10684 honor of this Nation in the Korean crisis. I shall support the President's request for ad-~ ditional funds for national defense and na- tional security. Increased appropriations are needed if we are to protect our national security and be properly prepared to meet any eventuality in view of the uncertain conditions that prevail in the world today. I support the President’s proposal to re- move limitations upon the Army, Navy, and Air Force personnel. The armed forces must be increased in strength and numbers. The President's propocal of the use of selective eervice, National Guard, and the Organized Reserve to fulfill the needs of the military will be supported by the Congress. I support the President's recommenda- tions for the utilization of our industrial and productive resources for the purposes of national defense. It ts absolutely tmpera- tive that we have a system of allocations and priorities to meet defense production re- quirements. The economic controls pro- poeed by the President upon consumer credit and the cutback in Government construc- tion program must bo undertaken if we are to control inflationary tendencies which are now everywhere evident. It is to be hoped that we can evade the necessity of reestablishing rigid price con- trol and full-scale rationing. The decision on this subject will be primarily up to the American people. There is an adequate sup- ply of food and consumer goods to meet reg- ular needs. However, if some sections of the public persist in hoarding and in price gouging, the Government must act to pro- tect the public interest. A drastic Increase in prices could very well threaten the eco- nomic solvency of our country The recommendation of the President for increased taxes as a brake upon inflationary pressures merits prompt action on the part of the Congress, Every effort must be made to pay for additional military and national defense expenditures out of current reve- nues. This will require a marked increare in taxes both upon corporations and Iindi- viduals. The disastrous effect of uncon- trolled inflation cannot be overemphasized. Nothing would be more dangerous than to permit our economy to get out of hand and thereby greatly add to the costs of national dofense and at the same time choeapen the value of the dollar and destioy the value of savings. I believe that the Congress should reenact the excess-profits tax. Every effort must be made to prevent war profiteering, War prof- iteering and price gouging should be brand- ed as un-American activities. Those who rig prices to take advantage of a critical international situation are guilty of under- mining the strength and productivity of our country. Our industrial production and the faith and confidence of our people can be seriously injured by drastic price incrcases and the creation of false shortages of criti- cally needed materials. War profiteers should be branded ns home- front subversives and saboteurs, War prof- iteers are dangerous to American security and American morale. Price gouging and profiteering in this critical hour give aid and comfort to our cnemies, and place un- due strain and burdens upon the American people. I shall support all measures necessary to channel needed materlals and manpower into defense plants. I shall support all measures necessary to regulate prices and to assure an adequate distribution of goods and sorvices. I shall urge vigorous prosecution by every agency of Government of those who are guilty of war profiteering and selfish greed as exemplified tn hijacking the market by exorbitant prices. The crisis in Korea cannot be met by half-hearted and “business as usual” atti- tudes and practices. Every American has an equal responsibility to cooperate with his CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Government and the United Nations. Every American has a great stake in the welfare of our people and economy, Unchecked in- flation can be as disastrous as invasion. —— [From the Washington Evening Star of July 19, 1960] INSTINCT OF GREED—SUPERPATRIOTS SEEN OUT TO ExPLoIr Wark PsycHOLOGY ror SELFISH Furroses (By Thomas L. Stokes) Wars—even rumors of wars—arouse greedy Instinct in some human beings. Our present situation is no exception. Again there are the signs familiar to any one who has watched the necessary preparations for our national defense from a front seat here before—-here where the necessary steps must be taken to curb the greedy instinct. The old characters bob up once more across our Nation. There are the hoarders who rush out to stock up and thereby cause shortages, which kegins a vicious circle of inflation, and there are those greedy purveyors of goods who ex- ploit the psychology thus created to jack up prices and make a quick profit for them- selves—while ycung men are dying For- tunately, the Senate Banking Committee is now moving to investigate the wave of price increases that have occurred already since the North Korean invasion. CRY OF SUPERPATRIOT Now we hear again, too, as before, the mock earnest cry of a sort of superpatriot among those opposed to social and welfare proposals and expenditures who rise up to exploit the war psychology for their own sclfish purposes. Wrapping themselves in the flag, they piously demand a cut in what they call umnecersary expenditures § for our domestic economy. They don’t suy so, but they mean those things that Government has come to do to promote the welfare of our people, They shout bombastically for entire concentration on military expendi- tures. It is their alm, under the conventent cloal. of national defense, to stop or slow down some of the programs we have adopted in the general public interest. The technique is to starve them out, that is to deprive these functions of necessary appropriations and running expenses. These are still a very small part of our budret. We're going to need plenty for our mili- tary, no doubt about that, and we'll get it without the help of superpatriots here de- scribed. That will be needed on the firing line in Korea, or whcrever, and to bolster our position all over the world. But there is a firing line here at home, too. It must re- main strong. A FIGHT FOR DEMOCRACY We are engaged, on the Korean front and all over the world, in a fight for democracy, To us, democracy has come to mean the wel- fare, as well as the freedom, of people, our people and people elsewhere. In the last few years we have strengthened our-democracy here at home by many meas- ures well known to all, too numerous to list, to improve the living conditions of our people through better housing, better health, opportunities for jobs at good pay, protec- tion in employment and security for old age, development of natural resources, including our great river basins, which provide fa- ollities for better living as well as opportuni- ties for new employment for a growing popu- lation. They reinforce the freedoms for which we fight, for they have freed us from the worries and cares that weaken other people to give up their freedoms. We have something to protect, a more full and rounded way of life than anywhere else In the world. the JULY 20 These are established functions of Gov-~ ernment, They must be expanded gradually, in our democratic way, rather than curtailed, for we need a balanced program here at home to keep ours a dynamic democracy, an ideal not only for ourselves, but for those whom we would enlist on our side in the world-wide struggle. [From the Washington Evening Star of July 19, 1950] DEMAND FOR CONTROLS INCREASES AS PRICES ContTINUE To CLIMB Increased demands for stern Government measures to prevent runaway prices for food and other products wele voiced anew today as the Korean crisis spurred a buying wave throughout the country. As Government officials hept a close watch on the situation with a view to using limited authority under existing legislation to hold prices down, the Senate Banking and Cure rency Committee prepared to open hearings into recent increases that have been described in varying circles as “unconscionable” and “outrageous.” Chairman MayBanx of the Senate group said the inquiry will give spectal rcference to increased prices for eggs and meats, Developments included: 1. William P. Kennedy, president of the 220,000-member Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, telegraphed President Truman and congreesional leaders, demanding the return of price controls and rationing in order to protect American consumers from uncon- scionable increases, 2. Coffee prices climbed to new record highs in the New York market. Kroger's stores, one of the country’s larger chains, announced increases of 4 and 6 cenis on bag-packed coffee and 4 cents on vacuum- packed, 3. More manufacturers of rubber tires for passenger cars and trucks posted price boosts ranging from 6 to 1214 percent. 4. Esso Standard Oil Co. raised the price of gasoline in all its marketing areas 0.2 to 0.5 of a cent a gallon. 5. While many prices were increasing, a big break in commodities sold for future delivery occurred in yesterday's trading. The drop coincided with news that the Commu- nist drive in Korea had been checked, but the selling was attributed largely to profit taking by previous purchasers. 6, The cotton market broke sharply shortly before the Government acted late yesterday to stabilize rising prices by announcing that 4,320,000 bales stored under price-support programs will be kept available for murket sales. 1, Marriner S, Eccles, of the Federal Re- serve Board, offered a six-point program to curb inflation which he said is developing rapidly because of the Korean situation. The program included no tax reductions, reime position of a corporation excess-profits tax of 75 percent, and &@ request to organized lebor to seek no wage increases while the tax boost remained in effect. AUTHORITY EXISTS As many prices continued to increase, attention was directed to the Government's authority under existing legislation to place curbs on markets for such commedities as wheat, corn, cotton, dry beans and peas, butter, flaxseed, linseed ofl, cottonseed oil, cheese, dried eggs, and dried milk. Powor to set up what amounts to price cellings exists in provisions of farm law re- lating to Government authority for dispos- ing of farm surpluses acquired under price- support programs. By offering these products at set prices, the Government could pretty well fix the top limit of prices, at least as long as its supplies lasted. Few if any buyers would pay more than the Government selling price,
1950 In the case of nonperishable and storable commodities, the Government may sell at prices equal to 5 percent above the current price-support rate, plus reasonable carrying charges. In the case of perishable productse—such as butter, cheese, dried eggs and milk—the Government may sell at any price it sees fit, when there is danger of these products de- teriorating. Despite recent price advances on some foods at the retail level, most commodities owned by the Government are still selling for less than minimum levels at which Uncle Sam could sell them. Wheat, for example, is selling at close to the price-support level, which is 90 percent of parity, or a farm average of about 61.99 @ bushel. Parity is a standard for measur- ing farm product prices. It is declared by law to be equally fair to farmers and those who buy their products. The Government's minimum selling price for wheat would be 5 percent above the support price-—nabout 10 cents—plus charges involved in Government storage and han- dling, which would be around 12 cents. Added together, this would give a wheat sales price of about $2.21 at the farm. Certainly the Government, with its large stocks of grains, is in a position now to keep wheat from climbing to postwar peaks of $3.50, and corn from advancing above the $2 level. The Government would jump at the chance of selling present large stocks of butter and cheese. The situation is different with regard to rreats and sugar, two foods which have gone up considerably during the past 2 weeks. It owns none of these foods. Neither does it hold any coffee or wool, other items which have Jumped in price. Large stocks of wool bought during the war have long since been sold. At what stage in a prolonged price rise the Government might toss its supplies on the market to check the advance is a ques- tion which cannot be answered at this time. Officials have made no commitments. It is generally believed, however, that the Government would not attempt to keep prices of farm products—except perish- ables—from advancing to full parity, inas- much as parity is the goal of farm legis- lation and programs. In mid-June only five major farm prod- ucts were bringing parity or more. They were wool, soybeans, beef cattle, lambs, and veal calves. [From Washington Post of July 20, 1050] ConTROL ProcaaM In his message to Congress President Tru- man pointed out that industrial production is 81 percent higher than in 1939 and food production is a third higher than at any time before the war and practically as high as it was during the war years when we were sending far more food abroad than we are now. Furthermore, there ts still some leeway for increasing the national output. Under these conditions the country can unqués- t.onably support a substantial increase in military expenditures without serious strain. However, it will be necessary to restrict civilian consumption of steel, construction materials, and various other products already in short supply in order to provide additton- al supplies of such materials for the Armed Forces. If businessmen, labor, farmers, and con- sumers show good sense and exercise re- straint in buying, the control program rec- ommended by the President will, we believe, enable the Government to meet its military needs without an inflationary rise in living costs necessitating resort to price controls and rationing. This is a very big “if,” and there is no certainty that the warning that drastic controls wil’ bo recommended if prices XCVI-—--673 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE continue to rise will put an end to profiteer- ing and hoarding. But the President has wisely decided to test the efficacy of a system of limited and indirect controls before turn- ing to methods that ere dificult to enforce, costly to administer and deeply resented by the public. He has asked Congress for au- thority to establish priorities and allocate materials needed by the military. Otherwise he is relying on credit controls and increases in taxation to check consumer buying of goods in scarce supply and to curb iuflation. The mere authority to requisition supplies needed for national defense would check ex- cessive inventory accumulation. And if in- dustrial managements succeed in working out voluntary plans for insuring prompt and adequate supplies of goods for military use, it may not be necessary for the Government to jesue allocation orders. The proposal to establish controls over consumer credit would also make it possible to reduce the buying of automobiles and other durable goods on the installment pian, thereby releasing steel and various scarce materials for military use. His orders for a cutback in public housing construction and tighter restrictions on Government-insured home mortgages will slow the pace of a build- ing boom fostered by extremely liberal hous- ing credits that has boosted the cost of building and intensified scarcities of mate- rials needed for military use. The President further recommends application of controls to prevent an expansion of privately financed real-estate credit, but does not indicate the type of legislation required to effect it. In this case, too, the mere authorization to apply such controls might induce bankers to take steps to restrict such loans of their own volition. All these plans for tightening credit serve the dual purposc of relieving inflationary pressures on the economy and releasing ma- terials for production of military equipment, They will not, of course, prevent a general rise in prices and living costs, unless steps are taken to offest increases in the Federal budgetary deficit brought about by an un- expected expansion of military spending. The President is requesting approximately €10,000,000,000 more for defense purposes. That sum, added to a prospective deficit in the neighborhood of $5,000,000,000, would lay the foundation for runaway inflation unless taxes are raised. Tax increases are in fact, as the President says, “our basic weapon in offsetting the inflationary pressures exerted by enlarged Government expenditures ” And it is important to remember that heavier taxes make direct controls over prices and rationing less necessary. Civilian government agencies have been instructed to review their spending program for the purposes of cutting down outlays that compete with the military for man- power and scarce materials. It is to be hoped that Congress will take steps to see that sub- stantial economies are effected by such means, At this juncture, however, it is im- possible to estimate with any approach to accuracy the effect of the expanded military program. The one thing that ts certain is that the 1951 deficit will be large enough to make higher taxes imperative. For that rea- son we hope that Congress will not adjourn until {t hag voted for an increase in taxes that will be at least sufficient to offset the inflationary effect of the larger expenditures that lie ahead. GENERAL MacARTHUR'S MESSAGE ON KOREAN SITUATION Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, yester- day the President sent a message to Con- gress, and last evening he addressed the American people over the radio. In his address to the American people he quoted a message from General Mac- Arthur. I ask unanimous consent that 10685 I may read into the Recorp the full text of the message from General MacArthur. The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there ob- jection? The chair hears none, anc the Senator may proceed. Mr. LUCAS, The message reads: The following ts my current estimate of the Korean situation: With the development in Korea of major elements of the Etghth Army now accom- plished, the first phase of the campaign has ended and with it the chance for victory hy the North Korean forces. The enemy's pian and great opportunity depended upon the speed with which he could overrun South Korea once he had breached the Han River line and with overwhelming numbers and superior weapons temporarily shattered South Korean resistance. This chance he has now lost through the extraordinary speed with which the Eighth Army has been de- ployed from Japan to stem his rush. When he crashed the Han line the way scemed entirely open and victory was within his grasp. The desperate decision to throw in piece- meal Americnn elements as they arrived by every available means of transport from Japan was the only hope to save the situa- tion. The skill and valor thereafter dis- played in successive holding actions by the ground forces in accordance with this con- cept, brilliantly supported in complete co- ordination by air and naval elements, forced the enemy into continued deployments, costly frontal attacks, and confused logistics, which so slowed his advance and blunted his drive that we have bought the precious time necessary to build a secure base. I do not believe that history records a com~- parable operation which excelled the speed and precision with which the Eighth Army, the Far East Air Forces and the Seventh Fleet have been deployed to a distant land for immediate commitment to major operations. It merits highest commendation for the com- manders, staffs, and units concerned and at- tests to their superior training and high stato of readincss to meet any eventuality. This finds added emphasis in the fact that the Far East Command, until the President’s great pronouncement to support the epochal action of the United Nations, had no slightest responsibility for the defense of the free Re- public of Korea. With the President's deci- sion it assumed a completely new and added mission. It is, of course, impossible to predict with any degree of accuracy future incidents of a military campaign. Over a brond front in- volving continuous local struggles, there are bound to be ups and downs, losses as well as successes, Our final stabilization line will unquestionably be rectified and tactical im- provement will involve planned withdrawals as well as local advances. But the issue of battle is now fully joined and will proceed along lines of action in which we will not be without choice. Our hold upon the southern part of Korea represents a secure base. Our casualties despite overwhelming odds have been relatively light. Our strength will con- tinuaily increase while that of the enemy will relatively decrease. His supply line its in:e- cure. He has had his great chance but failed to exploit it. We ere now in Koren in force, and with God’s help we are there to stay until the constitutional authority of the republic 1s fully restored. MacArrnuur. Mr. President, I take this opportunity of commending and _ congratulating General MacArthur for the magnificent way in which he is handling the Korean situation. In the message I have read we find evidence of the courage, the for- titude, and the bravery which have char- acterized the activities of every Ameri- can soldier in every war in which we
10686 have participated. It also indicates the superior training of our soldiers by our great military leaders everywhere. The Communists, ruled by tyrants, surely will understand that Americans in whom the love of freedom and independence have been engrained for centuries, will not permit the aggressor to destroy those sacred and God-given endowments which have been handed down to us through the Bill of Rights by the found- ers of the Republic and will continue through the years. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair feels compelled to admonish Senators, inc‘uding the Senator from Illinois, thet dcbate during the morning hour is not permitted. Mr. LUCAS. Mr, President, I asked unanimous consent to do what I did, and it was granted. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair understood the Senator to ask permis- sion to read a message from General MacArthur, and that was accomplished. Ths Chair feels compelled to enforce the rule egainst debate during morning-hour routine business. If the Senator from Illinois intended to include in his request permizsion to comment on the message of General MacArthur, of course the Chair would recognize that fact. Are there further petitions and me- morials? If there be no further petitions or memorials, reports of committees are in order. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES The following reports of committees were submitted: By Mr. O'MAHONEY, from the Commit- tee on Interior and Insular Affairs: H.R. 7273, A bill to provide a civil gov- ernment for Guam, and for other purposes; with amendments (Rept. No. 2109). By Mr, McFARLAND, from the Commit- tee on Interior and Insular Affairs: H., R. 2733. A bill to authorize the construc- tion, operation, and maintenance by the Secretary of the Interior of the Canadian River reclamation project, Texas; with an amendment (Rept. No. 2110). By Mr. HUNT, from the Committee on Armed Services: 8S. 3446. A bill to authorize the restoration of Edwin M. Rosenberg, lieutenant com- mander, retired, to the active list of the United States Navy; without amendment (Rept. No. 2111). By Mr. CHAPMAN, from the Committee on Armed Services: H.R. 8139. A bill to authorize the attend- ance of the United States Marine Band at the annual reunion of the United Confed- erate Veterans to be held in Biloxi, Miss., September 27 through September 30, 1950; with amendments (Rept. No. 2112). REPORT ON PERSONNEL AND FUNDS BY COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINIS- TRATION (SUBCOMMITIEE ON PRIVI- LEGES AND ELECTIONS) Pursuant to Senate Resolution 123, Eightieth Congress, first session, the fol- lowing report was received by the Secre- tary of the Senate: Jory 10, 1950, REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION SUBCOMMITTEE ON PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS UNDER AUTHORITY OF BENATE RESOLUTION 250, AGREED TO APRIL 13, 1950 To the SEcreTaRy OF THE SENATE: The above-mentioned committee, pursuant to Senate Resolution 123, Eightieth Congress, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE first session, submits the following report showing the name, profession, and total silary of each person employed by it and its subcommittees for the period from January 1, 1950, to June 30, 1950, together with the funds available to and expended by it and {ts subcommittees: Rate of ELORY Total Name and profession annual | Sury received Bulary Anderson, Victor H., investigator..}#7, 022 16 | $175 55 Grete, CDarles A, Investigator. 2... G, 153 14 A 46 Johnson, Grace F yelerk 22-2. 2. --| 7 3, SEL OS Orme, Lena @, stenosrapher.. 2... Tal 36 Rader, Le Rov A, cottnsel . 1, 672 38 Wreht, Fielding b., Ji, investl- Ty | ee 7,022 16 | 1, 170 36 Funds authorized or appropriated for com Mi Lee PADENGTEUIG. . . $59, G00 00 Amionat expended. 2-2-2 -- see weeeneeee ene ee = 7,240.18 Balance unexpended__ oo. 2------- ~ 42,703 &L G,. M. Cwrettrr, Chairman, Crack I Jounson, Clerk. O, K--- Cari. HAYDEN, ENROLLED BILLS PRESENTED The Seerctary of the Senate reported that on today, July 20, 1950, he presentcd to the President of the United States the following enrolled bills: 8 382. An act for the relief of Wong Suey Wing, S 841 An act for the relief of Michele Bartolemeo Marchisio; 8 976. An act for the relief of Vartan Chamsarian; § 1262. An act for the relief of Juliana Mendiola Al.stra; §.1779. An act for the re’lef of Phil Meyers, also known as Gil Meyeis, 8.2077. An act for the relief of Francicco Gonzales Perez; S.2277 An act for the reltef of George A. Voreyarethsos (George Spiro Chatmos), S 2206 An act for the relief of Maria Cic- er lll; | §.2676. An act for the relicf of Kimie Yamada Ina and her daughter, Ritsuko Ina; and 8 3809 An act to amend the Mutual De- fonse Assistance Act of 1949. STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOY- ALTY INVESTIGATION (REPT. NO. 2108) Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, I send to the desk a report of the Subcommittee of the Committee on Foreign Relations, pursuant to Senate Resolution 231, a resolution to investigate whether there are employees in the State Department disloyal to the United States——. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair would say to the Senator from Maryland that a report from the subcommitice is not in order. Mr. TYDINGS. Which I have been instructed ——. The VICE PRESIDENT. If it isa re- port from the full committee it is in order, Mr. TYDINGS. I referred to it as I did only for identification. I was in- structed by the full committee to sub- mit the report to the Senate, and that I now do. The VICE PRESIDENT. The report is filed. Are there further reports of commit- tees? Mr. WHERRY. My. President, a parliamentary inquiry. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator will state it. JULY 20 Mr. WHERRY. I should like to in- quire if this is a report of the subcom- mittee which the Foreign Relations Com- mittee has been asked to report to the Senate, or whether the Forcign Rela- tions Committee adopted this report and is making it as a committee report of the Foreign Relations Committee. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Maryland stated it was a report of the full committee. Mr. WHERRY. I have no objection. My. President, I move that the report of the Committee on Foreign Relations mode pursuant to Senate Resolution £31—— Mr. LODGE. Mr. President, a parlia- mentary inquiry. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Sena- tor will state it. Mr. LODGE. If I understood cor- rectly it was stated that this is a rcport of the full committee. The VICE PRES:DENT. It isa report of the majority of the committee, which is a report of the full committce. That does not mean that every member of the commiittee agrees to it. Mr. LODGE. It does not mean that any members of the committce agreed to it, 1f I correctly understand the ac- tion that was taken I understood that the full commitice merely transmitted the report, just the same as the Post Cflice Department transmits a Ietter from one person to another. That is clear from the record. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Maryland has submitteed the re- port as the report of the Committce on Foreign Relations. Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Pres- ident, as a member of the Foreign Rela- tions 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 Committee. The VICE PRESIDENT. The report of the committee speaks for itself, and it is not debatable. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, a par- liamentary inquiry, The VICE PRESIDENT. The Sena- tor will state it. Mr. WHERRY. If this is not a full committee report, and is, as has been later stated, only a partial report of a subcommittee, I make the point of order that it Is out of order and should not be filed. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair overrules the point of order. Mr. WHERRY. Pardon me. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair overrules the point of order. It is pre- sented by the Senator from Maryland as a report of the Committee on Foreign Relations, by direction of that com- mittee. . Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, I do not want in any way to impose upon the time of the Senate by way of an appeal, but I should like to ask a ques- tion of the chairman of the Foreign Re- lations Committee, to clear up the rec- ord. Is this a report of the full Foreign Relations Committee? Is it their re- port or is it a report of a subcommittee that the full committee has been asked to report to the United States Senate?
