of the Chair as to whether the Senator from New Jersey can yield the floor while the Senator from Ver- mont makes a motion.
10788 The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- ator from New Jersey may not do s0 without asking unanimous consent. Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I ask unanimous consent that I may yield the floor temporarily while the Senator from Vermont makes a motion, as he has re- quested, and that I do not lose the floor. Mr, McFARLAND. Mr. President, I would have to know the nature of the motion. Otherwise, I would have to object. Mr. FLANDERS, I will make the motion, so that the Senator—— Mr. McFARLAND. No; 1am not going to wait for the motion to be made. Mr. FLANDERS. I cannot explain the motion without making it. Mr. McFARLAND, The Senator may explain it. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey has asked unanimous consent to yield for a purpose stated, and the Senator from Arizona objects. Mr, FLANDERS. Then I will explain the nature of the motion. Mr, McFARLAND. Very well. Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield the floor. Mr. DONNELL, Mr. President, with the consent of the Senator from Ver- mont, will the Senator yield to me before he yields the floor? Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Yes. Mr. DONNELL. The Senator from South Dakota expressed the hope that the information as to what is in the min- utes of the Committee on Foreign Rela-~ tions be brought in. I desire to assure him, and every other Member of the Senate, that I shall make every effort to procure that information. I shall go in person to the office of the Committee on Foreign Relations, and if I am able to obtain the information, as I assume I will be, I shall bring it to the floor of the Senate. Mr. FLANDERS. Mr. President-—— Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield the floor. Mr. JENNER. Mr. President, I have asked Mr. Trice to notify the senior Senator from Maryland (Mr. Typrnas] that I intend to reply to his remarks of yesterday. Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, will the Senator from Indiana yield? Mr. JENNER. I yield. Mr. MAGNUSON. I wish to announce at this time to the Senators present that as soon as the Senator from Indiana has concluded his remarks, or other Sen- ators who wish to speak on the matter now under discussion have concluded their remarks, I intend to move the con- sideration of a piece of emergency legis- Jation involving the Maritime Service as it relates to our war effort. Mr. WILEY. Mr. President, will the Senator from Indiana yield to me so I may make a brief explanation, requiring about 2 minutes? Mr. JENNER. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Wisconsin on the condition that I do not lose the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the Senator from Indiana yielding to the Senator from Wiscon- ain. without losing the floor? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. WILEY. Mr. President, I sat in the Senate all day yesterday and lis- tened to the discussion which occurred on the floor, and I have heard consider- able of the discussion today as to what took place in the meeting of the Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday last. Unfortunately, I was not present at that meeting. I was called by the Senator from Nevada (Mr. McCarran] to attend a meeting of the Judiciary Committee. I arrived at my office from Wisconsin about 10 o’clock in the morning and at 10:10, as I recall, I went to the Com- mittee on the Judiciary committee room and remained there all morning, unin- formed of proceedings in the Foreign Relations Committee. My information as to what took place in the meeting of the Foreign Relations Committee came to me later. As soon as I could, Tuesday afternoon, after hearing of the session of the Foreign Relations Committee, I did consult with the clerk of the com- mittee and was briefed on the subject. { have since looked at the minutes briefly. In the motion which was made by the Senator from Florida {Mr. Pepper] in committee the word “transmit” was used. However, when the motion was Stated by the chairman of the commit- tee the word “report” was used. In the meanwhile there had been a discussion in committee as to whether or not the committee would approve the report. As I recall, from a very brief analysis, and from what was told me, it was the consensus of those present that there could be no acceptance or approval of the report until the report had been studied. That is about all I know of what went on in the Foreign Relations Committee meeting. Of course, not being present, I personally did not accept or approve the report, nor could I, if I had been present without having at least studied the record; and, in view of the discus- sion which has been held here by those who constitute the investigatory sub- committee, it would appear to me to be very dificult for any one of us to ar- rive at any decision until we had an opportunity to go over the testimony. In other words, it seems to me that those of us here, sitting as we do in the nature of a review court, have got to examine the evidence and see if the evidence sus- tains the general findings and if the issue raised by the Senate resolution has been answered. However, I must say that with three members or four mem- bers of said subcommittee agreeing in relation to certain individuals men- tioned, the issue provided by the reso~ lution still remains unanswered. That issue is whether or not there are or have been any disloyal persons in Govern- ment. I shall have something to say later, but I believe in view of the general dis- cussion here as to whether or not this is the report of the Senate Foreign Rela- tions Committee, it is important that I at least express my own views on the report. The intent seems plain. