7512 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE JUNE 30

of that act ln certain eases; to tbe Commit­tee on Education and Labor.

By Mr. MORANO: H. R. 4662. A bill to amend the Sherman

Anti-Trust Act with respect to certain con­tracts and agreements which establish mini­mum resale prices and which are extended by State law to nonstgners; t'O. the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. HARDIE SOOTT: H. R. 4668. A blll to amend the Internal

Revenue Code to provide for disabled indi­viduals a deduction for income-tax purposes of necessary expenses for transportation t<? and from work; to the Committee on Ways and Means.

By Mr. ELLIOTT: H. R. 4S64:. A bill to extend the time within

which certai n veterans who are in the active service <On the basic limiting date may ini­tiate education or training u nder the Service­men's Readjustment Act of 1944, as amended; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

By Mr. PATMAN; H. R. 4565. A bill to create the Small De­

fense Plants Corporation and to preserve small-business institutions and free, com­petitive enterprise; to the Committee on Banking and Currency.

By Mr. REED of New York: H. R. 4666. A biU to 'amend section 115 (g)

(S) of the Internal Revenue Code (relating to the redempt:l:on of stock to pay death taxes) ; to the Committee on Ways and Means.

ByMr.~K.S: H. R. 4667. A bill relating to the Reserve

comp onents of the Armed ,Forces; to the Committee on Armed Services.

By Mr. HARRIS: H.J. Res. 279. Joint resolution to authorize

and direct the Secretary of the Interior to ccnfer with representat ives of the United States oil industry with a view to developing means by which skilled technicians may be made available to the Government of Iran if that Government requests assistance from the United States in connection With the existing critical situation 1n the Iranian oil industry; to the Committee on Foreign Af­fairs ..

By .Mr. SMITH of Mississippi: H. Res. 296. Reso~:ution creating a Select

Committee To Contluct an Investigation -and Study of Artificial Rainmaking; to the Com­mittee on Rules.

By Mr. DONOVAN: H. Res. 291. 'Resol ution favoring t he nego­

tiation of a treaty for the defense of the Mediterranean area against Communist ag­g:.-ession; to the Committee on F.oreign Af­fairs.

By Mr. WOLVERTON: H. Res. 2S8. Resolution to provide for an

investigation to determine the factors caus­ing increases in living costs, with particular reference to tnereases in consumer food prices at a time when wholesale fOOd prices have dropped; to the Committee .on Rules.

H. Res. 299. Resolution to provide funds for the expenses of the investigatlon author­ized by Rouse Resolut ion 298; to the Com­mittee on House Administration.

By Mr. GREEN: H. Res. 300. Resolution !favoring the nego­

tiation of a treaty for tbe defense of the Mediterranean area against Communist ag­gression; to the Oommittee on Foreign Af­fairs.

By Mr. MORRISON: H. Res. 301. Resolution favoring the nego­

tiation of a treaty for the defense of the Mediterranean area against Communist ag­gression; to tbe Committee on Foreign Af­fairs.

By Mr. KARSTEN of Missouri: H. Res. 302. Resolution to provide for a

Select Committee on Problems of the Aging; to the Committee on Rules.

By Mr. MORG>..N: H. Res. 303. Resolution favoring the nego­

tiation of a treaty tor the defense of the Mediterranean area against Communist ag­gression; to the Committee on Foreign Af­fairs.

By Mr. COX: H. Ries. 304. Riesolution .ravorlng the nego­

tiation of a treaty for the defense of the Mediterranean area against Communist ag­gression; to the Committee on Foreign Af­fairs.

By Mr. GREGORY: H. Res. 305. Resolution favoring the nego­

tiation of a treaty for the defense of the Mediterranean area against Communist ag­gression; to the Committee on Foreign Af­fairs.

PRIVATE BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

Under clause 1 of rule XXIl, private bills and resolutions were introduced and severally referred as tollows:

By Mr. BATES of Massachusetts (by request):

H. R. 4668. A bill for the rel-ief of Francesco Paolo Asaro; to the Oommittee on the Judiciary.

H. R. 4669. A bill for the relief of Leonardo Bertolino; to the Committee on the Judi­ciary.

By Mr. BEAMER: H. R. 4670. A bill flJr the relief of Jean­

nette JoseJ>h Elissa; to the Committee on ~he Jud1.ciar-y. .

