Congressional ‘Record PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 3) a CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION SENATE WEDNESDAY, JULY 12, 1950 (Lepisiative day of Saturday,July 1, 1950) The Senate met at 12 o'clock meridian, on the expiration of the recess. The Chaplain, Rev. Frederick Brown Harris, D. D, offered the following prayer: Our Pather God, amid the dismaying circumstances of these days, in the ten- sion of the present and anxiety about the future, with deep concern about our- selves, our Nation, and our world, we turn to Thee who only art our strong tower and sure defense m the flood of mortal ills prevailing. In the agony of the world we hear Thy solemn summons to discipline, toil, and to ceaseless prayer, for we, too, are soldiers in the front line arrayed against the common foe. In ‘Thy mame we set up our banners. And though the air be tremulous with an- guish and foreboding, yet will we not fear; though an host encamp against us in this will we be confident: Thou makest the devices of the wicked of none effect. The counsel of the Lord standeth for- ever, the thoughts of His heart to all generations. Amen. THE JOURNAL On request of Mr. Lucas, and by unani- mous consent, the reading of the Jour- nal of the proceedings of Tuesday, July 11, 1950, was dispensed with. MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT— APPROVAL OF BILLS Messages in writing from the President of the United States were communicated to the Senate by Mr. Miller, one of his secretaries, and he announced that the President had approved and signed the following joint resolutions: On July 10, 1650: 8. J. Res. 170. Joint resolution to provide for the transfer of the paintings, The Grand Canyon of the Yellowstone, and The Chasm of the Colorado, from the United States Capitol to the Department of the Interior. On July 11, 1950: 8.3 Res. 171. Joint resolution transferring the plaster cast of the statue of George Washington from the United States Capitol to the Smithsonian Institution. MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE A message from the House of Repre- sentatives, by Mr. Chaffee, one of its clerks, announced that the House had peassed a bill (H. R. 9063) to amend the Export-Import Bank Act of 1045, as which it requested the concurrence of the Senate. ENROLLED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTION SIGNED The message also announced that the Speaker had affixed his signature to the following enrolled bills and joint resolu- tion, and they were signed by the Vice President: 8 381. An act for the relief of Low Way Hong; 8.557 An act for the relief of the Mc- Cormick Engineering Co. and John £, Price, an individual doing business as the Okee- chobee Construction Co ; 8 587 An act for the relief of Sister Stef- ania Cuprys; 8.848. An act for the relief of Lorenzo Buira Sarrate, S. 1086. An act for the relief of the Dixie Margarine Co., a Tennessee corporation of Memphis, Tenn.; S 1304. An act for the relief of Nicolae G. Caranfi! and his family; 8 1347 An act for the relief of Jose Da Bilva; 8. 1869 An, act for the relief of Marcan- tonio Morla d'Angri and his wife, Sonia Stampa d’Angri; S. 2079. An act for the relief of Mrs. Lydia L. Smith; 8, 2086. An act transferring management of certain public lands from the Agricul- ture Department to the Fort Sill Indian School in Oklahoma for agriculture uses; 8 2227 An act to amend the act approved July 18, 1940 (54 Stat. 766, 24 U. 8. C, 1946 ed., sec. 196b), entitled “An act relating to the admission to St. Etizabeths Hospital of persons resident or domiciled in the Virgin Islands of the United States,” by enlarging the classes of persons admisatble into St. Elizabeths Hospital and in other respects; 8 2231. An act for the relief of Marco Murolo and hie wife Romana Pellis Murolo; B 2399. An act for the relief of Ho Paak- Sui, & 2462. An act for the relief of Ruzina Bkalova; 8S 2575. An act for the relief of Yayoko Kobayashi and June Kobayashi, and for other purposes; 8 2658. An act to establish rearing ponds and a fish hatchery in the State of Kentucky; 8.2662. An act for the relief of Evzen Syro- vatka and his wife; 8.2682. An act for the relief of Naum Tonescu and his wife, 6. 2735. An act for the relief of Mra. Vernon B. Raamussen; 8.2745. An act for the relief of Marte De Chanmapourcin; 8.2796. An act for the relief of Fortunato Gtulio Torre; 8.3007. An act for the relief of Stefanie Pfister and Hildegarde Weber; 8.3582, An act to authorise revision of the procedures employed in the administration of certain trust funde administered by the Veterans’ Administration; 8. 3085. An act to enable the governments Of Alaska, of Hawailt, of Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Ielands to authorize public bodies or agencies to undertake slum clearance, urban redevelopment, and low-rent housing activi- ties including the issuance of bonds and other obligations, to amend the low-rent housing enabling statutes for Alaska and Hawaii, and for other purposes; 8 3876. An act to provide free postage for members of the Arme! Forces of the United States tn areas; and 8. J. Res, 180. Joint resolution to suspend until December 31, 1950, the application of certain Federal lawe with respect to attor- neys employed by the Subcommittee on Labor-Management Relations of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare in connection with the study and investiga- tion ordered by Senate Resolution 140, Bighty-first Congress. CALL OF THE ROLL Mr. LUCAS. I suggest the absence of & quorum The VICE PRESIDENT. The Secre- tary will call the roll. The roll was called, and the following Senators answered to their names: Aiken Hickenlooper Martin Anderson Hin Maybank Benton Hoey Millikin Brewster Holland Morse Bricker Humphrey Mundt Bridges Hunt Murray Butler Ives Myers Byrd Jenner Neely Capehart Johnson, Calo, O'Mahoney Chapman Johnson, Tex Robertson Chavez Jonnston,8 © Russell Connally Kefauver Saltonstall Cordon Kem Bchoeppel Donnell Kerr Smith, Maine Douglas Kilgore Smith, N, J. Dworshak FKrnowland f=) Eastland Langer Stennis Beton Leahy Taft EvJender Lehman Thomas, Orla, Perguson Lodge Thomas, Utah Planders Long Thye Frear L Tydings Pulbright McCarran Vandenberg George McCarthy Watkins Gillette McCiellan Wherry Graham McFarland Wiley Green McKellar Wilitams Gurney McMahon Young Hayden Magnuson Hendrickson Matone Mr. MYERS. I announce that the Senator from California (Mr. Downrr] is absent because of illness. The Senator from Maryland [Mr. O’Comor] is absent by leave of the Sen- ate on official business, attending the sessions of the International Labor Or- ganization at Geneva, Switzerland, as a delegate representing the United States. The Senator from Florida (Mr. Pxr- PRR] is absemt because of the death of Judge Curtis Waller, a personal friend, whose funeral is being held today. The Senator from Idaho [Mr. TaYLor] and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Wrtueas) are absent by leave of the Sen- ate. Mr. ‘8ALTONSTALL. I announce that the Genator from Washington [Mr. Cam], the Senator from Kansas (dg, Darsy) and the Senator from New 9267
9970 in which case the Attorney General has sus- pended deportation for more than 6 months: A-~6029124, Taylor, Sidney Norman (for- merly ‘Tatelman, alias Samuel Norman Taylor). A~-6725876, Laks, Joseph Lyndel. A-1781852, Fuhrmann, Michael. A-6868227, Triantafilos, Georgios (alias George Triantafilos), A-6428636, Safani, Ezatollah Hashem. A-6428635, Safani, Fakhre Moluk Mahboubian). A-6481412, Salmman, Salomon. A~-6491325, Salzman, Necka or Necha (nee Hartmann). A-6409553, Thout, Henri. A-€423544, Thout, Mathilde Lucienne (nee Four). A-7560616, Yan Sant, Helen Josefna (nee Helen Gavrilkina or Helen Josefna Smith). A-6421714, Wattinne, Emmanuel Andre A--6421712, Wattinne, Genevieve (nee Du- bart). A-6738893, Cohen, Theodore, or Theodor Cohen or Theodor Moscovitz. A:-6738804, Cohen, Zeev. A-6422172, Ramirez-Calvillo, Basilio. A-6763248, Ramirez-Munoz, Anastacia. A-6763249, Ramirez-Munoz, Francisco. A-6763250, Ramirez-Munoz, Reynalda. A-9776746, Gawronski, Marian. A-6171825, Mercader, Antonio Jimenez, or Jimenez Mercador. A~5991076, Schwarz, Maria or Werner (nee Reiner). A-5991075, Schwere, Morris, or Ceza Gabriel Werner. A-5435491, Kroog, Fritz Heinrich Konrad, or Fred Henry Conrad Kroog or Fred Fischer. A-3638660, Cavaco, Francisco Da Silva or Frank Silva. A-1317193, Cohen, Eva. A-7041970, Cohen, James Irving, A-5709166, Cohen, Morris. A-6622032, Daschek, Franz Ludwig. A-5622079, Daschek, Marie Antonia (nee Sustr). A-~4287504, De Custro, Joaquin Fernandes, or Luis Vedro or Jack Valaria, A~3288227, Dimos, Isidoros, Nicolaou Dimos. A-~-2044819, Gerolimatos, Dionisios, or Denis Nicholas. A-3699009, Goncalves, Antonio. A~-5422978, Gonsalves, Maria (alias Maria Anna Celina Parental, alias Marie Anno Par- ent, allas Mrs. De Courville). A-4325050, Jimoyjanis, George C., or Georgios Chris Jimoyianes or George Christ dimos. A-3261929, Katechis, Constantine Spiros. A~7029793, King-Yien, Laat. A-1073649, Kliglich, Bronislaw. wen tes. Krol, Joseph, or Joseph Carl ro A-4572952, Labdas, Demetrios, or James Constantine Lavdas. A~3240920, Livanis, Michael Panagiotis, or Michael Peter Livanis, A-3889829, Lombardi, Cluliano, or Dominic Lombarde. A-1755458, Loussedes, Basilios Antonios (aliases Willlam Anthony Loussedes, William Anthony Loussedos, Vassilios Lousidis), A-2281926, Maglish, Efim Jim. A-2541839, Mandarakas, John, or John Mandas. A~2923256, sfoscos, Georgios Glannes, or George Moskos or Moschos. A~7029794, Mo-Yien, Laal. A-2561962, Pagiou, Panagiotis Christov (allas Panaylotis Christov Pagio alias Pete Paciou). A~5750560, Palffy, Frank, or Ference Falfi or Frank P. Baker. 4-3722917, Paparizos, Regas Antonios, cr Regas A. Paparizos. A-7722859, Perez Estelle Ruby Curtis (nee Goodalle, alias Goodall alias Estelle Ruby Curti. Martin). A~7685398, Plesman, Alma Hmalie Frane eolse (nee Berner). (nee or Isidoros CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE A-7805700, Pleaman, Cornelis. A~3819787, Run, Wong Look, or Wong Luk Run or Wong Din or Pee Wee or Run Luk Wong or Run L, Wong. A-3225657, Suan, Aw Tee, or Hong Fong or Fong Hong. A-8776006, Sui-Laan, Loh, or Mrs. Laat Yi- Paai. A-2185135, Yang, Ho Ching, or Yang Ho Ching. A-1894484, Yang, Von Sung (nee Von Sung Soung). A~3076334, Yi-Faai, Laa. A-4352509, Aikaterines, Demetrios, or James M. Katerinis. A-6740311, All, Kubaiyat, or Kalafi All. A~-6606703, Bisenz, Rudolf, or Rudolf Bisentz. A- 6606704, Bisenz, Suzanne (nee Hoffman), A-4631567, Bufi, Giuseppe. A~2292029, Calamaras, Peter, or Panagiotis Calamaras. A-5785879, Chow, Shu Ping. A-4004076, Coveris, Emanuel Stamatiou. A-2246431, Gianiotis, George Gregorios, or John Kordonas. A-4680895, Gifford, Joseph. A-3269763, Hallas, Sotirlos, or Sam Hallas or Sotirios Halas, A-~2966003, Kakouris, Matheos, or Mathaios Kakouris or Mike Corls. A-3082607, Kantsos, Angelos Angoniou, or Angelo Anthony Kantsos. A-1441262, Kriticos, Evangelos Georgious, or Angelos Kriticos. A-6489656, Lybarger, Gladys Maud, or Gladys Marjorie Lybarger or Gladys Marjorie Turner or Gladys Marjorie Glend. A-C948932, Pagoulatos, Spironilolaos, or Nicholas Pagoulatos. A~-3111122, Palazzo, Berardino, or Berardino Palazzo Di Antonio. A-~-2033686, Pinto, John. A-2363649, Said, Abdul, or Reefat Ullah. A -5990863, Scuglia, Domenico. A-2073291, Sikoutris, Evangelos Nicolaus, A~-3749650, Stef, Nicolae, or Nick Stef. A-3902083, Young, Chin Kung (alias George Chan, George Chin, Chin Gene Pong). A~6965100, Iacono, John George Dello. A-7500627, Yamagiwa, Hanako. A-7124032, Tsai, Mark, or Mark Chai. A~-7578919, Freel, Pansy Muriel, or Pamela Mur’:! Freel. A-6377729, Sun, Dr. Kuel-shu. A--7284887, Didner, Samuel. A~-2052412, Mrak, Joseph or Joe Mrak, A-3683972, Folitis, Petros Andrea. A-6235601, Kia, Ghodsee Zaman nee Al- bore A-~6079535, Wyss, Maria Luling or Marla Milagros Luling Wyss. INCREASE IN LIMIT OF EXPENDITURES BY COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado, from the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, reported an original resolu- tion (S. Res. 308), which, under the rule, was referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration, as follows: Resolved, That the limit of expenditure contained in Senate Resolution 50, agreed to April 11, 1949 (authorizing the Commit~ tee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce to investigate problems relating to the airline industry, the United States merchant ma- rine, domestic land and water transporta- tion, and radio, telegraph, and telephone communications), hereby is increased by $75,000, and the time within which the com- mittee may complete the said investigation hereby is extended to March 1, 1961, REPORT ON PERSONNEL AND FUNDS BY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS Pursuant to Senate Resolution 123, Bightieth Congress, first session, the fol- JULY 12 lowing report was received by the Secre- tary of the Senate: JuLy 1, 1850, Report OF COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS To the SxcRETARY OF THE SENATE: The above-mentioned committee, pursuant to Senate Resolution 128, Kightieth Congress, first session, submits the fdllowing report showing the name, profession, and total salary 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 its subcommittees: Raeo Total Name and profession - bulury annual received salury Fverard H. Smith chicfelerk.... — |$10, 846, 00)#5, 422, 98 Ceal HH. Lotbert, assistant chief 00 10, 612, 75{ 5, 256, 36 Hermau E “Downey, prolessional stafl member _ 10, 512. 73) 5, 204. 51 Fal W, Cooper, professional staff. member.....----.---. oe eeee eee 9, 932. 07} 4,966 02 Thomas J, Scott, ‘ de 9, 268, 45] 4, 634, 22 Harold I, M staff member 9, 268, 45} 4, 634. 22 Francis 8 Hewitt, staff member 2. &, 770. 74] 4, 385, 34 Kimball Sanborn, professional statt member_... 22.222. 8,770 74) 4,386. 34 Edmand T, King, profe ssional staft member_.....--.------ -----2---- 8,770 74] 4,385 34 Adelhert F. Teague, ussistant clerk [| 8, 521 88] 4, 260 90 Lawrence TL, Wendiich, assistant @lerk 22222. cee nee nee Mame L, Mizen, assistant clerk... Richard C Venne, clerical assistant. Bernadine Wassam Jan, 1 to Apr. 12, 1950, clorical assistant... Marty k Yanick clerical assistant. 7,194, 65} 3, 597. 30 6, 826, 94} 3, UKs 44 4,415 10} 2, 207. 62 3,719. 87] 1,053, 03 4,415, 10) 1,975 76 Lois C. Joy, clerical assistant. 4, 241, 20) 1, 900 26 Corinne Bryan, Mar. 30 to June 30, 1950, clerical assistint.. 8,719 87) 040, 27 Doris'M. MNiott, Mar 30'to Junc 30, 1950), clerical assistant. ......- 3,730 87) 940 27 KenNetH McCKELLaR, Chairman, JuLy 1, 1950. REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS To the SECRETARY OF THE SENATE: The above-mentioned committee, pursuant to Senate Resolution 123, Eightieth Congress, first session, submits the following report in addition to the statement showing the name, profession, and total salary of each person employed by it and its subcommittees for the period from January 1, to June 30, 1950, together with the funds available to and expended by it and its subcommittees: Miscellaneous expenses Unexpended balance of amount authorized by S. Res. 129, June 26, 1947, as of July 1, 1949...-. $36, 987. 73 Amount expended July 1, to June 30, 1950.......-.. wae ene ewen 12, 836. 24 Balance unexpended as of June 80, 1950___.--.--...----.-.---- 24,161.49 Unexpended balance of funds authorized by Reorganization Act and 8. Res, 126, 81st Con- gress, as of July 1, 1949....... Funds authorized by S. Res. 185 and 293, 81st Congress......-. 20,000.00 Total ....--2 n-ne ee 88, 265, 97 Amount expended July 1 to June 80, 1950.02.0 ween 13, 265. 97 18, 027.18 Balance unexpended as of June 80, 1950.00 eee Punds quthorized by “Legislative Appropriation Act, 1950 (Pub- lic Law 118) ....--..-.--.--~- 80, 000. 00 Amount expended July 1, 1949, to June 80, 1060... nnn ween ee eenewceeme 15, 238. 79 Balance unexpended as of June 80, 1050... -.-.-~-..------ woe 80, 000. 00