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee meant to transmit the report but not ap- prove the same, JULY 21 Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. JENNER. I shall not yield until I finish my remarks, and then I shall be glad to yield. Mr. President, never has the Senate been reduced to such a spectacle as was presented on this Senate floor yesterday afternoon. Certainly, never before have I ever seen a man go to such desperate lengths to defend his right to be wrong. The fact that the Senator from Mary- land saw fit to attack me personally in his tirade as an accomplice of Stalin is relatively unimportant. All trained seals have to stoop to pick up the ball when they drop it, and the attack of the Senator from Maryland on me is only an indication of how low he is willing to stoop to pick up the administration's ball, no matter how rotten the filth it has rolled through. Certainly in this hour of crisis the personal political future of anyone of us, including my own, is utterly insig- nificant and I have learned that since a man has to live with his own conscience, it matters not what even the majority thinks of him so long as his conscience is clear. For myself, I am far more interested in what my fellow Amcricans will say of me 25, 50, 100 years from now than I am of what they are saying today or may say tomorrow. I have also learned when one’s per- sonal integrity is attacked in the gutter of ward politics, one only covers himself with another’s slime when one joins in the fight on that level. But there is one more thing I have learned, Mr. President, and that is, when in such a time of crisis as this, men, in order to save their own miserable politi- cal hides or to cover their own bloody tracks of blunders and betrayals, drag the future of America down into the muck and mire of gutter politics, they can count me in because where my coun- try is at stake I will get down there and wallow around with the worst of them. The Senator from Maryland has now presented a spectacle which has trans- formed the majority of the United States Senate into an instrument of mob rule with which the masterminds of this ad- ministration can ride rough shod over facts, legitimate evidence, the truth itself, the sincere concern of a unani- mous minority, and even flout the deepening fears and misgivings of the American people who are asked now to sacrifice, suffer, and die to cover up the bloody tracks of treason. By his actions the Senator from Mary- land has dismissed any doubt I may ever have entertained concerning my own convictions, concerning the kind of an America I believe in, and concerning the kind of constitutional government and way of life I want to preserve to the future, The Senator from Maryland has charged that the position I hold faith- fully reflects the Communist Party line; and he would have the American people believe that he has been defending and continues to defend America’s most vital interests, principles, and security,
1950 Well, Mr. President, I just cannot let this challenge go unanswered. The Senator from Maryland has pre- sented and defended a position and a thesis which proves we are poles apart, at opposite extremes. The issue he has raised is this: Who has been playing the Communist Party line, the Senator from Maryland or the Senator from Indiana? Let us examine the record and see. I know of no better way of bringing this issue to a head than by putting the facts on the table, naming names, citing chapter and verse, I am sure the Senator from Maryland is far too clever to expect anyone to be fooled by his flattery of my importance or influence in the United States Senate. I am only a freshman Senator who has served 3% years in this body. Iam @ member of the Judiciary Committee and the Committee on Rules and Ad- ministration. More often than not, Mr. President, I have stood with a small mi- nority within the minority party. What is the position that I have con- sistently defended? I believe that the eruption of war in Korea is the final proof that this administration’s pro- Soviet propagandists, both at home and abroad, have been leading the American people, for the past 18 years, from one lie to another, from one sell-out to an- other, from one catastrophe to another, and from one war to another, behind false slogans, false panaceas, false pro- grams, and false promises. I have consistently sought to restore traditional American principles to our foreign policies, to repudiate the be- trayals of the past, and to guarantee against their repetition in the future. I have consistently opposed the squandering of American resources and manpower down the rat holes of Europe and Asia, in a determined effort to do everything within my power to keep America sound, strong, and free. As the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Byrp] said recently in the Senate—and I suppose he will be called a Communist, too, following the line—when will we learn that we cannot buy friends with money? We have sent to the South Koreans $360,000,000 in economic aid, since the end of the war; and there has been available