By Mr. BOGGS of Delaware: H. R. 4571. A bill for the relief of Mark

Paul Crowley; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. HOLMES: H. R. 4672. A bill for the relief of Clarence

D. Newland; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. ROOSEVELT: H. R. 4673. A bill for the relief of Elias

Kulukundis; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. WALTER: H. R. 4674. A bill authorizing the Secre­

tary of Rtate to continue Herve J. L'Heureux to serve as Chief of the Visa Division for an additional year commencing September 1, 1951; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

By Mr. WALTER: H. I. Res. 280. Joint resolution for the re­

lief of certain alien refugees; to the Com­mittee on the Judiciary.

PETITIONS, ETC.

Under clause 1 of rule XXII, petitions and papers were laid on the Clerk's desk and referred as follows:

332. By Mr. MILLER •of Maryland: Peti­tion of 23 citizens of Snow Hill, Md., in support of legislation to prohibit alcoholic beverage advertising over the radio and tele­vision and in our magazines and newspapers; to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.

333. By Mr. NORBLAD: Petition of Mrs. Hazel P. Metzger and nine other citizens of Salem, Oreg .• urging enactment of legis­lation prohibiting alcoholic beverage adver- -tising over the radio and television and in magazines and newspapers; to the Oommit­tee on Interstate and Foreign Oommerce. • 334:. Also, petition of Mrs. J. J. Nunn and

SO other citizens of Salem, Oreg., urging enactment of legislation prohibiting al­coholic beverage advertising over the radio and television and in magazines and news­papers; to the Cominittee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.

SENATE SATURDAY, JUNE 30, 1951

<Legislative day of Wednesday, June 27, 1951)

The Senate met at 1 o'clock p. m., on the expii:ation of the recess.

The Chaplain, Rev. Frederick Brown Harris, D. D.~ offered the following prayer:

Eternal Father, we thank Thee that Thou art not far off, out on the vast rim of the universe, but nearer to us than breathing. Thou art our refuge and. our strength. our daily sustenance, the fountain of a courage that will not fail and of a power that can use QUr fallible weakness as its healing and illuminating channel. In this confused day, with its angry voices a~d contending claims, grant unto these Thy servants that they may be faithful to every trust committed by the people to their hands, giving ut­terance only to their highest, noblest thought, and that u.pon their shoulders there m-ay rest unsullied the' white man­tle 'Of the Nation's honor. In the dear Redeemer's name. Amen.

THE JOURNAL

On request of Mr. McFARLAND, and by unanimous consent, the reading of the Journal of the proceedings of Friday, June 29, 1951, was dispensed with.

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE

A message from the House of R-epre .. sentatives, by Mr. Maurer, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House had agreed to the amendment of the Senate to the joint resolution <H. J. Res. 73) amending chapter 26 of the Internal Revenue Code. ENROLLED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLU­

TION SIGNED

The message also announced that the Speaker had affixed his signature to the f<>llowing enrolled bills and jotnt reso­lution, and they were signed by the President pro tempore:

S. 1590. An act to extend and revise the District of Columbia Emergency Rent Act;

H. R. 2349. An act authorizing the Secre­tary of the Interior to issue patent s in fee to certain allottees on the Crow Indian Res­ervation;

H. R. 4395. Alt act to amend the act en­titled "An act to expedite the provision of housing in connection with national defense, and for other purposes,"' approved October 14, 1940, as amended; and

H.J. Res. 278. Joint resolution to continue for a temporary period the Defense Produc­tion Act of 1950; the Housing and Rent Act of 1947, as amended; and for other pur-poses. -

TEMPORARY APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1952

Mr. McFARLAND. Mr. President, I understand that the conference reports for which we have been waiting have not yet been received. It is therefore my purpose to suggest that the Senate take a recess subject to the call of the Chair, unless Sena tors wish to transact .some business.

Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield so I may propound a ques-tion? ·

Mr. McFARLAND. Yes.

1951 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 7513 Mr. WHERRY. If the conference re­

port on the Mexican farm labor bill is among those referred to, and if the con­ference report on that bill is not here, it is a matter on which the Senate can­not take action, and a· recess until the report comes to the Senate will be in order.