1950 Mr. CONNALLY. Is the Senator ask- ing me the question? Mr. WHERRY. Yes. Mr. CONNALLY. Who has the floor, Mr. President? Mr. WHERRY. I think I have the floor. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair must sustain the rule that this report is not debatable. The Chair will recog- nize the Senator—— Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, if there is no other way to do it, if I am fore- closed from taking any other action, I appeal from the decision of the Chair. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Nebraska need not be in such a hurry. The Chair was about to say that he recognized the Senator from Nebraska to make a motion. Whether that mo- tion is in order or not Is another matter. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, I have already appealed from the decision made by the Chair before the question of mak- ing a motion was even considered. Mr. CONNALLY. Mr. President-—— Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, I ap- peal from the decision of the Chair, The VICE PRESIDENT. What deci- sion of the Chair is it from which the Senator from Nebraska appeals? Mr. WHERRY. That this is a report of the full Committee on Foreign Rela- tions. The distinguished Senator from Maryland stated that it was authorized to be reported as a subcommittee report. Mr. TYDINGS. No. Mr. WHERRY. When that statement was made I asked the distinguished oc- cupant of the chair to clarify it. I undcrstood he clarified it with the ob- servation that that is what it was. If that is what it is I make the point of order against the filing of the report on the ground that it is a report of a sub- committee, and I ask the Chair to rule on it, The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair made no such observation. The Chair stated that the Senator from Maryland, as he understood, representing the full committee, or the majority of the Com- mittee on Foreign Relations, was re- porting this as a report from the com- mittee. The fact that he said it was a report of the subcommittee to the full committee has no parliamentary sub- stance because a subcommittee cannot report to the Senate. Mr. WHERRY. That is correct. Mr. President, both minority members of the subcommittee of the Foreign Relations Committee rose to their feet and ad- dressed the Chair and stated that this was only a subcommittee report recom- mended by the full committee to be re- ported to the United States Senate. On that ground I raised the point of order that it is not proper to file it. The VICE PRESIDENT. A report of 8 committee to the Senate of the United States cannot be made by individual members of the committee whether they are in the majority or minority, unless authorized by the committee to do so. The Chair understood that the Senator from Maryland had been authorized by the committee to make this report. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. WHERRY. Then, Mr. President, I should like to direct-—— Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President—— The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Nebraska has the floor. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, before I take my seat, I should like once again, if I may, to ask unanimous consent to address my inquiry again to the chair- man of the Foreign Relations Committee, The VICE PRESIDENT. Without ob- jection, the Senator may proceed. Mr. CONNALLY. Mr. President, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Com- mittee has been standing on his feet for some time, awaiting an opportunity to answer the inquiry of the Senator from Nebraska. Mr. WHERRY. I appreciate that; and I have been on my feet waiting for the answer. Mr. CONNALLY. I could not answer the inquiry when the Senator from Ne- braska was talking and was yielding to other S2nators. Mr. WHERRY. I was trying——— Mr. CONNALLY. The Senator did not do me the courtesy of waiting until I could answer. Mr. WHERRY. I am always cour- teous to the Senator from Texas, Mr CONNALLY. Mr. President, as all Senators know, the original resolution directed that the Senate Foreign Rela- tions Committee or any subcommittee thereof should actually conduct the in- vestigation. As chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, I appointed the subcommittee of the Foreign Relations Committee. It made the investigation, and, as a subcommittee, reported to the Foreign Relations Committee. That committee, as the Committee on Foreign Relations, adopted a motion that the report of the subcommittee be re- ported to the Senate—not as the report of the subcommittee, but as the report of the full committee. I, as chairman of the full committee, designated the Sen- ator from Maryland (Mr. Typrnes1, for the full committee, to make the report to the United States Senate. That is all there is to the matter, 50 far as I know. Our records show that. The VICE PRESIDENT. Under those circumstances, the Chair will hold that this is a report of the Committee on For- eign Relations, and is automatically en- titled to be filed at this time. Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Pres- ident-—— The VICE PRESIDENT. For what purpose does the Senator from New Jer- sey address the Chair? Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I rise asa member of the Foreign Relations Com- mittee to say that I should like to state what at least one of the members of the committee understands about this mat- r. The VICE PRESIDENT. Let the Chair clarify the situation. This is an important question, and the Chair wishes to keep his rulings clear and keep the situation before the Senate clear. Under the rules—and the Chair has, in advance, consulted the Parliamentarian about the precedents in these matters— 8 report of a committee is entitled to be filed automatically when we reach that 10687 point in the morning hour. No Senator can prevent—either by way of objection or otherwise—the filing of a report by a committee at that time. A report auto- matically may be filed at that time, and, if filed, is automatically received by the Senate. Motions in that connection are not in order at the time when the report is filed under such circumstances; and debates on it is not then in order. So the Chair is bound to hold that un- der the circumstances and on the state- ment of the Senator from Maryland [Mr. Typtnes} himself and on the statemcnt of the Senator from Texas [Mr, Con- NALLY |, the chairman of the committee, this is a report of the committee. It has been filed. It is not debatable. If a Senator wishes to discuss it, he may request unanimous consent for that purpose; but the Chair would be com- pelled to hold that the report is not de- batable at this time, any more than any other committee report is debatable at this time. Mr, SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Presi- dent, I ask unanimous consent that I may now discuss the report. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, if we are going to have unanimous-consent re- quests made, and agreed to, to debate the report, probably we shall have unani- mous-consent requests for that purpose all the remainder of the afternoon. It seems to me that the proper course is to have the report filed. Thereafter, Senators may discuss it or may make any proper observations they may wish to make in regard to it. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair has held that the report has been filed by the Committee on Foreign Relations. Mr, TAFT. Mr. President, a parlia- mentary inquiry. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator w-ll state it. Mr. TAFT. If the report is a report of the subcommittee, and if all that the full committee did was merely to direct the transmission of the report of the subcommittee to the Senate, would the Chair’s ruling be the same? The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair's ruling would be the same, namely, that the Committee on Foreign Relations, acting in its official capacity, directed the chairman of the subcommittee to make the report to the Senate as a report of the full committee. Mr, TAFT. However, Mr. President, my parliamentary inquiry is that if the full committee did not direct the chair- man of the subcommittee to make the report as a report of the full committee, but merely to transmit the report of the subcommittee to the Senate, would the Chair’s ruling be the same? The VICE PRESIDENT. The resolu- tion under which the investigation was made directed the Committee on Foreign Relations to report to the Senate. It has done s0. Mr, SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Presi- dent, a parliamentary inquiry. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator will state it. Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. AS a mem- ber of the committee, do I have the sim- ple right to explain what happened at
10688 the committee meeting? I think I have that right. The VICE PRESIDENT, Any Sena- tor may request unanimous consent that he may do so; but any Senator may ob- ject to such a request. There is no in+ herent right of debate on the part of any Senator in connection with the filing of a@ report from a committee. Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I do not intend to debate the report. The VICE PRESIDENT. Any state- ment or speech or explanation with re- gard to it is, in a parliamentary sense, debate. Mr. WHERRY. MY. President, a par- liamentary inquiry. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Sena- tor will state it. Mr. WHERRY. I made a point of or- der, and the Chair overruled the point of order; is that correct? The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair ruled that the report is a report of the Committee on Foreign Relations. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, I make the point of order that the report cannot be filed at this time. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair overrules the point of order. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, I ap- peal from the decision of the Chair, be- cause that is the only way this point can be raised, so that Senators, such as the Senator from New Jersey and others, may make their representations. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair will state that debate on the report is not precluded by the ruling of the Chair——. Mr. WHERRY. I understand that. The VICE PRESIDENT. Except that the morning hour is set apart for the purpose of the introduction of bills, joint resolutions, the submission of simple resolutions, the making of committee reports, and so forth, as every Senator understands. Mr. WHERRY. Of course; that is cor- rect. The VICE PRESIDENT. If matters properly coming in the morning hour’s business are not concluded by the hour of 2 o'clock, automatically the unfin- ished business—which in the present ease happens to be an appropriation bill—is laid before the Senate. There- after any Senator who obtains recogni- tion may not only debate the unfinished business but may debate any other sub- ject on the face of the earth which interests his intelligence. So when the hour of 2 o'clock has arrived, if morning business has not been disposed of, any Senator is eligible to debate this report or anything else, if he is recognized by the Chair. The Chair tries to be fair in recognizing Senators. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, I have no quarrel with the action of the Chair in that respect, However, the point of order has been made and has been ruled upon. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair has received the report, and it is not now debatable. Does the Senator from Nebraska ap- peal from the Chair's decision? Mr. WHERRY. I appeal from the de- cision of the Chair for the sole purpose CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE that Senators who wish to make state- ments about what the committee did may have an opportunity to do so and to debate the matter to that extent. The appeal is debatable, is it not? The VICE PRESIDENT. Yes. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I cannot understand why it is that Senators are insisting that this matter be taken up during the morning hour. The Vice President has ruled that the report can be filed, as a result of the action of the Forcign Relations Committee in advis- ing the Senator from Maryland to file the report. Why Senators are insisting upon a discussion of this matter during the morning hour is difficult for me to understand. When the hour of 2 o’clock arrives, Senators can obtain the floor and can debate this issue as long as they wish to do so, and can make any motions in that connection which they may de- sire to make. However, it is not fair to the morning hour and it is not right to take an appeal from the decision of the Chair at this time. Mr. President, I move to lay the appeal on the table. The VICE PRESIDENT. That motion is not debatable. The question is on agreeing to the motion of the Senator from Illinois to lay on the table the appeal from the decision of the Chair. {Putting the question. ] Mr. WHERRY. I ask for a division. The Senate proceeded to divide. Mr. WHERRY. Mr, President, I ask for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered, and the legislative clerk called the roll. Mr. MYERS. I announce that the Senator from Virginia [Mr. Byrn], the Senator from Mississippi |Mr. EaASTLanp], and the Senator from Maryland [Mr. O’Conor] are absent on public business. The Senator from California IMr. Downey] is absent because of illness. The Senator from Tennessee [Mr. KEFAUVER] is absent on official committee business. The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Kerr] is absent on official business at one of the Government departments. The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Lone], the Senator from Idaho [Mr. TayLor], and the Senator from Ken- tucky {Mr. WiTHERS! are absent by leave of the Senate. I announce further that if present and voting, the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Eastianp], the Senator from Oklahoma L[Mr. Kerr], and the Senator from Mary- land [Mr. O'Conor] would vote “yea.” Mr. SALTONSTALL. I announce that the Senator from Washington |Mr. Can] and the Senator from Michigan [Mr. ‘VVANDENBERG] are absent by leave of the Senate. The Senator from Idaho [Mr. Dwor- SHAK] is absent on official business. The Senator from California [Mr. Know .anp] is necessarily absent. The Senator from New Hampshire {Mr. Tosey] is absent on official business attending a meeting of the Special Com- mittee To Investigate Organized Crime in Interstate Commerce. JULY 20 The result was announced—yeas 45, nays 37, as follows: YEAS—45 Anderson Hoey McMahon Benton Holland Magnuson Chapman Humphrey Maybank Chavez Hunt Murray Connally Johnson, Colo. Myers Douglas Johnson, Tex. Neely Ellender Johnston, 8. C. O'Mahoney Frear Kilgore Pepper Fulbright Leahy Robertson George Lehman Russell Gillette Lucas Sparkman Graham McCarran Stennis Green McClellan Thomas, Okla. Hayden McFarland Thomas, Utah Hill McKellar Tydings NAYS—37 Aiken Hendrickson Saltonstall Brewster Hickenlooper Schoeppel Bricker Ives Smith, Maine Bridges Jenner Smith, N. J. Butler Kem Taft Capehart Langer Thye Cordon Lodge Watkins Darby McCarthy Wherry Donnell Malone Wiley Ecton Martin Williams Ferguson Millikin Young Flanders Morse Gurney Mundt NOT VOTING—14 Byrd Kefauver Taylor Cain Kerr Tobey Downey Knowland Vandenberg Dworshak Long Withers Eastland O'Conor So Mr. WHERRY’s appeal from the de- cision of the Chair was laid on the table. The VICE PRESIDENT, Are there further reports of committees? Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President-—— The VICE PRESIDENT. For what purpose does the Senator from Nebraska rise? Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, I move that the report of the Committee on For- eign Relations made pursuant to Senate Resolution 231—relating to an investiga- tion of disloyalty among employees of the Government—shall not be printed and shall be recommitted to the Commit- tee on Foreign Relations, with the fallow- ing instructions: First. The Committee on Foreign Re- lations shall conduct a full and complete investigation in accordance with the pro- visions of Senate Resolution 231; or Second. In the event said committee decides by a majority vote that a con- tinuation by said committee of such in- vestigation is not in the public interest, the committee shall recommend to the Senate the establishment of a trained bipartisan Commission, wholly independ- ent of the Executive, to conduct a full, complete, and relentless search into the whole subject of foreign penetration of the Department of State and other agen- cies of the Government in accordance with the provisions of said Senate Reso- lution 231. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I make the point of order that the motion is not in order. The VICE PRESIDENT. Under the precedents and rules of the Senate, the Chair holds that the motion at this time is not in order. Therefore, the point of order is sustained, Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, I ap- peal from the decision of the Chair and ask for the yeas and nays.