1950 ENROLLED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLU- TION PRESENTED The Secretary of the Senate reported that on today, July 12, 1950, he pre- sented to the President of the United States the following enrolled bills and joint resolution: 8.381 An act for the rellef of Low Way Hong; 8. 557. An act, for the relief of the McCor- mick Engineering Co. and John E. Price, an individual doing business as the Okeechobeo Construction Co.; 8.587. An act for the relief of Sister Stefania Cuprys; 8. An act for the relief of Lorenzo Buira Sarrate; 8.1086. An act for the relief of the Dixte Margarine Co., a Tennessee corporation, of Memphis, Tenn.; 8. 1304. An act for the relief of Nicholae G. Caranfil and his family, 8.1847. An act for the relicf of Jose Da Silva; 8.1869. An act for the relief of Marcan- tonio Dora d’Angri and his wife, Sonia Stampa Doria d@’Angri; 8. 2079. An act for the relief of Mrs. Lydia L, Smith; S$ 2086. An act transferring management of certain public lands from the Agriculture Department to the Fort Sill Indian School in Oklahoma for agriculture uses; 8.2227 An act to amend the act approved July 18, 1940 (54 Stat. 766; 24 U. 8, O., 1946 ed, sec. 196b), entitled “An act relating to the admission to St, Elizabeths Hospital of persons resident or domiciled in the Virgin Islands of the United States,” by enlarging the classes of persons admissible into St. Elizabeths Hospital and in other respects; 8. 2231. An act for the relief of Marco Murolo and his wife, Romana Pellis Murolo; 8. 2849. An act for the relief of Ho Paak- Sul; §. 2462. An act for the relief of Rusina Skalova; 8. 2576, An act for the relief of Yayoko Ko- bayashi and June Kobayashi, and for other purposes; §. 2658. An act to establish rearing ponds and a fish hatchery in the State of Kentucky; 8.2662. An act for the relief of Evzen Syro- vatka and his wife; 8 2682. An act for the relief of Naum Ionescu and his wife; 8. 2735. An act for the relief of Mrs. Vernon B. Rasmussen; 8.2745 An act for the relief of Marie De Champourcin; 8.2795. An act for the relief of Fortunato Giulo Torre; §. 3007. An act for the relief of Stefanie Pfister and Hildegarde Weber; §. 8682, An act to authorize revision of the procedures employed in the administration of certain trust funds administered by the Veterans’ Administration; 8. 3635. An act to enable the governments of Alaska, of Hawali, of Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands to authorize public bodies or agencies to undertake slum clearance, urban redevelopment, and low-rent housing ac~- tivities Including the issuance of bonds and other obligations, to amend the low-rent housing enabling statutes for Alaska and Hawaii, and for other purposes; &. 3676. An act to provide free postage for members of the Armed Forces of the United States in specified areas; and 8, J. Res, 180. Joint resolution to suspend until December 31, 1960, the application of certain Federal laws with respect to attor- neys employed by the Subcommittee on Labor-Management Relations of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare in connection with the study and investigation ordered by Senate Resolution 140, ty first. Congresa. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTION INTRODUCED Bills and a joint resolution were in- troduced, read the first time, and, by unanimous consent, the second time, and referred as follows: By Mr. LANGER: § 3902. A bill to amend the Civil Service Retirement Act of May 29, 1930, as amended, 80 as to include immigrant inspectors within the provisions thereof relating to annuities of personnel engaged in hazardous occupa- tions; to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service. (Mr. DOUGLAS introduced Senate bill 3903, to provide for a study of the mental and physical consequences of malnutrition and starvation suffered by prisoners of war and civilian internees during World War I, which was referred to the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, and appears under @ separate heading ) By Mr GRAHAM: 8. 3904. A bill for the relief of Brant Bon- ner; and 8.3905. A bill for the relief of Gerrit W. Poley; to the Committee on the Judiciary. (Mr, McCARRAN introduced Senate bill 3908, to amend the War Contractors Relief Act with respect to the definition of a re- quest for relief, to authorize consideration and settlement of certain claims of sub- contractors, to provide reasonable compen- sation for the services of partners and pro- prietors, and for other purposes, which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and appears under a separato heading ) “(Mr. MAGNUSON (for himself,Mr. Typrnas, Mr. JoHNsON of Colorado, Mr. McFar.anp, Mr. Brewstsr, Mr. O'Conor, Mr. Morsz, Mr. Humrurey, Mr, Taylor, Mr. Downry, Mr. Murray, Mr, GILLeTTs, Mr. SmiTH of New Jersey, Mr. Cain, Mr. LEHMAN, Mr. SPARKMAN, Mr. Kivaorr, Mr. Ives, Mr. Mynas, Mrs. SMITH of Maine, Mr. Henprickson, Mr. Hint, Mr. Lono, Mr. McMaHon, anc Mr. SALTONSTALL), introduced Senate bill 3907, to direct the survey and repair of certain vessels in the National Defense Reserve Fleet, which was referred to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, and appears under a sep- arate heading.) By Mr. FLANDERS: 8. 3008. A bill for the relief of Edith Win- ifred Henderson; to the Committee on the Judiciary, By Mr. HUMPHREY (for himself, Mr. Ecron, and Mr. Frrar): 8 3909. A bill to amend section 16 of the act entitled “An act to reclassify the salaries of postmasters, officers, and employees of the postal service; to establisr uniform proce- dures for computing compensation, and for other purposes,” approved July 6, 1946; and .5.3910. A bill relating to the assignment of surplus clerks in the Postal Transportation Service; to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Bervice. By Mr. FLANDERS: 8, J. Res.194. Joint resolution to provide that the housing developments known as Westview and Southview in the town of Springfield, Vt., shall for the purposes of the seventeenth decennial census be treated as a part of the village of Springfield, Vt.; to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service. STUDY OF MALNUTRITION SUFFERED BY PRISONERS OF WAR AND CIVILIAN IN- TERNEES, WORLD WAR I Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I in- troduce for appropriate reference a bill to provide for a study of the mental and physical consequences of malnutrition and starvation suffered by prisoners of war and civilian internees during World War II, and I ask unanimous consent that a statement in explanation of the 9971 bill, prepared by me, 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 Tlinois will be printed in the Racorp. The Chair hears no objection. The bill (8, 3903) to provide for a study of the mental and physical consequences of malnutrition and starvation suffered by prisoners of war and civilian internees during World War Il, was read twice by its title, and referred to the Commit- tee on Labor and Public Welfare. The statement presented by Mr. Douvc- Las is as follows: STATEMENT BY Senator Dovacias Mr. President, the bill I have introduced would provide for a study of the mental and physical consequences of malnutrition and starvation suffered by prisoners of wer and civilian internees during World War II. The purpose of such an inquiry, a6 stated in the bill, would be to determine the prop- er standards to be applied to the diagnosis of the mental and physical aftereffects of pro- longed abuse of health and its resultant in- fluence on life expectancy. A further abjec- tive would be the determination of whether there is evidence to sustain a conclusive pre- sumption of service-connection in favor of prisoners of war for purposes of veterans’ hospitalization. Moreover, in the event addl- tional claims of American civilian and mili- tary personnel are recognized, the results of the study would serve as a criterion in de- termining the extent of such claims, Mr. President, the spadework for this in- quiry was initiated by the War Claims Com- mission as a result of the directive in section 8 of the War Claims Act of 1048. The Presi- dent of the United States in his message of May 8, 1960, transmitting the Commission's report to the Congress, emphasized the in- adequacy of time allowed for the preparation of this aspect of the Commission's work. The President recommended that a more comprehensive study be conducted. The War Claims Commission's report dis- closes that many former prisoners of war, both military and civilian, assert emotional and physical disability which may be ascribed to the malnutrition and other hardships of their imprisonment by the enemy—efllictions which gain little recognition due to the lack of knowledge on the peculiar problem. Ac- cording to information furnished to the Commission, it is the almost unanimous view of physicians and medical specialists on nu- trition that the disabling aftereffects of im- prisonment are almost universally found among former prisoners of war, and that medical science is presently unprepared to cope with the problems presented. This past month, there was conducted at the University of Minnesota a conference on the residues of nutritional insult. The in- ternationally recognized experts on nutrition who participated in that conference gave serious consideration, among other things, to the related problems of former war prison- ers. On the basis of the discussion con- ducted and the finding of the conferees, recommendations were drafted conoerning necessary future steps to be undertaken in the field of nutritional insult In this re- gard, it should be noted that among the tentative recommendations of the conference is one calling for a study of the type provided for by this bill. AMENDMENT OF WAR CONTRACTORS’ Mr. McCARRAN. Mr, President, I in- troduce for appropriate reference a bill to amend the War Contractors’ Relief
9972 Act, which was vetoed by the President. This bill is a substitute for House bill 3436, which the President vetoed on June 30—CONGRESSIONAL Rizcorp, pages 9602- 9603. In returning the bill without his approval, the President stated one spe- cific objection to it and took the unusual course of specifying in some detail the type af a measure he would approve. In order to comply with the President's suggestions, I am introducing this bill and ask unanimous consent that it be printed in full at this point in the body of the Recorp, together with a statement by me explaining the bill. The VICE PRESIDENT. The bill will be received and appropriately referred and, without objection, the bill and statement will be printed in the Recorp. The bill (8S. 3906) to amend the War Contractors’ Relief Act with respect to the definition of a request for relief, to authorize consideration and settlement of certain claims of subcontractors, to provide reasonable compensation for the services of partners and proprietors, and for other purposes, introduced by Mr. McCarran, was received, read twice by its title, referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Be it enacted, etc., That the act of August 7, 1946 (Public Law No. 657, 79th Cong., ch. 864, 60 Stat. 902), as amended (sec. 37 of the act of June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 869, 992), is hereby amended by adding the following section thereto: “Src. 7. Within the limitations stated in this act and no others: “(1) For the purposes of this section and except as otherwise provided by paragraph (5) hereof, all departments, agencies, or the heads or duly designated representatives thereof authorized to consider, adjust, and settle claims under this act are hereby di- rected, on request filed not more than 60 days after the effective date of this section, and after affording claimants reasonable op- portunity to amend or supplement their claims, to reconsider claims heretofore filed in accordance with the provisions of this act and rejected or disallowed in whole or part. “(2) Notwithstanding anything in section 3 of this act with reference to the necessity of a request for relief filed on or before Au- gust 14, 1945, claims otherwise payable under this act shall be allowed to the extent that they include losses with respect to which in a& writing submitted to a department or agency concerned on or before August 14, 1946, the claimant (a) requested relief avail- able under the First War Powers Act, (b) demanded payment thereof, or (c) gave no- tice of such sustained or impending loss; but nothing in this paragraph shall be taken to Nmit or exclude other requests for relief otherwise sufficient under section 3 of this act. “(8) Claims otherwise payable under this act, as amended, shall include those of sub- contractors on the same basis as the claims of prime contractors if the request for re- lief, demand for payment, or notice of sus~ tained or impending loss required by section 8 of this act or defined by paragraph (2) of this section was submitted in writing by such claimants on or before August 14, 1945, to either (a) a department or agency con- cerned or (b) the prime contractor or other subcontractor involved, “(4) Claims otherwise allowable under this act, as amended, shall include reasonable compensation for the services of working partners and proprietors of unincorporated claimants during the period of performance of the contracts or subcontracts involved, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE *“(5) The jurisdiction of courts over suite now pending under this act is hereby pre- served and, notwithstanding paragraph (1) of this section, no plaintiff in such action shall be required either to present his claim again to the department or agency con- cerned or to begin his action in court anew; put nothing in this act or amendment shall prevent any department or agency, in agree- ment with the plaintiff! claimant, from re- considering any claim for the purpose of paying it or entering into an agreement for the compromise or settlement of the whole or any part thereof and, to the extent that hereafter such payments are made or such settlements are executed pursuant to any such agreement, court actions shall there. upon be iimited accordingly or dismissed as the case may be. “(6) Where necessary to effectuate the purposes of this section the court in any case heretofore filed under this act shall, upon motion filed by the plaintiff not more than 60 days after the effective date of this section, (a) permit the plaintiff to amend his claim or pleadings, (b) vacate any adverse judgment or ruling, or (c) revive the action; but nothing in this paragraph shall be deemed to require any plaintiff to seek any such action where it is unnecessary for the preservation of his rights under this act and section in accordance with the existing prac- tice, procedure, or course of judicial pro- ceedings. “(7) As used in this act, as amended, the terms ‘contractors,’ ‘subcontractors,’ and ‘materialmen’ include individuals, partner- ships, joint ventures, business associations, and corporations and mean with respect to partnerships, joint ventures, or business as- sociations, the partnerships, joint ventures, or business associations themselves, and not the individual members thereof.” The statement presented by Senator McCarran is as follows: STATEMENT BY SENATOR MCCARRAN The bill would amend the War Contractors Relief Act (60 Stat. 002, as amended by 62 Stat. 869, 992). 8. 873 and H. R. 3436, pre- viously introduced in the present Congress, were similar. The Senate Judiciary Commit- tee reported the latter on May 14 (Rept. No, 1632), but limited and rewrote its language. As 80 reported the bill was approved without objection by the Senate on June 8 (CoNGrRES- BIONAL Record, 8291) and by the House of Representatives on June 15 (id. 8659). PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATION The previous report of the Senate Judiciary Committee on H. R. 3486, cited above, fully discusses the general situation and the reme- dial purposes of the present legislation. The War Contractora Relief Act was adopted in 1946 in order to afford recourse to small con- tractors who, without fault or negligence on* their part, had incurred losses in the attempt to assist in the war effort. The larger con- tractors and manufacturers, because of the greater volume of business they had done with the Government and the various meth- ods of relief permitted and secured by them under the First War Powers Act or otherwise as their work progressed, do not qualify un- der the act. But almost no relief has been secured by the smaller contractors under the act despite the fact that it has been on the books for several years, This has been due mainly to technical and restrictive interpre- tations of the phrase “request for relief" in section 8 of the act. This prerequisite “re- quest for relief" is there broadly stated. It was intended by Congress, of course, that it should include relief through a change of contract terms as authorized by the First Wer Powers Act, That act permitted, and thereunder contracting agencies of the Gov- ernment accorded, various types and forms of relief. The purpose of the War Contractors Relief Act is to afford reimbursement to those JULY 12 contractors who made claims or requests for relief, but did not secure relief acceptable to them; and for that purpose it is now ex- pressly provided in the present act that even “a previous settlement under the First War Powers Act, 1941, or the Contract Settlement Act of 1944 shall not operate to preclude further relief otherwise allowabie under this act.” THE POSITION OF THE PRESIDENT The sole specific objection: stated by the President in his veto message was “the in- clusion of interest on working capital as a basis for allowing relief.” Cince clarifica- tion on this point was a minor object of H. R. 3436 as passed by both Houses of the Congress, it is omitted in the presently re- vised form of the bil:. The President also expressed concern that the practical effect of the previous bill might be to write into law a principle of govern- ment insurance against all wartime losses. Brt both H. R. 3436 as passed, and the pres- ent bill, leave intact the original provision of the War Contractors Relief Act to the effect that only losses incurred “without fault or negligence” shall be compensable (section 1). The President expressed further concern that the amendment sought through H. R. 8436 would authorize the founding of a c‘aim upon “any kind of notice and regard- less of whether the notice was filed with the Government.” Such was not the intent of the bill but, In any event, the veto message acceptably specifies types of notice and re- qvest1 for relief which the President deems 1t proper to include expressly. In concluding his veto message the Presi- dent states that— “It 1s unfortunate, and I deeply regret that there has been uncertainty and, in the opinion of the supporters of this measure, controversy between the Congress and ex- ecutive agencies as to the intent of the War Contractors Relief Act. * * * “In spite of my objections to the scope of H. R. 3486 and the principles which I be- lieve it would write into law, Iam convinced that agreement can be reached upon what the Government has a -clear-cut obligation to do. To that end, I wish to repeat that I shall be glad to approve a bill which limits its amendment and interpretation of the War Contractors Relief Act as suggested in this Message, * * * “Prompt enactment of such legislation will make it possible for the executive agencies and the courts to discharge the responsibili- ties which I am convinced they cannot equitably discharge under the measure that Iam returning without my approval.” In making these statements the President specified and numbered seven respects in whicl the act might be fairly and acceptably amended. The present bill proposes that these shall be properly written into law. THE PRESENT BILL The present bill would add a new section 7 to the War Contractors Relief Act. Its seven subsections or paragraphs include the seven provisions listed by the President in his message as meritoriorvs and unobjection- able. They have, of course, necessarily been couched in appropriate legislative language and tied in with the previous sections and provisions of the exiating act. In so doing, the introductory clause of the new section 7 provides that, under the proposed amend- ment, cases shall be reviewed and determined “within the limitations stated in this act and no others.” In other words, the bill first emphasizes that, exc:pt as relaxed by this amendment, the previous conditions upon relief stated in the War Contractors Relief Act shall apply in every case. For the same reason it is made plain that no other limita- tions are intended by the present act or this amendment. The presently existing cover- age of the act is nct impaired.