to them $100,000,000 for their defense; and when our Army was taken out of South Korea, we left there another $100,000,000 worth of equipment for them—a majority of which now is in the hands of the Communists, and is being turned against American boys. Mr, President, Senators must wake up. When will we learn that we cannot buy friendship? I have continually raised my voice in warning against the folly of pursuing a policy that played directly into Stalin's hands by enabling him to force America to spend herself into bankruptcy. Certainly no one in his right mind could ever charge that for the past 18 years this position of mine has repre- sented anything but the minority view. What is the position that the Senator from Maryland has held during these past 18 years, which he now asks us to embrace permanently in the future? How has this position advanced Amer~ ica’s interests and the cause of peace? CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. President, 5 days before the Ko- rean war, Mr. Truman said, “We are nearer peace than at any time in the last 5 years.” Mr. President, let us see about that. Let us look at the record and see who is following the Communist line. Let us see whether the position the Senator from Maryland has held dur- ing the last 18 years has advanced the cause of peace or has helped to stop the march of communism, Mr. President, the Senator from Mary- land should know, for one thing he can- not plead is ignorance of what has taken place. Of all the men in public office in America today, the Senator from Mary- land is the one man who knows just what has happened during the past 18 years. He has been on the ground floor Since 1933, in the formulation of the most crucial policies in American his- tory. It is he who holds the dubious distinction of having first recommended Dean Acheson for service in the Gov- ernment; and from that time to this, the Senator from Maryland has been “in the know.” Of course, Mr. President, we almost had a disc jockey in the Senate yester- day, but if the disc jockey ever comes into being and ever passes out cards, I shall wish to know the color of the cards of admission to the party, and I hope the disc jockey, if we ever have one in the Senate will, when he thinks of the fact that he is the one who has been responsible for bringing Dean Ache- son into the Government, add to his repertoire the song, O, I’ve Gotta Wash That Man Right Out of My Hair. [Laughter.] Yes, Mr. President, the Senator from Maryland has been consulted on the basic policies which have been formu- lated; he has helped formulate the over- all strategy; he has lent his weight, his support, his prestige, and his power to the furtherance of these same policies. If the truth were known, the Senator from Maryland has helped to master- mind the destiny of these United States throughout this tragic period, and his influence and power have grown until today he is a member of the three most important committees in the United States Senate, namely, the Committee on Foreign Relations, the Armed Services Committee, of which he is chairman, and the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy. With all the political and oratorical tricks at his command, he not only de- fends, without the slightest apology, the consequences of the past 18 years, but he has effrontery to insult our in- telligence by asking us to believe that throughout this tragic period of 18 years our destiny has been in the hands of competent, patriotic, loyal Americans, and that we should be proud of this leadership. Again I say, if any man ever knew what he was doing, the Senator from Maryland is that man, for he has even openly boasted on the Senate floor that he had access to information that was denied to others. The Senator from Maryland was telling the truth, for dur- ing the past 18 years he has been an inti- mate member of what have turned out 10789 to be political and family circles which have been pulling the strings of Ameri- can foreign policy behind the scenes. The political circle of which he has been a member is responsible for the recognition of Russia by these Untted States and is the originator of the vicious, treasonable propaganda that Russia was a God-fearing, law-abiding nation, dedicated to the sacredness of human personalities and committed to the cause of peace. As a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, the Senator from Maryland would have us believe that the out- rageous secret agreements during and since the war, have advanced the cause of peace and America’s vital interests and security. He would even have us believe that those who were a party to those suicidal agreements were patriotic and loyal Americans, while those of us, such as the junior Senator from Indiana, who have condemned those secret sell- outs as treasonable, are supposed to be playing the Russian line. It certainly is not difficult to call the hand of the Senator from Maryland, for the cards he is hiding are so red with the blood of treachery. The following facts will prove that the Senator from Maryland is asking the American people to believe that anyone who seeks to correct these criminal be- trayals or to expose their perpetrators in pur midst is following the Communist ne. The Senator from Maryland certainly has a low opinion of the native intelli- gence of the American people, Mr. Presi- dent; for although this administra- tion’s propagandists have thus far succeeded in hiding the staggering