1950 Mr. LUCAS. I move to lay that mo- tion on the table. Mr, WHERRY and other Senators re- quested the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered, and the legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, a par- lamentary inquiry. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator will state it. Mr, DOUGLAS, Is the motion now before the Senate the motion of the Sen- ator from Illinois, to lay on the table the motion of the Senator from Nebraska? The VICE PRESIDENT. That is cor- rect. The legislative clerk resumed the call of the roll. Mr. BREWSTER (when his name was called). Mr. President, I am happy that I still have the privilege of voting “nay. The VICE FRESIDENT. Debate is not in order. Mr. BREWSTER. I wanted to put that on the Recorp. The VICE PRESIDENT. It is on the Recorp, and the Chair’s response is like- wise on the Recorp. The legislative clerk resumed and concluded the call of the roll. Mr. MYERS. I announce that the Senator from Virginia [Mr. Byrn], the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. East- LAND], and the Senator from Maryland {Mr. O’Conor] are absent on public business. The Senator from California [Mr. Downey] is absent because of illness. The Senator from Tennessee {Mr. Kr- FAUVER! 1s absent on official committee business. The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Lone], the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Taytor], and the Senator from Ken- tucky |[Mr. Wi1rTHERS] are absent by leave of the Senate. I announce further that if present and voting, the Senator from Missis- sippi (Mr. Easttanp], and the Senator from Maryland [Mr. O’Conor] would vote “yea.” Mr. SALTONSTALL. I announce that the Senator from Washington [Mr. Cain] and the Senator from Michigan (Mr. VANDENBERG] are absent by leave of the Senate. The Senator from Idaho {Mr. Dwor- sHAK] is absent on official business. The Senator from California [Mr. KNOWLAND] is necessarily absent. The Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Tosgey] is absent on official busi- ness attending a meeting of the Special Committee To Investigate Organized Crime in Interstate Commerce. The result was announced—yeas 46, nays 37, as follows: YEAS—46 Anderson Green Leahy Benton Hayden Lehman Chapman Hill Lucas Chavez Hoey McCarran Connally Holland McClellan Douglas Humphrey McFarland Ellender Hunt McKellar Frear Johnson, Colo. McMahon Pulbright Johnson, Tex. Magnison George Johnston, §.C. Maybank Gillette Kerr Murray Graham Kilgore Myers CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Neely Russell Thomas, Utah O'Mahoney Sparkman Tydings Pepper Btennis Robertson Thomas, Okla. NAYS—-37 Aiken Hendrickson Saltonstall Brewster Hickenlooper Schoeppel Bricker Ives Smith, Maine Bridges Jenner Smith, N. J. Butler Kem Taft Capehart Langer Thye Cordon Lodge Watkins Darby McCarthy Wherry Donnell Malone Wiley Ecton Martin Williams Ferguson Millikin Young Flanders Morse Gurney Mundt NOT VOTING—13 Byrd Kefauver Tobey Cain Knowland Vandenberg Downey Long Withers Dworshak O'Conor Eastland Taylor So Mr. WuHErryY’s appeal from the de- cision of the Chair was laid on the table. The VICE PRESIDENT. Are there further reports of committees? Mr. LODGE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may submit my individual views with,reference to the report submitted under Senate Reso- lution 231, and that they be printed. The VICE PRESIDENT. Without ob- Jection, the individual views will be re- ceived and printed. Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, in ac- cordance with the instructions of the Foreign Relations Committee of the Sen- ate, I ask that the majority views and the minority views be printed separately, as suggested by the Senator from Massa- chusetts. The VICE PRESIDENT. Without ob- Jection, it is so ordered. BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTION INTRODUCED Bills and a joint resolution were intro- duced, read the first time, and by unani- mous consent, the second time, and re- ferred as follows: By Mr. McCARRAN: §. 3945. A bill to amend sections 3052 and 8107 of title 18, United States Code, relating to the powers of the Federal Bureau of In- vestigation; to the Committee on the Ju- diciary. By Mr. SALTONSTALL: 8.3946. A bill to amend title 46, United States Code, section 251; to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. By Mr. THYE: 8.2947. A bill to exempt persons who served as cadets in the United States Mer- chant Marine Academy in excess of 90 days at sea beyond the continental limits of the United States between September 16, 1940, and September 2, 1945, from induction or service under the Selective Service Act of 1948; to the Committee on Armed Services. 8. 3948. A bill to authorize the Reconstruc- tion Finance Corporation to extend financial assistance to private enterprise to promote the development, production, and utilization of taconite and other minerals important to the national defense and valuable to the national economy; to the Committee on Banking and Currency. By Mr. HUMPHREY: 8.3949. A bill to authorize the Recon- struction Finance Corporation to extend financial assistance to private enterprise to promote the development, production, and utilization of taconite and other minerals advantageous to the national defense and the strengthening of the national economy, 10689 to promote free enterprise in the mineral mining industry, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking and Currency. (Mr. HUMPHREY (for himself, Mr. Douc- Las, Mr. Kincorm, and Mr. Lanarre) intro- duced Senate bill 3950, to provide for the pooling of unused immigration quotas, which was referred to the Committee on the Judict- ary, and appears under a separate heading.) By Mr. TAFT: 8.3951. A bill for the relief of Herbert H. Heller; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. LEHMAN: 8.3952. A bill for the relief of Emmanuel Caralli; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. O'MAHONEY: §. J. Res, 195. Joint resolution to provide for the continuation of operations under certain mineral leases issued by the respec- tive States covering submerged lands of the continental shelf, to encourage the continued development of such leases, to provide for the protection of the interests of the United States in the oil and gas deposits of said lands, and for other purposes; to the Com- mittee on Interior and Insular Affairs, POOLING OF UNUSED IMMIGRATION QUOTAS Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, on behalf of the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Dovetas], the Senator from West Vir- ginia [Mr. Kitcore], the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Lancer], and my- self, I introduce for appropriate refer- ence a bill to provide for the pooling of unused immigration quotas, and I ask unanimous consent that an explanatory statement of the bill, prepared by me, may be printed in the Recorp. The VICE PRESIDENT. The bill will be received and appropriately referred, and, without objection, the explanatory statement presented by the Senator from Minnesota will be printed in the Rrcorp. The Chair hears no objection. The bill (8S. 3950) to provide for the pooling of unused immigration quotas, introduced by Mr. Humpurey (for him- self, Mr. Doucias, Mr. KILGORE, and Mr. LANGER), was read twice by its title and referred to the Committee on the Ju- diciary. The explanatory statement presented by Mr. Humpnrsy is as follows: STATEMENT BY Senator Humpureyr Under our present immigration laws our total immigration quota, as fixed under the Immigration Act of 1924, is approximately 154,000 per year. It is not our intention with this bill to either raise or lower that quota. It is very clear, however, that within the past 10 years less than 50 percent of the available quota visas have actually been used. The result has been that immigration to the United States has been on a far lesser acale than our laws intended and has thus caused untold hardships both to our own welfare as a Nation and also to a great many needy immigrants. 'To correct some of these hard- ships tt hag been necessary frequently for Members of the Congress to introduce hun- dreds of private bills. A great many Americans have been con- cerned with this development in our tmmi- gration practice. I have also felt that the quota pattern established in 1024 among different nationalities is today, in view of the changes in the European political scene during the past 26 years, somewhat obsolete. Nevertheless, there is today no way whereby we can shift quota visas from 4 nation which does not allow migration, such as the Soviet Union, to a nation which does allow micra- tion but which has a very low quota, such as Greece,
10690 With this background in mind, the bill which we introduce is designed to correct some of the inequities without the necessity of waiting for an over-all revision and modernization of our immigration laws. This bill would not displace the present nitionality quote system, but it would cstab- lish priorities for three classes of immigrants, regardless of their nationality, who would be given visas to fulfill unused quotas. The three priority classes would be: 1. Those tmmigrants who are needed in the United States because they possess special skills. This would include many scientists who are now needed for our defense indus- tries and many working men and women whose skills are necessary for our defense activities; 2. Husbands, wives, children, and other close relatives seeking to rejoin their families in the United States; and 3 Refugees from behind the tron curtain and others who face persecution because of their religion, race, or opposition to totali- tarlanism. Under our bill no more than 25 percent of the total unused quota would be used by any one of the three prtority imigrant classes. The Attorney General of the United States would determine the qualifications under each priority category and the num- ber of valid applications. Unused quotas left over after the exhaustion of the three spectal priorities would be available to regu- lar immigrants from countries with over- subscribed quotas in the order of their appli- cation dates. All of the present immi¢ra- tion restrictions based on freedom from disease, illiteracy, communism, and crime would continue to apply under the new bill. It is our intention that these three classes of immigrants should be given regular quota visas, regardless of their nationality, to the extent that such visas under our present total immigration quota are unused by regu- lar immigrants The new priority system is to come into effect only to the cxtent that the nationality quotas are unused. I am proud to say that the bill we intro- duce represents the united views of more than a score of national organizations which have been studying ways of modernizing and Americanizing our immigration laws. Rep- resentatives of these gioups believe that our bill would muke the needs and wishes of the United States and of American citizens the guiding basis of our immigration code. These organizations, acting through the Joint Conference on Alien Legislation, in- clude, among others: American Friends Serv- ice Committee, American Jewish Committee, American Jewish Congress, B'na!l B’rith Anti- defamation League, Catholic Committee for Refugees, Church World Service, Federal Council of Churches, Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, International Rescue Committee, Japanese American Citizens League, Jewish Labor Committee, National Board of the Y. W. C. A. National Catholic Rural Life Conference, National Catholic Welfare Con- fevence, National Council of Jewlsh Women, National Council on Naturalization and Citizenship, National Lutheran Council, National Travelers Aid Association, Unitarian Service Committee, United Service for New Americans. It 1s an honor for us to introduce this bill and bring it to the attention of the Senate Judiciary Committee for consideration. DEFENSE PRODUCTION ACT OF 1950— AMENDMENT Mr. THYE submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill (S. 3936) to establish a system of priorities and allocations for materials and facilities, authorize the requisition- ing thereof, provide financial assistance for expansion of productive capacity and supply, strengthen controls over credit, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE regulate speculation on commodity ex- changes, and by these measures facili- tate the production of goods and services necessary for the national security, and for other purposes, which was referred to the Committee on Banking and Cur- rency and ordered to be printed. GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS—AMEND- MENT Mr. MURRAY (for himself, Mr. Tuomas of Utah, Mr. McCarran, Mr. Leumin, Mr. Stennis, Mr. Neery, Mr. GraueM, Mr. THomas of Oklahoma, Mr. Kerr, Mr. Humeurey, and Mr. Perper) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by them, jointly, to the bill (H. R. 7786) making appropriations for the support of the Government for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1951, and for other purposes, which was ordered to lie on the table and to be printed. WAR RISK AND CERTAIN MARINE AND LIABILITY INSURANCE BY UNITED STATES MARITIME COMMISSION . Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, I submit for gsppropriate rcference an amendment intended to be proposed by me to the bill (S. 2484) to authorize the United States Maritime Commission to provide war risk and certain marine and liability insurance, and I ask unanimous consent that a statement prepared by me concerning the amendment be printed in the REcorp. The VICE PRESIDENT. The amend- ment will be received, printed, and lie on the table, and, without objection, the statement presented by the Senator from Washington will be printed in the Recorp. The Chair hears no objection. The statement presented by Mr. Mac- nuson is as follows: STATEMENT BY SENATOR MAGNUSON CONCERN- ING THE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 1213 or S 2484 As reported from committee, 8. 2484 pro- vides permanent authorization for the Sec- retary of Commerce to provide war risk and murine insurance under certain special cir- cumstances, This amendment is designed to meet the objection voiced by the Minority Calendar Committee to such permanent authorization, by placing a time limit of 5 years on the authority of the Secretary of Commerce to provide insurance and reinsurance under the bill. The language of the proposed amendment is intended to effectively provide a definite expiration date on the Secretary’s authority and at the same time to carry forward only those provisions of the bill which provide for the settlement and adjudication of claims and to continue the jurisdiction of the Ad- miralty Courts to hear and determine those causes of action arising out of the issuance of policies of war risk insurance by the Sec- retary of Commerce during the said 5-year period. INCREASE IN LIMIT OF EXPENDITURES BY COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMIN- ISTRATION Mr. GILLETTE submitted the follow- ing resolution (S. Res, 311), which was referred to the Commitee on Rules and Administration: Resolved, That the limit of expenditures authorized under Senate Resolution 260, Eighty-first Congress, second session, agreed to April 18, 1950 (authorizing the expendi- ture of funds and the employment 01 as- JULY 20 sistants by the Committee on Rules and Ad- ministration, or any authorized subcommit- tee thereof, in carrying out the duties im- posed upon {it by subsection (0) (1) (D) of rule XXV of the Standing Rules of the Senate) is hereby increased by $25,000. HOUSE BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTION REFERRED The following bills and joint resolution were severally read twice by their titles, and referred, as indicated: H.R. 7303. An act to amend section 120 of the Internal Revenue Code; to the Committee on Finance, H R. 8975. An act to amond the Synthetic Liquid Fuels Act, as amended; to the Com- mittee on Interior and Insular Affairs. H. J. Res, 501. Joint resolution to authorize the procurement of an ofl portrait and a marble bust of the late Chief Justice Harlan F, Stone; to the Committee on Rules and Administration. HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION REFERRED The concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res, 233) increasing the compensation of employees of the Government Printing Office engaged in the preparation of the indexes of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, was referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration. WATKINS DEMANDED BOLD ACTION TO STOP RUSSIA, BUT TRUMAN USED HALFWAY MEASURES WHILE WORLD BURNED [Mr. WATKINS asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Reconp a radio broad- cast made by him over Utah stations on July 17, which appears in the Appendix.] RADIO AND TELEVISION BROADCAST- ING—ARTICLE BY JACK GOULD [Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado asked and ob- tained leave to have printed in the Recorp an article entitled “Time for a Halt,” written by Jack Gould, and published in the New York Times ot July 16, 1950, which appears in the Appendix.] SOUND SENSE FROM A SENATOR— NEWSPAPER EDITORIAL [Mr. WILLIAMS asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorp an editorial entitled Sound Sense From a Senator,” pub- lished in the Wilmington Journal-Every Evening, of July 19, 1960, which appears in the Appendix | JAMES F, BYRNES—-'FROM SUPREME COURT TO SOUTH CAROLINA GOVER- NOR"—ARTICLE FROM WASHINGTON POST |Mr. MAYBANK asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorp an article by James A. Hoyt, entitled "From Supreme Cour, to South Carolina Governor,” pub- lished in a recent issue of the Washington Post, which appears in the Appendix.] CONTROL PROGRAM—EDITORIAL FROM THE WASHINGTON POST [Mr. MAYBANK asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Reconp an editorial entitled “Control Program,” published in the Washington Post of July 20, 1950, which ap- pears in the Appendix | EDITORIAL COMMENT BY THE NEW YORK TIMES ON THE PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE TO CONGRESS {Mr. MAYBANK asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorp an editorial entitled “The Message to Congress,” and another editorial entitled “Mr. Truman to
1950 the Country,” published in the New York Times of July 20, 1950, which appears in the Appendix. ] THE PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE—EDITORIAL FROM THE WALL STREET JOURNAL [Mr. MAYBANK asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Rrcorp an editorial entitled “The President's Message,” pub- lished in the Wall Street Journal of July 20, 1950, which appears in the Appendix. ] THE PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE—EDITORIAL FROM THE NEW YORK HERALD TRIBUNE [Mr. MAYBANK asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorn an editorial entitled “The President’s Message,” pub- lished in the New York Herald Tribune of July 20, 1950, which appears in the Ap- pendix.} ROLE OF MOTION PICTURES IN THE FOREIGN INFORMATION PROGRAM (Mr. WILEY asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorp a letter from Edward W. Barrett, Assistant Secretary of State, regarding the role of motion pictures in the foreign information program, together with the enclosures accompanying the letter, which appear in the Appendix.] THE BASTILLE OF TYRANNY IS FALLING— ADDRESS BY SENATOR PEPPER {Mr. PEPPER asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorp an address, en- titled “The Bastille of T'yranny Is Falling,” delivered by him before the Order of Ahepa in Cincinnati, Ohio, on August 321, 1941, which appears in the Appendix.] STATE DEPARTMENT LOYALTY INVESTIGATION Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, I move that the report which has been filed in connection with Senate Resolution 231 be recommitted to the Committee on Foreign Relations. The basis of my mo- tion is this: The Chair has already ruled that the report speaks for itself as to whether it is the report of the subcom- mittee or the report of the full com- mittee. I have examined the report, and it clearly does speak for itself. It shows undeniably that it is the report of the subcommittee. On page 4 it says: We, as members of the subcommittee, On page 5: The first witness to appear before us was Senator McCarTHy. On the same page: Subpenas duces tecum calling for the pro- duction before us. Finally, Mr. President, without exam- ining the further details of the report, I invite attention to the fact that on page 170 the report is signed as follows: Miuiary E. Typrnes, chairman, Turopore Francis GREEN. Brien McManon, Mr. LUCAS. Mr, President, I demand the regular order, The VICE PRESIDENT, The Chair has already ruled on the point, and holds again that the motion is not in order. Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President—— Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, I ap- peal from the ruling of the Chair. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I move to lay the appeal on the table. Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, I have the floor, and I yield to the Senator from CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Michigan (Mr. Ferouson] for an inquiry. Mr. WHERRY. The Senator from Missouri has been given the floor. The VICE PRESIDENT. He has made his motion and has discussed It. Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President-—— Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Michigan for a ques- jon, Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, a point of order. Mr. DONNELL. I do not yield for a point of order. Mr. LUCAS. A point of order. Mr. DONNELL. I have not yielded for &@ point of order. I yield to the Senator from Michigan. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair appeals to the Senator from Missouri, the Senator from Michigan, and the Senator from Mlinois, as well as other Senators, to give the Chair an oppor- tunity to make his ruling. In the first place, the Chair has held heretofore that this report is not debatable in the morning hour. He has held that a mo- tion to recommit is not in order. An appeal has been taken from the ruling of the Chair. Mr. DONNELL. I yield to the Sena- tor from Michigan. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair would like to finish his statement. An appeal has been taken by the Senator from Missouri from the ruling of the Chair. Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President—— The VICE PRESIDENT. Just a mo- ment. The Senator from Missouri will be given all the time in the world. Mr. DONNELL. I thank the Chair. The VICE PRESIDENT. The appeal is debatable. The question arises whether when a Senator takes an appeal he is entitled thereafter to continue to have the floor, although the appeal may be debatable, or whether, having ap- pealed from the decision of the Chair the Chair has an obligation to recognize another Senator to move to lay the ap- peal on the table. Previous occupants of the Chair have ruled that it is in order to move to lay an appeal on the table, and the Chair thinks that is the orderly procedure to follow. Mr, DONNELL. Mr. President, I was assured that I would have ample oppor- tunity. I ask the Chair whether I have the floor at this point. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, a point of order. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Sen- ator from Missouri insists on keeping the floor after he has made his motion taking an appeal from the decision of the Chair. Such a motion is subject to be laid on the table. If the Senator insists on keeping the floor, the Chair feels that he is entitled to do so. Mr. DONNELL. I so insist, Mr. > President. The VICE PRESIDENT. That js in accordance with the precedents. Mr. DONNELL. I so insist. I yield to the Senator from Michigan for a question. Mr. FERGUSON. The question Is this: On the fiyleaf the committee report states: Subcommittee Print. Senate. State De- partment Employee Loyalty Investigation. 10691 Report of a Subcommittee of the Committee on Foreign Relations Pursuant to Senate Resolution 231, a resvlution to investigate whether there are employees in the State Department disloyal to the United States, together with individual views of Senator Lorex.” I ask the Senator from Missouri whether it does not display on the flyleaf that it is a subcommittee report. Mr. DONNELL. My answer is in the affirmative. I think it very clearly does so state. I should like to say further, Mr. President, may we have order? The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senate will be in order. Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Presi- dent, will the Senator yield? Mr. DONNELL. I yield only for a question. Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I should like to ask the Senator from Missouri whether he finds anywhere in this docu- ment-—— Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, will the Chair maintain order? I did not catch the Senator’s question. Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I should like to ask the Senator from Missouri if he finds anywhere in the report an indication whether the report is a com- mittee report or a subcommittee report. Mr. DONNELL. I have not examined the entire report. I have examined it sufficiently, however, to make !t per- fectly clear in my mind that this is a report of the subcommittee and not a report of the full committee. Mr. LODGE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. DONNELL, I yield for a question. Mr. LODGE. Mr. President, will the Senator permit me to say that—— Mr. DONNELL. I yield only for a question. Mr. LODGE. Will the Senator per- mit me to say to him that if he will consult the executive record of the Com- mittee on Foreign Relations he will find that there is absolutely no question whatever that the full membership of the Committee on Foreign Relations merely voted to transmit this subcom- mittee report to the Senate. It did ex- actly what the Post Office Department does when it receives a letter from one American citizen and transmits it to an- other citizen. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I make ‘a point of order. Mr. LODGE. I have not finished. The VICE PRESIDENT. A Senator can yield to another Senator only for a question. Mr. DONNELL. Mr. ylelded only for a question. I yielded for no other purpose. In accordance with the inquiry which the Senator from Massachusetts had partially framed, I think it would be highly informative if there were brought before the Senate, either by the Senator from Texas [Mr. CONNALLY] any other Member of the Senate, or the clerk of the committee, the record of the Committee on Foreign Relations. Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. DONNELL. I yield solely for a question. . President, I