1950 1. The President's message states that he has no objection to a bill which would “au- thorize reconsideration of the claims filed in accordance with the provisions of the origi- nal War Contrac’ .7s Relief Act.” This means administrative reconsideration, because his later points 6 and 6 preserve court jurisdic- tion where cases have been brought. Aoc- cordingly, the first subsection of the new sec- tion 7 reads that— “For the purposes of this section and ex- cept as otherwise provided by paragraph (6) hereof, all departments, agencies, or the heads or duly designated representatives thereof authorized to consider, adjust, and aecttle claims under this act are hereby directed, on request filed not more than 60 days after the effective date of this section and after af- fording claimants reasonable opportunity to amend or supplement their claims, to recon- sider claims heretofore filed in accordance with the provisions of this act and rejected or disallowed in whole or part.” It is to be noted that such reconsideration is to be limited to “the purpose of this sec- tion” as hereinafter explained. 2. The President states that an appropriate amendment should “remove the basis for technical rejection by permitting either a re- quest in writing for relief under the First Wer Powers Act, or a written demand for payment of losses, or a written notice of sustained or impending loss, if timely filed, to be accepted as a basis for claim.” Accord- ingly, the present bill provides by its second paragraph that— “Notwithstanding anything in section 8 of this act with reference to the necessity of a request for relief filed on or before Au~< gust 14, 1945, claims otherwise payable under this act shall be allowed to the extent that they include losses with respect to which in a writing submitted to a department or agency concerned on or before August 14, 1945, the claimant (a) requested relief available under the First War Powers Act, (b) demanded payment thereof, or (c) gave notice of such sustained or impending loss; but nothing in this paragraph shall be taken to limit or ex- clude other requests for relief otherwise sufl- cient under section 3 of this act.” Thus, as here stated, the provision vali- dates a relief request in writing of any one of the three types listed by the President. No special forms are required so long as, in sub- stance, the requests sought a type of relief available under the Firat War Powers Act, or demanded payment of the losses for which reimbursement is sought under this act, or gave notice of such logses sustained, accruing, or impending. The latter portion of the paragraph is inserted to make it plain that— by providing that these types of relief re- quests, demands, or notices shall be suff- elent—other forms or types of requests for relief otherwise sufficient under the existing section 3 of the act are not thereby to be deemed excluded, 8. The President, thirdly, has stated that acceptable legislation should “authorise con- sideration and settlement of the claims of subcontractors on the same basis as the prime contractors if the same kind of written re- quest, demand, or notice was filed with a Government agency, a prime contractor, or another subcontractor prior to August 14, 1945,” Accordingly, the third paragraph of the new section 7 added by this bill reads as follows: “Claims otherwise payable under this act as amended shall include those of subcon- tractors on the same basis as the claims of prime contractors if the request for relief, demand for payment, or notice of sustained or impending lose required by section 3 of this act or defined by paragraph (2) of this section was submitted in writing by such clatmants on or before August 14, 1945, to either (a) @ department or agency con- cerned or (b) the prime contractor or other subcontractor involved.” CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Paragraph (2), to which reference is made, ia expinined above. 4. The President's veto message states, next, that acceptable legislation should “per- mit reasonable compensation with respect to partners and proprietors, thus affording them the same treatment accorded corporations.” Accordingly, the fourth paragraph of the proposed new section 7 reads as follows: “Claims otherwise allowable under this act as amended shall include reasonable com- pensation for services of working partners and proprietors of unincorporated claimants during the period of performance of the con- tracts or subcontracts involved.” The language “during the period of per- formance of the contracts or aubcontracts in- volved” is taken from H. B, 3436 as previously passed by the Congress. 6. The President has stated in his veto message that, fifthly, the legislation should “preserve jurisdiction of the courts over suits now pending and not require any claimant to start over again in the presentation of his claim.” Accordingly, the fifth paragraph of the bill states that— “Jurisdiction of courte over suits now pending under this act is hereby preserved and, notwithstanding paragraph (1) of this section, no plaintiff in such action shall be required either to present his claim again to the department or agency concerned or to begin bis action in court anew; but nothing in this act or amendment shall prevent any department or agency, in agreement with the plaintiff claimant, from reconaidering any claim for the purpose of paying it or en- tering into an agreement for the compromise or settlement of the whole or any part thereof and, to the extent that hereafter such pry- ments are made or such settlements are ex- ecuted pursuant to any such agreement, court actions shall thereupon be limited ac- cordingly or dismissed as the case may be.” The latter portion of the paragraph is added to make it plain that, by preserving court jurisdiction, agencies are not precluded from settling such cases in agreement with the claimants. 6. As his sixth point the President states that such legislation rhould “permit a rea- sonable time, perhaps 60 days, for amend- ment or revival of any claim.” Accordingly, the sixth paragraph of the proposed new sec~- tion 7 provides that— “Where necessary to effectuate the pur- poses of this section the court in any case heretofore filed under this act shall, upon motion filed by the plaintiff not more than 60 days after the effective date of this sec- tion, (a) permit the plaintiff to amend his claim or pleadings, (b) vacate any adverse judgment or ruling, or (c) revive the action; but nothing in this paragraph shall be deemed to require any plaintiff to seek any such action where ‘ is unnecessary for the preservation of his rights under this act and section in accordance with the existing prac- tice, procedure, or course of judicial proceed- ings.” The language enabling any court to vacate any adverse judgment or ruling ts inserted as necessary because, under the present Rules of Civil Procedure and particularly rule 60 thereof, in most cases that may be the appro- priate remedy rather than a technical ‘‘re- vival" of an action. The latter part of the paragraph js added to make !t plain that no plaintiff shall be required, by this provision, to amend his pleadings or take any other action indicated unless necessary for the pro- tection of his rights. 7. Lastly the President states that appro- priate legislation should “include the clari- fying definitions of section 7 of H. R. 3436." Acoordingly, the seventh and last paragraph of the new section 7 reads as follows: “As used in this act, as amended, the terms ‘eontractors,’ ‘subcontractors,’ and ‘material- men’ include individuals, partnerships, joint ventures, business associations, and corpora- 9973 tions and mean with respect to partnerships, joint ventures, or business associations, the partnerships, joint ventures, or business asso- clations themselves, and not the Individual members thereof.” Except for the phrase “as amended” this language is, as the President suggested, taken in its entirety from section 7 of H. RB, 3436. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Nevada for introducing the bill as a substitute for H. R. 3436, in line with the suggestions with respect to the kind of bill he would sign made by the President in the veto message, To my way of thinking, this is a most im- portant bill, affecting some very repre- sentative people, who have been denied, without any reason whatever, it seems to me, compensation for certain damages, to which they are absolutely entitled. I am very happy that the Senator has taken this position, and I hope the bill will be reported to the Senate as soon as possible. SURVEY AND REPAIR OF OERTAIN VESSELS IN NATIONAL DEFENSE RE- SERVE FLEET Mr. MAGNUSON. ‘Mr. President, on behalf of myself, the senior Senator from Maryland (Mr. Typrxes], the Senator from Colorado [Mr. Jounson}, the Sena- tor from Arizona [Mr, McFar.anp), the Senator from Maine [Mr. Brewster], the junior Senator from Maryland {[Mr. O’Conor], the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Morsz], the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Humpnurey], the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Tayior], the Senator from California [Mr. Downey), the Senator from Montana (Mr. Murray], the Sena- tor from Iowa (Mr. Gi.terrs], the Sena- tor from New Jersey (Mr. Smirn], the senior Senator from Washington [Mr. Carn), the junior Senator from New York (Mr. Lenman], the junior Senator from Alabama [Mr. Sparkman], the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Kircors], the senior Senator from New York [Mr. Ives], the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Myers], the junior Senator from Maine (Mrs. Smiry], the junior Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Henprickson], the senior Senator from Alabama [Mr. Hitz], the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Long], the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. McManon], and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. SALTONSTALL], I in< troduce for appropriate reference a bill to direct the survey and repair of certain vessels in the National Defense Reserve Fleet. The bill (8. 3907) to direct the survey and repair of certain vessels in the Na- tional Defense Reserve Fleet, introduced by Mr, Macnusow (for himself and other Senators), was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Inter- state and Foreign Commerce. Mr, CHAVEZ. Mr. President, will the Senator from Washington tell us briefly the purport of the bill? Mr. MAGNUSON. The bill is to pro- vide $25,000,000 to be expended immedi- atelye for ship repair work on certain types of ships, 134, to be exact, which have been designated by the Joint Chiefs of Staff to be important insofar as the naval and maritime auxiliary is eon- cerned—hospital ships and LST’s. It passed the Senate almost unanimously,
9974 . last time, but was''not passed by the House. There are several other Senators who are interested, but I got as many names as I could. Mr, CHAVEZ. I thank the Senator. Mr. MAGNUSON. I ask unanimous consent that an explanatory statement of the bill be printed in the Rxcorp. There being no objection, the state- ment was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Sraremenr By Senator MAGNUSON ON INTRO- DUCTION oF Brut ror Repar or 134 VessE.s in Nationa, Derensy RESERVE FLerr The bill which we are introducing today, calling for the repair of 184 vessels of the nationel defense Reserve Fleet at a cost not to exceed $25,000,000 is in the nature of a directive from the Congress. Last year the Senate gave its approvel to such a program, but the House did not concur. The tragic events in Korea today under- score the weight of the arguments made at that time. The requirement for having these vessels tn readiness is not something on which we can afford to match pennies. These vessels may be needed at any time. We cannot afford to take the chance they will not be necessary. Last year many of the same members who have joined me in sponsoring this bill as- sisted in this effort. More than 650 Senators were pledged in support of the measure. The Senate added this program to the Sup- plemental Appropriation Act of 1950, but the ship-repair program was lost in conference. The lst of vessels includes transports, hospital ships, cargo attack vessels, attack transports, towing vessels, provision ships, and motor torpedo-boat tenders, among oth- ers, It is estimated that the average cost of putting them in a condition of readiness is $180,000 per vessel, plus some administrative and moving expenses. Replacement cost of these ships would be about $6,000,000 each, and they cost originally about 63,000,000 each, when we built them under the emer- gency conditions of World War II. This bill would direct the Secretary of Commerce to undertake the repair of a se- lected list of 134 of these vessels as a mini- mum program. The vessels would be desig- nated jointly by the Secretary of Defense. In selecting them, effort would be made to get reasonable distribution by geographic areas. In order to get the program under- way, one section would authorize and direct the RFC to make advances not exceeding a total of $16,000,000 for the work. The Ship Sales Act of 1946 directed that the Maritime Commission should place such vessels as the Secretaries of War and Navy designated in a National Defense Reserve, Such a reserve was ostablished, but it was hardly a moth-ball fleet, as many of these auxiliary-type vessels were laid up without preservatives and without repairs. In a restricted memorandum on March 22, 1949, Gen. Omar Bradley, on behalf of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, gave the Secretary of Defense the views of the Joint Chiefs as to the need for an immediate program on a limited number of the vessels in the Na- tional Defense Reserve. The Joint Chiefs urged that a program of similar repairs be carried out on an annual basis until such time as 439 military auxiliary vessels in the then Maritime Commission reserve fleet were placed in condition, It would serve no purpose to dwell on the reasons which have brought about €elay. The all-important requirement is that we get these vessels in a state of repair in the shortest possible time, in full realization that the need for this fleet may become a & matter of the highest urgency. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE The vessels which were in mind for repair, and presumably would be the ones repaired under this program, sre moored at various locations on the Atlantic, fn the Gulf, and on the Pacific coast, On the Atlantic, there are 62 berthed in the James River, 1 in the Hudson, and 1 at Wilmington, Del. In the Gulf, 14 are at Mobile, Ala., and 3 at Beaumont, Tex. On the Pacific coast, 34 are berthed at Suisun Bay, Calif.. 10 at Astoria, Oreg., and 9 at Olympia, Wash. The important element of repair as a mate ter of insurance against deterioration of the reserve fleet has not changed, and in fact becomes more cogent every hour. Additionally, the value of having an active and skilled force at work in our shipyards as a nucleus hardly need be emphasized in the light of the Korean conflict and existing in- ternational ruptures. ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL FOR COMMIT- TEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE Mr. THOMAS of Utah submitted the following resolution (S. Res. 309), which was referred to the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare: Resolved, That the authority of the Com- mittee on Labor and Public Welfare, or any duly authorized subcommittee thereof, under 8. Res. 215, Eighty-first Congress, agreed to February 9, 1950, is hereby continued until August 31, 1961. GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS—AMEND- MENTS Mr. KEFAUVER submitted an amend- ment intended to be proposed by him to the bill (H. R. 7786) making appropria- tions for the support of the Government for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1951, and for other purposes, which Was or- dered to lie on the table and to be printed. Mr. THYE submitted two amendments intended to be proposed by him to House bill 7786, supra, which were ordered to lie on the table and to be printed. Mr. THOMAS of Oklahoma (for him- self and Mr. Kerr) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by them, jointly, to House bill 7786, supra, which was ordered to lie on the table and to be printed. Mr. SALTONSTALL submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to House bill 7786, supra, which was ordered to lie on the table and to he printed. Mr. MAGNUSON submitted an amend- ment intended to be proposed by him to House bill 7786, supra, which was ordered to lie on the table and to be printed. HOUSE BILL PLACED ON CALENDAR The bill (H. R. 8083) to amend the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945, as amended (59 Stat. 526, 666; 61 Stat. 130), to vest in the Export-Import Bank of Washington the power to guarantee United States investments abroad, was read twice by its title, and ordered to be placed on the calendar. EXECUTIVE MESSAGES REFERRED As in executive session, The VICE PRESIDENT laid before the Senate ‘messages from the President of the United States submitting sundry nominations, which were referred to the appropriate co: ittees, (For nominations this day received, see the end of Senate proceedings.) JULY 12 EXECUTIVE REPORTS OF COMMITTEES As in executive session, The following favorable reports of nominations were submitted: By Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado, from the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce: Harold G. Bradbury and Roy L. Raney, for promotion to the permanent grade of rear admiral in the Coast Guard; and John 8. Merriman, Jr., and sundry other persons, for permanent commissioned teach- ing staff of the Coast Guard Academy, By Mr. KILGORE, from the Committee on the Judictary: William Holroyd McGinnis, of West Vir- ginia, to be United States marshal for the southern district of West Virginia. By Mr. GRAHAM, from the Committee on the Judiciary: Ford 8. Worthy, of North Carolina, to be United States marshal for the eastern dis- trict 9f North Carolina. CHINESE MARKETS—A BIG STAKE— ARTICLE FROM THE MAGAZINE PRE- VENT WORLD WAR III {[Mr. MURRAY asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorp an article en- titled “Chinese Markets—a Big Stake,” pub- lished in the March-April, 1950, issue of the magazine Prevent World War III, which ap- pears in the Appendix.] AGRICULTURAL REFORM—WHEN?—ARTI- CLE FROM THE MAGAZINE PREVENT WORLD WAR III {Mr. MURRAY asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Rucorp an article en- titled “Agricultural Reform—When?”, pub- lished in the March-April 1950 issue of the magazine Prevent World War III which ap- pears in the Appendix.] THE NO. 1 PROBLEM—STEEL—ARTICLE FROM THE MAGAZINE PREVENT WORLD WAR III {Mr. MURRAY asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorp an article entitled “The No. 1 Problem—Steel,” pub- ished in the March-April 1950 issue of the magazine Prevent World War II, which appears in the Appendix,] CHEESE: CORNERSTONE OF WISCONSIN DAIRY INDUSTRY—ARTICLE FROM THE GLENWOOD CITY TRIBUNE AND AD- DRESS BY SENATOR WILEY [Mr. WILEY asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Rrecorp an article from the Glenwood City Tribune, a lst of officera of the Wisconsin Cheese Makers Association, and an address delivered by bim, which ap- pear in the Appendix.] DECISION TIME FOR AMERICA—EDI- TORIAL FROM THE WASHINGTON EVEN- ING STAR [Mr. THYE asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorp an editorial en- titled “Decision Time for America,” pub- lished in the Washington Evening Star of duly 11, 1950, which appears in the Appen- aix.] CAPITAL INVESTMENT IN THE PHILIP- PINES--ADDRESS BY GERALD WILKIN- SON {Mr. LEHMAN asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorp an address on the subject of capital investment in the Philippines, delivered by Gerald Wilkinson before the Manila Rotary Club on June 15, 1960, which appears in the Appendix. ]
1950 FPORRIGN LETTER-WRITING CAMPAIGN RELEASE FROM COMMON COUNCIL FOR AMERIOAN UNITY [Mr. LEHMAN asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorp a release by the Common Council for American Unity, on the subject Letters From America, which ap- pears in the Appendix.] MEMPHIS FIGHTS BACK FOR FREEDOM—~ ARTICLE FROM THE MEMPHIS OOM- MERCIAL APPEAL {[Mr. MUNDT asked and obtained leave to have printed in the RxEcorp an article en- titled “Fighters for Freedom Carry Cam- paign to Save Democracy to Schools’ Future Citizens,” published in the May 7, 1950, issue of the Commercial) Appeal, of Memphis, Tenn., which appears in the Appendix.] THE VOICE OF AMERICA—TELEGRAM FROM SAMUEL GOLDWYN Mr. BENTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to insert in the body of the Recorp a most moving and in- deed eloquent telegram which I received this morning from Mr. Samuel Goldwyn, the world famous producer of motion pictures. I am sure the Senate will join me in gratitude for the assurances he gives me of the support of the motion- picture industry in this crisis. The in- dustry made most notable contributions in the last war, and Mr. Goldwyn’s tele- gram shows that it is again prepared to put its shoulder to the wheel in the dangerous and difficult crisis we now face. I urge the Senate to heed Mr. Goldwyn’s solemn warning, and I wel- come the testimony he gives, which brings still further support to the’ una- nimity of testimony of distinguished American citizens before Senator Thomas’ subcommittee. I am urging the State Department to take leadership at once in following up on Mr. Goldwyn’s suggestion, and Iam urging them to give the motion-picture industry the chance to serve the country, as indicated by Mr. Goldwyn, and as suggested by me yester- day when I said that “in this supreme crisis, we should immediately mobilize the creative genius of our motion-picture industry to the constructive use in this international crisis of this most power- ful medium of communication. The mo- tion picture is, to all of us who have worked closely with it, admittedly and by far the greatest potential means by which ideas can be quickly and forcibly communicated.” There being no objection, the telegram was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Hon. Wr11am BENnToN, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. Dear Senator: Thank you for telling the Senate of my recommendation that at least $1,000,000,000 must be spent yearly for the Voice of America in telling our story. I have just returned from a trip through Europe and find that the Russian Communists are winning everywhere with lies, while we have the greatest story of good in the history of the entire world. The masses of people in Europe know little of the fact that their food and rehabilitation have been made pos- sible in large part by the greatest aid pro- gram man hag ever undertaken, Why is it? We have the power of truth on our side and truth can always overcome les if people only know that truth. It is so dangerous for our CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE country to quibble about dollars at a time when we are at the threshold of tragic eventa, some of which sadly enough are taking place right now in Korea where our men are dying once more; largely because the Communist lies have succeeded in their persuasion there while our truths have rested dormant. I say the Voices of America, plural, because no one voice of America is enough these days when cold war is no longer cold. Words are ideas and their projection to the world are weapons of war. Unless we permit our country prop- erly to tell ite story, it is no better than to deprive our fighting men in Korea of tanks, guns, or ammunition. This is a modern world. If we learned anything at all from our horrible experience with Hitler, tt was that Goebbels was able for so long to sell lies to millions of people. The Russians have now taken over Goebbels’ work most effec- tively. Are we again, for dollars, going to forget every lesson we have learned? War is only @ violent means of attaining political ends. This is basic in any warfare. Are we Americans the only ones that have not learned that? I hope that you will rest at nothing to try to get something done to tell our story properly to the world. General Fisenhower in his testimony made it clear that even so great a military leader who knows the Russians and their methods, feels that there can be no limit to what we should expend in the war of ideas if we can save even one American life that way. You sug- gest that I produce a documentary film on the Korean situation. I am sure that every member of our film industry, as in the past, will be ready to serve our country in any way possible. If Congress will listen to the voices of people they must be undertaking a truly great program for the Voices of America. Samun. GoLDwYn. AMENDMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH SERV- ICE ACT The VICE PRESIDENT laid before the Senate the amendments of the House of Representatives to the bill (S. 2591) to amend the Public Health Serv- ice Act to support research and train- ing in arthritis and rheumatism, mul- tiple sclerosis, cerebral palsy, epilepsy and blindness, and other diseases, and for other purposes, which were, to strike out all after the enacting clause and in- sert: That the purpose of this act is to improve the health of the people of the United States through the conduct of researches, investi- gations, experiments, and demonstrations relating to the cause, prevention, and meth- ods of diagnosis and treatment of rheuma- tism and arthritis, multiple sclerosis, cere- tral palsy, epilepsy, other neurological dis- eases, poliomyelitis, blindness, leprosy, and other diseases; assist and foster such re- searches and other activities by public and private agencies, and promote the coordina- tion of all such researches and activities and the useful application of their results; provide training in matters relating to such diseases; and develop, and assist States and other agencies in the use of, the most ef- fective methoda of prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of such diseases, ESTABLISHMENT OF ADDITIONAL INSTITUTES Bee, 2. (a) The heading of title IV of the Public Health Service Act (42 U. 8. C., ch. 6a) is amended to read “Title IV-—National Research Institutes.” (b) Title IV of such act is further amend- ed by adding immediately after part C the following new part: “Pagt D—Ormen Inerrrures “KSTABLISGHMENT OF §NSTITUTES “Sec. 481. The Surgeon General is author ized with the approval of the Administrator 9975 to establish in the Public Health Gervice one or more additional institutes to conduct and support scientific research and profes- sional training relating to the cause, pre- vention, and methods of diagnosis and treat- ment of particular diseases or groups of dis- eases (including rheumatism and arthritis, multiple sclerosis, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, other neurological diseases, poliomyelitis, blindness, and leprosy) whenever the Sur- geon General determines that such action ts necessary to effectuate fully the purposes of section 301 with respect to auch disease or diseases. Any inatitute so established may in like manner be abolished and its func- tions transferred elsewhere in the Public Health Service upon a finding by the Sur- geon General that a separate institute is no longer required for euch purposes. In lieu of the establishment of an additional insti- tute with respect to any disease or diseases, the Surgeon General may expand the func- tions of any existing institute established under this act so as to include functions with reapect to such disease or diseases and to terminate such expansion and tranefer the functions given such institute elsewhere in the Service upon a finding by the Sur- geon General that such expansion is no longer necessary... In the case of any such expansion of an existing institute, the Sur- geon General may change the title thereof so as to reflect its new functions. “ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCILS “Src. 432. Upon the establishment of an institute pursuant to section 431, the Sur- geon General may, if he finds it necessary, also establish a national advisory council to advise, consult with, and make recommen- dations to the Surgeon General on matters relating to the activities of the institute. Any such council shall consist of the Sur- geon General ex officio, and of 12 members appointed without regard to the civil-service laws by the Surgeon General with the ap- proval of the Administrator. The 12 ap- pointed members shall be leaders in the field of fundamental sciences, medical sci- ences, education, or public affairs, and 6 of such 12 shall be selected from leading medical or scientific authorities who are out- standing in the study, diagnosis, or treat- ment of the diseases to which the activities of the institute are directed. Each ap- pointed member of the council shall hold office for a term of 4 years except that any member appointed to fill a vacancy occur- ring prior to the expiration of the term for which his predecessor was appointed shall be appointed for the remainder of such term and except that, of the members first ap- pointed, three shall hold office for a term of 3 years, three shall hold office for a term of 2 years, and three shall hald office for a term of 1 year, as designated by the Surgeon Gen- eral at the time of appointment. None of auch 12 members shall be eligible for reap- pointment until a year has elapsed since the end of his preceding term. Every 2 years the council shall elect one member to act as chairman for the succeeding 2-year pe- rlod. In lieu of appointment of an addi- tional advisory counci! upon the establish- ment of an additional institute or upon ex- pansion of the functions of an existing in- stitute, the Surgeon General may expand the functions of an existing advisory council established under this act so as to include functions with respect to the particular disease or diseases to which the activitios of the new institute or the new activities of the existing institute are directed. In the case of any such expansion of an existing counoll, the membership thereof represent- ing persons outetanding in activities with which the council ts concerned may be changed or increased so as to include some persons outstanding in the new activities.