extent of America’s sell-out to Stalin that has been engineered by our own so-called statesmen, truth will not remain forever on the scaffold and false- hood forever on the throne. Can it be that the Senator from Mary-= land does not know that at Tchran, by the single stroke of a pen, an American President, moved by his behind-the- scene advisers, carved Europe in two, sold 100,000,000 people in eastern Europe into the bloody and tyrannical hands of Russia, and paralyzed the European economy? Is the Senator from Maryland igno- rant of the fact that at Yalta, under the influence of Alger Hiss, a dying Ameri-~ can President sold Asia down the river, partitioned Korea, at the thirty-eighth parallel, sold out China and Manchuria to Stalin and turned communism loose around one-half of the world? Is the Senator from Maryland igno- rant of the fact that the debacle in the Far East was made certain by the Pots- dam Agreement, which was designed to destroy Germany and Japan, the only two powers in the world which have been able to stop the threatened aggression of Russia’s oriental hordes? With these criminal betrayals stil] on the diplomatic books, when has the Senator from Maryland ever raised his voice against them? Who is following the commie line? Is the Senator from Maryland igno- rant of the fact that for 500 years what Russia has been seeking to gain in a
10790 vicious struggle of power politics is, namely, salt-water ports in the Orient, and in the Mediterranean and in the North Sea, and that these have been handed to her on a silver platter in these three deals? Is the Senator from Maryland igno- rant of the fact that so far as the Orient is concerned, the Korean war is the in- evitable consequence of the most com- pletely documented conspiracy against the United States in history? Does the Senator from Maryland hon- estly believe that the American people will accept his arguments that these things have just happened by coinci- dence? Has the Senator from Maryland for- gottzn that no one yet knows who pushed a dying President into accepting Russia’s offer to entcr war 1n the Far East 1 week before Japan surrendered, when Admual Zacharias, himself, admits that for 6 months our own State Department knew of the existence of a Japanese offer to surrender? Has anybody advised the Senator from Maryland, in the investi- gation that he has just gone through, who told Dean Achcson to take our troops out of Korea? Did the Senator from Maryland find that out in his very com- plete and thorough investigation which he has just completed and repo.ted to the Senate? Who advised Dean Acheson and our State Department that he would not lift our hand to defend Formosa? ret us see who is following the ‘‘commie”’ ine, Is the Senator from Maryland igno- rant of the fact that the Dean Acheson, Alger Hiss Owen Lattimore, John Carter Vincent, and John Stewart Service, who engineered the sell-out of the Orient, really took over with Japan's surrender, and that our most highly trained and most competent experienced Far Eastern personnel were shoved out of the State Department, including Stanley Horn- beck, George Dooman, Joseph Ballantine, and Joseph Grew? That 1s when it took place, and they ore practically all in th2 Department today. Is the Senator from Maryland igno- rant of the fact that when this crowd of master conspirators took over, their first Official act was to slap General Mac- Arthur in the face, to try to order him to execute the Emperor, and to issue the infamous document FEC-230 for the communization of the Japancse econo- my? Let us see who is following the “commie” line. Ah, is the Senator from Maryland jenorant of the fact that tre same pat- tern was repeated in China, where be- hind the propaganda line the Chinese Communists were “agrarian reform- ers’—just “agrarian reformers”? Even General Marshall, himself, was made a stooge of these conspirators and was directed to force Chiang Kai-shek to take the Chinese Communists into his Government, along with their armies. Is the Senator from Maryland igno- rant of the fact that during these nego- tiations aid authorized by the Unitcd States Senate was deliberately withheld from Nationalist China untill it arrived too late to prevent the Communists tak- ing advantage of this Iack of arms for almost 15 months, although the Con- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE gress had‘ appropriated the monty? Somebody, some little boy, some place, said, “Let them alone—let them rot.” Is the Senator from Maryland igno- rant of the fact that throughout this whole period this same crowd of con- spirators peddled the vicious line to the American people and the world that was dcsigncd to betray our wartime ally, who for 8 years had heroically fought the Japanese, and further designed to ad- vance the cause of communism in Asia? Is the Senator from Maryland also ignorant of the fact that this identical pattern was extended to Korea, where, Iam informed, Lt Gen. John R, Hodges, commanding general of South Korea, also was ordered by the State Depart- ment to take the Communists into the South Korean Army? And is the Senator from Maryland ignorant of the fact that John Foster Dulles stated to a group of Senators here on Capitol Hill just a few days ago, prior to the attack 1n Korea, that the State Department line was advocating that a good dose of communism would be good for the Asiatics? Wake up, Sena- tors Let us see who 1s following the commie line. And is the Senator