10692 Mr. BREWSTER. Would it be agree- able to the Senator from Missouri to have produced for his information the record of the Committee on Foreign Relations and the vote of the committee? Mr. DONNELL. It would be entirely agreeable to me that it be done, and I think it should be done. Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Mr, DONNELL. I yield for a question only. Myr. MUNDT. I wonder if the Senator from Missouri would be good enough to assure the Senate that he will continue his discussion long enough to permit the clerk of the Committee on Foreign Rela- tions to produce the executive minutes of the committee so that the Senate may have all the information before it. Mr. DONNELL. The question is an- swered in the affirmative. I shall con- tinue my discussion for a sufficient length of time to enable that to be done. Mr JENNER. Mr President, will the Senator yield? Mr DONNELL [yield for a question. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senate will be in order. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Missouri as a matter of courtesy, not as a matter of right. The Parliamentarian has repeatedly advised the Chair, and so advises the Chair now, that a Senator who makes a motion is not automatically entitled to the floor to discuss his motion. The question of recognition is up to the Chair. The Chair recognized the Senator from Mis- sour! as a matter of courtesy, not as a mutter of right. Mr. DONNELL. I understand that I am recognized, and I shall retain the floor. Mr. FERGUSON Mr. President, a parhamentary inguiry The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Missour! yield for that pur- pose? Mr. DONNELL. If I may do so with- out losing the floor. I shall be glad to do so by unanimous consent 1f I may. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Sena- tor can do so only by unanimous con- sent, Mr DONNELL. Iask unanimous con- sent that the parliamentary inquiry may be made without my losing the floor. The VICE PRESIDENT, Is there ob- jection? The Chair hears none. The Senator from Michigan will state the parhamentary inquiry. Mr. FERGUSON. The parliamentary inquiry is this: After the Chair recog- nizes e Member of the Senate, even as a matter of courtesy, can the Chair re- voke the recognition? The VICE PRESIDENT. That ques- tion is not before the Chair. He has recognized the Senator from Missour1. The Senator from Missouri has the floor, Mr. DONNELL. I appreciate very much the courtesy of the Chair. Mr. JENNER. My. President, will the Senator yield for a question? The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Missouri yield to the Sen- ator from Indiana for a question? Mr. DONNELL. I yield for a ques- tion. Mr. JENNER. I ask the distinguished Senator from Missouri this question: CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Considering the fact that we are now at war, and considering what has tran- spired here this afternoon, how can we get the Reds out of Korea if we cannot get them out of Washington? (Manifestations of applause in the galleries.) Mr. DONNELL. That question is one which I think is very difficult to answer. I shall proceed to the discussion of the appeal which is now pending. It has been ruled by the Chair—Mr. President, may we have order? The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senate will be in order. The occupants of the galleries will be in order. Under the rules of the Senate, the occupants of the galleries, while welcome, are not per- mitted to offer any demonstration of approval or disapproval with respect to what occurs on the floor of the Senate, Everyone must understand that a little conversation on the floor creates a great deal of disorder. The Senate is entitled to be orderly. Senators who are not willing to abide by the rules should leave the Chamber If occupants of the gal- leries do not abide by the rules, the Chair has a remedy for that. Mr DONNELL. I greatly appreciate the courtesy of the Chair and the usual clear and explicit manner in which he has ruled. Mr. President, as I see it, the question which 1s presented before the Senate is quite simple. We have had a document presented to the Senate. It has been ordered filed. It has been declared to be filed. The Presiding Officer of the Sen- ate has so ruled. A motion was made to recommit the report, with certain direc- tions which were set forth in the motion, A point of order was made, and sustained, that the motion was not in order, An appeal was taken, and, upon motion, the appeal was laid on the table. The con- ditions of the motion to recommit as presented by the junior Senator from Nebraska | Mr, WHERRY] were in the form of instructions Perhaps I should read them. That the report of the Committee on For- elgn Relations made pursuaut to Sonate Res- olution 231 (relating to an investigation of disloyalty among employees of the Govern- ment) shall not be printed and shall be re- committed to the Committee on Foreign Re- lations, with the following instructions 1 The Committee on Foreign Relations shall conduct a full and complete investiga- tion in acCordance with the provisions of Senate Resolution 231, or 2. In the event said committee decides by @ majority vote that a continuation by said committee of such investigation is not in the public interest, the committee shall recom- mend to the Senate the establishment of a trained bipartisan Commission, wholly inde- pendent of the Executive, to conduct a full, complete, and relentless search into the whole subject of foreign penetration of the Depart- ment of State and other agencies of the Gov- ernment tn accordance with the provisions ot, said Senate Resolution 231, The Vice President has ruled, in gen- eral effect, that he had previously de- clared that this report was filed, and that consequently a motion to recommit was not in order, and from that ruling the appeal which is now pending has been taken. Mr. President, I submit, first, in con- nection with the appeal, that the motion JULY 20 to recommit as it was submitved by the junior Senator from Nebraska is not at all the same motion that is now pending, and action upon the motion to recommit as it was made by the junior Senator from Nebraska is by no means either res adjudicata or stare decisis of the motion which is now pending, made by the senior Senator from the State of Mis- sour. In the first place, Mr. President, in- struction No. 1 set forth in the motion made by the Senator from Nebraska does not at all appear in the motion which has been made by the Senator from Mis- souri. The Committee on Foreign Rela- tions, according to the motion made by the Senator from Nebraska “shall con- duct a full and complete investigation in accordance with the provisions of Sen- ate Resolution 231"" The motion which the Senator from Missouri has presented is a motion which makes no direction whatsoever to the Committee on Foreign Relations as to what shall be done. Then, Mr. President, in the motion made by the Senator from Nebraska, pro- vision is made for the event that the Committee on Foreign Relations decides by a majority vote that a continuance by said committee of such investigation “is not in the public interest, the committee shall recommend to the Senate the estab- lishment of a trained bipartisan Com- mission, wholly independent of the Exec- utive, to conduct a full, complete, and relentless search into the whole subject of foreign penetration of the Department of State and other agencies of the Gov- ernment in accordance with the provi- sions of said Senate Resolution 231.” Mr. President, I digress at this point to mention the fact that this second in- struction is not only not contained in the motion made by the Senator from Missouri, but that this particular por- tion of the motion made by the Senator from Nebraska is one as to which there may well be serious difference of opinion, For instance, this portion of the mo- tion made by the Senator from Nebraska would provide, as I have indicated, for “the establishment of a trained biparti- san commission, wholly independent of the Executive.” I believe there can be no doubt as to the fact that entire in- dependence from the Executive is a feature on which there could be, and certainly should be, no disagreement. But there may well be a question as to whether or not the Committee on For- eign Relations should recommend to the Senate the establishment of such a commission, rather than to have the Senate itself, through an appropriate committee, make the investigation. I am not undertaking at this point to decide that question at all, but I do make the point that not only is there a difference between the motion which was made by the junior Senator from Ne- braska and the motion made by the seniior Senator from Missouri which would preclude the applicability of the ruling on the first motion to the second, but that the points of difference are very important, and are not mere insubstan- tial points. The point I have just men- tioncd certainly is one as to the substan- tiality of which there can be no doubt.
1950 Mr. President, we now come to the question of whether or not the report which has been filed today is or is not the report of the Committee on Foreign Relations. I hold in my hand what is denominated on the fiyleaf as “Master copy.” The words “subcommittee print” have been stricken out. I note, as did the Senator from Michigan a few mo- ments ago, that the further portion of the title of this report, if I may so term it, namely, the flyleaf, has not been changed. What does it say? It says: State Department employee loyalty in- vestigation. Report of a subcommittee. I pause in the reading at that point. Can there be any doubt that a report of a subcommittee is not a report of the Committee on Foreign Relations? Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. DONNELL. I yield. Mr. WHERRY. The distinguished oc- cupant of the chair said that the report speaks for itself. The VICE PRESIDENT, That ts not a cuestion. Mr. WHERRY. I ask the question, Is it not the report of the subcommittee? Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, in my opinion, the title upon it clearly deline- ates what the contents of the report itself likewise indicate, namely, that it is the report of a subcommittee. Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Mr. dent-—— Mr. DONNELL. TI yield to the Senator from Iowa solely for a question. Mr. HICKENLOOPER. I should like to ask the Senator from Missouri if the President of the Senate did not say a few moments ago that the report as filed speaks for itself. Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, the Senator is precisely correct, and if he will recall, that was the ground on which I rose, and I stated the fact that the Chair had already so held. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Missouri is a great lawyer, and he is familiar with the doctrine of obiter dictum. Mr. DONNELL. In the first place, Mr. President, with all due deference to the Chair, I may say that I did not yield to the Chair for the purpose of making an observation. (Laughter.] The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair supposed that the Senator from Missouri would accord him the same courtesy the Chair showed the Senator from Mis- souri. Mr. DONNELL. I assure the Vice President that I shall do so, and I shall be very happy, if I may do so without losing the floor, at this point to yield to the present occupant of the Chair. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair will not take advantage of the Senator so far as occupying the floor is concerned. Mr. DONNELL. May I state to the eminent Presiding Officer that the thought with respect to not yielding to the Chair was not original with me, but was suggested by my distinguished friend on my left? [Laughter.] The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair thought it came from some extraneous source. [Laughter.] Presi- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Will the Senator yield to the Senator from Iowa? Mr. DONNELL. Before yielding to the Senator from Iowa, may I respond to the inquiry of the distinguished Vice Presi- dent with respect to obiter dicta? I realize there are such things in court de- cisions, possibly in Senate reports, but I have observed—and I say this very sin- cerely—that the present occupant of the Chair, the distinguished Vice President of the United States, while he has not always made decisions with which the Senator from Missour! has agreed, which does not at all indicate that the decisions were wrong, I may say, nevertheless at least attempts to confine his observa- tions to the point at issue. I am sure the Senate appreciates that attribute, as well as the very genial and pleasant method of handling the conduct of the business of the Senate which has been exhibited by the Vice President on numerous occasions. Now, Mr. President, if I may do so without losing the floor, I yield to the Senator ‘from Iowa solely for a ques- tion. Mr. HICKENLOOPER. I should like to ask the Senator from Missouri this question: Regardless of the geniality and the very frequent wit of the very eminent and able Vice President, does the Sena- tor from Missouri feel that the Presid- ing Officer of the Senate has any higher right to interrupt a Senator in the course of his discussion on the floor for a@ personal observation of the Chair, than has any other Member of the Sen- ate? Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, I agree thoroughly, and I am sure the dis- tinigushed occupant of the chair does. The very kindly, genial manner with which the Chair addressed himself to the Senator from Missouri totally dis- arms me, and causes me to accede most willingly to any further question which the distinguished Vice President may care to address to me. Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. DONNELL. I yield for a ques- tion only. Mr. ELLENDER. Will the Senator from Missouri not refer to page 1 of the document he now has in his hand and tell us whether the language “Mr. Ty- pincs, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, submitted the following re- port,” indicates that this is a report from the Foreign Relations Committee? Mr. DONNELL. I do not think that indicates any such thing at all. The Senator from Maryland (Mr. Typ1ncs] is from the Foreign Relations Commit- tee. He is a distinguished member of that committee. He has rendered very outstanding service. He comes from the Committee on Foreign Relations and submits a report, and, as the present dis- tinguished occupant of the chair re- marked only 20 or 30 minutes ago, “The report speaks for itself” as to what it is. Mr. ELLENDER, But is it not a re- port from the Foreign Relations Com- mittee? Mr. DONNELL, That is the point I make: It ts not a report from the For- eign Relations Committee. 10693 Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. DONNELL. I yield for a ques- tion only. Mr. FERGUSON. The question is this: On the fourth page, from which the distinguished Senator from Louisi- ana read, appears: “Mr. Typincs, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, submitted the following report,” and the flyleaf indicates—report of what? “Report of a subcommittee of the Com- mittee on Foreign Relations”; which in- dicates clearly that it is not a committee report. Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, I was not able to get the question of the Een- ator from Michigan. I yield to him further for the question. Mr. FERGUSON. The question is this: On the fourth page of the docu- ment the distinguished Senator from Louisiana read this language: “Mr. Typ- incs, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, submitted the following re- port,” and on the flyleaf there is an explanation as to what that report is: “Report of a subcommittee of the Com- mittee on Foreign Relations.” Now is it not fair to say that he was submit- ting a subcommittee report, and not a report of the whole committee, for if it had been intended to be a report of the Committee on Foreign Relations it could have been stated there, “Report of the Foreign Relations Committee.” Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, I agree thoroughly with the observation of the Senator from Michigan. And may I say, Mr. President—— Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President-—— The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Missouri yield to the Senator from Louisiana for a question? Mr. DONNELL. I will yield in a min~ ute. When the Senator from Michigan first addressed his question to me, in fact, when he subsequently did, he referred to page 4 of the copy. As a matter of fact, what he was reading from was page 1 of the copy. I turned to page 4—— Mr. FERGUSON, It is the fourth page, Mr. DONNELL. I do not yield for any observation. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Sena- tor from Missouri does not yield. Mr. DONNELL No. Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, I ask if the Senator from Missouri will yield for a question. The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Missouri yield to the Een- ator from Michigan for a question? Mr. DONNELL. I yield for a question. Mr. FERGUSON. The Senator from Michigan asks if considering the flyleaf as being one page, and the contents as being two pages, whether the next page would not be the fourth page in the book, although it is numbered “1”, and the preceding pages of the book are num- bered in Roman numerals? Mr, DONNELL. The Senator may be quite correct, but I may say that by a very interesting coincidence, while the Senator from Michigan was addressing the Senator from Missouri as to page 4, the Senator from Missouri turned to the
10694 page which is denominated “4” at the left hand upper corner, and I find that at the beginning of the third paragraph upon that page is this significant lan- guage: We, as members of the subcommittee, did not approach our duties under the resolu- tion i a vacuum— And so forth and so forth. That, I think, Mr. President, in line with the very wholesome and salutary and ac- curate observation of the Chair that this report speaks for itself indicated beyond peradventure that this is a report of the subcommittee. And what, Mr. President, could the language mean: “We, as members of the subcommittee,” unless the “we” to whom reference was made, are those by whom the report was submitted? Mr. KEM, Mr. FERGUSON, and Mr. MUNDT rose. Mr. DONNELL. I may say further, Mr. President, that in glancing through the flyleaves to which the Senator from Michigan referred—I trust the Senator from Michigan will be kind enough to pay attention to this particular refer- ence—at the top of the table of contents, which appears on the flyleaf denomi- nated Roman “III” appears this sig- nificant language: “Contents—I. Report of the subcommittee.” I observe, going down page after page, line after line, starting, for instance, with “Introduction,” then “Conception of the subcommittee’s duty,” page 1, page 4, and so forth and so forth, that obviously these contents are the contents of a report of the subcommittee. I yield to my distinguished colleague from Missouri. Mr. KEM. Mr. President, I should like to ask my colleague if it is not a fact that on page 170 of the document the signa- tures on the report appear, and that the signature of Mintarp E. Typines, chair- man, appears? Mr. DONNELL. I did not understand the page. Mr. KEM. I invite the attention of the Senator to page 170 of the document. Mr, DONNELL. Mr. President, I have page 170 before me. I may say that I think I already read into the Recorp the mames that appear thereon. I am obliged to my distinguished colleague for emphasizing by his question the facts as they appear at the very conclusion, which goes back, I take it, and refers to the entire report: Respectfully submitted. MiLuarp E Typrnos, Chairman. THEODORE FRANCIS GREEN. Brien McManon. Mr. KEM. Then I should like to ask my colleague another question. The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator yield for a question? Mr. DONNELL. I yield for a question. Mr. KEM. I should like to ask the Senator if “Mrziarp E. Typines” is not identified on the second page of the docu- ment as the chairman of subcommittee on Senate Resolution 231, Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, I am pleased that my colleague has called at- tention to that fact. May I read into the Recorp just what it states here on the flyleaf? It distinguishes between CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE two things, one is “Committee on For- eign Relations.” The other is “Subcom- mittee on Senate Resolution 231.” Mr. President, in the first place, what is Senate Resolution 231? It is shown— and I have it in my hand—that it was a resolution offered on February 21 by the Senator from Illinois {Mr,. Lucas], and on February 22 considered, amended, and agreed to. So the resolution to which reference is made on the fiyleaf is obviously the Senate Resolution 231 from the heading of which I have just read. We are the members of the two com- mittees? The chairman of the Com- mittee on Foreign Relations certainly is not the Senator from Maryland. The chairman is the distinguished Senator from Texas, “Tom Connatty, Texas, chairman,” and he is so listed. I shall not read all the other names. They go on down through a very distinguished list of Members of our great body. “WaLTeR F. GEorcE, Georgia. Expert D. THom':s, Ulah. MyrILiarp E. TyYpINGs, Maryland.” Thus showing that he is “from the Committee on Foreign Rela- tions.” Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. President—— Mr. DONNELL. If I may have the in- duigence of the Senator who desires me to yield for a moment. The VICE PRESIDENT. Docs the Senator yield? Mr. DONNELL. Ido not yield for the moment. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Sena- tor declines to yield. Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, I do not yield at the moment. I call attention to the fact that immediately following the list of members of “Committee on Foreign Relations” is the list of the members of “Subcommittee on Senate Resolution 231.” And who are they? “MituarD E. Typines, Maryland, chair- man.” That coincides with the capacity in which his name appears on page 170, to which my colleague from Missourl kindly called my attention. Who are the other members? One is the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Creen]. Likewise, the name of the Sen- ator from Rhode Island appears on page 170. Then the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. McMauon] is listed as a further member of the subcommittee; and again the name of the Senator from Connecti- cut appears on page 170 as one of the signers of the report, which, as stated previously, is contained in a _ cover marked “Report of a Subcommittee of the Committee on Foreign Relations.” Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. DONNELL. I yield to the Senator from Maine for a question. Mr. BREWSTER. Ifthe Senator from Missouri were advised that the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. SmirH], a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, has verified his recollection as to the vote which was taken in the Foreign Rela- tions Committee, would the Senator from Missouri ask unanimous consent for the Senator from New Jersey to be permitted to state that recollection? Mr, DONNELL. The answer fs in the affirmative, Mr. President; and I assume JULY 20 from the question that I am justified in inferring that the Senator from New Jersey has the information. Therefore, J ask unanimous consent that, without losing my right to the floor, I may be permitted to yield to the Senator from New Jersey, to permit him to insert into the RecorD, orally, the information to which reference has been made. The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from New Jersey, speaking in his own right and for himself, ask unani- mous consent that he may ask the Sen- ator from Missouri to yield for that purpose? Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, I yield for the purpose of permitting the Senator from New Jersey to make that inquiry, provided I do not thereby lose the floor. Mr. CONNALLY. Mr. President, un- der the ruling of the Chair that this matter is not debatable, I think I shall be forced, notwithstanding my high re- gard for the Senator from New Jersey, to object. The VICE PRESIDENT. The appeal is dcbatable. The Chair did not hold that the appeal is not debatable. The appeal is debatable. The report itself is not debatable. Mr. CONNALLY. Furthermore, Mr. President, the Senator from New Jersey wishes to raise a question as to what transpired in the Foreign Relations Committee. Certainly that would be de- bating the whole question, not simply the appeal. I object. The VICE PRESIDENT. Objection is heard. Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, I yicld, if the Senator from New Jersey re- quests me to do so, if I may do so without losing the floor, for the purpose of en- abling him to make the unanimous-con- sent request to which the Chair has al- luded. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Texas objects. Mr. DONNELL. Very well; if the Sen- ator from Texas objects, I shall not make the request. Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. DONNELL. I yield for a question. Mr. MUNDT. Is the Senator from Missouri aware of the fact that the Sen- ator from New Jersey now holds in his hand a copy of the executive minutes of the Forcign Relations Committee which will provide exactly the information the Senator requires? Mr. DONNELL. I am not aware of that fact. However, as I stated earlier in my remarks, if a copy of the minutes of the meeting of the Foreign Relations Committee is furnished to me, I shall be pleased to read it to this body at any time that the minutes are so furnished. Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further? Mr. DONNELL, I yield to the Senator from South Dakota for a further ques- on. Mr. MUNDT. Would the Senator from Missouri be willing to yield to the Sena- tor from New Jersey in order that the Senator from New Jersey may ask the Senator from Missouri some questions in connection with what he finds in the rec- ords of the Foreign Relations Commit- ee?