9976 Such new council or expansion of an exist- ing council may be terminated by the Sure geon General at, before, or after the termina« tion of the new institute or expansion of the existing institute which occasioned such new council or expansion of an existing council. In the case of any such expansion of an existing council, the Surgeon General may change the title thereof so as to re- flect its new functions. “yuncTIONS “Sxc. 438. (a) Where an institute has been established under this part, the Surgeon General shall carry out the purposes of soc- tion 801 with respect to the conduct and sup- port of research relating to the disease or diseases to which the activities of the in-« stitute are directed (including grants-in-aid for drawing plans, erection of buildings, and acquisition of land therefor), through such institute and in cooperation with the na- tional advisory council established or ex- panded by reason of the establishment of such institute. In addition, the Surgeon General is authorized to provide training and instruction and establish and maintain traineeships and fellowships, in such insti- tute and elsewhere, in matters relating to the diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of such disease or diseases with such stipends and allowances (including travel and sub- sistence expenses) for trainees and fellows as he may deem necessary, and, in addition, provide for such training, instruction, and traineeships and for such _ fellowships through grants to public and other non- profit institutions. The provisions of this subsection shall also be applicable to any institute established by any other provision of this act to the extent such institute does not already have the authority conferred by this subsection. “(b) Upon the appointment of a national advisory council for an institute established under this part or the expansion of an ex- isting institute pursuant to this part, such council shall assume the duties, functions, and powers o* the National Advisory Health Council with respect to grants-in-aid for research and training projects relating to the disease or diseases to which the activi- ties of the institute are directed.” NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCILS Src. 3. (a) Subsection (b) of section 217 of the Public Health Service Act, as amended, is amended to read as follows: “(b) The National Advisory Health Coun- ell shall advise, consult with, and make recommendations to, the Surgeon General on matters relating to health activities and functions of the Service. The Surgeon Gen- eral is authorized to utilize the services of any member or members of the Council, and where appropriate, any member or mem- bers of the national advisory councils es- tablished under this act on cancer, mental health, he-rt, dental, and other diseases, in connection with matters related to the work of the Service, for such periods, in addition to conference periods, as he may determine.” (b) The heading of section 217 of such act is amended to read as follows: “National Advisory Councils.” (c) Subsection (c) of section 208 of such act is amended to read as follows: “(c) Members of the National Advisory Health Council and members of other na- tional advisory councils established under this act, other than ex officio members, while attending conferences or meetings of their respective councils or while otherwise serving at the request of the Surgeon General, shall be entitled to recelve compensation at a rate to be fixed by the Administrator, but not exceeding $50 per diem, and shall also be entitled to receive an allowance for actual and necessary traveling and subsistence ex~ penses while so serving away from their places of residence.” CONGRESSIONAL RECORD SENATE GENERAL PROVISIONS Sec. ¢. (a) Section 406 of the Public Health Service Act is amended to read ds follows: “OTHER AUTHORITY “Sac. 406. This title shall not be construed as limiting (a) the functions or authority of the Surgeon General or the Public Health Service under any other title of this act, or of any officer or agency of the United States, relating to the study of the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of any disease or diseases for which a separate institute is established under this act; or (b) the expen- diture of money therefor.” (b) Section 209 of such act is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection; 7 "(g) The Administrator is authorized to establish and Ax the compensation for, with- in the Public Health Service, not more than 30 positions, in the professional and scien- tifle service, each such position being estab- lished to effectuate those research and de- velopment activities of the Public Health Service which require the services of specially qualified scientific or professional personnel: Provided, That the rates of compensation for positions established pursuant to the provi- sions of this subsection shall not be less than $10,000 per annum nor more than $15,000 per annum, and shall be subject to the approval of the Civil Service Commission, Positions created pursuant to this subsection shall be included in the classified civil service of the United States, but appointments to such positions shall be made without competitive examination upon approval of the proposed appointee’s qualifications by the Civil Service Commission or such officers or agents as it may designate for this purpose.” (c) Sections 415, 425, and 426 of the Public Health Service Act are hereby repealed. And to amend the title so as to read: “A bill to amend the Public Health Serv- ice Act to support research and training in matters relating to rheumatism and arthritis, multiple sclerosis, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, other neurological dis- eases, poliomyelitis, blindness, leprosy, and other diseases, and for other purposes.” Mr. THOMAS of Utah. Mr. President, I move that the Senate disagree to the amendment of the House, ask a confer- ence with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon, and that the Chair appoint conferees on the part of the Senate. The motion was agreed to, and the Vice President appointed Mr. Murray, Mr. Pepper, Mr. NEELY, Mr. TaFt, and Mr, SmitH of New Jersey conferees on the part of the Senate. FEDERAL FAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICE ACT-—CLOTURE MOTION Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, as Mem- bers of the Senate know, under the par- liamentary situation, at 1 o’clock today the Senate will vote upon the motion for cloture which was filed by 44 Members of the Senate on Monday last. There has been little sald with respect to this cloture motion by any Member of the Senate, primarily because a few weeks ago a motion was made to consider Sen- ate bill 1728, known as the FEPC bill, which is before the Senate at the present time, and a week or 10 days of debate was had upon the motion at that time. It must be obvious to everyone that in de- bating the meriés of a motion to con- sider a pending measure it becomes JULY 12 necessary to debate the merits of the measure itself if debate is to be kept running for that length of time. Under the parliamentary situation it was possible at that hour, had the Sena- tors decided to do so, to wait until a certain amount of btsiness had been transacted during the day, and then a second cloture motion would have been in order. In view of the fact that only 54 Members of the Senate voted on the cloture motion, it was plain to be seen that the filing of another such motion at that time, or immediately following the vote on the first cloture motion, would have resulted in practically the same vote. Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. LUCAS. I yield. Mr. RUSSELL. I understood the Sen- ator to say that only 54 Senators voted on the cloture motion. Fifty-four Sen- ators voted in favor of the motion. I believe the Senator js in error in stating that only 54 voted on the motion. Mr. LUCAS. The Senator is correct. Mr. RUSSELL, Asa matter of fact, 86 Senators voted. Mr. LUCAS. The Senator is correct. Fifty-four Senators voted in favor of the motion to invoke cloture. Thirty-two Senators voted against it. I should like to say to the Senate that since that time I have interviewed Senators on the Democratic side of the aisle and have talked to Members on the Republican side of the aisle with respect to filing a second cloture motion. I have done everything I thought was necessary, insofar as my persuasive powers are con- cerned, to advise, discuss, and debate this question with Members on the Dem- ocratic side of the aisle with the view of attempting to convince them that, ir- respective of how they may feel about the merits of the measure, at least the Senate should be given an opportunity to discuss the measure by voting for clo- ture to take up the bill itself. In other words, we are now about to vote on the question of invoking cloture on a motion to take up the bill. Surely, Mr. Presi- dent, Members of the Senate on both sides of the aisle should not deny the Senate of the United States the oppor- tunity to consider the bill. That is all we are trying to do at the present time. Senators who sincerely, wholeheartedly, and tenaciously disagree on the merits of the bill itself should not deprive the Senate, in the first instance, of an op- portunity at least to vote on the merits of the bill at a later time. In other words, Mr. President, if this motion should prevail, by having 64 Senators vote to take up the bill, as every Senator knows, under the parliamentary situa- tion which would then exist, it would be necessary again to file another cloture motion, because Senators who are op- posed to FEPC would immediately begin a debate, and I am sure a long debate, on the measure. The merits of the bill could be discussed from every conceiv- able angle. No motion for cloture, of course, would be filed until the merits of the bill itself had been thorourhly discussed and every Senator had been
1950 given an opportunity to state his position. That. would be the second step, if we should reach the point where it became necessary to file a second motion for cloture upon the b‘ll itself. It is at that point that it seems to me Members of the Senate who are definitely opposed to the Fair Employment Practices Commission Act should exercise their right of veto, so to speak, by voting against any motion for cloture. Mr. President, all we are considering is a cloture motion relating to a motion to take up the bill. It seems to me that irrespective of how one may feel about the final outcome of the bill, or how he may feel about the merits of the bill, the Senate of the United States should not be deprived of an opportunity to consid- er the bill by the Senate votins against a motion to take it up. I appeal espe- cially to my Democratic friends on this side of the aisle at least to give us an opportunity to take up the bill itself, and debate the merits of it pro and con. Mr. President, it seems to me there never was a more propitious time in the history of our country than at this par- ticular moment when a measure of this kind should be considered seriously by the Senate. I say that for the reason that men of our country are fighting and dying in Korea at this very time. When an individual went to the enlistment office and joined the Army, the Navy, or the Marine Corps in the District of Columbia, or at any other place throughout America, the officers did not ask him whether he was black or white, whether he was a Jew, a Catholic, or a gentile. If he had the mental and the physical stamina, they took him into the Army, the Navy, or the Marire Corps, and he may now be in Korea doing his duty, fighting for freedom and justice as we here in the United States under- stand those terms. The enactment of e bill of this kind at this hour would demonstrate to the countries of the world that, after all, we in America are in favor of legislation which has for its purpose the elimination of economic discrimination. The bill is not aimed at my friends from the South. There is discrimina- tion in the North; there is discrimination in my own State of Illinois; there is dis- crimination in the East and discrimina- tion in the West, so far as minority groups are concerned, Mr. President, I repeat words I spoke on the fioor of the Senate sometime ago quoting a prayer that was offered by Chaplain Gittelsohn at burial services on Iwo Jima, when he satd: Here lie officers and men, Negroes and whites, rich men and poor—together. Here are Protestants, Catholics, and Jews—-to-~ gether. Here there are no quotas of how many from each group are admitted or al- lowed, Among these men there is no dis- crimination. Theirs ts the highest and pur- est democracy. To this, then, as our solemn, sacred duty, do we the living now dedicate ourselves: To the right of Protestants, Catholics, and Jews, of white men and Negroes alike, to enjoy the democracy for which all of them have here paid the price. Mr. President, those were the words of a great man of the cloth. They ex- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE preas the kind of a feeling that exists in time of war when men, in defense of liberty and freedom and independence, are buried alike in cemeteries through- olit the world. So, Mr. President, at this particular time and hour it seems to me that by our actions here in the Senate, we should be able to demonstrate to the peoples of the world who are on our side that we shall not give the Communists in the Kremlin at Moscow an opportunity further to propagandize those whom we are at- tempting to keep on our side in this crisis by insinuating that we here in America discriminate from the standpoint of eco- nomic opportunity when it comes to the hiring of persons to do the work of the country. Mr. President, I sincerely hope that when the yeas and nays are called we may have the necessary number of votes required to take up the bill itself. Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I was not in attendance on the Senate at the ses- s‘ons from May 8 to May 19, when the debate was held on the motion of the majority leader to consider the FEPC bill. However, I have checked the record of the debate for that week, and I have asked the Library of Congress to pre- pare for me an analysis of the amount of debate which was held on that par- ticular motion during that week. That analysis has been prepared, and I ask unanimous consent to have it inserted at this point in the Recorp, as a part of my remarks. There being no objection, the analysis was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Fair Employment Practtces Act—-Senate de- bate on S, 1728, May &~19, 1950, statistical summary of space consumed in daily Con= gresstonal Record Papo Date and subject Nos Inches May 8, 1960; FEPO.. 2.222... 0... 6682 6706 | 213% May 9, 1060; pO 0) ol Oe 6700-0775 75 Roll eal... ee eee ee 0775- 6775 8 Kern nomination... _. «| 8776-6777 42 President’s western tour. . «-| 6777-6783 | 17634 FEPC: Peril of imported ‘oil. O7B6 6 "RPC. 6786-6707 | 100 6871 2134 0871-889 | 470 «| 7072 7073 36 -| 7073-7075 45 7076-7080 | 126 7000-7102 38 Mensage of the President.. 7102 6 Georgs Washington Carver Na- tional Monument. 7102 3 Unemployment in industries, Covernment apending 7104-7108 | 162 Roviet aggression plans... «| 7100-7310 13 D0 J of 0 7110-7112 72 May 16: FEPC oe esac ew ane wenn enee TVIG-7193 | 450 7193-7194 7 KF 7104-7201 | 189 7201 7 o 7201 4 2 -| 7202-7218 | 851 RPO 7233 19 Confirmation of John W, Kern.. 7233 74 EPC... oo ee nen een oee eee 7234-7245 | 918 ecrnanization Plan No, 7...... Order of business....... oo Le UNESCO, ote... PEPC.. ooo. epennn eee en eens 7208-7260 W A aye on American competi- tive Bytom. 2... gennaeeenene 7269 18 Death Orhdrs, Janes 8: Murroy.| 7260-7270 | 15 deennencensncewnmeecenenen 7270-7274 96 9977 Fair Employment Practices Act—Senate de- dete on S. 1728, May 8-19, 1950, stattatica? summary of space conaumed in daily Con- greasional Record—Continusd Page Date and subject Nos, Inches May 18: opens cc aweeneemennnereemes 98 Call of the roll. ....-..-..---... 7205 ~7 208 7 Nominations in the famy an Marine Corps, FEPC..._..... 290-7308 | 236 Domestic saotalearat a give-away Oy 7308 8 Order of business... =| 7308-7307 49 3 ECA ‘Act of 1948—amend men 7313-7317 | 100 Reorganization Plap No. 4...... 7817-7330 | 363 PEPO. eee eee peewane 7330-7331 24 May 19: FEPC... 2. eee. wee ween Transaction of routine business... ci) Fase Fa08 118 FEPC (vote on cloture)......... 73u8 2 RECAPITULATION "Total: On FEPC. _ o.oo. ecaneenenenees On other matters.........---.-.- “Typteal page 27 inches; average column 0 Inches Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, a fur- ther analysis shows that the majority, individual, and minority views were fled on May 5, the same day when the Sena- tor from Tllinois [Mr. Lucas] moved to have the Senate take up the FEPC bill, 8. 1728. Debate began on Monday, May 8, and the FEPC bill was discussed for a total of 9 days. I now ask the unanimous consent to have incorporated at this point in the Recorp, also as @ part of my remarks, this additional analysis of the statistics of that debate, showing the number of Senators who voted for and the number of Senators who voted against the mo- tion made by the majority leader. There being no objection, the analysis was ordered to be printed in the Rzcorp, as follows: Supplementing the statistic on FEPC de- bate in May supplied by the Legislative Ref- erence Service of the Library of Congress, the following may be useful. Majority, individual, and minority views were filed on May 5, the same day that Sen- ator Lucas moved that the Senate take up the bill, 8. 1728, Debate began on Monday, May 8, and FEPO was discussed a total of 9 daya, viz: May 8, 9, 10, 12, 15, 16, 1’, 18, and 19. Vote on the cloture petition came on May 19, and cloture failed of the necessary 64 votes by a vote of 62 to 32, A total of 10 Senators spoke in favor of the motion to take up (really in support of the bill) Senators Tuomas of Utah, Ives, Brenton, LEHMAN, FrrcusomM, SALTONSTALL, Humpnrery, Lucas, Henpricason, and Myrrrs, A total of 8 Senators spoke against the motion, Senators Russe.t, HLL, JOHNSTON, Grorce, HoLtann, Lona, STennis and May- BANK. According to somewhat rough calculations, the proponents of the motion and bill used 146 columns of the Rrcorp (85 percent) while the opponents used 274 columns (65 percent) out of the 420 columns devoted to the sub- ject. Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, know- ingly, at least, I have never run away from an issue in my life. I would be less than honest if I did not frankly confess on the floor of the Senate today that the present parliamentary situation puts me
9978 in a very embarrassing as well as a dif- ficult position, because I believe that the filing of a cloture motion in advance of an actual filibuster on the floor of the Senate is a misuse and an abuse of the cloture rule. However, I am also aware of the fact that, as the Senator from New York [Mr. Ives] pointed out in the debate the other evening, considerable discussion has taken place in the Senate on the ques- tion of whether the FEPC bill should be considered. Although I should have preferred that no cloture motion be filed on that question in advance of an actual filibuster, yet I am frank to confess that I have to agree with the Senator from New York that there has been full de- bate on the procedural point as to whether or not the bill should be taken up Accordingly, although I do not like the idea of filing a cloture motion in advance of a filibuster, I will today vote for cloture. However, Mr. President, I wish to say an additional vurd about the situation in which we find ourselves, because I have no intention ever of “kidding” the mi- nority groups in the country. I am satisfied that for the most part this cloture petition is a grand political ges~ ture. I think it is well known in the Senate at this very moment that there is not a snowball's chance of getting this particular cloture motion adopted. I am not interested in merely building up political records. I am interested in ac- complishing what the Senator from Il- linois [Mr. Lucas] so eloquently spoke about a moment ago, namely, some civil rights legislation, because in my opinion, civil rights legislation passed by the Con- gress of the United States at this session would have a powerful effect the world around in this great contest for men’s minds, in this great battle around the world as to whether or not-—— The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senate will be in order. Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, it is quite immaterial to me whether or not there is order in the Senate at this time. I wish to save time, and I shall finish my remarks over the humdrum of conver- sation, if necessary. The VICE PRESIDENT. However, it makes a good deal of difference to the Chair. Mr. MORS2. I realize that, and I ap- preciate the Chair’s courtesy. Mr. President, it will make a great deal of difference in the world, in this fight for freedom, whether or not the democratic forces here in the United States put into effect the full meaning of the Constitution of the United States. Let me say that the full meaning of the Constitution will never live in the United States until the President’s civil-rights program becomes law, What is the road block which prevents the passage of civil-rights legislation? Let me say to my friends on the Repub- lican side of the aisle tha. it is my judg- ment that the road block to the passage of civil-rights legislation by the Con- gress is the Wherry resolution, which requires a so-called constitutional two- thirds vote for the application of cloture in the Senate. Let me say that, in my CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE judgment, the Republican Party has an obligation to the American people, if the Republican Party really wants civil- rights legislation enacted, to repeal the Wherry resolution, Until the Wherry resolution is stricken from the rule book of the Senate we shall have an insur- mountable road block which will prevent the passage of civil-rights legislation in the Senate. The kind of political ges- ture which is taking place in the Senate today will not produce civil-rights leg- islation. Mr. President, let me also make clear that I am not interested in any arrange- ments that any coalition may work out in the Senate for the passage of some minor phase of a civil-rights program. Iam interested only in putting into leg- islative effect what I consider to be the spirit and intent of the constitutional guaranties of equality of opportunity and equality of justice for all persons in America, regardless of race, color, or creed. In order to accomplish that ob- jective, we must look to the rules of the Senate. The rule we must remove from the books is the Wherry resolution, which requires the presence on the floor of the Senate of 64 Senators voting for a civil-rights program. We are not go- ing to get a civil-rights program, in my judgment, so long as that rule is on the books, Therefore, Mr. President, I say to my Republican friends that at this session of Congress we have another opportu- nity to demonstrate to the minority groups in the United States whether or not we want an effective cloture rule in the Senate. If we want an effective rule, then we must get rid of the so-called constitutional two-thirds requirement, in order to end debate on civil-rights leg- islation. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, first I should like to ask the Members of the Senate to understand the absolute facts about the vote which was taken recently in the Senate on the question of invok- ing cloture, Earlier today the distin- guished majority leader |Mr. Lucas] said that the vote which occurred at that time was 54 in favor of the cloture mo- tion, and he also stated the number of Senators who were in attendance at that time, Actually on that date 84 Senators voted on the cloture motion. Of that number, 52 voted in favor of the cloture motion, and 32 voted in opposition to the adoption of the cloture motion to end debate. Those are the facts before the Senate today. Mr. President, the distinguished junior Senator from Oregon [Mr. Morse] ob- jects to the present cloture rule, and states that it is the reason for the fail- ure of the Senate to pass proposed civil rights legislation. He has a perfect right to his opinion, because he believes that @ majority in the Senate should deter- mine whether or not a cloture motion Should be adopted, either on the ques- tion of taking up proposed legislation or on the question of the final vote on it. He thinks that issue should be deter- mined by a majority of the Senate. I think he was numbered along with ap- proximately 7 or 8 other Senators who voted in favor of majority rule in that JULY 12 connection, when that question was be- fore the Senate. Of course he can continue to argue about the so-called Wherry rule, and he can continue to argue that it is the one hurdle which prevents the passage by the Senate of proposed civil rights legislation. However, the fact is that on the vote taken the last time this ques- tion was before the Senate, when only 52 Senators voted in favor of the adop- tion of the cloture motion, it made no difference whether the rule was the Wherry rule for a constitutional two- thirds or a rule requiring the favorable votes of two-thirds of the Senators then present and voting—in short, the rule we had prior to that time, which did not apply to a motion to consider a measure and which, therefore, was inef- fective for closing debate. Mr. TAFT. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Nebraska yield to the Sen- ator from Ohio? Mr. WHERRY. Sol say that is ample evidence and justification to refute en- tirely the position taken by the junior Senator from Oregon. The only way in the world he can get what he wants is to adopt a majority rule. I should like to say that he has a perfect right to endeavor to change the rule at any time he wants to. The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Nebraska yield to the Sen- ator from Ohio? Mr. WHERRY. It has been several months—in fact about a year—since the old rule was changed, and if any Sen- ator wants to change it, he has a per- fect right to offer a resolution proposing to change it. The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Nebraska yield? Mr. WHERRY. I yield. Mr. TAFT. If the Wherry rule had not been adopted, and if the voice of the distinguished majority leader had been followed and the entire matter dropped, today we could not even have a cloture motion, and could not vote on a cloture motion. Prior to the so- called Wherry rule cloture could not be invoked on the question of a motion to take up. So, it seems to me that the argument of the distinguished Senator from Oregon is absolutely and complete- ly unsound. There would be no cloture today. The Wherry resolution, for the first time since I have been in the Sen- ate, has given us an opportunity to vote for cloture on a motion to take up a measure such as the FEPC bill. Mr. WHERRY. I thank the distin- guished Senator from Ohio for his ob- servation. I should like to go further. Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a brief answer? Mr. WHERRY. I shall be glad to yield, but I hope the Senator will not take up all my time between now and 1 o'clock. He has made one speech al- ready. Mr. MORSE, The Senator may put the watch on me for 20 seconds. I should like te ask the Senator from Ohio, What good is a rule which permits clo- ture on a motion to take up, if there is attached to the rule the requirement of