from Maryland ignorant of the frightening success this State Department conspiracy has had in selling not only China but also America down the river until whereas, in 1945, Russia dominated 189,000,000 people, to- day she has enslaved over 800,000,000? Does the Senator from Maryland think there would have been any need for the outrageous State Department white paper on China unless there was a criminal conspiracy to cover up? Surely the Senator from Maryland has seen the document which I hold in my hand, which contains the charges presented by the Chinese Nationalist Government to the Security Council of the United Nations against Russia, with facts and figures and such authentic documents that the Russians have never answered these charges? Certainly, even while this white paper was being issued, Secretary Acheson and his cohorts knew every single 1tem in this Chinese Nationalist document to be true This is only part of the story. For this conspiracy not only was determined to oe eda down the river, but Korea as well. It was only a few days ago that Owen Lattimore advised the United States Government “to let Korea fall, but not to make it look as if we pushed it.” The sad thing about it, Mr. President, is that those who are being pushed now in Korea are the sons of the mothers of America. It was not so leng ago that the State Department issued a secret document announcing ‘t was its intention to let even Formosa go. In other words, these traitors were pushing Formosa along with China and Korea down the throat of the Russian ear u Let us see who is playing the “Commie” ne. Think of it, Mr. President. These Siate Department conspiraiors have done their deadly work so well that, in JULY 21 spite of the fact that Ambassador Jessup had just returned from a 20,000-mile tour of the Orient, including Korea—in spite of the fact the Joint Chiefs of Staff had only recently toured all of the Pacific—in spite of the fact that John Foster Dulles, himself, had spoken in Seoul just a short tame prior to the Korean outbreak, and Ambassador Muccio had been on the scene, together with the United Nations Con:mission for the lust 2 years, and in spite of the fact the intelligence reports available through the different branches of the armed services were pouring into Washington, we were caught flat-footed in a Korean Pearl Harbor. How many times can that happen? How long can we stand it? Who 1s playing the “commie” line? All the time our supreme commander in the Far East, General MacArthur, was barred from any jurisdiction, whatever, in the Korean theater. The State De- pariment boys were running that. There are Senators who shed crocodile tears because our boys are being killed because of a conspiracy which has been perpetrated deliberately and criminally in our Government, Is the Senator from Maryland ignorant of the fact that the came group responsible for this de- bacle are in the State Department at this very moment with his official blessing? Does the Serator from Maryland hon- estly expect us to believe these things are just a coincidence; that they have not been deliberately engineered? Or does the Senator from Maryland just hope, along with the late Harry Hopkins, that the American people are “just too damned dumb” ever to catch on? The issue then is, who is best serving Stalin's interest in the United States— the Senator from Maryland, who insists that these things have just happened, or the Junior Senator from Indiana who knows these things could not Just have happened, and who is determined to continue his fight to ferret out the master minds of this criminal conspiracy along with their criminal accomplices and clean them out of government? What does the Senator from Mary- land have to say in answer to the follow- ing proof that someone master-minded these betrayals? I quote from Cordell Hull’s memoirs; In general, I was not a social intimate of the President. I was not invited to White House dinners, except on official occasions, or to week-end excursions on Mr. Roosevelt's yacht or to Hyde Park. Moreover, I was frankly glad not to be invited into the White House groups where so often the “liberal” game was played on an extreme basis. I was known not to be an extreme liberal or semiradical, as were some of those who were close about the President, and my prorence in their gatherings wouid have 9ee71 as embarrassing to me as to them. The President’s Cabinet filled, in geueral, & very minor role in the formulation of foreign policy. It was also natural that there should de- velop a so-called Inside litchen cabinet com-~ posed of a few persons. Mr. President, I quote further from Cordell Hull: The President did not tke me with him to Casablanca, Cairo, or Tehran Conferences