1950 Mr. DONNELL. I shall be very happy to yleld for that purpose, if the request is made by addressing the Chair, follow- ing transmittal of the matter to the Sen- ator from Missouri. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair is compelled to say that, as every Senator knows, any Senator who desires to ask the Senator who has the floor a question has a right to do so in his own right and on his own responsibility. It has not been customary for one Senator to ask unanimous consent that another Sena- tor may be permitted to ask a question of the speaking Senator. Mr, SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Presi- dent—— The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Missouri yield to the Sen- ator from New Jersey? Mr. DONNELL. I yield, if I may do so without losing the floor. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator may yield to any Senator for a question. Mr. DONNELL.' I so yield to the Sen- ator from New Jersey—for a question. Mr. EMITH of New Jersey. I would say to the Senator from Missouri that in the Foreign Relations Committee we have a rule that we do not use on the floor of the Senate transcripts of the minutes of the committee meetings; and I wish to say, further, that that rule will be observed by me. However, I ask the Senator whether he will yield to permit me to state my recollection of what happened in the committee. Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, I do not yield for the purpose of permitting the Senator from New Jersey to state that recollection. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from New Jersey cannot ask the Senator who has the floor to yield for the pur- pose of permitting the Senator from New Jersey to make a statement, unless unanimous consent is given for that purpose. Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Presi- dent, will the Senator yield for the pur- pose of permitting me to state my recol- lection? The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Missouri has declined to yield for that purpose, the Chair understands; and the Chair will protect the Senator from Missouri in his rights. Mr. DONNELL. Yes, Mr. President; I decline to yield for that purpose. If the Senator from New Jersey wishes to ask me a question, I shall yield for the pur- pose of permitting him to do so. Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Presi- dent, is the Senator from Missouri in- terested in knowing that my recollection of the situation in the committee and in relation to the report now under dis- cussion is as follows: That there were two votes; one vote was that we receive the report of the subcommittee and that the subcommittee be discharged. We voted unanimously that that should be the case. Then, as I recall, I think it was the Senator from Florida {Mr. Prrper]—— Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, I am not yielding for a statement. If the Senator from New Jersey is framing a question—— The VICE PRESIDENT. The Sena- tor from New Jersey has asked the Sen- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE ator from Missouri whether he would be interested in this recital. Mr. DONNELL. I would be. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair does not know whether the Senator from Missouri would or would not be interested in the recital. [Laughter.! Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, I am very much interested, and I shall con- tinue to be interested in any question the Senator from New Jersey wishes to ask me. Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Is the Senator from Missouri interested in the fact that the further vote was that the chairman of the committee be directed to report to the Senate the report of the subcommittee without comment? Mr. CONNALLY. Mr. President, I rise to a point of order. Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, I am very much interested in that question and in replying to it. The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Missouri yield? Mr. DONNELL. I yield to the Sena- tor from Texas for a question. Mr. CONNALLY. Mr. President, I do not desire to ask the Senator from Mis- souri a question. Mr. DONNELL. Then, Mr. President, I do not yield. I do not yield for any- thing except a question. Mr. CONNALLY. Mr. President, the Senator from Missouri has yielded al- ready to another Senator-—— Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, I did not yield for anything except a question. The VICE PRESIDENT. A Senator is not required to yield for any purpose; but he may yield for a question. Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, will the Senator from Missouri yield to me for a question? Mr. DONNELL. I yield for a question. Mr. FERGUSON. The question is this: That Report No. 1371, part 2, For- eign Economic Assistance, 1950, Supple- mentary Report of the Committee on Foreign Relations on Senate bill 3304, a bill to amend the Economic Cooperation Act of 1948, as amended, title V, an Act for International Development, being filed in the Senate from the Foreign Relations Committee, on the fiyleaf reads as I indicated, and that would in- dicate that the report purports to be filed today; and it reads, “Report of a Subcommittee of the Committee on For- eign Relations Pursuant to Senate Reso- lution 231,” which would indicate clearly that the Foreign Relations Committee has been in the habit, and that it has been its custom, to file reports as reports of the Committee on Foreign Relations, rather than as reports of subcommittees of the Committee on Foreign Relations— indicating that the one is a committee report and that the other is a subcom- mittee report. The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Missouri wish to respond to that question? [Laughter.] Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, it is rather lengthy, but I shall endeavor to respond. I shall say that the data furnished to the Senate by the Senator from Michi- gan in stating the question would be very persuasive to me as indicating the con- clusion at which the Senator has arrived. 10695 Mr. WATKINS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. DONNELL. I yield for a question. Mr. President, let me say that it is ap- proximately 23 minutes of 2, and I ex- pect to-yield the floor very soon, in order that there may be a vote in a short time. I now yield to the Senator from Utah for a question. Mr. WATKINS. I should like to call the attention of the Senator to the page marked with the numeral “3”, at the bottom of the page, in the report which has been under discussion. At the top of that page we find the following: “Con- tents—report of the subcommittee.” Then, on page 5 we find in Roman numerals the figure “II”, and the fol- lowing that we find this heading: “In- dividual views of Senator Lopcr.” Does not that indicate to the Senator from Missouri that the entire contents of the report, according to those two pages, are mace up, first, of the report of the subcommittee and, second, of the indi. vidual views of the Senator from Massa- chusetts (Mr. LopGre]? Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, 1 think that conclusion can readily be drawn by the Senator who has phrased the question. At this time I shall conclude by saying that my appeal is based upon the sound statement made by the Vice President, namely, that the report speaks for itself as to whether it is a report of the sub- committee or a report of the Committee on Foreign Relations. I submit most earnestly and respectfully that the re- port does show, for itself, that it is a re- port of the subcommittee. . Therefore, Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my appeal. Mr. McMAHON. Mr. President, I move to lay the appeal on the table; and I now suggest the absence of a quorum. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator from Connecticut withhold his suggestion of the absence of a quorum until we can request the yeas and nays on the question of sustaining the ruling of the Chair? Mr. McMAHON. What is the Sen- ator’s purpose? Mr. WHERRY. I wish to request that the yeas and nays be ordered on the pending question. Mr. McMAHON. Very well. Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, I join in requesting the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. McMAHON. Mr. President, I now suggest the absence of a quorum. The VICE PRESIDENT. The absence of @ quorum having been suggested, the Secretary will call the roll. The roll was called, and the following Senators answered to their names: Aiken Ecton Hoey Anderson Ellender Holland Benton Ferguson Humphrey Brewster Planders Hunt Bricker rat ght Wee Bridges enner Butler George Johnson, Colo. Capehart Gillette Johnson, Tex. Chapman Graham Johnaton, 8. CO, Chavez Green Kem Connally Gurney Kerr Cordon Hayden Kilgore Darby Hendrickson Langer Donnel Heckenlooper Leahy Douglas Hil Lehman
Lodge Mundt Sparkman Lucas Murray Stennis McCarthy Myers Taft McClellan. Neely Thomas, Okla. McFarland O'Mahoney Thomas, Utah McKellar Pepper Thye McMahon Robertson Tydings Magnuson Russell Watkins Malone Baltonstall Wherry Martin Schoeppel Wiley Maybank Smith, Maine Williams Millikin Smith, N. J. The VICE PRESIDENT. A quorum is present. The question is on the motion of the Senator from Connecticut to lay on the table the appeal of the Senator from Missouri from the ruling of the Chair. The yeas and nays having been ordered, the Secretary will call the roll. Those who favor the motion to lay on the table will vote “yea” when their names are called; those who are opposed will vote “nay.” The legislative clerk called the roll. Mr. MYERS. I announce that the Senator from Virginia [Mr. Byrp], the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. East- LAND], and the Senator from Maryland {Mr. O’Conor] are absent on public business. The Senator from Calhfornia [Mr. Downey! is absent because of illness. The Senator from Tennessee {| Mr. KEFAUVER] is absent on official committee business. The Senator from Louisiana {Mr. Lone], the Senator from Idaho {Mr. TayLcr], and the Senator from Ken- tucky {Mr. WiTHERS) are absent by leave of the Senate. I announce further that on this vote the Senator from Mississippi [Mr, East- LAND] is paired with the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Youne]. If present and voting, the Senator from Mississippi would vote “yea” and the Senator from North Dakota would vote “nay.” I announce also that on this vote the Senator from Maryland [Mr. O’Conor]} is paired with the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Morse}. If present and voting, the Senator from Maryland would vote “yea” and the Senator from Oregon would vote “nay.” Mr. SALTONSTALL. I announce that the Senator from Washington {Mr. Cain! and the Senator from Michigan | Mr. VANDENBERG) are absent by leave of the Senate. The Senator from Idaho [Mr. Dwor- SHAK] is absent on official business. The Senator from California LMr. KNOwWLAaND|] is necessarily absent. The Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Topey] is absent on official busi- ness attending a meeting of the Special Committee To Investigate Organized Crime in Intcrstate Commerce. The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Morse] is detained on official business and is paired with the Senator from Maryland IMr. O’Conor]. If present and voting, the Senator from Oregon would vote “nay” and the Senator from Maryland would vote “yea.” The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Youne] is detained on official business and is paired with the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. EastLanp], If present and voting, the Senator from North Da- kota would vote “nay” and the Senator from Mississippi would vote “yea.” CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE The result was announced—yeas 45, nays 35, as follows: YEAS—45 Anderson Hoey McMahon Benton Holland Magnuson Chapman Humphrey Maybank Chavez Hunt Murray Connally Johnson, Colo. Myers Douglas Johnson, Tex. Neely Ellender Johnston, 8,C. O'Mahoney Frear Kerr Pepper Fulbright Kilgore Robertson George Leahy Russell Gillette Lehman Sparkman Graham Lucas Stennis Green McClellan Thomas, Okla. Hayden McFarland Thomas, Utah Hill McKellar Tydings NAYS—35 Aiken Gurney Mundt Brewster Hendrickson Saltonstall Bricker Hickenlooper Schoeppel Bridges Ives Smith, Maine Butler Jenner Smith, N J. Capehart Kem Taft Cordon Langer Thye Darby Lodge Watkins Donnell McCarthy Wherry Ecton Malone Wiley Ferguson Martin Williams Flanders Millikin NOT VOTING—16 Byrd Knowland Tobey Cain Long Vandenberg Downey McCarran Withers Dworshak Morse Young Eastland O'Conor Kefauver Taylor So Mr. DonnELL’s appeal from the de- cision of the Chair was laid on the table. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, a parlia- mentary inquiry. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator will state it. Mr. LUCAS. What is now pending before the Senate? The VICE PRESIDENT. Reports of committees are still in order. Then the introduction of bills and joint resolu- tions. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, I send to the desk a resolution and ask that it be read, and I request its immediate consideration. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, a point of order. The VICE PRESIDENT. Resolutions would be the next order of business. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, my resolution is a Senate resolution. The VICE PRESIDENT. It is not a joint resolution, and the Chair cannot entertain 1t at this moment. Are there any concurrent resolutions? Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, I send to the desk a resolution. It comes under the order of concurrent and other reso- lutions. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Secre- tary will read the resolution. The legislative clerk read the resolu- tion (S. Res. 312), as follows: Resolved, That the report of the Committee on Foreign Relations made pursuant to Sen- ate Resolution 231 (relating to an investiga- tion of disloyalty among employees of the Government) be recommitted to the Com- mittee on Foreign Relations, with the follow- ing instructions: (1) The Committee on Foreign Relations shall conduct a full and complete investiga- tion in accordance with the provisions of Senate Resolution 231; or (2) In the event said committee decides by a majority vote that a continuation by said committee of such investigation is not in the public interest, the committee shall recommend to the Senate the establishment JULY 20 of a trained bipartisan commission, wholly independent of the Executive, to conduct a full, complete, and relentless search into the whole subject of foreign penetration of the Department of State and other agencies of the Government In accordance with the pro- visions of said Senate Resolution 231. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, a parlia- mentary inquiry. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator will state it. Mr. LUCAS. What time is it? The VICE PRESIDENT. It is 1 min- ute of 2 o’clock. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, I ask for the immediate consideration of the resolution. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I make a point of order. The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there ob- jection to the consideration of the reso- lution? Mr. LUCAS. I object. The VICE PRESIDENT. The resolu- tion will lie over under the rule. GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS, 1951 The VICE PRESIDENT. The hour of 2 o'clock having arrived, the Chair lays before the Senate the unfinished busi- ness, which will be stated. The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. A bill (H. R. 7786) making appropriations for the support of the Government for the fis- cal year ending June 30, 1951, and for other purposes. AMENDMENT OF RULE XIX Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, time ran out for submitting resolutions. I ask unanimous consent to send to the desk a resolution which amends rule XIX of the Senate, and I ask for its appropriate reference. The VICE PRESIDENT. Without ob- jection, the resolution will be received, and the Chair will refer it to the Com- mittee on Rules and Administration. The resolution (S. Res. 313) submitted by Mr. WHErRY was referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration, as follows: Resolved, That rule XTX of the Standing Rules of the Senate (relating to debate) is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new sections: “?. (a) No Senator shall, in any proceed- ings conductec by any committee of the Senate, or any subcommittee thereof, directly or indirectly by any form of words impute to another Senator or to other Senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator, “(b) If any Senator shall transgress the provisions cf rubsection (a) of this section in any committee proceedings, the chairman of the committee shall, or any member of the committee may, call him to order; and when a Senator shall be called to order he shall suspend and shall no’ proceed without leave of the committee, which if granted shall be upon motion that he be allowed to proceed in order, which motion shall be determined without dcbate. “(e) If a Senator be called to order for words spoken in committee proceedings, upon demand of the Senator or of any member of the committee, the exceptionable words shall be taken down in writing and shall be read for the information of the committee. “8. It shall not be in order for any com- mittee of the Senate to file any report whether pertuining to a bill, joint resolution, concurrent resolution, resolution, or othere wise, which contains, directly or indirectly,
1950 any langutge which imputes to any Senator any conduct or motive unworthy or unbe+ coming a Senator.” GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS, 1051 The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (H. R. 7786) making appropri- ations for the support of the Govern. ment for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1951, and for other purposes. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Secre~ tary will state the next amendment. The LEcisuative CLerk. On page 247, in line 19, after the word “fund”, to strike out the colon and the following proviso: Provided, That $1,000,000 of the funds pro- vided in this paragraph for the construction of transmission lines in South Dakota shall be available only for connecting the load centers of Armour with Watertown via Sioux Falls, and of Midland with Rapid City, and of Winner and Randall Dam. And to insert: Provided further, That $3,000,000 of the funds provided in this paragraph plus $3,- 000,000 contract authority shall be available for construction of tranamisston lines and substations in South Dakota, to Include a transmission loop from Fort Randall through the load centers of Armour, Huron, A¥erdeen, Andover, Watertown, Brookings, Sioux Falls, and Gavins Point to Fort Randall, and lines from Fort Randall to Winner and from Rapid City to Midland. The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, on page 248, after line 24, to insert: Such amount of the $1,300,000 appropriated in the Interior Department Appropriation Act, 1950, under the heading “Bureau of Rec- lamation”, “General fund, contruction”, “Fort Peck project, Montana", for the Havre- Shelby transmission line and substations as may be determined by the Secretary of the Interlor not to be required for termination of work on these facilities and the meeting of obligations heretofore incurred against said appropriation for such facilities shall be carried to the surplus fund and covered into the Treasury, The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the subhead “General administrative ex- penses,” on page 250, line 5, after the word “Reclamation”, to strike out “$7,- 000,000” and insert “$7,400,000.” STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Presi- dent, I wish to address myself briefly to the report of the subcommittee of the Committee on Foreign Relations. Be- cause of misunderstandings with regard to this whole subject, I should like to make a statement with respect to my un- derstanding of it. On Monday last, at about the hour of 4 o'clock, I was asked to comment on the report of the sub- committee. I had never heard of it. I immediately communicated with the of- fice of the Committee on Foreign Rela- tions. I was told that they did not know anything about it either, but that a re- port was to be submitted, probably in a day or two. I asked that as a member of the Committee on Foreign Relations I be permitted to have a copy of the re- port, and one was obtained for me. I also asked that copies of ft be sent to every other member of the Committee on Foreign Relations, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. LODGE, Mr. President, may we have order? The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senate will be in order. The Chair insists that Senators and others who desire to con- verse leave the Chamber. Disorder in the Ser e grows more and more notice- able w.... every week and every month. The Chair insists on order in the Cham- ber. The rule applies also to the occu- Pants of the galleries. Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I made the request so that when we came to con- sider the report we would know what it was all about. The report came to me at about 5 or 6 o’clock that evening. I had a dinner engagement and could not ex- amine the report in detail. I was sum- moned to a meeting of the Committee on Foreign Relations the following morn- ing to consider the report. When we ar- rived the chairman of the subcommittee, the Senator from Maryland (Mr. Tyr- Drn¢s), presented a report of what he said was the report of the subcommittee of the Committee on Foreign Relations to which had been committed the in- vestigation of the charges of disloyalty in the State Department. Let me em- phasize that any findings of the sub- committee were to be reported to the full committee for action by that com- raittee. It was brought out in the dis- cussion that the report was submitted by the three majority members of the subcommittee, that one member of the subcommittee did not even know the re- port was being considered, and that an- other member of the subcommittee had been asked to file his own report, which he did, but without being given access to the report filed by the majority. My ex- perience has been that when I served as a member of a subcommittee and a ma- jority of a subcommittee was prepared to submit a report, a meeting of the entire subcommittee was held, in which all members participated. If the minority members cannot agree with the draft report of the majority members they are given the privilege of filing minority reports. Apparently in this case the draft of the majority report of the sub- committee was not submitted to the uther members of the sul:committee. Therefore I raise the question whether {t was officially a report of the subcom- mittee, because no meeting was held for the purpose of approving or rejecting it. It was submitted by three members of the subcommittee without the other members of the subcommittee partici- pating in its preparation, although one member of the subcommittee had filed a report of his own without, as I under- stand, having participated in the discus- sion of the pros and cons, which took place among the majority members of the subcommittee. The report came to the Committee on Foreign Relations in that form. In the full committee the action that was asked to be taken was that the re-~ port of the subcommittee be accepted, that it be reported to the Senate by the Committee on Foreign Relations, and that the subcommittee be discharged. Objection was made to dealing with the matter in that way because the point was raised that there were different ques- tions involved and that they should be 10697, voted on separately. According to my recollection the language of one motion was to the effect that the Committee on Foreign Relations receive the report of the subcommittee, and that the subcom- mittee be discharged. We debated that motion briefly, and by unanimous vote the report was received and the sub- committee was discharged with the dis- tinct understanding that the receiving of the report of the subcommittee sim- p’y meant its being received for our in- formation, and that we took no action one way or another with respect to it. I raised the point that I had not had the opportunity to read the report, and therefore I could not pass on it one way or another I said I did not feel we were in a position to deal with it. Other members af the committee said that they had not read the report. Therefore at no time was this report submitted to us for action. As I have said, after the report had been received by the com- mittee and the subcommittee was dis- charged—and we had all voted for it, because we thought it was the proper disposition of the matter—it was moved that the Committce on Foreign Rela- tions transmit to the Senate throush the chairman, or someone designated by him, the report of the subcommittee without comment one way or another, I voted for that with the distinct under- standing that it was simply carrying out the wishes of the subcommittee chair- man that the matter be transmitted to the Senate as a subcommittee report for such use as the Senate might see fit to make of it. I distinctly understood that it was not a report of the Committee on Foreign Relations. I doubt that anyone except the chairman of the subcommittee had read the report. I do not know that anyone else ever had a chance to read it There was no discussion of its merits, The entire discussion was on procedure, and on the procedural question it was distinctly understood that we were merely having the report sent to the Senate by the chairman of the full com- mittee, or someone designated by him. He very properly designated the Senator from Maryland [Mr. Typrves] who had been chairman of the subcommittee, I recollect very clearly that what was to be submitted to the Senate was the sub- committee report without comment. I want to make it clear, Mr. President, that it was to be the subcommittee re- port without comment, because there seems to be some misunderstanding as to what the committee did. Certainly I would not have voted “yea” on that motion if in doing so it meant that the committee was accepting the report and sending it to the Senate as the report of the Committee on Foreign Relations, While there was some discussion of whether we would debate the merits of he report and approve it or disapprove it we agreed that no one knew enough about it to discuss the merits. Con- sequently no vote was taken to approve cr disapprove the report. The Senator from Maryland [Mr. Tyvpincs) simply stated that he wanted to submit his report, to have it received by the committee, and to have the sub- committee discharged. After that wé