1950 a vote which it is impossible to geét in the Senate of the United States? Mr, WHERRY. Mir. President, I do not agree with that statement at all. This is the first time the test has ever been made. Undoubtedly there will be others as time passes. That brings me to my setond argu- ment. We hear the distinguished Sen- ator from Oregon complaining about the Wherry rule. Under any rule whereby cloture can be employed to end debate, certainly those who advocate proposed legislation should rise on the floor and argue its merits. If the dis- tinguished Senator from Oregon wants to have a cloture motion adopted, whether it be on the basis of a consti- tutional two-thirds majority, or a two- thirds majority of those present and voting, or a constitutional majority, it is his office to convince the Members of the Senate that the bill he supports has suffisient merit, if you please, to take care of any debate under a clo- ture motion. Yet, I ask Senators to search the R&corp. Where was the junior Senator from Oregon when the motion was made? Where was the junior Senator from Oregon, and where is he now? Has anyone come forward with a constructive, meritorious argu- ment in favor of this proposed legisla- tion? Has anyone tried to aid in get- ting sufficient votes to make up the two- thirds majority required under the clo- ture rule? Oh, no. Look at the record. If I am asked why I have not done it, my answer is—and I am going to be brutally frank with the minority—that I do not believe in the FEPC legislation in the form in which it is now before the Senate. I am sincere about that. But I will state that I believe the time has come when we should terminate debate and agree to a motion to take up. I think, however, that the Members of the Senate should write an FEFC bill which will be acceptable in the four corners of the United States. On that basis, I am perfectly willing to vote for cloture, in order to bring the measure before the Senate, and enable it to perfect such a bill. That is my position, and it is as sound as the Rock of Gibraltar. Those who are now complaining and trying to hide behind the requirement for a constitutional two-thirds major- ity come, I think, all too late to argue about taking up the bill they have not discussed, or put forth any constructive effort to convince the Members of the Senate that it is at least beneficial legis- lation. That is the point at issue this morning. Of course, as the distinguished ma- jority leader has said, this is only a c'testion of applying cloture to a motion to take up. But tn order to take up the bill, the debate has to run further than merely to the motion; the debate must run to the merits of the bill, so that Senators may be induced to vote for cloture on the motion to take up the measure, in order that it may be con- sidered and, if possible, passed. I re- fer to the bill that is to come before the Senate. So, Mr. President, the junior Senator ‘from Oregon can continue to condemn the Wherry rule if he so desires, but I CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE want to say to him that he has not offered an amendment to change it, and, furthermore any Senator who proposes such an amendment should make up his mind that in order to have it adopted it will be necessary to break a filibuster in the United States Senate. There was nothing about the Wherry rule which changed the meantfig of the rule in a manner to accomplish the purpose for which the Senator from Oregon {is now contending, and behind which he is now hiding; not at all. If it is desired to pass an FEPC bill Senators must make up their minds that they must break a filibuster, and I am one who will assist in such an effort, if the Senate will con- structively undertake it, In closing the third argument I want to advance is the argument which was advanced by the distinguished Senator from Ohio [Mr. Tart]. For the first or second time in aljl the years of the Sen- ate's history, we now have an oppor- tunity to end debate upon a motion to take up. I am for a rule requiring the affirma- tive votes of two-thirds of those present and voting on a cloture motion. With the distinguished Senator from Arizona (Mr. Haypen], I, as a member of the Committee on Rules and Administration, sponsored a resolution providing such a change in the rule; but we were not able to have it adopted by the Senate. We obtained the best rule that could be adopted in the face of a filibuster which, it seemed, could not be broken. We have not yet broken it, and I doubt whether it can be broken. But if that can be done, the rule can be amended, in my opinion, so as to provide on a cloture motion for a two-thirds vote of those present and voting. Until such a change is made, we today have a better rule than we ever had before. We have a chance to get up for consideration pro- posed legislation which is meritorious, to debate the issue on the floor and perfect the bill, and, if possible, pass it. So we have the best rule from the standpoint of workability that can be obtained un- der the circumstances. Iam perfectly willing to join any other Senator who wants to reduce the re- quirement of the constitutional two- thirds to two-thirds of those present and voting; but until that time comes, I am perfectly willing to work along with a constitutional two-thirds majority, be- cause it gives us an opportunity, if leg- islation is meritorious, to end debate on a motion to take it up, and thus get the issue before the Senate. The junior Senator from Oregon, in- stead of kicking the Wherry rule and sabotaging it, should lend his support to making the rule workable, so long as it is on the books, and until it can be modi- fied in a manner that will suit his views. So, Mr. President, I join the major- ity leader, who, I believe, has done his level best in the effort to get a vote on the motion to consider the FEPC bill. I am ready to vote today or to- morrow or next week or any other time on a cloture motion, in order that this proposed legislation may come before the Senate, if it possibly can be brought be- fore the Senate. I only hope—and I say this sincerely, and devoid of any politics, 9979 in any way, shape, or form—that the time has come when it would please the American people if the Senate of the United States would perfect an FEPC bill which would be acceptable not only to the Congress but to ali the segments of the population of the United States, Mr. RUSSELL obtained the floor. Mr. MYERS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for an insertion in the REcorD? Mr. RUSSELL. I ask unanimous con- sent that I may be permitted to yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania for the purpose of making an insertion in the Recorp, without jeopardizing my right to the floor. The VICE PRESIDENT. Without ob- jection, it is so ordered. Mr. MYERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have inserted in the Recorp at this point in my remarks a statement which I have prepared, urging agreement to the pending cloture motion. There being no objection, the state- ment of Mr. MYERS was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: STATEMENT BY SENATOR MYERS URGING CLorurs on FEPC "foTion Periodically, Mr. President, I remove from the unfinished business files in my office a heavy stack of folders labeled “Civil Rights— FEPC” There is a folder for each session of Con- gress, and the entire file runs back for a number of years These files record the story of what is perhaps the most persistent legislative battle ever waged before the Sen- ate. Page after page of debate, carefully clipped from the OonorrssIonaL ReEcorp, packs these folders. There are also sum-~- maries of roll-call votes—the few that we have had bearing on the issue of FEPC-— summaries which break down, by Republi- cans and Democrats, the votes for and the votes against, the limitation of debate The folders contain, too, scholarly articles describing the experience obtained under FEPC programs in operation on State and local levels. And there are, as well, in- numerable copies of letters, telegrams, and newspaper accounts which throw light on some of the many phases of this complex issue Iam certain, that to many Americans, the story recorded in these files ts a story of failure It is the story of a search for free- dom not yet found It isa length and un- finished chapter in the long history of men’s struggle to achieve the brotherhood of man. Until the FEPC chapter of that history is brought to its close, many will continue to regard it as a story of faliure. We who serve in the Senate today have it within our power to put many of the finlsh- ing touches on the FEPC chapter. A total of 64 of the 96 of us, voting together to invoke cloture on this much-debated issue, can do the trick. When I look back over the material in my files on FEPC, I find myself going over, not once, but repeatedly, the previous votes we have taken where efforts have been made to bring FEPC to a vote squarely on its merits. In terms of this Eighty-frst Congress, I have invariably taken as my starting point the historic vote of March 11, 1949, when 41 Senators—26 Democrats and 16 Repubdli- cans—voted to sustain Vice President Bank- Lev’s interpretation of the then existing Sen- ate Rule XXII, I realize, of course, that of the 41 Senators who believed the term “pending measure” meant any matter be- fore the Senate, there were at least two Sen- ators who, thotigh they agreed with the Vice
9980 President's interpretation, would not have voted for FEPC legislation, Assuming, then, that 2 of the 41 Senators who supported the Barkley ruling would not subsequently agree to limit debate on FEPO, I have started with what I would re- gerd as a hard core of 89 Senators who, through thick or thin, will stand steadfastly behind attempts to get FEPO enacted. I am of course aware that among the 46 Senators who did not agree with Vice Presi- dent Barkuryr’s interpretation of rule XXII there were quite a number of Senators who indicated at the time that they did support FEPC, but that they did not believe the term “pending measure” applied to any matter before the Senate. I am sure that the Senator from Michigan [Mr. VANDENBERG] was among the foremost in that group who supported FEPC, but nonetheless felt im- pelled to vote agatnst the Barkley inter- pretation. The Senator from Michigan made his position in this quite clear: He firmly believed that the old rule XXII was limited in its application to matters which had become the pending business of the Sen- ate—and that no cloture petition would He on a motion to take up a measure. He also stated his belief that the Senate rules should be changed to broaden the scope of the cloture rule—but he felt this should be done by wearing out a filibuster, rather than through what he regarded as a atretched construction of the old Senate rule. I want to make it clear right now that I respect the integrity of the Senator from Michigan in this matter completely, and I respect those who sided with him for the Bame reasons. On the other hand, I did not agree with his interpretation. I belleved, and still believe, the old rule XXII did cover any matter that came before us However this may be, 45 other Senators voted with the Senator from Michigan, and the interpretation given the rule by the Vice President was not agreed to. As I indicated earlier, some, at least, of the 46 who opposed the Barkley ruling indicated their support of FEPC legislation. Thus, from a starting point of 89 Senators who were certainly behind FEPC, it was clear that an unknown number of the 46 who voted against the Barkley ruling would agree to limit debate on FEPC when the issue was brought squarely into focus. The revised rule XXII, adopted 6 days after the vote on the Barkley ruling, cleared the air in several important respects. Firat, it established the definite require- ment that 64 affirmative votes were needed t. Iimit debate in the future. This meant that in addition to the 39 votes that could be relied upon as a consequence of the vote on the Barkley ruling, there were 25 more votes required. In the second place, the new rule clarified the matter of interpretation which led to the famous vote on March 11 of last year. Henceforth, cloture may be applied on any “measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate, or other unfinished busi- ness.” But the new rule contained one all- important exception: There was no means whatsoever by which the Senate could hence. “orth change its rules without facing the Prospect of an unlimited debate. A further change in Senate rules was placed in a special, sacred category—and if we ever seek in the future to lower the present require- ment of 64 affirmative votes to apply cloture, we will be compelled to break a filibuster in order to do it. Prom the moment the new cloture rule went Into effect, there was much conjecture as to its effectiveness. Many, including my- self, regarded the new rule as a retrogressive step, For one thing, the old rule required no fixed number of votes in order to limit debate. It merely required that two-thirds of those Mittens could impose a limitation on further C) * CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE There have been 20 instances altogether in which the Senate has voted on cloture peti- tions. The most recent of these occasions occurred May 19 of this year on a cloture petition comparable to the one now before us. I do not need to remind any Member of the Senate that the vote of 52 to 33 in favor of cloture was insufficient to meet the new requirement of 64 votes—nor do I need to dwell on the point that the recent vote failed to meet the old requirement of two- thirds of those voting. The remaining 19 cloture votes in the Senate applied under the rule XXII as it previously existed. All told, cloture has been applied successfully in only four instances. In 1019, debate was limited on the Versailles Treaty by a vote of 78 to 16; in 1926, by a vote of 68 to 26, cloture was applied on the World Court issue; the following year, 1927, saw the last two cases in which debate was limited—by 65 to 18 on the branch banning bill, and 55 to 27 on a bill creating @ Bureau of Customs and a Bureau of Prohibition. It is noteworthy that there has been no successful cloture vote now for 28 years, and it should also be pointed out that in no instance has cloture been successfully applied to any civil-rights issue. I want to return for a moment to the vote taken on May 19. This was the historic test of the revised rule XXII. This vote came, as everyone knows, after the Senate and the Nation had been put on notice of the date and hour that the cloture vote would occur. Our goal was 64—and we fell short by exactly a dozen votes. It is true that the figure of 52 votes in favor of cloture on FEPO represents the high-water mark in terms of the number of Senators willing to limit debate on this issue—the highest previous cloture vote on civil rights occuring in 1946 when 48 Senators voted for limiting debate on FEPC and were opposed by 36—thus fail- ing to obtain the necessary two-thirds, But, Mr. President, our attempt on May 19 of this year to bring FEPC to an unob- structed vote on its merits fell shy by 12 votes of the goal set last year at 64. We will, in a few short minutes, test once more the effectiveness of the new rule XXII, Our goal—as it was on May 19—1is to obtain a total of 64 votes in favor of cloture. I have gone over the voting record of May 19, not once, but many times, since that occasion. I have added and subtracted names from the columns of yeas and nays I have sought in every way I knew how to find some way in which, on this occasion, we could wipe out our deficit of 12 votes needed to make FEPC the pending business of this body. At this point, I am compelled to say that I can see one way—and one way only— that we can bring to a successful close the FEPC chapter in the history of our efforts to bring about the brotherhood of man. The Way to success lies squarely in the hands of a minimum of 12 Members of the Senate. Therefore, I address my appeal to you— you 12 Senators—who can, by joining with the 52 of us who supported the cloture peti- tion in May, enable us to reach the goal of 64 votes. If you did not vote on May 19— because you may have been ill or absent on necessary business—I pray that you are now restored to health and that you will be here, standing with us, when the cloture vote is taken. If you were 1 of the 83 Senators who voted against cloture this spring, I beseech you to reexamine your earlier stand. Are you sure? Do you question at all the position you took on May 19? In addressing those of you who have opposed cloture tn the past, I intend no implication that you are insincere in the stand you have taken. I know you as my friends. I know you to be men of integrity and men devoted to your duty. I know you to be men who reason your way JULY 12 carefully through to the stand that you take on this, or any other issue, But on the issue of FEPC which is now be- fore us, there are implications of national, and for that matter, world-wide importance at thie time. We understand this. Few matters have been so thoroughly debated as the one now before us. As we meet here today, forces of the United Nations with many Americans among them are engaged in the vital task of putting down @ grave threat to the future freedom of man- kind. This same freedom, in which all of us 80 ardently believe, is much involved in the question now before us. Freedom is not a piecemeal affair. Freedom is the whole fab- ric. We stand now in a position to strike a tell- ing blow for the opportunity open to a sub- stantial number of Americans, in all sections of the country—Americans of many origins. So, Mr. President, I pray that when we stand up to be counted this afternoon that there will be a sufficient number among the ranks of those who, by sincere conviction, believe we must take the step of putting into practice a policy which will in the course of time remove from millions of our people the curse of second-class citizenship, Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, it is seldom indeed that I can agree with any statement made by the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Morse] with respect to what I regard as being the misnamed civil rights program, I can, however, heartily agree with his criticism of the unusual—indeed, the bizarre procedure that is taking place on this floor today in the name of a vote on a motion to end a debate in the United States Senate that does not exist. There has been no debate whatever upon the motion except the statement made by the distinguished Senator from Illinois [Mr. Lucas], who reiterated in large part a speech which he made upon another occasion. Mr, President, the opposition to taking up the bill and making it the unfinished business of the Senate is not capricious and arbitrary. Any Senator who has any knowledge whatever of the question knows that the entire procedure, not merely the debate tocay, has been shot through and through with politics. Here we have a bill of the most revolutionary character, a bill which will impose con- trols on American industry and business at a time when the Nation stands, per- haps, upon the threshhold of dangers greater than we have ever before known, and yet the bill has beer. reported to the Senate without a single hearing, with- out having allowed anyone an oppor- tunity to offer amendments, and with- out any recommendation of the com- mittee which considered it. This is contrary to the custom and the rules respecting all proposed legislation. Never before during my tenure in the Senate has a bill of this magnitude been brought before the Senate and seriously proposed to the American people, far- reaching as it is in its effect, without permitting those who would be affected by it an opportunity to come before a committee and enjoy the right of peti- tion which the Constitution of the United States seeks to assure to all our citizens. The procedure today, Mr. cresident, is not only political, but it strikes at the very fundamentals of the rights of free men, by distorting the system of parlia-
1950 mentary procedure of the Senate in order to bring before the Senate and to push through without allowing us to debate the issue, 2 bill which is, perhaps, as controversial as is any other issue before the American people. My. President, the distinguished Sen- ator from Illinois made the emotional appeal that men of all colors, of all creeds, and of all races are dying today in Korea. I do not dispute that. He says that unless we pass legislation of this kind we are furnishing an argu- ment to the Communist philosophy which threatens to engulf the entire world, including our own beloved coun- try. That may have an appeal to the emotions, but it does not address itself to common sense. Carried to its last analysis it might be inferred that upon their return the boys who are going overseas to fight should be given abso- lutely equal economic status in this Na- tion. The effect of such argument is to say, “Let us introduce a bill to divide up equally all the wealth and all the blessings of the United States equally among all our people.” I submit, in all seriousness, Mr. Presi- dent, that we cannot reach any other conclusion if we follow to its logical end the argument of the Senator from IIli- nois. No, Mr. President; men are fighting and dying in Korea in order to preserve the institutions of free men. The hall- mark of the American system of free enterprise is the right to own and con- trol property. If we pass a bill of this kind which permits a Federal agent to take over the property of men, which they have accumulated through their own efforts, and tell them who shall op- erate the property, not only whom they shall employ, but whom they shall pro- mote, who shall manage the property— indeed, he might go even further than that and say who shall sit upon the board of directors of an institution—we shall be striking down the American system just as though we were supporting the entire Communist philosophy. It is most unfortunate that this bill had to be brought forward again. The Senator from Illinois several weeks ago made a motion to proceed to its consid- eration. Notice was served repeatedly by the majority leader and the minority leader as to the time the vote would be taken. All Senators were apprised of the fact that the vote would be taken. Indeed, under the very nature of the cloture rule, every Senator has 48 hours’ notice as to when a vote will be had. There is practically no place in the world today from which Washington cannot be reached within a period of 48 hours. Notice was served and a vote was had. The bill was laid aside. Now another motion has been made to proceed to its consideration. In the interim no hear- ings were held on the biil. The time was not utilized to give the American people an opportunity to express their opinion. It was not used, Mr. President, to permit Members of the Senate to present amendments to the committee so that they might be carefully considered. In- stead, we are presented again with this naked bill containing many pages of nnawage capable, in many instances, of CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE devious construction, which was reported ‘by the committee without consideration, without hearings, and without offering an opportunity to consider amendments. Mr. President, we are right back where we were before, so far as the merits of the measure are concerned, I am aware of some of the forces be- hind this bill. I realize that they are strong enough and possess the political power to bring it up again within a few days if they see fit to do so. I know that if we remain in session for as long as 3 or 4 weeks, and if some persons in this country wish to have another cloture vote upon this compulsory, jail-sentence FEPC bill, we shall undoubtedly have another cloture vote. The political implications involved should not blind us to the fact that all the procedure which has been followed in connection with the bill is in deroga- tion of our parliamentary system, It is calculated to take away the rights of free men, not only with respect to this proposed legislation, abolishing, as it does, the right of trial by jury, giving to little Federal bureaucrats greater power than that which has ever before been enjoyed by them, even in time of war, but it will interfere with our industrial system and cause unspeakable confusion at the very time when we are likely to be called upon for greater production of arms and implements to defend America. All these considerations, Mr. President, will be waved aside if the minority groups behind this bill come forward and de- mand another opportunity for another vote. No reason has been offered to cause those who oppose the bill to relax their efforts. The proponents present no rea- son whatever for any man to change his vote. Instead, Mr. President, present circumstances appeal to the judgment of those who in good faith voted for cloture in the past. There is today sound reasons for them to change their posi- tion and say that this flasco should end, that this travesty upon the Congress of the United States and our parliamentary system should no longer continue. A majority of the Members of the Benate should rise up and vote against this sec- ond motion for cloture in order that we may not be bedeviled with similar pro- cedure throughout the remainder of the calendar year 1950 when so many dan- gers threaten our country and our people. Mr, LEHMAN. Mr. President, I con- gratulate the junior Senator from Oregon both for his decision to vote for cloture, and for his suggestions regarding nec- essary future procedure for the applica- tion of cloture to shut off debate and to bring civil rights legislation to a vote. I listened to the moving address—not an emotional address—of the majority leader, and I cannot see how any Sena- tor can fail to be convinced by the state- ments made by the majority leader. The distinguished Senator from Geor- gia referred to the majority leader's ad- dress as an emotional appeal, and made the statement that what we are trying to do is to hamstring Industry, commerce, and the capitalistic system. Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, I at- tributed no such purpose to anyone. I 9981 said that was my opinion of the effect of Mr. LEHMAN. If I may continue, I should like to say to the Senator from Georgia that what is being done here today in the Senate and what has been done is to say to many of the men who are fighting on the battlefields of Korea— Negroes, and members of other minority races, “You are good enough to fight for your country, you are good enough to risk your lives; you are good enough to die, but if by good fortune you come back safely, you are going to be second class citizens again, without the rights which other American citizens possess.” This fight for equality in employment, education, civil and political activities must go on. In this good fight, I am proud to be on the side of democracy. The VICE PRESIDENT. The hour of 1 o’clock having arrived, all time for de- bate has expired. The Chair lays before the Senate the motion of the Senator from Illinois {Mr. Lucas] that the Senate proceed to con- sider S. 1728, a bill to prohibit discrimi- nation in employment because of race, color, religion, or national origin. Under the rule, the clerk will call the roll. The roll was called, and the following Senators answered to their names: Aiken Hickenlooper Martin Anderson Hiv Maybank Benton Hoey Millikin Brewster Holland Morse Bricker Humphrey Mundt Bridgea Hunt Murray Butler Ives Myers Byrd Jenner Neely Capehart Johnson, Colo. O'Mahoney Chapman Johnson, Tex. Robertson Chavez Johnston, 8.0. Russell Connally Kefauver Saltonstall Cordon Kem Schoeppel Donnell Kerr Smith, Maine Douglas Kilgore Smith, N. J. Dworshak Knowland Sparkmsn Eastiand Langer Stennis Ecton Leahy Taft Ellender Lehman Thomas, Okla, Ferguson Lodge Thomas, Utah Flanders Long Thye Frear Lucas Tydings Fulbright McCarran Vandenberg George McCarthy Watkins Gillette McClellan Wherry Graham McFarland Wiley Green McKellar Williams Gurney McMahon Young Rayden Magnuson Hendrickson Malone The VICE PRESIDENT. A quorum is present. The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that the debate shall be brought toaclose? Under the rule, the Secretary will call the roll. Those who are in favor of the motion will answer “yea” when their names are called. Those who are opposed to the motion will answer “nay” when their names are called, The legislative clerk called the roll. Mr. CHAPMAN. My colleague, the junior Senator from Kentucky (Mr. WitsErs] is absent by leave of the Sen- ate. If he were present, he would vote “nay.” Mr. MYERS. I announce that the Senator from Idaho iMr. TAYLOR] is ab- sent by leave of the Senate, If he were present, he would vote “yea.” T also announce that the Senator from California (Mr. Downgy] is absent be- cause of iliness, The Senator from Maryland [Mr. O'Conor] is absent by leave of the Senate
9982 on official business, having been in at- tendance at the sessions of the Interna- tional Labor Organization at Geneva, Switzerland, as a delegate representing the United States. The Senator from Florida [Mr. Prr- PER] is absent because of the death ef Judge Curtis Waller, a personal friend, whose funeral is being held today. ‘Mr. SALTONSTALL. I announce that the Senator from Washington I[Mr. Cain}, the Senator from Kansas [Mr. Darsy}, and the Senator from New Hampshire {[Mr. TOBEY] are absent by leave of the Senate. If present and vot- ing, the Senator from Washington [Mr. CaIn] and the Senator from New Hamp- shire [Mr. ToBEY] would each vote “yea.” The yeas and nays resulted—yeas 05, nays 33, as follows: YutAS—55 Aiken Humphrey Myers Anderson Hunt Neely Benton Ives O'Mahoney Brewster Jenner Saltonstall Bricker Kem Schoeppel Butler Kilgore Smith, Maine Capehart Knowland Smith, N.J. Chavez Langer Taft Cordon Leahy Thomas, Okla, Donnell Lehman Thomas, Utah Douglas Lodge Thye Dworshak Lucas Tydings Ferguson McCarthy Vandenberg Flanders MoMahon Watkins Frear Magnuson Wherry Gillette Martin Wiley Green Millikin Williams Hendrickson Morse Hickenlooper Murray NAYS—33 Bridges Hayden McClellan Byrd Hill McFarland Chapman Hoey McKellar Connally Holland Malone Eastland Johnson, Colo. Maybank Ecton Johnson, Tex Mundt Eliender Johnston, 8 C. Robertson Fulbright Kofauver Russell George Kerr Sparkman Graham Long Stennis Gurney McCarran Young NOT VOTING—8 Cain O'Conor Tobey Darby Pepper Withers Downey Taylor The VICE PRESIDENT. Fewer than the required number of 64 Senators hav- ing voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. ORDER OF BUSINESS Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the motion just voted upon be withdrawn, and that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Senate bill 7786, the appropriation bill which the Senate has heretofore been considering. The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there ob- jection? Mr. MORSE and Mr. IVES addressed the Chair, The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair holds that the previous agreement en. tered into, to lay aside temporarily the motion to take up Senate bill 1728 and proceed to the consideration of the ap- propriation bill, remains in effect. Mr. LUCAS. Then I withdraw the re- quest I have made. Mr. RUSSELL. A parliamentary in- quiry. ’ The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator will state it. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Myr. RUSSELL. The pending question then, after the conclusion of the appro- priation bill, would be the motion of the Senator from Illinois? The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator is correct. GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS, 1951 The Senate resumed the cunsideration of the bill (H. R. 7786) making appro- priations for the support of the Govern- ment for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1951, and for other purposes. The VICE PRESIDENT. The ques- tion is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the Senator from Louisiana LMr. ELLENDER], Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, there has been some discussion among Senators on both sides of the aisle, members of the Committee on Appropriations and others, as to the possibility of obtaining @ unanimous consent agreement to ex- pedite the debate upon the amendments to the appropriation bill and the bill it- self. No definite arrangement has been made, but I should like to explore the situation to ascertain whether it may not be possible to obtain a unanimous consent agrement that 5 or 10 minutes be allowed each Senator on each amend- ment. If we could agree to limit the debate to 10 minutes upon any amend- ment for any individual Senator who de- sired to speak, I am sure we could move along expeditiously in the consideration of the appropriation bill. I wonder if the Senator from Nebraska, the dis- tinguished minority leader, has any ideas along that line. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, I as- sure the majority leader that there is no disposition on this side of the aisle to hold up debate on the amendments. However, I am wondering if the dis- tinguished majority leader will not with- hold the request until the conclusion of the debate today, for the reason that some of the amendments which are to be offered have not yet been presented, and it might be that as to one or two of those amendments additional time might be required I will say to the dis- tinguished majority leader, however, that after today we will see if there is not a possibility of working out some kind of an agreement which will be ac- ceptable. I do not wish to go on record as saying that it can be done, but I feel it is impossible to do it until after to- day’s debate Then we will see if some arrangement cannot be worked out. Mr. LUCAS. I thank the Senator. I understand the situation, and I will not proceed with the matter any further at present. In view of the fact that nearly all Senators are present at this time, I should like to announce that immedi- ately following the disposition of the ap- propriation bill we will proceed to a call of the calendar, for the consideration of measures to which there is no objection, beginning where we left off at the last call. Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, will the Senator from Illinois yield? Mr. LUCAS. I yield, Mr. MAGNUSON. On the calendar there are several bills, including two or JULY 12 three maritime bills, which were called the last time and went over on objection. I wonder if there would be objection to going back to those measures, if no ob- jection were interposed. Mr, LUCAS. I believe the Senate would be rather lenient in the case of any bill which has heretofore been ob- jected to, and it is now found that the Senator sponsoring the bill is in a posi- tion to iron out the differences which existed. If objection is not further in- terposed, I would have no hesitancy returning to such bills. . The VICE PRESIDENT. The ques- tion is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. ELLENDER], THE CLOTURE RULE Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I did not reply to the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Wuerry] prior to 1 o'clock because of the fact that the Senate was scheduled to vote at that hour, and 1 considered it only fair that other Members of the Senate be allowed to speak on the then pending subject matter, especially im view of the fact that the junior Senator from Oregon had spoken once during the debate, as the Senator from Ne- braska pointed out. However, I do not want the Recorp of today to close with- out showing the position of the junior Senator from Oregon on the various ar- guments advanced by the Senator from Nebraska. It is well known, I think, that the Sen- ator from Nebraska and the junior Sena- tor from Oregon differ fundamentally on the entire approach to the question of cloture. If we needed evidence as to the unworkability of the present cloture rule, which is the product of the so-called Wherry resolution, the vote just taken in the Senate supplies such convincing evi- dence. We had a very minor question before the Senate, so far as the civil- rights program is concerned. We had truly only a procedural question, a par- Namentary question before the Senate— a@ very simple question, Mr. President, as to whether or not the Senate of the United States would apply the Wherry rule in taking up a bill on civil rights, We could not get the constitutional two- thirds vote even to take up the bill, to say nothing about succeeding in obtain. ing cloture that would stop debate on the bill itself so that we could vote on its merits. Isubmit that the vote just taken in the Senate of the United States shows the complete unworkability of the Wherry resolution. Now a word or two about some of the arguments of the Senator from Nebraska, I am very sorry that apparently I caused some pique on the part of the Senator from Nebraska, because since the debate he has told a couple of my colleagues that he has taken all he intends to take from the junior Senator from Oregon. Let me say to the Senator from Nebraska that so far as the junior Senator from Oregon is concerned, he intends to con- tinue to maintain on the floor of the Senate his position on the merits of is- sues as they come before the Senate, ir- respective of whether it pleases or dise pleases the Senator from Nebraska,
1950 The Senator from Nebraska asked, Where was the junior Senator from Ore- gon during the week that this motion was before the Senate, from May 8 to May 18? I will tell the Senator from Ne- braska where the junior Senator from Oregon was. He was in the State of Ore- gon campaigning against the Republican candidate whose political views I consider so similar to the views of the Senator from Nebraska that I thought it was im~- portant that I go to Oregon and do every- thing I could to defeat him in the pri- mary. That is where the junior Sena- tor from Oregon was from May 8 to May 19. Let us now turn to the question of the record of the junior Senator from Ore- gon in regard to the Wherry resolution. The Senator from Oregon has fought the Wherry resolution. He fought it at the time it was before the Senate. He has fought it ever since. He has kept in very close touch with the Senate as to whether or not the time has yet come to secure any revision of the Wherry resolution. It is true, as the Senator from Nebraska has pointed out, that the junior Senator from Oregon stands for a majority-vote rule in the Senate of the United States for the ending of debate, and he is ge- ing to continue to fight for a majority- vote rule. He will go along, as on one other occasion he told the Senator from New York [Mr. Ives], with a modifica- tion of the Wherry resolution short of a majority-vote rule, if that is the best he can get. Mr. President, I submit that the Morse resolution, which provided for a majority vote rule for the stopping of debate in the Senate also provided proper safe- guards to assure adequate debate after cloture was invoked in the Senate of the United States. Let us look at the record. What did the Morse resolution provide? It provided that after cloture had been filed each Senator would be allowed 2 hours of debate, if he wished to consume 2 hours of time, and he would be allowed an opportunity to farm out the 2 hours if he did not wish to use it himself. That is the position of the Senator from Ore- gon. I want to say that in my personal judg- ment the Wherry resolution is an insur- mountable road block to the passage of civil rights legislation. It was such an insurmountable road block today that we could not even have adopted by the Sen- ate a motion to consider the FEPC bill on its merits. Irepeat, Mr. President, until we change that kind of a rule the Senate cannot possibly keep faith with the great mi- nority groups who I think are now being discriminated against from the stand- point of race, color and creed. I will go along with the Senator from Nebraska on the basis of any fair and reasonable modification of any proposed FEPC bill which is presented to the Sen- ate. If the bill that was before the Sen- ate needs amendment, and it can be shown that the amendments will be fair, if it can be shown that amendments are needed in order to protect legitimate in- terests on the part of employers, as re- ferred to by the Senator from Georgia [Mr. Russe.v], if he can prove his case, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE the junior Senator from Oregon will vote for those amendments. But I say, Mr, President, we at least should have a clo- ture rule which would make it possible for a bill to come before the Senate and to be considered and voted on on its merits. Unless some coalition deal is worked out, Mr. President, which will permit, from the standpoint of political gesturing purposes, a vote on some minor civil rights legtslation, we will never get a civil rights bill before the Senate for a vote on its merits until the Wherry reso- lution has been repealed. I should like to say to the Senator from Nebraska that the first time I be- come convinced that a proposal to modify the Wherry resolution has a ghost of a chance of being adopted by the Senate of the United States, the junior Senator from Oregon will submit the Morse amendment. As I have said before I will go along with the Ives proposal which provides for less than the constitutional two-thirds majority. But the junior Senator from Oregon wants the Senator from Nebraska thoroughly to understand that in his judgment the Wherry resolu- tion is a disservice to the Republican Party. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, the Senator from Oregon has not raised one point in his answer to my argument that has in any way substantiated what he himself advocates. The Senator from Oregon said that the vote just taken shows that the Wherry rule is unwork- able. I call the attention of the Mem- bers of the Senate to the fact that, so far as the final result is concerned, it would not have made any difference whether the old two-thirds rule had been in effect, or whether we were working under the constitutional two-thirds rule, The motion failed of adoption because it received only 55 votes, as against 33 votes. Everything the Senator has said refutes his own argument, because it would not have made any difference if the Wherry rule had not been in effect, Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. WHERRY. I will yield to my friend from Florida, but I wish to say I had not intended to get into a long de- bate on this subject. Mr. HOLLAND. Is it not true that, under the vote just had, cloture would have failed even if the committee rule which was proposed at the time the so- called Wherry rule was adopted, had been adopted, since less than two-thirds of those present voted for cloture? Mr. WHERRY. That is certainly true, I will say to the Senator from Florida, and I thank him for his observation. T do not want to prolong the contro- versy. I will say, however, that the vote just taken clearly and conclusively proves the contention of the Senator from Ne- braska. The only remedy the Senator from Oregon has is to change the rule. The Wherry rule did not change in any way the procedure by which a rule of the United States Senate can be amended. We come right back to the argument that, if we want to secure action, we have to break a filibuster in the United States Senate, That is the answer to 9983 the whole argument of the Senator from Oregon. So far as personal arguments are con- cerned, I will say I do not want to engage in them. My duty as minority leader is to do my level best to get along with other Senators. I hope and pray that the Senator from Oregon will see the Hight and not again stand on the floor and condemn the Wherry rule as being the impediment to securing action upon a civil-rights measure, when even under the rule heretofore in effect such action would not have resulted from the vote just had. Furthermore, the old rule did not apply to a motion to consider a meas- ure, and thus left wide open the oppor- tunity to filibuster. Mr. MORSE, Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. WHERRY. I should like to say another thing. The so-called Wherry rule applies not only to civil rights measures; it applies to every measure that may come before the United States Senate. I say in all seriousness that I believe that when a measure is brought before the Senate, and it is thoroughly debated, and its merits are known, we do now have a relief for which the Sen- ate has been fighting for 160 years, and that is finally an opportunity to vote on a motion to take up. If the Senator wants to modify the rule he has a per- fect right to attempt to do so. He be-~ lieves in cloture by a majority vote. I ao not. I never have. Of course I am open to conviction, but I will say that I simply do not believe in it. I belteve that a measure ought to be a meritorious one before a group of 49 Senators can force termination of debate on it on the floor of the United Seates Senate. In fact by the present rule we have gone a very long way toward terminating de- bate on a motion to take up an oppor- tunity which was not afforded under previous Senate rules for 160 some years. I am perfectly willing to join hands in a movement to modify the rule s0 as to have it provide for the invoking of cloture by the affirmative votes of two- thirds of the Senators then present and voting. In fact, that was my recom- mendation in the first place. However, I am not in favor of a rule which would provide for the invoking of cloture by majority vote. I have many arguments which, at some time, I should like to advance, if necessary, against a proposed rule for the invoking of cloture by majority vote. I would favor a rule as I have said, providing for the invoking of cloture by a two-thirds vote of those present. The vote had today in the Sen- ate proves that the adoption of the Wherry rule has had no effect whatever on the question of the passage of civil rights measures by the Senate, but even under a rule providing for a vote of two- thirds of those present there would not have been sufficient votes to invoke clo- ture on the question of taking up such bills, Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, will the Benator yield? The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hoey in the chair). Does the Senator