1950 * © © nor did I take part in his military discussions with Prime Minister Churchill in Washington, some of which had wide- spread diplomatic repercussions. I learned from other sources than the Pres- ident what had occurred at the Casablanca, Cairo, and Tehran Conferences. Mr. President, what happened at the Quebec Conference September 11, 1944, where the future of Germany was de- cided? Again, our Secretary of State was not invited. He was too American and too conser- vative for this gang of cut-throat con- spirators the Senator from Maryland is busy defending. Again I quote from Cordell Hull's diary: Four days after the Conference began I was astonished to receive from the President & memorandum addressed to me, dated Sep- tember 15, 1944, which indicated that he and Churchill had largely embraced Mor- genthau’s ideas * * *, The memorandum * * © stated: “It was felt that the two districts should be put under somebody under the world organization (the UN, where Russia was to get the veto until every demand she made ‘was gratified).” Mr. President, Secretary Hull goes on to say: In fact, the President did not seem to realize the devastating nature of the memo- randum of September 15 to which he had put his “O. K—F. D. R.” The President's memorandum also showed plainly that he had not understood the meaning of what he had agreed to at Quebec. Note that. At about this time Secretary Stimson had a talk with the President, from which Stim- son. drew the same conclusion. Stimson informed me that the President was frankly staggered at hearing these sen- tences, and said that he had no idea how he could have initialed the memorandum, and that he had evidently done so without much thought. Now, Mr. President, who is playing the “Commie line’? Who engineered the Yalta sell-out? Again quoting Cordell Hull: I should state at this point that I was not consulted by the President or anyone else on policy issues prior to or during the Yalta Conference. This is our Secretary of State speaking in a time of great crisis. He continues: Nor was I informed beforehand of the pur- poses of this Government at any other important conference subsequently, ' Then who was running the show? According to Adolph Berle, one of Woodrow Wilson’s and Franklin Roose- velt’s trusted advisers: In the fall of 1944 there was a difference of opinion in the State Department. I felt that the Russians were not going to be sympathetic and cooperative. The opposite group was largely Acheson’s group, with Alger Hiss as his principal assistant, The Senator from Maryland brought Dean Acheson into the Government and is proud of him, Who is playing the “Commie”’ line? It is a matter of record, Mr. President, that in 1943 Dean Acheson, then Assist- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE ant Secretary of State, headed a group of State Department experts assigned to planning the size and duties of a world organization to prevent war. And now Alger Hiss, on whom Dean Acheson will not turn his back, on whom the Senator from Maryland will not turn his back, stands as a convicted liar and perjurer, whose interdepartmental memos are still locked up in this admin- istration’s deep freezes, and the secret of his fellow conspirators along with them. Who is playing the “Commie” line? Let us find out. No wonder the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Lopce] and the Senator from Iowa (Mr. HIcKEN- LOOPER] would not sign such a report. They want an honest report. They want the American people to know the facts and the truth as to what is going on in this beloved country of ours. These are the known facts, to which the Senator from Maryland would have us forever close our eyes. Who is following the “Commie” line? Is it the Senator from Maryland, who has conducted the most scandalous and brazen whitewash of treasonable con- spiracy in our history, who would con- tinue to cover up these termites and vermin, who, even while I speak, are gnawing at the foundations of our free- dom, or is it the junior Senator from In- diana, who would ferret out these rats and fumigate their State Department haven? Mr. CONNALLY. Mr. President, I make a point of order. The Senator from Indiana is out of order in his re- marks about the Senator from Mary- land, and I invoke rule XIX of the Senate. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana will take his seat. (Mr. JENNER took his seat.) Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, I move that the Senator from Indiana be al- lowed to proceed in order. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of the Senator from Nebraska. [Putting the question.) The “ayes” have it and the Senator from Indiana may proceed in order. Mr. JENNER. The Senator from Maryland has charged that I have op- posed this administration’s 35 interna- tional hand-out schemes, in which we have squandered $35,000,000,000 in for- eign hand-outs since the war. This is true. But he goes on to charge that this is playing Stalin's game, while he, who has supported these hand-outs has been fighting Communists. What are the facts, Mr. President? Which of us is doing more to advance or oppose the cause of communism by our stand? Mr. President, I have consistently op- posed the squandering of American re- sources abroad because I believe we were merely preparing the table for Stalin, as we did in Korea. We gave the Koreans $360,000,000. We appropriated $100,- 000,000 for military equipment for Southern Korea, and today it is all gone and practically all of it in the hands of the North Korean Reds. We keep pour- ing money into Europe. Why? Of 10791 course, I stand, as I said before, for the extension of the Monroe Doctrine to wherever the security of this Nation de- mands its extension. Why should we keep pouring money into France, for example, where they change their gov- ernment about as often as the moon changes, where one-third of the popula- tion is Communist, and where one of the largest single political parties is Com- munist? The picture is about the same in Italy, Oh, let us wake up before it is everlastingly too late. I continue to be determined to hus- band our resources and to give priority to our own staggering neds to meet even the minimum