10698 could do anything we wanted to do with respect to it. Following that a mem- ber of the subcommittee made the mo- tion that the report be transmitted to the Senate through the chairman of the subcommittee, but only as a subcommit~- tee report without comment It is clear in my mind that it meant we were not passing on it, but simply sending it to the Senate without comment, because we had all agreed that we did not have time to read it or pass comment on it. I want to make my position clear, be- cause those are the facts as I remember them, If any other member of the com- mittee wishes to take issue with me, he may do so, but I thought that I must make this statement. I do so because it was perfectly clear that no position was taken one way or the other by the com~- mittee. We were simply transmitting to th2 Senate the report of the subcom- mittee. The form of the document as submitted is the report of the subcom- mittee of the Committee on Foreign Re- Jetions pursuant to this resolution with a deletion of some language that re- flected on the minority members of the subcommittee. Mr. President, I have made this state- ment for the benefit of the Senate. I now yield the floor. Mr. HICKENLOOPER obtained the floor. Mr. O’MAHONEY. Mr, President, did the Chair recognize me? Mr. HICKENLOOPER. The Chair had recognized me, I believe. Mr. O'MAHONEY,. I do not know; I am just inquiring. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sparkman in the chair). The Chair may state that he did say to the Sen- ator from Wyoming that he would recog- nize him for the purpose of attending to a matter relating to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Mr. President, I have no objection to the filing of a re- port, or something of the kind, by the Senator from Wyoming. I merely de- sire to make the situation clear. I be- lieve I have the floor. If the Senator wishes to have me yield for the purpose of permitting him to put something in the Recorp from the committee, I shall be glad to yield. Mr. O’MAHONEY. I can wait, but I thought I heard the Chair recognize the Senator from Wyoming, and I was about to speak, The PRESIDING OFFICER The Chair recognized the Senator from Iowa, but stated to him that the Chair had previously told the Senator from Wyo- ming he would recognize him. The Chair did not see the Senator from Wyo- ming on the floor at the time the Sen- ator from Iowa rose. Mr, O’MAHONEY. Mr. President, I shall not take the time now. Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Ido not want the Senator from Wyoming to think I refused to yield to him. I shall be glad to do so if he desires. Mr, O’MAHONEY. I desire to make some comment on the pending business, Mr. HICKENLOOPER, I shall be very brief, because my time is limited this afternoon. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. President, with regard to the discussion wh.ch has proceeded about the so-called report of the subcommit- tee of the Committee on Foreign Rela- tions in connection with Senate Resolu- tion 231, I wish to make a few observa- tions at this time, in an attempt to sct the Recorp as straisht as I know how to do so, and as straight as I can, ac- cording to my recollection of the facts. I was appointed a member of the sub- committee when it was originally cre- ated pursuant to Senate Resolution 231, under the Committee on Foreign Relations. The subcommittee was in existence for approximately 5 months, held thirty-some sessions, called only 35 witnesses to investigate the comprehen- sive field of loyalty of employees, past and present, In the State Department of the United States Government. What I shall have to say about this report 1n some detail will be submitted to the Senate, in one way or another, in the near future, but so far as the history of this so-called report is concerned, I desire to make a matter of record and to recite the recent history of this docu- ment which now is on the desk of the Seerctary of the Senate, and alleged to be a report from the Committee on For- eign Relations. Mr President, I consider it not to be a report from the Committee on Foreign Relations for several reasons. In the first place, so far as I know—and I should have to ask the Senator from Massachusetts to give his own testimony on this point—there never was a meet- ing of the subcommittee in connection with this matter to pass on, to accept, or to refuse to accept, this document now called the report of the Committee on Foreign Relations. There may have been a secret or a clandestine meeting of the three members of the majority party to peruse this proposed report, but if there was, no notice was sent at least to me, as a minority member of the sub- committee, to attend any meeting where any galley proofs, or any typewritten original drafts, or any proposals by way of a subcommittee report, were to be submitted. I never saw this so-called report until after it had been printcd, denominated a report of the Subcom- mittee of the Committee on Foreign Relations, and it was after it had been given to the press at least 1 day before I ever saw it in its final form. I never at any time had notice that there was to be a meeting of the sub- committee, nor was I ever 1n attendance on any meeting of the subcommittee, at which the question of the adoption or rejection, or alteration of or addition to the report, could have been brought up. Mr. President, a couple of weeks or so before this report, so-called, was actually filed, I stated that I did not myself have any report to make, because I considered that the subcommittee had done a com- pletely inadequate job in probing the subject-matter, that 1t had wholly failed to call witnesses who should have been called, that it had not been zealous to look into the very subject-matter which it was directed by the Senate to investi- gate. I said it was no time for a report, that we did not have sufficient evidence on which to base final conclusions, and JULY 20 that so far as I was concerned, I had no personal report I could develop, except to say we were not ready for a report. Nevertheless, Mr. President, heie is a document purporting to be a report from @ subcommittce, whcn no meeting of the subcommittee was ever called to consider whether I, who had said originally that I did not think it was time for a repoit, could either agree with or disagree to any part of the verbiage that was pro- posed to be issued under the name of the subcommittee of the Committee on For- eign Relations. As I have said, Mr. President, except for rumor, thereafter I had no knowl- edee of the actual preparation of this report until last Friday, I believe 1t was, in the afternoon, when tn the hands of one of the newspapermen who cover the Senate I saw this document. It had been given to the press. It had never been submitted to the Committee on Foreign Relations for its actions, but it had been given to the press, and al- though I cannot vouch for this, I am told that access was given to some mem- bers of the press to the galley proofs be- fore the report had been printed, for their ‘background and for their infor- mation. Later, 2 or 3 days ago, there was a meeting of the full Committee on For- eign Relations. This docume™t was laid before the full Senate Foreign Relations Committee by the chairman of the sub- committee, and the net result was, as will be disclosed 1f the record is read, that it was very carefully stated that this document was received, only, by the Committee on Foreign Relations The record 1s replete with the discussion as to whether the word “accepted” should be used, or merely the word “received.” By the action of the Committee on For- eign Relations the word “accepted” was deleted from the document by the com- mittee, and the word “received” was substituted in its stead, to indicate that this was not the work of the Committee on Foreign Relations, but was only a document developed by the subcommit- tee of the Committee on Foreign Rela- tions. Then a motion was made to discharge the subcommittee. I voted for the mo- tion to discharge the subcommittee, and I said in effect, as appears in the record of the Forcign Relations Committee it- self, that I thought the subcommittee must be discharged because the futility had been demonstrated of attempting, under the methods which had bcen forced on subcommittee, to go deeply into the matter which it had been set up to investigate, and to discharge the responsibilities which had been com- mitted to it. I said the inability of the committee to do the job the Senate had told us to do was very apparent and that the subcommittee might just as well be discharged. So I voted to discharge the subcommitiee because I thought we had not done a job, and that there was no evidence that the subcommittee was go- ing to do a job of thorough and adequate investigation. Then the motion was made, {f you please, Mr. President, to transmit this document to the Senate, and the chair-
1950 man was authorized to des!gnate a mem~ ber to transmit it to the Senate. Mr. President, if Senators will read the record of the Foreign Relations Com- maittee at that meeting they will find that there was discussion about the particular meaning of the words which were Used, and that “transmit” was used to indicate that the full committee was only a con- duit by which this document, developed by three members of the subcommittee, could flow onto the Senate floor. The word “transmit” was used advisedly, and in the records of the Foreign Relations Committee it will be found that the dis- cussion of whether or not the committee should take action on this document was pushed aside, and the members of the committee said they would take no action except the transmittal of this particular document. The Senate Foreign Relations Commit- tee never approved this document, never adopted it as the act of the Foreign Re« lations Commitiee, and there is no state- ment of adoption in the record of the Foreign Relations Committee. Mr. President, I believe the statements I am making are accurate. They are certainly as I remember them, and I have been in some intimate association with this committec. As I said a moment ago, I have agreed with some other Members who want to make statements this afternoon, that I shall not attempt exhaustively to canvas the subject at this moment. I shall do so at a later day, either by way of written report or speech, if I am permitted to file any kind of minority views. I may say to the Senate that I was denied that right the other day in the Foreign Re- lations Committee. I was accorded the magnificent privilege of filing with the Foreign Relations Committee certain statements which I might want to make, and then the Foreign Relations Com- mittee reserved the right as to whether they would transmit my personal views as a member of the minority to the Sen- ate. So I suppose in that channel, Mr, President, I am subject to the tender mercies of a vote of the Foreign Rela- tions Committee, and I shall have to abandon the age-old right of a member of the minority to express himself to the same degree that members of the ma- jority express themselves on matters that come before his committee. But that {s more or less beside the point at this moment. I should like to say, Mr. President, that this so-called document—and I want to call this to the attention of the Sen- ate now, because I shall dwell upon it at length at a later date—in its entire connotation and context is an attempt to assail, to criticize, and to condemn the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Mc- Cartuy]. Its entire connotation and concept is not to probe the State Depart- ment nor to probe the areas the Senate resolution directed the Senate commit- tee to go into. It is a document which attempts to put the Senator from Wis- consin on trial as an individual, and completely misses the point of the in- vestigation of the serious things which the Senate resolution directed the com- mittee to investigate. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE I have admiration for the Senator from Wisconsin as a man who has taken &@ position in this matter. The Senator from Wisconsin, however, is more or less beside the point. The Senator from Wisconsin has made certain allegations. He has never claimed that he had all the proof to sustain the suggestions he made. But throughout this entire s0- called report, Mr. President, it will be found that the majority members of the committee are attempting to hold the Senator from Wisconsin up to the manger, as we used to say in lowa, as the prosecutor and prover, and that a failure on his part to produce every last iota of proof on every subject affecting the State Department must cause the whole resolution to fall. Practically no effort was made to undertake an inves- tigation of disloyalty in the State De- partment as the committee was charged to do by the Senate resolution. The Senate resolution did not direct the com- mittee to prosecute or persecute, to malign, condone, or condemn the Senator from Wisconsin. It directed the com- mittee to examine into loyalty in the erate Department, and that has not been one. Mr. President, we have been talking about the mechanics of this thing today. But above and beyond that, I think there can be little question; in fact, there is no question in my mind, that this is neither a report of the Forcign Rela- tions Committee nor is it actually a report of the subcommittee, because, so far as I know, no meeting of the sub- committee was ever called to pass upon this report, at least so far as I, as a member of the minority on that subcom- mittee, received any notice. Mr. President, this document is a mysterious and a mysteriously prepared document. It is a document whose antecedents, paternity and maternity, might be open to some serious and rather revealing facets. It is a document whose generation raises question in the mind of anyone who has followed this matter rather carefully. The peculiar verbiage, the invectives, and the vindictive atti- tudes in the phraseology of the report certainly bespeak a studied attempt to avoid meeting the issue the subcommit- tee was created to meet. Mr. President, I have a great deal of information about this matter. I have information respecting witnesses who should have been called. One of the last acts I did in the committee was to re- quest that the four men who signed state- ments that they had been hired to loot State Department personnel files of de- rogatory information be called before the committee. Instead of that, they were brushed off, and in this report they are brushed off as unreliable people, without ine committee ever calling them before There are other illustrations, Mr, President, that I shall note, and in con- siderable number, in the future. I say that I believe there is no legitimate pa- ternity to this document which was filed today, alleged to be a report of the For- eign Relations Committee. It is a com- pilation of the views, or an authorized compilation of the views of three mem- bers of the subcommittee. It never has, 10699 to my knowledge, received a vote pro or con by the subcommittee. It may have. I do not say that it did not, but to my knowledge it did not, and I never re- ceived a notice of a meeting at which these views could be passed upon, ace cepted or rejected. It came to the Sen- ate as a result of being received by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and transmitted to the Senate. I question its legitimacy, Mr. President, and at a future time I expect to discuss m some detail this report, and my vicws about the evidence and about the lack of evi- dence, about the vigor and the lack of vigor with which the investigation under the Senate resolution was pursued. I hope to make some general conclusions on the entire matter. ‘ Mr. LODGE. Mr. President, I should hke to set forth very briefiy the reasons which prompted me to support the mo- tion to set up a trained, bipartisan com- mussion to go into this matter of foreign penetration. My general views on the entire ques- tion are set forth in my minority re- port, and I shall be very brief in my remarks at this time. I was animated first of all by the con- viction, which has grown upon me as I have served on the subcommittee, and also based on years of observation and study as a Member of Congress and as & member of the press, that a congres- sional committee investigation is not well suited to this kind of a problem; it is not an effective tool. The methods avail- able to a congressional committee— namely, publicity and the development of facts for public consumption and for the formulation of public opimion—are precisely not the methods which are practical and useful when it comes to ferreting out disloyal persons or when it comes to testing the effectiveness of a departmental security system. The members of such a congressional committee, no matter how able they may be generally, are practically never men who have the technical background and training to do a job of this sort. Being Members of the Senate, they have a great many other duties to perform, du- ties which are extremely pressing, and that means that they have not enough time to give to work of this sort. They lack the tools and the equipment which it is necessary to have in order to con- duct properly an investigation of this kind. By that, I mean they do not have at their disposal detectives and record- ing devices and all the other parapher- nalia involved in checking on a security system. No congressional committee can possibly have those things. Finally, congressional committees of the type on which I have served—the usual type of congressional committees— are set up on a majority-minority basis, which inescapably brings in a political factor; that is something which cannot be prevented. Mr, President, the matter now before us is one which never should be con- sidered on a political basis. The basis of its consideration should be nonpolitical, We should not have the minority inves- tigating the administration; we should not have the majority investigating the administration. We never will get, ia
10700 that way, results in which the country will have confidence. So, Mr. President, I have favored—and today a great many of us have voted in favor of—a bipartisan, trained commis- sion. By “bipartisan” I mean a com- mission composed of an equa] number of representatives of both political parties, That js the way the Hoover Commission was set up, and it has produced good resilts. When I say “trained” I mean men who have had distinguished careers in fields of activity which qualify them to investi- gate a security system. I have in mind a commission which would have power to subpena, which would have the neces- sary money with which to do the work required, which would operate in secret, which would make only one public report at the time it finished its work, and which would make that public report after the election, so as to take this matter out of politics, where it has abso- lutely no place. I should like to see serving on the com- mission men of national reputation and outstanding character—men such as Admiral Nimitz and General Devers—to be in charge of such work, and to get the truth, let the chips fall where they may, regardless of politics. Then there would be a result in which the country would have confidence. It is that kind of sys- tem which foreign governments have set up. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. LODGE. I yield. Mr. LUCAS. I wish to say to the Sen- ator from Massachusetts that, regardless of whether we agree with him or do not agree with him, he certainly is moving along in a constructive approach to a very difficult problem I wish to ask the Senator whether he expects to submit a resolution of that kind, which would be referred to the proper committee, which committee could give the resolution sufficient study and the consideration it should receive, Mr. LODGE. I have already submit. ted such a resolution, and I have dis- cussed it in my minority views, which I hope the able Senator from Illinois will take the time to read, for they are quite short, as compared with the majority report. Mr. LUCAS. I shall read the views of the able Senator from Massachusctts However, let me point out that it seems to me that in voting a few minutes ago, the Senator from Massachusetts was vot- ing In regard to a matter on which hear- ings should be held, and in regard to which persons such as those the Sena- tor from Massachusetts has been dis- cussing or persons of like character and ability should come before the commit- tee and should express their views as to whether the method thus proposed for handling the situation is the best method. What I objected to so seriously a mo- ment ago was the attempt to have the Senate pass upon, by its vote, a pro- posal to compel the committee to act upon a very important proposition of this kind without hearings. Mr. LODGE. Mr. President, let me say to the Senator from Illinois, who is CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE always perspicacious, and who usually grasps the point very quickly, that I do not think he understood the point of the motion, The motion simply was to in- struct the Foreign Relations Commit- tee to report such a resolution, I think the committee could very easily do that. Mr. LUCAS. But the committee would have been instructed to make such a report before hearings were held. My point is that I think the Senator from Massachusetts has done a correct thing, namely, to submit a resolution for that purpose, and then let the commit- tee to which the resolution is referred hold hearings, and subsequently make a report which can be discussed on the floor of the Senate. I am sure the Senator from Massa- chusetts will agree with me that as a re- sult of the investigation, we have be- fore us a very serious question as to how a matter of this kind should be handled. It occurs to me that it cannot be done by insisting on the type of resolution on which we voted several times this after- noon, namely, a resolution authorizing and directing the committee to do some- thing without holding hearings, in fact, without any study or consideration at all, other than what we heard on the floor of the Senate. So I wish to compliment the Senator from Massachusetts on the resolution he has submitted. Isincerely hope the com- mittce will hold hearings on it, and that something constructive may come about as a result of what the Senator from Massachusetts has done. Mr. LODGE. Mr. President, I shall simply reiterate my conviction that the motion which was defeated today would not in the slightest degree have pre- cluded the Foreign Relations Committee from holding hearings I would have been opposed to precluding the commit- tee from holding hearings, because I favor the best hearings the Foreign Re- Jations Committee can conduct. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr LODGE. I yield. Mr. LUCAS. But the Senator will agree with me, will he not, that the mo- tion authorized and directed the Foreign Relations Committee to do certain things, or a subcommittee of the commit- tee? Of course, it would hold hearings. But we were taking the initiative in the first instance by taking the power away from the Foreign Relations Committee, Mr, LODGE. Ido not agree. I think that would have been the case had the motion directed the Foreign Relations Committee to report a specific bill. I think if that motion had directed the Foreign Relations Committee to report my bill, for instance, it would then have completely taken away the committee’s function, It did not do that. It did something which is often done in the Senate: It simply instructed the Com- mittee on Foreign Relations to report a general proposition. It is certainly within the right of the Senate to do such a thing, and it leaves to the committee a wide field for action. Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr, LODGE, I yield. JULY 20 Mr. BREWSTER. There is an aspect of this matter on which I desire to have the views of the Senator from Massachu- setts. I hopeI may also have the atten- tion of the Senator from Maryland. Mr. President, I hope I may have the atten- tion of the Senator from Maryland. Mr. LODGE. Is the Senator going to ask me a question? Mr. BREWSTER. Iam going toask a question, but I desire the attention of the Senator from Maryland. Could the Senator from Maryland give attention to the question which I am about to address to the Senator from Massachusetts? I should hke the Senator’s attention, if possible. Mr. LODGE. Mr. President, I wonder whether the Senator is going to get into an altercation with the Senator from Maryland and me, in my time. I won- der whether he could not do it later. I have a continuity of thought which I should like to develop Mr. BREWSTER. I may wish to di- rect a question to the Senator from Maryland, at the proper time. I wanted to inquire about the application of the rule on the subject of committee reports. Mr. LODGE. I do not want to dis- cuss that question now, I may say to the Senator from Maine I am not getting into that at all, now. I am trying to develop the thought of why we want to have a bipartisan trained commission. I should like to get that off in one piece, before we undertake to discuss other questions. If the Senator from Maine will defer for a moment, I should be glad to yield to him then. Mr BREWSTER. The only reason for the query at this time is that the Senator from Iowa is obliged to leave, and it is a matter in which he also has been concerned, and with which he has been identified. That was the only rea- son, Mr. LODGE. When I get through, will the Senator ask me the question then? I desire to submit to the Senate the thought that many foreign govern- ments, when they are confronted with the problem of foreign penetration of their foreign offices, when they think there are spies in their State depart- ments, do not have a big circus in the caucus room, with all the bright lights and with all the paraphernalia which goes with it They have a trained, ex- pert, nonpolitical commission which proceeds in secret, and the first thing that is heard about it is the last thing that is heard about it. That is when they have apprehended the people and have punished them and put them in prison or have done whatever else is to be done with them. That 1s an efficient way of doing it. Where that foreign system has detected any number of spies, the congressional system which we have been using, either in the Senate, or in the House, for 15 years, has bagged only a corporal’s guard. It has not been efficient. I think we must consider this matter today. Mr. President, I should like to have order. I do not like to interfere with private conversation, but I doubt if there is any more important subject before the country than that which I am discussing.