9984 from Nebraska yield to the Senator from Oregon? Mr. WHERRY. I yield. Mr. MORSE. Has the minority leader ever found the Senator from Oregon wanting in full cooperation to break a filibuster? Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, in- stead of saying that I have not found him wanting, I say that, to the con- trary, at times he has been a difficult problem because it has been difficult to stop him from filibustering. {Laughter.] So, Mr. President, the situation is Just the reverse of what the Senator from Oregon has said; and if we had not had the rule based on the Wherry resolution, there would have been absolutely no pos- sibility of stopping a filibuster on the question of taking up a bill. Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, if the Senator from Nebraska will further yield, let me inquire whether he has checked the statistics and has discovered whether or not the adoption of the Morse resolution to stop filibusters would have changed the situation resulting from the vote just had? Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, as I recall the Morse resolution, it required that a constitutional majority of the Members of the Senate vote in favor of the adoption of a cloture motion—which would mean 49 favorable votes in the Senate. Therefore, of course, such a rule would have ended debate today, un- der the situation existing in the Senate at this time. Mr. MORSE. No; the Morse resolu- tion requires the favorable votes of a majority of the Senators present and voting on the question of invoking cloture. Mr. WHERRY. Very well; in such case, debate would have been ended to- day, by the invoking of cloture. Mr. President, let me say that I am opposed to such a rule, because I think it would result in the termination of debate in the Senate by the action of too few of the Members of the Senate. I am not in favor of such a rule, and I will not vote for it. However, I say that under the old rule, even if 1t applied to motions to take up a measure—the rule existing before the Wherry resolution was put into effect— there would have been no difference as a result of the action taken today in the Senate. Therefore, the facts of the matter refute every argument the Sena- tor from Oregon has made today against the Wherry rule or Wherry resolution. Mr. MORSE. Of course, I am not seeking to change back to the old rule. Accordingly, it is rather specious to say that if we had the old rule we would be no better off. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, the Senator from Oregon has indicted the Wherry rule and has endeavored to in- dict me. He seems to be pleased to place the burden upon my shoulders. I simply wish to say for the Recorp that the Re- publican conference took action favoring the adoption of that rule; and as the floor leader for the Republicans in the Senate, I put that decision into motion. The Republican conference itself took action favoring the adoption of that rule. I am not shying away from it, for I CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE think it is a goed rule; and until it can be modified, I think it is a great benefit to the Members of the Senate, in con- nection with the termination of debate. Mr. IVES. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. WHERRY. Iam glad to yield. Mr. IVES. I should like to ask the Senator from Nebraska whether he does not recall that the action taken by the Republican conference in that connec- tion was not binding upon the Republi- can Members of the Senate, Mr. WHERRY. Certainly. Mr. IVES. Furthermore, there were at least half a dozen of us who voted against the Wherry resolution. Mr. WHERRY. Yes, I think there probably were seven or eight who voted against it; I am not sure. Of course, that is their privilege. My. President, I am not now debating the merits of a rule which would pro- vide for the invoking of cloture by the favorable votes of a constitutional ma- jority of the Senate; neither am I now debating the merits of a rule providing for the invoking of cloture by tite fa- vorable votes of a majority of the Sena- tors present and voting. I am merely saying that every indictment and argu- ment the junior Senator from Oregon has made against the Senator from Nebraska and the present Senate rule providing for the invoking of cloture as a result of the favorable votes of two- thirds of the Members of the Senate has been repudiated by the action taken to- day by the Senate. In today’s Senate vote, with 64 affirm- ative votes needed to apply cloture on the motion to consider the FEPC bill, 22 Democrats voted “yea.” This is 42 percent of the 54 Democrat Members of the Senate. Of the 42 Republicans, 33 voted “yea,” or 78 percent of the entire Republican Members of the Senate. The 55 votes for cloture were 4 votes short of two- thirds of the 88 Senators present and voting. The result of the vote had today in the Senate shows conclusively, definitely, and positively that even if the Wherry resolution were not in effect and even if we were operating under the old rule, cloture would not have been invoked. That is all I care to say on that particu- Jar point. Mr. President, the time will come, let me say, when we shall be very thankful to have in effect the two-thirds rule for the termination of debate on a motion to take up a measure, because prior to the adoption of that rule there was ab- solutely no possibility of breaking a fill- buster on a motion to take up a measure. The Senator from Oregon knows, as does also the Senator from New York, that before the adoption of the Wherry reso- lution, it was impossible to terminate de- bate in the Senate on a motion to take up @ measure. Mr, MORSE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. WHERRY. Iam glad to yield. Mr. MORSE. The Senator from Nebraska has spoken of the fact that the ‘Wherry rule was acted upon favorably at the Republican conference. However, is it true that the chief author of the JULY 12 Wherry resolution was the Senator from Nebraska? Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, credit for being the chief author of the rule must be divided equally among many Senators who were trying to get the Sen- ate to adopt the best possible rule, be- cause at that time we were up against a blank wall, so far as concerned securing any change at all in the cloture rule then existing. The resolution providing for the so- called Wherry rule was introduced by the junior Senator from Nebraska with 51 cosponsors of whom 22 were Republi- cans and 30 Democrats. 80 in what we did at that time, we were doing our level best to secure the adoption of the best rule we possibly could have the Senate adopt in the cir- cumstances then existing. If it were not for the present rule, the so-called Wherry resolution, the Senator from Oregon, who is complaining about it today, would not even have had a chance to have the Senate terminate de- bate upon a motion to take up a measure in the Senate. Some day he will use this rule and will be very thankful that he has 1t to use. I hope that when that time comes, the measure in regard to which he uses the rule will be sufficiently meritorious to persuade the Senate to go along with him and to give him a con- stitutional two-thirds vote. In the meantime, it is the privilege of the Senator from Oregon or the privi- lege of the Senator from New York to submit any amendments to the rule which they may care to submit. The Wherry rule does not in any way prevent the Senate from making a change in the procedure in regard to the invoking of cloture. Yet 1f the Wherry rule is re- voked, we go back to the old rule; and in that case Senators must realize that there would be absolutely no chance to break a filibuster here in the Senate. Mr. MORSE, Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. WHERRY. Iam glad to yield. Mr. MORSE. The Senator from Ne- braska is aware, is he not, that both the so-called Morse resolution and the so- called Ives resolution contain provisions in regard to the invoking of cloture on a motion to take up a measure identical in effect and purpose with the Wherry resolution. The difference between the Morse-Ives resolutions and the Wherry resolution is not on the question of in- voking cloture on a motion to take up a measure but on the number of votes required to impose cloture. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, let me say that Iam a member of the Com- mittee on Rules and Administration; and if the Senator from New York or the Senator from Oregon wish to sub- mit a proposed change in the cloture rule, I shall give it every consideration; and of course they can also bring up such matters on the floor of the Senate. But unless the situation changes— and the vote taken today in the Senate shows that it has not changed—we might just as well be prepared to break filibusters either by means of obtaining for that purpose the favorable votes of a constitutional two-thirds of the Mem- bers of the Senate or on the basis of the
1950 rule requiring the favorable votes of two- ‘hinds of the Senators then present and voting, Mr, President, I am a reasonable man, and I am perfectly willing to abide by any rule which the Senate itself desires to have adopted. Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? ‘Mr. WHERRY. I yield. Mr. MORSE. I do not think there is any chance of changing the present situation regarding the invoking of cloture so long as the Wherry rule re~ mains in effect. I wish to point out that the great attribute of the Wherry resolution, which the Senator from Nebraska has been praising today, is a section which provides for cloture on a motion to take up a measure. The Ives and Morse reso- lutions also support cloture on motions to take up a measure but they differ from the Wherry resolution on the number of votes required to apply cloture. Mr. WHERRY. I think that ts true. I wish to say that the Senator from New York and the Senator from Oregon con- tributed greatly in the attempt to change the rule. However, let me say again that my point is that we have done the best we could do to obtain whatever modifica- tion we could obtain of the old, unwork- able rule, On the other hand, I think the Sena- tor from Oregon in attacking me has done a considerable disservice in con- nection with the question of changing the rule; and I know that what I have stated as to the facts of the matter 1s absoluely correct. COMMUNISTS IN GOVERNMENT SERV- ICE—DESTRUCTION OF RECORDS IN THE STATE DEPARTMENT Mr. McCARTHY obtained the floor. Mr HUMPHREY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me, te permit me to make a brief statement, with the un- derstanding that by doing so he will not lose the floor? Mr. McCARTHY. I shall need only about 5 minutes to present my remarks, and then I shall yield the floor. Mr. President, this morning I sent to the President of the United States a letter and the photostats of six docu- ments. I felt that this material might be of some interest to the Senate, and, therefore, I sent to the Senate Chamber copies of each of the photostats and copies of the letter to the President, with the request that a copy of each be placed upon the desk of each Senator. I understand that copies were placed upon the desks of all Republican Sena- tors, but that the clerk for the majority, upon the advice of the Democratic ma- jority leader, the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Lucas], decided not to place copies on the desks of the Democratic Senators. Mr, President, I think this material is certainly not of such nature that it should be restricted to only one of the parties. I believe it is certainly of just as much interest—and perhaps more so—to the Democrats as it is to the Republicans. Therefore, in view of the fact that I was unable to have this mate- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE rial placed on the desks of Democratic Senators, I intend to read some of it into the Recorp. Mr, President, there has been consid- erable discussion pro and con as to the condition of the State Department's so- calied loyalty files, and in the minds of many persons there has been consider- able question as to whether or not the so-called loyalty program is working adequately. The Presiding Officer will recall that the grand jury which recently was dis- missed in New York discussed the sub- ject in some detail, and pointed out that the loyalty program was most inadequate to protect the security of the Nation. I have before me, Mr. President, four affidavits which are of a rather startling nature. These affidavits were made by persons who had nothing to gain hy making them. In fact, one of the in- dividuals, who is now working in the State Department, runs the risk of los- ing his job if his name becomes known. One statement which I shall read was made by a person employed in the State Department. Another affidavit is by a young man who is now working for Sears, Roebuck & Co., and, I believe, going to school on the side. The third affidavit was made by a young man who is now a special agent for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and who also worked for the State Department for some time. The fourth affidavit was made by a young man who is in the Foreign Service School at Georgetown University, and who also worked for the State Depart- ment for some time. Mr. President, as the Senate will re- call, in the latter half of 1946 it became general knowledge that the President was about to inaugurate or put into effect a loyalty program. At that time the at- tention of Congress and of the country was focused upon this subject of Com- muntists and disloyal people in the Gov- ernment by the Marzani case. The Senate will recall that Marzani was a high State Department employee who was convicted in connection with his communistic activities. At that time, the Prestdent—and wisely so, I believe—commenced plan- ning a loyalty program, apparently for the purpose of avoiding future Mar- zanis within the State Department and within other branches of the Govern- ment. That Presidential order was signed early in 1947. The Congress ap-~ propriated $11,000,000 to implement the Executive order. We find from these affidavits that when it became known that the President was about to in- augurate a loyalty program, someone within the State Department—and, as of this time, I do not know who— initiated the most fantastic project I have ever heard of. He hired a total of at least eight individuals, four of whom made affidavits which are now in my on. The task of those in- dividuals was to go to the files, and, using their own judgment, to destroy and to tear from the files any material of a derogatory nature, either insofar as the communistic activities, morals, or anything else on any employes, were 9985 concerned. It apparently was 2 tre- mendous project, which lasted at least 8 months. I intend to read to the Senate the affidavits of some of the in- individuals who took part in this unusual profect. It will be understood that the individuals whose files were being rifled were not being protected at that time from any congressional committee. They were being protected from the President’s own loyalty program. Affidavit No. 1: I, Francis Eugene Brien, age 26, make this statement. No promises have been made to me to furnish this statemont. If called upon J am willing to relate the facts tn this statement, T reside at 1709 North Roosevelt Street in Arlington, Va., near Falis Church, Va. In August 1946 I went into the Walker-John- son Building of the State Department at New York Avenue and Eighteenth Street. I filled out an application form and started working a couple of days later on August 15 in the State Department personnel files. My employment was only temporary for the duration of a file project. Listen to this, if you will, Mr. Presi- dent: I and the other clerks received instruc- tions orally and by a form paper that we were to go through all the State Department per- sonnel files and remove all papers, letters, memorandums, and reports except adminis- trative forms containing the employee's ap- plication, background information, and Ram- speck raises and administrative forms of that nature, We worked on this project remov- ing the papers from the files until December 81, 1946 After all of the papers were re- moved from the files, they were thrown into wastebnskets and cardboard boxes, The re- maining administrative papers I have de- scribed remained in the files and the files were taken to adjoining offices next to the big file room where the information left in the file was typed on a card. One of the other affidavits is by the man who did the typing of this material on the card. I can't recall now any specific-case but I do know that all papers, reports, memoran- dume which reflected on the State Depart- ment employee were removed from the file and disposed of in wastebaskets and boxes except the papers I have described. I did not actually take part in destroying the papers but, after we threw the papera in the baskets and boxes, the next day the room was cleaned up and I presume the charwoman took care of emptying the bas- kets and boxes. I do not recall being told why we were stripping the files of all ma- terial except the administrative forms. George Copp was the supervisor in charge of myself and the other clerks on this project. Let me make it clear here that while Mr. George Copp’s name appears as supervisor I have no way of knowing at this time whether Copp was doing this on his own initiative or whether he merely received orders from someone higher up. I assume that this was not Copp’s own project, and that he was merely a man working under orders of someone higher up in the department. I recall at first George Copp stated we had to complete this project in 3 months. 1 don't see how he could possibly have estimated such ® short time, but finally he told us that he had to extend the deadline till the end of December 1946.
9986 The Senate will remember that that is the time when the new Congress took over. George Copp was always telling us to hurry and get the job done; otherwise he would be made the “goat.” He said this so many times that we nicknamed him “the goat.” I left in the State Department in Decem- ber 1946 because my temporary assignment as clerk was finished. I have read this statement of three pages and it is true, That is one statement. The next statement—and, Mr. President, keep in mind that here we Irave the picture of a State Department project for the de- struction of files which cost millions of dollars and millions and millions of man-hours to produce. This statement was made by a State Department em- ployee. I have cut out those sections of the statement which would indicate who signed it. I have informed the Presi- dent, however, that if he will personally assure me that this man will not lose his job because of having given this statement I will make the name ayail- able to him—after first getting this man’s permission, of course. Here is the statement: The following is information I am giving freely and voluntarily, without any promises whatsoever. I furnish this information because it is the truth There is a section eliminated, showing where this man is now working and what his duties are. The statement con- tinues: In August 1946 I started working as a clerk in the State Department at the Walker- Johnson Building, at Eighteenth and New York Avenue NW., Washington, D.C. I was assigned to a project with other clerks on the State Department personnel files. We all were instructed to remove all derogatory material from the personnel files, and we were instructed to dispose of this matertal. The derogatory material consisted of let- ters, memorandum which reflected on the employee. - I can't remember any specific file, because we all worked on so many files. But we worked on this project from August till the end of December 1946. All of the derogatory material in the files was destroyed or thrown away. I can't recall what reason was given to me and the other clerks as to why the derogatory material was being pulled out of the file and destroyed. I am furnishing this statement only in strictest confidence, and furnish it for the purpose of information only, being assured that no publicity will be given to me on fur- nishing this statement. I have read this statement of two pages and the facts are true. We next come to the statement of a young man who is now a special agent in the Federal Bureau of Investigation. At the time the facts which he states occurred he was not working for the FBI. I now read his statement: JULY 11, 1950. I, Burney Threadgill, Jr., make this state- ment without any promises whatsoever. I make this statement in order to tell the truth. In the fall of 1946 I contacted a Mr, Hol- combe who was personnel placement officer for the State Department at the Walker- Johnson Building. He advised me that he would hire me only as a temporary clerk on @ file project of the State Department files I started working in the State Department CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE files at. the Walker-Johnson Building around November 1, 1946. I worked for about 6 weeks on this file project. My duties were to take the file which contained the qualifi- cations of the State Department employees, packground forms, and administrative pro- motions, and type this information on a card for that employee. The filles were brought to me and placed on my desk. This 1s the young man who took the cleaned-out files and made out a new card on each individual. He stated that he personally did not know what oc- curred in the fileroom. He took no part in rifling the files himself, I continue to read: This project was being performed appar- ently on some sort of deadline date because George Copp who was supervisor over the clerks on this project was often telling me and the others that we had to get the job done and that it had already passed a dead- line and that he had arranged to extend the deadline and that if we did not meet the new deadline it would reflect on his effl- ciency. I do not know or recall what the other clerks were doing with the files before I re- ceived them because I was at a desk and had the files brought to me where I typed the contents on a card as I previously stated in this statement. I do recall that the files brought to me contained the original appli- cation, administrative forms such as Ram- speck promotions and transfers I also re- call that some very few contained investiga- tive reports. This project was very confused, hurried, and very little supervision of the clerks. I recall talking to one of the other clerks (I can’t recall his name at this time) when he told me that he knew some of the em- plovees of the State Department had come to the files and removed the derogatory ma- terial which was tn the file on themselves. So we find that not only were there eight individuals on this file Job, but the State Department employees themselves came in and cleaned out their own files. I continue reading: I was located in an office where I did not see or have reason to go into the big room where the files were. The following ts a plan where I was located. He drew a plan of the room in which he was located, which was some distance from the file room The statement then continues, as fol- lows: I have read this statement of three pages and it is true. The other statement on this particu- lar phase of the case was made by a young man who {s now in his third year at Georgetown University, in the For- eign Service School. His statement is as follows: Ju.y 6, 1950. The following information is given by me freely and voluntarily without any promises whatsoever, I furnish this information be- cause it is the truth and I feel it is my patri- orte duty to furnish the facts as I experienced hem. T am living at 1902 North Fifteenth Street, Arlington, Va., at the present time. In August 1946 I was released from the United States Navy in California. I came to Washington, D. C. and while in Washington, D. C., I was looking for a job. I went into the Walker-Johnson Building of the State De- partment at Eighteenth and New York Ave- nue NW. I talked to a fellow tn the State Department by the name of Holcombe. I got a@ temporary clerical Job in the files at the JULY 12 Walker-Johnson Building. These files were the departmental personnel files located in the Walker-Johnson Building. I started work on theese files in September 1946. When I fe- ported for duty I was told that I would be working on a project on these files. This project had been going on for some time be- fore I started. There were at least eight persons who were working on this project. I was not formally and specifically in- structed as to what the purpose of the proj- ect was, but from what I was instructed by the other clerks, I and the other clerks were to go through each personnel file and pull out all derogatory material from the file. In addition to the usual personnel forms, the files contained all kinds of letters, re- ports, memorandum concerning the individ- ual person. As per instructions I received, all of the clerks on this projects were to pull out of the files all matters considered de- rogatory either morally or politically. The project was very confused but I and the other clerks pulled out of each personnel file any material which could be considered derogatory. This material was removed and some was thrown in wastebaskets by us and some was thrown in a cardboard box. I don't know what happened to the derogatory ma- terial we pulled out from the files but I do know of my own knowledge that a good lot of it was destroyed. I do not recall details of each personnel file I examined, but the material I pulled out of the files pertained to either the morals of the person or jn some way refiected on his or her loyalty. Listen to this, Mr. President: I recall one thick report on one State De- partment employee who was accused of being a photographer and a member of some sub- versive organization which published some sort of news report. This was removed from the file and disposed of. I worked from September till the end of December 1946, working on this file project, pulling out and disposing of the derogatory material as per my understanding given me. I left on December 81, 1846, and this project on the personnel files was still not finished, but my temporary appointment ran out and my employment with the State Dee partment ended I can’t recall who the official in charge of these files was I met him only a very few times, but I could easily recognize him if I saw him. I have read this statement of three pages and the facts are true to the best of my knowledge and belief. Mr. President, as will be recalled, when I first presented to the Senate a résumé of the material on some 81 individuals who were either then working in the State Department or had been working there, I pointed out to the Senate, and repeatedly before the committee, that if Communists, fellow travelers, and so forth, were to be really exposed and gotten rid of, it would be necessary to get not only the loose-leaf State Department files which had been so thoroughly cleaned up, but also to obtain the FBI files, the Civil Service Commission files, and where any individuals had been in- vestigated by the Army, Navy, or Secret Service, we should also obtain those files. When the President finally made the State Department skeleton and thor- oughly denuded files available, I pointed out on the Senate floor that the files were useless and that they had been com- pletely rifled. Shortly thereafter the chairman of the investigating committee held a press conference. I want to quote what he sald at that time, as reported