requirements for an im- pregnable national defense. Mr. President, it is not so long ago that I found myself joined by such dis- tinguished Americans as Mr. William Clayton, Mr, John Foster Dulles, Gen- eral Bradley, Harold Stassen, and many others, who warned that we really were losing the cold war, and preparing the table for Stalin. I have never posed as a military ex- pert, Mr. President, but I still refuse to believe that when I took the oath of of- fice as a Senator of the United States I was obligated to squander our substance in a suicidal attempt to underwrite everybody else’s interest and security but our own. This is my position, which the Sena- ator from Maryland says directy reflects “the Commie line.” What is happening, Mr. President, to America when the Senator from Mary- land charges that anyone who is deter. mined to keep America sound, strong, and free is playing Stalin’s game? Only men who are desperate would so twist the truth into such an ugly shape. But what of the Senator from Mary- land? He is a great authority on military affairs by his own admission, for he is chairman of the Armed Services Com- mittee of the Senate, and he once at- tended a military conference in Brus- sels to discuss plans for a North Atlantic Pact, which did not even exist, and does not even exist today, except on paper. Who has been most useful to the Communist cause? Has it been the junior Senator from Indiana, o. the Senator from Maryland, who advocates the squandering of Amer- ica’s billions to rearm so-called allies, who have neither the means nor the will to defend themselves, and who defends an administration which has presided over the spending of $89,000,030,000 for national defense during the past five peacetime ycars, and who now cries crocodile tears that even this gigantic sum has been so maladministered that American GI's have been dying in Korea trying to stop 60-ton Russian tanks with peashooters? Eighty-nine billion dol- lars have been spent in the past 5 years for the defense of this country. The dis- tinguished Senator from Maryland is chairman of the Armed Services Com- mittee, and our boys are dying trying to stop 60-ton tanks with peashooters. Who is playing the Commie line? General Bradley, himself, has ad- mitted that in spite of the enormous ex- penditure for national defense since the
10792 end of the war we cannot win c war, keep the peace, or defend ourselves. The Senator from Maryland on Febru- ary 6, 16, and 23 of this year actually advanced the proposition for general dis- armament on top of the frightful neglect of our own national defense. Mr. President, the Senator from Mary- land is also a member of the Senate Com- mittee on Atomic Energy, and certainly he cannot be ignorant of what has been going on in this fleld. Again I ask, Mr. President, who is ren- dering the greatest service to commu- nism—the junior Senator from Indiana, who knows just from reading the news- papers that the English spy, Dr. Klaus Fuchs, deliberately betrayed our atomic secrets into the hands of Russia, as a member of a gigantic atomic spy ring which the FBI has already started to round up, right under our noses, and who wants to help the FBI finish the job, or, is it the Senator from Maryland whose logic has become so twisted that he can see no relation between the American atomic spy ring, now being rounded up, and the Mackenzie King report on the Canadian spy trials, which no Member of Congress has ever seen, because it links this spy ring with officials who have either served or are still serving in the State Department? No wonder we did not get an investiga- tion, Mr. President. No wonder we got a “whitewash” report. Surely the facts I have recounted are known to the Senator from Maryland and it is hard to see by what rhyme or reason the Senator expects us to believe he is ignorant of them, for any ignorance in these matters which the Senator may possess is deliberate ignorance, I have never heard a more blasphe- mous perversion of the truth than the outburst of the Senator from Maryland yesterday giving a clean bill of health to the entire personnel of the State Depart- ment, when in addition to all the fore- going facts, he knows that the FBI at this moment has 21,104 cases of sub- version it has never started to prosecute, when the Senator from Maryland knows also of the army of sexual perverts who are engaved in the filthy immorality of blackmail and degradation, and when the Senator from Maryland knows that J. Edgar Hoover has warned us of 55,000 known Communists who are becoming more numerous, more tricky, and more active than ever. Mr. President, the frightening fact is that a Senator, of all people, who knows at least these sordid, terrifying facts to be true, would go to such staggering lengihs to cover them up, along with whatever there may be of their rotten, slimy, treasonable implications. A man must be really desperate when he will organize a conspiracy within his own politica] family circle to help cover up such a hideous perveysion and hbe- trayal of the public trust. Is it not true, Senator Typ1nas, that you sponsored and continue to sponsor ean Acheson? Is ft not true, Senator Typtnes, that it is your own father-in-law, Mr. Davies, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE who, as our Ambassador to Russia, wrote as foul a piece of pro-Soviet propaganda as was ever designed to corrupt the minds of the American people? Is it not true that Mr. Seth Richard- son, who is