1950 The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will please be in order, Mr, LODGE. I think we must con- sider the State Department in the light of the war which is going on in Korea and which in my judgment is but one manifestation of a world-wide struggle. To be sure, the State Department is al- ways of vital importance to the United States. The State Department is far more important to the average man woman, and child at the crossroads o America than it is either to the people who work in the State Department or to the Senators of the United States, be- cause the State Department represents our vital interests abroad. Now that we are engaged in a struggle which is partly military and partly polit- ical, the State Department is our first line of defense all around the world, It was the State Department that I think very effectively persuaded the United Nations to make this brutal aggression in Korea a United Nations concern. That was done quickly; it was done ef- fectively. That is one thing that the State Department means to us. It is the State Department which is on guard now in Indochina, in Burma, in India, and in all other places where there is unrest and where there is a possibility of dan- ger, but where there is not as of today a military situation. It is the State Department that we de- pend upon to hold together the whole Pan-American structure of friendship in this hemisphere, which has been one of of the glories of the New World for over acentury. It is to the State Department that we look to galvanize the Atlantic Alliance, because, now that we are en- gaged in this conflict, we know that we cannot carry it alone, and we must not try to carry it alone. When one allows his eye to go across the Atlantic he knows that it is to the State Department that he will look to promote cooperation with the British and French and the Benelux countries and Italy and Scan- dinavia so that they will do their utmost, Then there are the countries which are not now in the Atlantic community but which ought to be, and in connection with which the State Department can use its good offices to make the neces- sary political adjustments and changes that will make it possible, for example, for Germany to come as an equal part- ner into the organization of the west on a basis which will completely safeguard the security of the Atlantic nations. Those are all life-and-death responsi- bilities which the State Department car- ries, and it has been one of the interest- ing assignments that have come to me since being a member of the Foreign Re- lations Committee, to have a chance to observe the State Department, to serve on the standing subcommittee which maintains contact with State Depart- ment personnel, and to be a member of the board of directors of the Foreign Service Institute, where our Forcign Service personnel go to school. I say to the Senate that we are lucky to have many good people, many fine men and women in the State Department, men and women who have a real spirit of dedication, and who have a real skill in XCVI-—— 674 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE the work they are doing. They have also the basis in the State Department today of a good security system if they invigorate it along the lines that are sug- gested in this report. But I think it is obvious, and I have never met a candid and well-informed person in the State Department yet who did not admit it, that there was in the past an era of great laxity. That is not @ partisan remark. It can be found in the hearings, in utterly nonpolitical tes- timony by nonpolitical officials of the State Department, that in the fall of 1945 and in the beginning of 1946, by a stroke of the pen, there were transferred into the State Department 4,000 people from temporary agencies, not one of whom received any screening whatever. That was careless. I do not think any- body who is now in the Department was to blame for it, but it was careless, and it was bad, The Department has made an effort to get rid of some of the people who should not be there, and I think the effort is sincere. But there must be a clean end- ing to this whole business. It is not fair to the State Department, it is not fair to the country that there should be a great big question mark and a great big doubt. There is not a Senator, whether he agrees with me or not, and there is not a newspaper man, whether he agrees with me or not on the substantive ques- tion, who does not know in his heart that this majority report and my minority re- port are not going to provide a clean ending to this business. They are just not going to do it. There will still be the doubt. We are never going to resolve it this way. There are going to be ex- tremists who will yell on one side, and there will be extremists who will yell on the other side, but the rank and file of the people who think they perhaps do not like some of the methods which have been used to bring this matter to public attention, nevertheless do think that there have been things which were care. less and which were wrong, and they are never going to be satisfied with a verdict which they regard as political. A United States Senator is regarded as being political; some may be regarded as being a little more political than others. But we hold a political office, and cannot get away from that. Mr, DONNELL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for an inquiry? Mr. LODGE. I yield. Mr. DONNELL. I should like to ask the Senator, as bearing on the question which was discussed earlier today as to whether the document which has been filed here and about which we had con- siderable debate today is the report of the Foreign Relations Committee or the re- port of the subcommittee. I ask the Sen- ator whether he attaches significance to the fact that, at page 29 of this docu- ment, under the heading “Conclusion,” there appears this language: The conclusions of this subcommittee in regard to each allegation made by Senator McCartuy are as follows— After which appear five different con- clusions. Does the Senator think that has a bearing on whether the document is the 10701 report of the subcommittee or the report of the entire committee? Mr. LODGE. I think it has a bearing. I have already stated my view that this report represents the views of the three majority members of the subcommittee and it comes to the Senate by virtue of being transmitted by the Foreign Rela- tions Committee acting in a purely me- chanical capacity. Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, will the Senator further yield for a very brief question? Mr. LODGE. I yield. Mr. DONNELL. Would the Senator object if at the conclusion of his remarks there be set forth in the Recorp that por- tion of the report which appears on page 29, starting with the word “conclusion” and ending with the contents of para- graph 5, as illustrative of whether this document is the report of the subcom- mittee or the report of the full Commit- tee on Foreign Relations? Mr. LODGE. I have no objection. Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the conclu- sion of the remarks of the Senator from Massachusetts that portion of the re- port to which I have referred may be printed in the Rrcorp. The PRESIDING OFFICER. With- out objection, it is so ordered. (See exhibit 1.) Mr. LODGE. Mr. President, there are questions in the minds of the American people which they want answered, and we shall not get a satisfactory result until those questions are answered, There has been some criticism of me, and it has been perfectly fair comment, because I stated in the report that one of the questions that was not asked was, Who was it who sponsored Alger Hiss? It has been said that I was trying to go back 14 years. Mr. President, there are mullions of persons in this country who want to know the answer to that ques- tion, and they do not know it yet. It is a legitimate thing to want to know. It is very definitely 1n the interest of every outstanding, patriotic man and woman in the State Department to have that point cleared up. That is not going to hurt them at all. The resolution which was adopted by this body unanimously—every Senator voted for Senate Resolution 231—di- rected us to see whether persons who are loyal to the United States are or have been employed by the Department of State—note the words—“are or have been employed.” That language was sufficiently broad to go back to Thomas Jefferson’s tenure of office as Secretary of State, which is something that I do not advocate doing; but there is a very legitimate concern with what went on in the recent past, and it is not expressed with the purpose of digsing up dead horses or of making a political issue. There are many sincere persons who want to know what happened in the past so they can prevent its happening in the future. That is a perfectly reasonable, decent, respectable desire. We make mistakes; we find out what they are; then we try to profit by them. So, Mr. President, those were the rea- sons which: actuated me in voting for the
10702 resolution to establish a bipartisan, trained commission to bring about a clean ending to this business, It is a hard enough problem, any way, & very difficult problem; it is a problem out of which I think we must try to extract all the heat and all the passions we possibly can extract. If ever there was a subject in which men who hold responsible pub- lic office should not engage in personal vituperation, should not engage in per- sonal attacks, by name, I think this is the subject. Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. LODGE. I should first like to fin- ish this thought. There surely must be enough brains and ingenuity in America to devise a system for an effective investigation into the subject without besmirching the character of innocent persons, without impairing the position of the United States before the world, and without hampering the work of the investigative agencies of Government. Surely we can develop a system in which the congres- sional independence of the executive is combined with the professional compe- tence of the FBI. That should not be too difficult a thing todo. That, I sub- mit, is what we were trying to do in voting for the motion today. I do not believe I shall ever cast a vote which I think will look better when it is viewed in retrospect than does a vote to bring a clean and constructive ending to this whole business by means of a bipartisan, trained commission which will take the whole thing out of politics, get at the truth, and let the chips fall where they may. T now yield to the Senator from South Dakota. Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, I was very much interested in the Senator’s very descriptive presentation, and I wanted to explore a little bit—— Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, may we have order? It is very difficult to hear what is going on. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Let there be order in the Chamber and in the galleries. Mr. MUNDT. I wish to explore with the Senator the importance which I am sure he feels is involved in such an in- vestigation completely without partisan- ship, by making it strictly bipartisan, and also having it set up in such a fashion that when its report is finally made it will be understandable and reassuring to the general public. In that connection, I wonder if the Senator would agree with me that in es- tablishing such a commission or com- mittee it should be the sole creature either of the Senate or of the Congress, inasmuch as its function is to investigate conditions prevailing in an executive agency. Mr. LODGE. I think there is a deep- seated instinct in America that no matter how honorable and high-minded a per- son may be we cannot trust a man to investigate himself. In the business community we are great believers in what is called an independent audit. If this investigation is to have the kind of constructive and unifying result which CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE I think it should have, then the people whose confidence we want especially to win are not the people who are not ques- tioning us now; they are the people who sincerely doubt what is going on. The only way we can get such confidence is to have the commission established in such a way that it represents all elements in the community. I contend that one of the purposes of the investigation is to restore confidence and unity so that we can close ranks be- fore the world and the State Department can go ahead knowing it has the support of the American people. We shall not get that kind of confidence—we shall be merely shaking hands with ourselves all the time—if we have the executive inves- tigate the executive. We are not going to get that kind of confidence if we have a commission whose sponsorship is en- tirely from the side of those who agree with what is being done. We are not going to get that kind of confidence un- der those circumstances. What we want is a commission whose sponsorship rep- resents all the elements who are sincerely in doubt about what is going on. Then we shall get a result which will unify the people and achieve the confidence so greatly needed. Mr. MUNDT. I agree thoroughly. I raise the question only because in the original, and, I believe, the tentative text of the proposed resolution contained on page 343 of the subcommittee report which I hold in my hand, it is said, as one of the devices to be used in creating such commission, reading from para- graph (3~b)— The six members of the commission who are not Members of the Senate shall be chosen from a panel submitted by the Prea- ident of the United States, comprised of per- sons who as a result of training, experience, and attainments, are exceptionally qualified 1o ascertain the facts with respect to the matters referred to in subsection (a) and to make recommendations with respect thereto. I respectfully submit that inasmuch as this investigation, necessarily, is to check on the loyalty of appointees of the Pres- ident of the United States, to have an investigating committee comprised of persons selected from a panel which the President submits would simply be to pyramid insult upon injury and to achieve nothing. It is highly imperative that to investigate these conditions we have a panel which will be so meticu- lously selected and strictly balanced be- tween Democrats and Republicans that its findings when they are made will be such as will eliminate the Presidential proposition entirely. Mr.LODGE. Isay to the Senator that I am not irretrievably wedded to the language. I offered the resolution to indicate the kind of approach that I think would be fruitful. I am not irre- vocably committed to any language in the resolution, and I shall be glad to make any changes which may be neces- sary. Mr. MUNDT. The deletion of that language would bring the resolution into strict conformity with the splendid cri- teria established by the Senator in his remarks immediately preceding my last interruption, JULY 20 Mr. LODGE. 1am in sympathy with what the Senator says. J should like to say, Mr. President, that on the political side I realize there is a school of thought which holds—and I have noticed it for 20 years—‘‘You must never admit that there has ever been anything wrong. The minute you do, the fat is in the fire and you will lose a lot of votes.” Theodore Roosevelt found it to be tremendously popular to be can- did, to admit that some things have gone wrong, and to behuman, On this Amer- asia case, for example, it seems to me the Department of Justice has put itself in an utterly impossible position by maintaining the attitude through thick and thin that they did not make an error of judgment. That leads us to only one possible conclusion, which is very far from complimentary. It seems to me that it is much better to be can- did, to let the chips fall where they may, and to throw the light into dark places. I remember President Coolidge’s at- titude with regard to the oil scandals. I should like to quote from the remarks of former Senator Wheeler, who, as Sena- tors will remember, was a Democratic Senator from Montana. Senator Walsh also was a Democratic Senator from Montana, They conducted a splendid and most effective investigation into the oil scandals. In that connection Sena- tor Wheeler said: I know of my own personal knowledge that he— Senator Walsh— got from the Department, or officials in the Department, information which he after- ward used, and if he had not been permit- ted to do that, and if I had not been per- mitted to do it, I am sure there would have been a complete failure of the investigation of the Department of Justice. Mr. President, it seems to me that this is a good example to follow in all congres- sional investigations. As I recall, follow- ing that investigation President Coolidge was elected by the largest plurality per- centagewise, I think, by which anyone had been elected President up to that time. It did not seem to hurt him politi- cally at all to be candid and cooperative, and to put himself on the side of those who were trying to correct errors which had been made, so that we could all join forces and move forward. It is bad when we adopt violent atti- tudes, because a violent attitude on one side begets a violent attitude on the other side, and indulging in personalities on one side begets the same thing on the other side. With a war going on in the Far East, we should try to eliminate all personal remarks about each other. I shall not make any personal remarks about anyone, although some have been made about me, because I think it is very important that we keep our eyes on the hills and that we move ahead together and restore confidence in the State D2- partment, so that within 2 or 3 years the great efforts which our Government is making and the sacrifices which the young men who are now. going into the armed services are making will result in lasting peace. After all, that is what is at stake here, What is at stake
1950 in setting up a bi-partisan commission 1s precisely what was at stake in the mes- sage of the President of the United States yesterday. I hope we may approach this proposition with that kind of breadth of vision, manhood, and statesmanship, and not from the standpoint of personalities and politics. Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr, LODGE. I yield. Mr. BREWSTER. I should like to ask &@ very appropriate question of the Sen- ator from Massachusetts and to have him discuss it, because it concerns the very question of personalities, which I think is most unfortunate particularly to those who are not privileged to be Members of this body. One case in the report very effectively illustrates the point I have in mind, and I wonder whether it has been brought to the at- tention of the Senator. It concerns a young man, 34 years of age, of Spanish- Jewish extraction, named Ralph de Toledano, who was referred to in this report at page 93 in this language: One of the primary forces motivating our conclusion is the inescapable fact that Sen- ator McCartHy's charges are almost exclu- sively based on the Larsen article in Plain Talk. That Larsen was the true author of the quoted portions of the article appears doubtful. On the contrary, there is reason to believe that the allegations were in fact made by Isaac Don Levine, and, as will later appear, possibly by Ralph de Toledano. The fact that these persons have been reported to us as professional anti-Communists, whose incomes and reputation depend on the developing and maintaining of new Com- munist fears, while not deemed necessarily significant, has not been altogether over- looked by the subcommittee. I think everyone will recognize the fact that that is certainly very damaging to Mr. de Toledano who, as I understand from what has been reported to me by the former editor of Newsweek, has been an author of various books, including Seeds of Treason, dealing with the Hill case. He was formerly on the staff of New Leaders, which was a Socialist pub- lication. He served in the Army during World War II. Later he was associated with the Society for Ethical Culture, then was managing editor of Plain Talk magazine, and later served with David Dubinsky’s ILGWU, leaving there to go with the magazine Newsweek, of which he was an assistant editor. Naturally, Mr. President, this reflection on him is a very serious one. The first question I wish to ask is, Has the Senator given consideration to the question whether a committee report possesses the immunity from legal liability possessed by debates upon the floor? Has that matter come to the Senator’s attention? Mr. LODGE. I regret to say that it has not. I do not know, Mr. BREWSTER. I have been advised by the Parliamentarian that there have been repeated Supreme Court decisions to the effect that a committee report is in that category, namely, that a commit- tee report is in the same category as a speech or debate in the Senate, for which, under the Constitution, a Member shall not be held accountable in any other place. That being the fact, I assume that the Senator from Massa- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE chusetts would agree that we must be all the more particular about injuring the reputation of other people by action which we take here, or words we utter, or reports we make. Mr. LODGE. I will say to the Sena- tor from Maine that there can be no doubt about that, and there is no one who feels more strongly on that subject than I do. No one feels more strongly than I do about besmirching the repu- tations of innocent persons. I think it is very unfortunate, very un-American, and it goes against everything we stand for. I say that regardless of who does it, whether he is a Republican or a Dem- ocrat. I do not like the procedure. That is one of the reasons why I wanted to have the proceedings of the subcom- mittee held in executive session, because I was afraid that innocent people would be hurt. Mr. BREWSTER. I have a letter ad- dressed to the Senator from Maryland [Mr. TypincGs] by Mr. de Toledano under date of July 16, 1950. I venture to read it because it seems to me that here is an excellent laboratory case of what happens in a case like this: Dear Sir: I have just read the report of your subcommittee on Communists in the State Department. I note its condemna- tion of privileged “character assassination” and call to your attention two statements. Mr. President, I shall not read the first statement again. It is the statement which appears at page 93, which is re- peated verbatim at page 162. (2) If true, the action of Levine and his associates in connection with the Plain Talk article is one of the most despicable instances of a deliberate effort to deceive and hood- wink the American people in our history (p. 148). These statements, insofar as they refer to me, are untrue, malicious, damaging to my professional reputation as a newspaper- man, and libelous. Based on the unsup- ported word of a man convicted of a serious crime against his country, they are given the dignity of senatorial endorsement. I therefore instst that you and/or the co- signers o7 your report publicly retract them, or that you repeat them where you are not cloaked by immunity so that I can take the necessary action, Sincerely yours, RALPH DE TOLEDANO, I see the Senator from Iowa [Mr. HICKENLOOPER! is present. It is my in- formation that there was offered to the committee sworn documents, to which was affixed the signature of Mr. Larsen, demonstrating conclusively that the statements Mr, Larsen make regarding Mr. de Toledano and Mr. Levine were ab- solutely false. I think the Senator from Iowa has photostats of those documents, Does the Senator from Massachusetts have any information regarding either of those documents, to refute the evi- dence of Mr. Larsen regarding Mr. Tole- dano? Mr. LODGE. It so happens that I do not; but I do want to reiterate once again that the story he told us underlines the broad principle to which I have adhered all the way through, that these proceed- ings ought to be in secret in order to pre- vent exactly the kind of injustice to which the Senator from Maine refers. If my memory is correct, I think the Sen- 10703 ator from Wisconsin was in favor of holding the proceedings in secret for the very same reason, Having secret pro- ceedings in an investigation of this kind is not only a much more effective way to ferret out people who are guilty, but it is the only way I know of of protecting people who are innocent. Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Mr. President, will the Senator from Massachusetts yield for a question? Mr. LODGE. I yield. Mr. HICKENLOOPER. I had not in- tended to go into this matter today, and did not in the short statement I made a while ago, but I should like to ask the Senator from Massachusetts, inasmuch as the matter has been raised, if he does not recall that at the last executive meet- ing of the subcommittee at which he and I both were in attendance, I brought up the subject that Mr. Isaac Don Levine, publisher of Plain Talk, had shown me original documents alleged to have been signed and corrected by Mr. Larsen, for the publication of this article, and that I asked that they be given an opportunity to bring these original documents in to prove the verity or lack of verity of Mr. Larsen’s testimony. Does the Senator recall that? Mr. LODGE. It is my recollection that the Senator from Iowa did that. In fact, I believe a reading of the executive rec- ords will confirm the statement. That certainly is my recollection. Mr. HICKENLOOPER. I assure the Senator that a reading of the record will confirm the statement, because I have recently read the executive committee record; but I wanted the Senator to re- call that. Does the Senator recall that Mr. Levine was not called with these documents either to substantiate or disprove this matter, or that Mr. Larsen was recalled for examination. Mr. LODGE. Iam quite sure Mr. Le- vine was not called, because I certainly would have remcmbered it if he had been. Mr. BREWSTER. Would it be the opinon of the Senator from Massachu- setts that uuder the circumstances as developed here it would have been most appropriate for Mr. Levine and Mr. Toledano to have an opportunity to re- fute evidence of this character reflect- ing so seriously upon them? In fact, I thought the committee took action that was calculated to bring that about. Mr. LODGE. Certainly it would have been a measure of justice to those men; there can be no doubt about that. Mr. BREWSTER. I understood the Senator from Massachusetts had not had occasion to secure any opinion as to the immunity enjoyed by a committee report. Mr. LODGE. No; I do not know what the legal facts are about that. Mr. HICKENLOOPER, Mr. President, will the Senator from Massachusetts yield for another question? Mr. LODGE. I yield. Mr. HICKENLOOPER. On page 93 of the alleged report of the subcommittee there appears the following statement, which I shall have to read to the Senator as a preface for my inquiry. This is a statement of the three majority mem- bers, aud it is apropos to the matter of
10704 the Larsen article, and the claim by Mr. Larsen that Mr. Levine distorted his article, and it is apropos to the question of bringing in Mr. Levine and his signed documents to get at the truth of the matter. This is the quotation from the alleged report, in connection with the matter of their refusal to bring Mr. Le- vine in with his documents: One of the primary forces motivating our conclusion is the inescapable fact that Sen- ator McCartirys charges are almost ex- clusively based on the Larsen article in Plain Talk. That Larsen was the true au- thor of the quoted portions of the article appears doubtful. On the contrary, there ig reason to believe that the allegations were in fact made by Isaac Don Levine, and, as will later appear, possibly by Ralph de Toledano. In view of the fact that the three members of the subcommittee say that one of the primary forces motivating their conclusion was this Plain Talk article, does the Senator consider that our subcommittee should have called Mr. Levine, with his documents, and with his published articles, O. K.'d by Mr. Lar- sen, to prove whether or not Mr. Levine and Mr. Toledano fabricated these articles, or whether Mr. Larsen was dis- torting the facts? Incidentally, I have photostatic copies of the documents, with Mr. Larsen's alleged signatures, and corrections in his own handwriting of the article as it went to the printers, together with photo- static copies signed by him of letters after the article was printed. commend- ing the publishers of Plain Talk on the article, soliciting their acceptance and publication of other articles from him, and pointing out how he can continue to help ferret out subversivism in the State Department. Does the Senator feel that that would have been a proper field for us to explore and probe in order to arrive at the truth, rather than to accept the statement of Larsen, a dis- credited human being in his own right, and to disregard and refuse to bring in testimony which might get at the truth of these allegations, which, in the words of the majority members of the subcom- mittee themselves, is one of the primary reasons for their conclusions? Mr. LODGE. Of course, if we had the kind of bipartisan trained commission I advocate, they would run down matters of that kind, they would go into all these leads, which this subcommittee has not been able to go into at all, they would get at the truth, which would be a mat- ter of justice to individuals who have been aggrieved, as it would be a matter of justice to all the splendid people in the State Department, whose American- ism cannot be questioned. I have talked with a cross section of some of the se- curity officials, and they are men who make a splendid impression, and they are entitled, as well as the other peo- ple who work in the State Department are entitled, to have all this cleared up. Above all, the American people are en- titled to have all these doubts cleared up, so that we can unite with confidence in the difficult years which are ahead. Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for another ques- tion? Mr. LODGE. 1 yield. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. HI OPER. I should like to suggest that all the chairman of the subcommittee would have had to do would have been to send word to Mr, Levine asking him to come and bring his documents, and to Mr. Toledano, because both of them, to my own knowledge, were anxious and zealous to appear be- fore the subcommittee; and that matter could have been cleared up merely by the use of the telephone in asking those men to appear before the subcommittee. Does not the Senator think it would have been a very easy matter? Even while I agree in great measure with him on the question of a nonpartisan, nonpolitical investigation of these matters, does not the Senator believe this is at least one case in which the committee was well equipped and abie to go into at least that particular phase? Mr. LODGE. I do not want the Sena- tor to think I was trying to evade his question, because I was not. I think the question of which he speaks is definitely one which the subcommittee could have taken up, and it would not have taken too much time to dispose of it. Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further? Mr. LODGE. I yield to the Senator from Maine. Mr. BREWSTER. I take it this is one illustration of what the Senator referred to in number 2 of his observations, in which he said: Many essential witnesses were not called and essential questions were left unan- swered. The subcommitee'’s record is a tangle of loose threads. This would illustrate that point. Mr. LODGE. I think so, yes. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator from Massachusetts yield? Mr. LODGE. I yield to the Senator from Nebraska, Mr. WHERRY. Taking up the testi- mony of Mr. Larsen, I should like to refer the distinguished Senator to page 149 of the report of the subcomunittee which has now been placed before the Senate. I read beginning with the fourth para- graph: Few people, cognizant of the truth in even an elementary way, have, in the absence of political partisanship, placed any credence in the hit-and-run tactics of Senator Mc- CartHy., He has stooped to a new low in his cavalier disregard of the facts. The simple truth is that in making his speech at Wheeling, Senator McCarthy was talking of s subject and circumstances about which he knew nothing. His extreme and irresponsible statements called for emergency measures. As Senator WHeErryr told Em- manuel 8. Larsen: “Oh, Mac has gone out on a Hmb and kind of made a fool of himself, and we have to back him up now.” Did the Senator from Massachusetts hear that testimony? Mr. LODGE. I think I did. Mr. WHERRY. Does the Senator join with whoever wrote the report in setting it out as a fact that KennetH S. Wuerry, the junior Senator from Nebraska, ever made such a statement? Mr. LODGE. Oh, no. The Senator from Massachusetts was very careful not to sign this report; and the Senator from Massachusetts has tried to make JULY 20 it very clear that he does not agree with this report at all. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President-—— Mr. LODGE. Let me say further, be- cause an interesting question is raised, that while I think that the bringing in of questions of personal prestige and senatorial vanity would be wholly out of place in these serious times, I do ven- ture the guess that if a group of smart young lawyers were to go through the majority report and take out every- thing in it that is a violation of rule XIX and that savors of personal vituperation there would be very little left. I merely venture that as a guess. Mr. WHERRY. I thank the Senator. I appreciate his statement. I have not had time to read every page of the report. It has just been filed. I am not familiar with all the statements contained in it, but if the report in other respects is not more au- thentic than the words I just read from the report, “As Senator WuHerry told Emmanuel S. Larsen,” whoever this man is, and so forth, I wish to say that so far as the American public is concerned I think they can throw it in the ashcan. Mr. President, I want to say emphati- cally that I never made such a statement. I wish to say that on the floor of the Senate and in public utterances I have backed the Senator from Wisconsin LMr, McCartuy! on the theory that I think he has rendered a great service to the American people. I believe that if there were any way to prevent the filing of the report, and if a motion could be made to delete such material as I have read, the Senate of the United States should give the junior Senator from Nebraska the opportunity to have it deleted from the report, and that the matter not be broadcast throughout the whole United States by the circulation of 140,000 or 150,000 copies of the report. I was not even given an opportunity to confront the man who is alleged to have made the statement. I was not given an opportunity to refute this testi- mony. But the statement of this man, whose honor is now being questioned, who is said to be untruthful, is taken at face value, and it is going to be broad- cast to the American people that I made such a statement as he said I made. Mr. President, I think that if rule XIX is applicable against impugning im- proper motives to a Senator on the floor in debate, certainly it ought to be appli- cable to written statements. I have sub-. mitted a provision to extend rule XIX to written statements. A Senator should have the right to delete from a report libelous statements, untrue statements, statements which have never been made by him. Mr, President, I thank the Senator for his answer to my question that he did not have any part in having the state- ment included in the report, and that he did not believe the statement. That gives me much comfort and courage. Mr. LODGE. I may say to my able friend, the distinguished Senator from Nebraska, that I accept his denial com- pletely and without reservation. I do that not only because of the confidence I have in the Senator from Nebraska but
1950 also because of the credibility of the man who made the statement. Mr. CAPEHART. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. LODGE. I yield. Mr. CAPEHART. Are we to under- stand that as the result of the report Senators may now stand on the floor and say whatever they please about each other, in whatever language they care to use? Is that what the report means? Mr. LODGE. Does it mean that be- cause rule XIX was suspended, insofar as the report is concerned, that there- fore it is suspended, insofar as the Sen- ate is concerned? Mr. CAPEHART. Yes. In other words, that the Senator from Massa- chusetts, or I, or any other Senator, can now stand up on the floor of the Senate and say just what he thinks about the other fellow without being called to order. [Laughter.] Mr, LODGE. I will say to my friend from Indiana that I do not see how the cause of American democracy in the world is going to be advanced by our eliminating all courtesy between Sena- tors. I think the tone of the report is very deplorable. I do not talk about the substance of it or the argument of it. Individuals are entitled to their opinions, but I think this tone of personal abuse and vindictiveness is unfortunate. Mr. CAPEHART. I agree with the Senator, but I wonder if, as the result of the report, all rules are suspended, and that no holds are to be barred from now on? Mr. LODGE. I will say that, so far as the Senator from Massachusetts is con- cerned, he has tried since he has been here not to make personal reflections on Senators, and he is going to continue to try not to do that. I yield the floor, Mr. President. Exutstr 1 CoNncLusION The conclusions of this subcommittee in regard to each allegation made by Senator McCarty are as follows: 1. There is no truth in the statement that Mrs. Brunauer was assistant to Alger Hiss at San Francisco. 2. The allegation that Mrs. Brunauer was responsible for getting the American As- sociation of University Women to support Communist fronts is false. In fact, the allegation was based on incomplete evi- dence when the same evidence would have refuted the charge if it had not been delib- erately withheld. 3 Mrs. Brunauer did attend two meetings of the Friends of the Soviet Union in 1934 and 1936. On both cases she attended for perfectly legitimate motives and no infer- ence of Communist sympathies can be raised therefrom. She denied, and there is no evi- dence to show, that she was ever a member of the Amocrican Friends of the Soviet Union. 4. Mrs. Brunauer was a signer of the call to the Congress of Youth. However, the an- nounced principles of the meeting were en- tirely proper and the list of signers conclu- sively refutes any implication of Communist sympathy because of this act. In addition, there is no evidence before the subcommit- tee that this particular meeting was under the domination of the American Youth Con- gress, as alleged. 5. Mrs. Brunauer was active in the Ameri- ean Union for Concerted Peace Efforts and the Committee for Concerted Peace Efforts in 1988. The latter was cited as an organi- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE zation with the same aims as the American Congress for Peace and Democracy by the House Committee on Un-American Activities in 1944. There 1s no evidence before us to support the allegation that the editor of the Datly Worker was active therein, Mr, TYDINGS obtained the floor. Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, will the Senator yield so I may suggest the absence of a quorum? Mr. TYDINGS. If I do not lose the floor by yielding for that purpose, I yield. I make such a request. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the Senator from Maryland that he may yield to the Senator from North Carolina to sug- gest the absence of a quorum, without losing the floor thereby? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered. Mr. GRAHAM. I suggest the ab- sence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk called the roll, and the following Senators answered to their names: Aiken Holland Millikin Anderson Humphrey Morse Benton Hunt Mundt Bricker Ives Murray Bridges Jenner Myers Butler Johnson, Colo. Neely Capehart Johnson, Tex. O'Mahoney Chapman Johnston, 8.C. Pepper Chavez Kem Robertson Connally Kerr Russell Cordon Kilgore Saltonstall Darby Langer Schoeppel Donnell Leahy Smith, Maine Douglas Lehman Smith, N. J. Ecton Lodge Sparkman Ellender Lucas Stennis Flanders McCarthy Thomas, Utah Frear McClellan Thye Fulbright McFarland Tydings Graham McKellar Watkins Green McMahon Wherry Hayden Magnuson Wiley Hendrickson Malone Williams Hickenlooper Martin Young Hill Maybank The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quorum is present. Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, before discussing in some sequence the events which I shall presently relate, but re- ferring now specifically to the point raised by the Senator from Iowa [Mr. HickenLooper), I wish to read a letter: JuLy 3, 1950. Hon. Bourke B. HICKENLOOPER, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. My Dear Senator: I am scheduling a meet- ing of our subcommittee for 10:30 a. m. on Friday, July 7. In accordance with the motion adopted at our last meeting—— Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. TYDINGS. I yield. Mr. WHERRY. The report has been filed, has it not? Mr. TYDINGS. Yes. Mr. WHERRY. Therefore the sub- committee is discharged. Let me inquire who is the gentleman sitting to the right of the Senator from Maryland, and what authority has he to be on the floor of the United States Senate? Mr. TYDINGS. Under the rules of the Senate, he is still the counsel of the subcommittee; he has not been dis- charged. I have conferred with him, 10705 and we are entitled to keep him until such time as we wind up our business. Mr. WHERRY. Counsel of what? There is no subcommittee left. Mr. TYDINGS. I still have many duties to perform; I have hundreds of documents which I have gathered from various governmental agencies, and which I have to return. I even have a Republican investigator on the payroll; I saw him today. Mr. WHERRY. Aside from a Sena- tor’s secretary, special permission has to be granted to anyone to come on the floor of the Senate. Mr. President, I raise the point of or- der that this man is not a Senator’s sec- retary, he does not have permission to be on the floor of the Senate, and he is not today entitled to the floor of the Senate. I ask that the Sergeant at Arms see that all persons not entitled to the floor of the Senate are cleared from the floor of the Senate. Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, this gentleman was appointed by a vote of our subcommittee; he is chief counsel of the subcommittee. I have asked him to bring numerous papers here, so that I may tell the Senate—without heat, without passion—exactly what occurred. It will be a serious handicap to me to have to go through all these many fold- ers and get the papers about which Sena- tors may from time to time interrogate me. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, I deeply appreciate the statement the Senator has made, and I wish to be fair. Mr. TYDINGS. I hope the Senator will be. Mr. WHERRY. I have always re- spected the Senator from Maryland, and he knows it; and I should like to ac- quiesce in his request. Mr. TYDINGS. I hope the Senator from Nebraska will do so. Mr. WHERRY. But I just asked this man Morgan whether he wrote the por- tion of the report about the Senator from Nebraska, and he said he did. Mr. Pres- ident, a man who will impugn a Senator, as he has done, is not entitled to the floor of the Senate, and should be ejected. Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, I know how the Senator from Nebraska feels about that matter; but I hope he will be magnanimous to me and will not put me to such a disadvantage. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, I do not wish to put the Senator from Mary- land to a disadvantage; but I do not think a man of that sort has the right to be on the floor of the Senate. I make the point of order. Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, he is an employee of the full Senate Foreign Relations Committee; and I ask that he be permitted to remain here until he ts discharged by the proper authority. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, I ask that the rule be enforced. He is not entitled to the floor of the Senate. There is no justification for it. He has not been granted permission, and the pres- ent occupant of the Chair knows that to be so. I ask that he be ejected from the floor of the United States Senate.