1950 in the New York Times in an article written by William 8, White. I ask unantmous consent to place this article in its entirety in the Recorp, as well as an article appearing in the New yore Herald Tribune on the same sub- ect. There being no objection, the articles were ordered to be printed in the Rac- orp, as follows: {From the New York Herald Tribune of June 22, 1950} Typincs Asserts FBI Cixarep Strate DEePART- MENT Fites-—Says Cuzck-Up SHOWED No Loratry Data TAMPERING 4s CHARGED BY McOaRTHY (By Raymond J. Blair) WASHINGTON, June 21.—A check by the FSI has failed to substantiate Senator Josrri R. McCartuy’s charge that 81 State Depart- ment loyalty files have been “raped” to elim- inate damaging evidence, Senator Mitiarp E. Typinas, Democrat, of Maryland, said today. Senator Tyrprnas is chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee investigat- ing charges by Senator McCartuy, Republi- can, of Wisconsin, of communism in the State Department. The loyalty records were made available to the Tydings subcommittee May ¢ by President Truman. Senator Mc- CarrHy recently charged they had been “raped, skeletonized, or tampered with” so that they did not contain all of the relevant material, Senator Tyrpinas told reporters that upon hearing Senator McCarrziy’s charge, he asked the Justice Department to investigate, To- day he received the Department's report, he said, in a letter from Peyton Ford, assistant to Attorney General J. Howard McGrath. The report said, Senator Typinas stated, that a study by FBI agents had shown the files were “intact” and that all FBI material on the 81 individuals involved, whom Sen- ator McCartHy has accused of Communist leanings, was included. Senator Tyrpincs also said that study of the filles would be completed by the subcom-~- mittee Sunday night. It was not clear, how- ever, whether this program was acceptable to all subcommittee members. {From the New York Times of June 22, 1950] McCarthy Is Hetp Rerutep oN FILEs— Tyrvincs Sars FBI Reports Dosstmrs Not TAMPERED WITH-~GROUP TO END EXsam-~ INATION (By William 8. White) WasHINGTON, June 21.—Senate investiga- tors will close on Sunday night their 2-month examination of 81 confidential State Depart- ment loyalty files and will return them at once to the administration, This was disclosed today by Senator Min- Lard E, Typinas, Democrat, of Maryland, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee that has been intermittently reading the dossiers in the White House in its investigation of Senator JoserH R. Mc- CagtHy’s charges of communism in the State Department, At the same time, Mr. Typrncs asserted that a special inquiry by the Federal Bureau of Investigation had established as false Mr. McCarTHy’s accusations that the files had been “raped” before being turned over to the subcommittee. A letter just received from Peyton Ford, First Assistant Attorney General, stated, Senator Trpings added, that a special inquiry made by the Federal Bureau of investigation produced the following results: “That the files are intact, that they have not been ‘raped, skeletonized, or tampered with’ in any way and that the material turned over to the State Department by the FBI is still in the files.” CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE “Thus,” Mr, Trormres added, “the Mo- Cagtny charges are not sustained by the facts.” He declared himself unable to give out the text of Mr. Ford's letter because it would disclose the names of some the per- sons whose files were under study, Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. President, 1 shall read very briefly from the New York Times article: Senate investigators will close on Sunday night their 2-month examination of 81 con- fidential State Department loyalty files, and will return them at once to the administra- tion. This was disclosed today by Senator Mit- Lakp E. TrpDinos, * * *, At the same time, Mr. Typincs asserted that a special inquiry by the Federal Bureau of Investigation— I call the Senate’s attention to this statement— had established as false Mr. McCarTHy’s ace cusation that the files had been “raped” before being turned over to the subcom- mittee, A letter Just received from Peyton Ford, First Assistant Attorney General, stated, Sen- ator Trprmvos added, that a special inquiry made by the Federal Bureau of Investigation produced the following results: “That the files are intact, that they have not been ‘raped,’ skeletonized, or tampered with in any way, and that the material turned over to the State Department by the FBI fa still in the files.” “Thus,” Mr. Typines added, “the McCaastHy charges are not sustained by the facts.” Mr. President, in this connection I ask unanimous consent to have inserted in the CONGRESSIONAL REcorp a letter from Mr. J. Edgar Hoover, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, dated July 10, 1950. There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D. C., July 10, 1950. Hon. JoserH R. MoCaktuy, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. My Dzar Senator: I have received your letter dated June 27, 1950, inquiring whether this Bureau has examined the 81 loyalty files which the members of the Tydings com- mittee have been scrutinizing and whether such an examination by the FBI has dis- closed that the files are complete and that nothing has been removed therefrom. The Federal Bureau of Investigation has made no such examination and therefore is not in a position to make any statement concerning the completeness or Incomplete- ness of the State Department files, For your information, the Federal Bureau of Investigation furnished Mr. Ford, at his request, a record of all loyalty material fur- nished the State Department in the 81 cases referred to. For your further information, I am enclosing a copy of Mr. Ford's letter to Senator Trpmves which I have secured from the Attorney General. Sincerely yours, J. Eoaar Hoover. Mr. McCARTHY. In view of what is contained in the press release which I have just read to the Senate, I should like to read the second paragraph of Mr, Hoover's letter, as follows: The Federal Bureau of Investigation has made no such examination and therefore is not tn a position to make any statement con- cerning the completeness or incompleteness of the State Department files, 9987 Mr. President, in view of the contents of the last two documents which I have inserted in the Recorp, f think it should be clear to the Senate why I decided to send this material directly to the Presi- dent. I hoped that he would act. An- other reason for doing so was that when I originally developed and exposed in- formation showing Communists, fellow travelers, and traitors in the State De- partment the President condemned my methods and said I should have brought the information directly to him and he would have acted. I shall give him that opportunity to act at this time. Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- sent to insert in the ConGRESssIONAL REC- orp the lettet I sent to the President. J do not desire to insert the entire letter, because in portions of it I refer to the activities of the chairman of the commit. tee in an uncomplimentary manner which may constitute a violation of Sen- ate rules if they were inserted in the Recorp. Therefore I should like to ask unanimous consent to insert in the Rac- orp at this point the letter I sent to the President with the exception of the par- agraphs I have marked out on page 4, and the paragraph which I have marked out on page 5. There being no objection, the letter ‘was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: JULY 12, 1950. The PrResmweENrT, The White House, Washington, D. C. Dear Mr. Presmpenr: Today American boys Me dead in the mud of Korean valleys. Some have their hands tied behind their backs, their faces shot away by Communist ma- chine guna. They are dead today not because they were less brave or had less to fight for than the North Korean Communists who manned those machine guns, but because the pro- gram adopted by this Congress to avoid just such a war in Korea, and signed into law by you, Mr. President, was sabotaged. Last year Congress voted money to fortify South Korea and to help anti-Communist forces in the entire Asiatic area. One item of $75,000,000 was appropriated; another of 627,600,000; another of 610,300,000. As you and all of ue know the program for military aid to South Korea was sabo- taged to the extent that only $52,000 worth of wire out of the above millions appropri- ated was sent to Korea with which to stem the threatened onslaught of Communist planes, tanks, artillery, etc. While the Russians were sending to North Korea tanks, artillery, and planes, our State Department “experts” on the Far Enst were sabotaging our program to militarily aid the Korean Republic, and Secretary of State Dean Acheson was announcing to the world that we would not aid the South Koreans if they were invaded. We can assume that not only were the North Koreans listening, but Stalin as well. Two of those State Department experts, Mr. Jessup and his superadviser, Lattimore, were telling the world that Korea did not count fn the Far East defenses of democracy. Lattimore, as you will recall, Mr. President, publicly stated that our only problem in Korea was to let her fall without having it appear that we pushed her to her doom. It does not seem improper, Mr. President, to ask at this time why it is that Mr. Acheson could expedite a $60,000,000 order of guns and bullets for Communist Poland, but did the opposite for the ant!-Communist forces in South Korea.
9988 Obviously, as President you must rely on the advice of others. Men, both great and amall, have been betrayed by advisers in the past. Tt is understandable that a Presi« dent can be betrayed by his political friends. But it is not understandable nor excusable if he keeps those political friends in posi- tions of power after they are exposed as be- trayera not onty of him but of the Nation. At this time I would like to bring to your attention decumented facts showing how your own well-meaning program to clean the subversives out of government, which pro- gram was initiated in 1946, was sabotaged by those advisers whom you apparently still trust. In 1946 the attention of Congress was directed to disloyalty in the Govern- ment when the Carl Marzani case was brok- en. As you know, he was one of the top State Department employees, convicted of perjury in connection with his communts- tic activities. In reponse to the growing demand in Con- grees at that time, you ordered, and Congress later approved, a Federal loyalty program. Eleven million dollars was appropriated to put that program into effect. The proof of how this program was sabo- taged is attached hereto in the form of photostats of signed statements from people who were hired by the State Department to assist in the job—people who now come for- ward with nothing to gain and at least one of whom has a job to risk by giving this information. One of these individuals now works for the State Department. Another is a third-year student at Georgetown University, a third is in private industry; a fourth is presently an FEI agent. You will note that the name and other job information contained in the statement of the State Department employee has been blocked out in the photostat. This was done because this man gave the statement only on the condition that his name not be used and he got no publicity tn connection there- with. However, if you will give me your per- sonal assurance that his job will not be en- dangered thereby, I am sure I can obtain his consent to let his name be given to you Three of the four innocently, as far as they were concerned, took part in a file stripping operation fully described in the statements. Their statements refer to the files as person- nel files. These files became the present loy- alty files after the loyalty program was put into effect. They were hired by the State Department and paid with public funds to destroy files which had been built up at tre- mendous cost and labor in order to protect the security of this Nation. This information ts being brought to your personal attention for two specific reasons: (1) When I started to expose Communists, etc., in the State Department, you condemned my methods and stated that if I had brought the information to you, you personally would have taken the necessary steps to correct the situation, s * * e e I attach hereto a photostat of two clip- pings—one from the New York Times, the other from the New York Herald Tribune, quoting Mr. Typines. The other is a letter from the FBI Director, J. Edgar Hoover, I call your attention to paragraph 2, which reads as follows: “The Federal Bureau of Investigation has made no such examination and therefore is not in a position to make any atatement con- cerning the completeness or incompleteness of the State Department files,” (Paragraph omitted.) For those reasons this material ts being presented directly to you, Mr. President. There are those who have made pleas for unity in this time of crisis. I join them in that plea, but I must define that unity to the point where it will have meaning for those ‘we send today to Korea to Aight and die, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE We must all be untfied tn our loyalty to this Nation, There is no place in a hot war for men with lukewarm loyalty. There was never a place fer them in the cold war. But they were there. Even in normal times, the information given you would be shocking. Today, how- ever, it is doubly shocking because of the disastrous sequence of events in Asia, which today has brought us to the very precipice of defeat by the Communist half of the world. It reveals the groundwork laid for keeping and protecting people in the State Depart- ment who are unfit to serve this country. Why would the State Department find it necessary to strip the files unless the infor- mation, when placed before the loyalty boards, would have caused the removal of those individuals? The stripping was suc- cessful to the extent that this Nation was and is being betrayed For proof you need merely look upon the chain of events which have led to repeated disaster for the United States and victory for Russia in Asia. Today Korea is the crisis area. Where will it be tomorrow if the same men act as your advisers and mold your thinking, Mr President? The magnitude of this file-stripping oper- tion is better understood when you realize that it took 6 months to strip the State Department files of information on the dis- loyal, the bad security risks, the fellow travelers, and the traitors, and it took a crew of eight to do the job. You will note that the statement of one of the young men who took no part in the file-stripping job, but who had the task of making out cards on the clean files, shows that he was advised that State Department employees were allowed to inspect and rifle their own files. If this was an accepted procedure during the cold war, what is now being done in fraud and deceit now that the real day for the traitors to do their work is at hand? Someone in the State Department ordered the files stripped. Who was he? He must be found, Mr. President. And when found you decide how close he is to the top of the list of those who pledge their allegiance to the Soviet Union You decide whether he is merely a dupe or guilty of high treason. There are those who say we should not now spend time searching for those respon- sible for the disasters of the past few years. Common horse sense dictates, however, that in order to protect America in the critical weeks, months, and years ahead we must determine who in positions of trust seek to betray us, and then act to get them out of Government If allowed to remain, they will undoubtedly tip the scales for disaster and against victory for this Nation. Respectfully yours, Joz McCarTHy. THE KOREAN SITUATION Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi- dent, 16 days ago President Truman or- dered the Armed Forces of the United States to defend South Korea against unprovoked Communist aggression from the north. This was a courageous and mature decision. Free men everywhere welcomed and applauded the President's action. On June 28, I wrote a letter to the President in which I said in part: Your action gives % new and noble mean- ing to freedom, gives purpose to our national resolve and determination, and affirms cone vineingly America's capacity for world lead~ ership, Having chosen this course, there is no turning back. Greater tasks and more grave hours await up on the road ahead. JULY 12 Mr. President, those grave hours are now upon us. To the limited extent of my abilities, I hope today to underline the gravity of this moment in our history and to sug- gest a minimum program of action which I believe should be undertaken immedi- ately. It is not my purpose to criticize. In this hour of peril, partisan criticism and reckless fault-finding is a luxury which would serve the cause of our enemies more successfully than it would serve the cause of freedom. However, we must be candid; we must be blunt. We must deal with the facts as they are, not as we would like them to be. Since I first came to Congress in 1937 as a Member of the House of Represent- atives, I have been directly associated with the problems of our national de- fense, first as a member of the Naval Affairs Committee, then as a member of the Armed Services Committee of the House, then as a member of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, and now as a member of the Committee on Armed Services. This experience has spanned some of the most critical years of our country’s existence. But I sincerely believe that never be- fore, during my experience, has the Na-~- tion been in such grave peril as it is at this moment. We are outnumbered—outnumbered seriously. There is little likelihood that this numerical superiority can be over- come, or even that the odds can be equalized, at least for many months to come. Our equipment—our tanks, our guns, our planes—is plainly inadequate in quantity, it is not the right kind, and it is not at the right place. Our problem of supplying our troops in South Korea is overwhelming. The prospects for correcting this situation are bleak. In the face of this situation, we cannot rationalize, we cannot temporize. We cannot win this war by relying upon platitudes about “ultimate victory.” Ultimate victory cannot be achieved un- less we concentrate upon immediate victory. This enemy we face is well trained, well equipped, well counseled, and well directed. This enemy we face is ruthless and cold-blooded. American boys who have fallen into the hands of this enemy are dying with their hands tied behind their backs. Many already have died this slaughter- house death—died from bullets fired in their faces. Many more may die this death before the fighting ends. This is a horrible crime. How much more horrible it will be, though, if this Government and this Congress tie these boys’ hands behind their backs by acting too slowly, too cautiously, with too much consideration for the comfort of those who remain behind. So long as we continue to rely upon words—not upon action—to win this struggle in South Korea, we are as guilty of a crime against freedom as the exe-
1950 cutioners who fire the bullets in the faces of our sons. It is time for action. As I said on Monday in this Chamber, the hour of history is late, The moment of judgment, the moment when our way of life must prove itself, is now upon us. We can no longer sit by and see our strength decimated by delay—by de- feat—by retreat. The name “Korea” must not be added to the record of infamy and indecision recorded on the scroll of “Too Little, Too Late’”—the scroll inscribed with the blood of our finest youth on Bataan, on Corregidor, on Guam, on Wake. To understand our problem, let us ex- amine our strength. The present size of our military estab- lishment is considerably less than the size authorized by the Selective Service and Training Act of 1948. When that act was passed, Congress authorized 837,000 men for the Army, 502,000 for the Air Force, and 668,882 for the Navy, including the Marine Corps. Before the ink was dry on that legis- lation, the executive branch decided that Congress’ authorizations were too high. As the world situation deteriorated, the size of our armed forces deteriorated, also. This was not what Congress intended. Even this year, with the world situa- tion tense and explosive, the requests for personnel presented to Congress by the milttary reflected a still further down- ward trend. These authorization requests for fiscal 1951 reduced the size of the Army by 6,000, reduced the size of the Navy by 30,000, reduced the Marine Corps by 7,000, and reduced the Air Force by 1,000. I repeat: this was not what Congress intended. During this same period, from 1948 to the present, the Air Force—supposedly our first-line of defense—has steadily de- creased in size and usefulness, As of June 30, 1948, the Air Force had 55 groups; 1 year later, the Air Force had 54 groups. On June 30, this year, the Air Force had only 48 groups. No amount of bookkeeping, no amount of figure-juggling, can conceal the tragic fact that our air power has been wither- ing away—withering away as the obvious need for it increased, The decrease in power of the Air Force has been paralleled in the Navy. The carrier alr power of the Navy has been sharply cut—from 14 carrier-groups in 1948 to 9 carrier groups for the present fiscal year. Similarly, the air strength of the Ma- rine Corps—strength which served us so well in the South Pacific during World War YI—has been cut in half, from 23 squadrons in 1948 to 12 squadrons for fiscal 1951. I call attention to the fact that this reduction in strength of the Air Force was made despite the fact that Congress had appropriated funds sufficient to maintain the Air Force at 55 groups. Trepeat again: this was not what Con- gress intended. There is still another example I wish to call to the attention of the Senate. That is the decline in the combat effectiveness CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE of our ground troops, particularly the Marine Corps. Our Marine Corps troops have been re- duced to a point where it is impossible for them to furnish a single war strength division to General MacArthur—even though he has requested it. Think of it. In this moment of great need and grave peril, we are unable to send to General MacArthur one war- strength Marine division. Through budgetary processes, the De- fense Establishment has reduced the number of landing teams from 18 to a mere 6 proposed in the 1951 budget. If this recommendation had been accepted, the Marine Corps would have not 18 full- strength landing teams but only about half that number. Battles cannot be won with half- strength forces. We cannot hope to com- bat communism with 50 percent of the military might we need. Even our Army units in South Korea are handicapped by this same pattern of reduction—this constant preoccupation with keeping our forces small and low- cost. That is not what Congress intended. Congress did not intend that our troops should be sent into battle with one arm tied behind their backs. Yet that is what is happening. Our Army divisions sim- ply do not have the number of battalions they need to function efficiently and eco- nomically in combat. Mr. President, the simple truth of the matter is that our armed strength looks better in terms of bookkeeping than it does in terms of performance, This is not a bookkeeping war. must recognize this. The considered opinions of our Joint Chiefs of Staff-——the opinions of our high- est military advisers—have been stralt- jacketed in a maze of bookkeeping and accounting procedures. For too long, we have been more in- terested in making our books balance than in making our strength balance against the military power of commu- nism. Far more dollars are being lost in South Korea than all the dollars we have saved—if we have saved any at all. We will lose more dollars and lose more lives because our economy was false, our overconfidence was unjustified, our em- phasis was wrong. I have applauded—as most Senators have applauded—those efforts to cut out the fat of our defense operations. I wanted to see unnecessary expenditures curtailed. I wanted to see this done so that we would have more to spend on muscle. I did not intend—and I know the Con- gress did not intend—that the knife which trimmed the fat should also cut the muscle. But, as we look at the picture now, we must recognize and admit that some- where the knife slipped. We have not time to turn back and see which surgeon is to blame. The life of democracy is at stake. It is time to do on best—our all-out best—to save that e. This is the program I believe essential at this time. We 9889 First. I urge that we immediately order into Federal service all National.Guard units and all Reserves who are presently on a drill-pay status. This will bring into the armed services the following per~ sonnel: For the Army, 180,570 Reservists and 332,138 National Guardsmen. For the Air Force, 51,165 Reservists and 44,925 Na- tional Guardsmen, For the Navy, 183,- 859 Reserves, For the Marine Corps, 39,371 Reserves. That is a total of 832,028 men. That is a bare minimum, We need them; we need them now. Second. Authorize the Secretaries of the various departments to accept vol- unteers from the nonpaid Reserves in such numbers as they are able to obtain. Third..As necessity dictates, order all unpaid Reservists into active Federal service. This would add 1,700,000 Re- servists to our strength. Fourth. Direct the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps to organize all units on a combat-strength basis, Fifth. Enact the necessary emergency legislation to care properly for those Re- servists and civilians who are inducted or ordered into service under the draft law enacted a few days ago. Sixth. Enact the necessary emergency legislation to provide powers necessary for full mobilization of our industrial capacity. Mr. THYE. Mr. President—— The PRESIDING OFFICER. (Mr. Srennts in the chair). Does the Sena- tor from Texas yield to the Senator from Minnesota? Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I yield. Mr. THYE. I note the budget recom- mendation for the National Guard and the amount recommended for appropria- tion. The Senate committee decreased the House appropriation by $1,900,000. I also note that both the House and the Senate decreased the amount of the rec- ommendation of the Budget Bureau be- low that for 1950. It would seem to me that in the pres- ent emergency, in the world crisis, the National Guard should have the full amount recommended, because if the National Guard should step up their training, they could train twice the num- ber they are now training, in my opinion, I think the National Guard should ex-~ pand as much as it possibly can in the very limited period of time at thelr dis- posal. Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. If I under- stand the Senator correctly, I quite agree with him, This is a very poor time to be trimming the appropriation for the Na- tional Guard or the Reserves, or any of the Defense Department. Mr. THYE. I was greatly impressed by the statement made by the able Sen- ator from Texas, and I could not help recalling the reductions in the appro- priation for the National Guard as he was speaking about our great need for ex- panding our military forces at this time. I thank the Senator for yielding. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr, JOHNSON of Texas. I yield. Mr. LUCAS. Supplementing what the able Senator from Minnesota has said I