chairman of the President's Loyalty Review Board, is a law partner of your father-in-law? Is it not true that the counsel you hired to do your work on this subcom- mittee, Mr. Morgan, was associated with Mr, Richardson and Mr. Hiss’ pal, Mr. Kaufman, during the Pearl Harbor hear- ings, which applied an even more out- rageous whitewash to the past? Is it not also true, Senator Typ1nés, that after Ambassador Hurley was sab- otaged by the State Department’s pro- Communist clique, Mr. J. Leighton Stuart was appointed Ambassador to China as a direct slap in the face to the Nationalist Government, and that the whole of this story has not yet been told? Mr. President, the issues I have dis- cussed rise far beyond any conflict of politics or personality, for never before in our history did our own people need more truth and more light. Certainly never has there ever been such a fright- ening need for a restoration of their faith in their political leadership. I still believe that only the truth can make and keep men free. The Senator from Maryland believes that the truth belongs only to a select inner circle of a@ new political aristocracy that has emerged on the American scene during the past 18 years, which, in the name of progress, prosperity, and peace, has succeeded only in selling us down the river, and leading us into three frightful wars in one generation. I want to conclude my remarks by ad- vising the Senator from Maryland that in my humble opinion everything he has been a party to in this mess, and his attempts to defend it, fly right in the face of the lessons of history. I believe that the result of the spec- tacle to which the United States Senate has been reduced will be to arouse the American people to the fact that they dare no longer entrust the future to those who have betrayed the past. And the day of reckoning is coming. Mr. President, I desire to say that I have no medals, such as the distinguished Senator from Maryland told us yester- day he has. I did not know the distin- guished Senator from Maryland was such a@ brave and heroic man until he told us from his own itsy-bitsy lips yester. day, but I do know that there is another medal which will probably come to him. It will be very large, and emblazoned with a single name: “Thanks, from good old Joe, for a job well done.” REPORTS* OF COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES—EXTENSION OF ENLIST- MENTS IN THE ARMED FORCES Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, from the Committee on Armed Services I re- port two bills, which have been unani- mously approved by the committee. The VICE PRESIDENT, The reports will be received. JULY 21 The bills reported by Mr. Typrncs, from the Committee on Armed Services, are as follows: 8.3939. A bill to suspend restrictions on the authorized personnel strength of the Armed Forces, and for other purposes; with amendments (Rept. No. 2116); and 8.3937. A bill to authorize the President to extend enlistments in the Armed Forces of the United States; without amendment (Rept. No. 2117). Mr. TYDINGS. The first bill (8. 3939) is to suspend restrictions on the authorized personnel strength of the Armed Forces, and for other purposes; the second bill is to authorize the Presi- dent to extend enlistments in the Armed Forces of the United States. Believing that the second bill (S, 3937) is imperative to the defenses of the coun- try, as enlistments are expiring every day in the fighting forces, and that no debate will be entailed by the considera- tion of the second bill, I ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration, coming, as it does, from the Armed Serv- ices Committee with a “must” attached to it. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, a par- liamentary inquiry. I also understood | the request to be for immediate consid- eration. Mr. TYDINGS. For the one bill (S. 3937). There are approximately 300,000 men in the Army, Navy, and Air Force whose enlistments will expire in the next calendar year. Under normal conditions these men would reenlist on a percentage basis of about 50 percent. These are trained men who cannot be replaced. It is not easy for the recruits to fill the shoes of these trained men. Since men are dropping out of the armed services every day, the purpose of the bill for which I ask immediate con- sideration is to extend their enlistments until we can secure replacements to take the places vacated by the men who drop out. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yleld further? Mr. TYDINGS, I yield. Mr. WHERRY. I understand the dis- tinguished Senator to say that the bill was reported from the Armed Services Committee unanimously. Mr. TYDINGS. It was, and with an imperative plea from the Defense De- partment, and in line with the Presi- dent’s message, that we take quick action thereon. Mr. WHERRY. No one wants to pre- vent quick action being taken. The Sen- ator, however, has not even spoken to me about taking up the bill this afternoon. I wondered if there could be—no, Mr. President, I have no objection. Mr. TYDINGS. Consideration of the bill will take only 5 minutes, in my opinion. If it takes longer I shall with- draw it, Mr. WHERRY. I ask the distin- guished Senator from Maryland to give us in as much detail as he can the pur- pose of the bill. Are copies of the bill now available to Members of the Senate? Are they on the desks of Senators? The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Maryland has reported two bills,