It has come to my attention that the joint resolution to extend the appropri­ations did not go to the House from the Senate. I wonder if it is proposed that

·further action be taken by the Senate before it is sent to the House. If it is proposed that further action be taken on that joint resolution, it will be nec­essary to have a quorum call so as to give all Senators who are interested in that measure an opportunity to be pres­ent in the Senate Chamber.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. A meeting of the Appropriations Commit­tee has been called for 1 :30, in connec­tion with that subject. The Senator from Nebraska is a member of that com­mittee. We will report to the Senate as soon as we can. · Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, I see no reason why the joint resolution has not been sent to the House so it could go to conference. -Regardless of what action the Senate Appropriations Com­mittee takes, I think the joint resolution should go to the House. It is a measure with which the conferees should deal. However, if it is proposed that there be further consideration of it in the Senate, we will have to have a quorum call and get Senators who are interested in the measure into the Senate Chamber so they can be advised about the matter. ' I merely make that suggestion to the distinguished majority leader. I have no particular reasons for holding up any proceedings, but certainly Senators who are interested in the extension of the appropriations should be advised that there is to be further consideration of the matter. · Mr. McFARLAND. I move that the Senate stand in recess--

Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, I see several Senators on their feet desiring to place matters in the RECORD. Will the Senator withhold his motion for a moment?

. Mr. McFARLAND. Yes. TRANSACTION OF ROUTINE BUSINESS

By unanimous consent, the following routine business was transacted:

ENROLLED BILLS PRESENTED

The Secretary of the Senate reported that on today, June 30, 1951, he pre­sented to the President of the United States the following enrolled bills:

S. 1590. An act to amend and revise the District of Columbia Emergency Rent Act; and .

S. 1645. An act to amend the act incor­porating the America.n University.

COMPULSORY HEALTH INSURANCE­LETTER AND RESOLUTIONS

Mr. HOEY. Mr. President, I am in receipt of a letter from James T. Barnes, executive secretary of the Medical So­ciety of the State of North Carolina, Raleigh, N. C., transmitting 55 resolu­tions adopted by medical societies and

other organizations and clubs in the State of North Carolina, protesting against the enactment of legislation pro­viding compulsory health insurance. I ask that the letter and resolutions be appropriately ref erred, and that the letter and one of the resolutions be printed in the RECORD. - There being no objection, the letter and resolutions were ref erred to the Committee on Labor and Public Wel­fare, and the letter and one of the reso­lutions were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

MEDICAL SOCIETY OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,

Raleigh, N. C., June 27, 1951. Hon. CLYDE R. ·HOEY,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR HOEY: Please find enclosed copies of resolutions opposing compulsory health insurance from the following organ­izations in North Carolina:

1. Wilkes-Alleghany Medical Auxiliary. 2. Garden Gate Club, Mount Airy. 3. Jesse Franklin Chapter, DAR, Mount

Airy. . 4. Lions Club, Mount Airy.

. 5. Junior Woman's Club, Mount Airy. 6. Blue Ridge Garden Club, Mount Airy. 7. Ladies' Auxiliary, VFW, Post 2019, Mount

Airy. 8. Mountain View Gardeners, Mount Airy. 9. Town and Country Garden Club, Mount

Airy. 10. Union County Medical Society: 11. Home and Garden Club, Aberdeen. 12. Medical Staff, State Hospital, Golds-

boro. 13. Biggs Grocery, Goldsboro. 14. Vinson Drug Store, Goldsboro. 15. McLamb Monument Co., Goldsboro. 16. Goldsboro Nurses Club, Goldsboro. 17. Board of Directors, Wayne County Tu­

berculosis Association. 18. Community Concert Association,

Wayne County. 19. Wednesday Night Bridge Club, Golds-

boro. 20. Conekins Store, Goldsboro. 21. Wayne County Dental Society. 22. Cancer Clinic, Goldsboro. 23. Service Club, Goldsboro. 2~. Primary Department, St. Paul Method-

ist Church School, Goldsboro. 25. Goldsboro Silk Store. 26. Mount Olive Lions Club. 27. Spence Williams Floral Co., Goldsboro. 28. Friday Night Canasta Club, Goldsboro. 29. Colonial Stores, Goldsboro. 30. Civitan Club of Kinston. 31. Kinston Woman's Club, Inc. 32. Lenoir County Medical Society. 33. Kinston Chamber of Commerce. 34. Kinston Kiwanis Club. 35. Circle No. 2, Woman's Society of Chris­

tian Service, Princeton. 36. Circle No. 1, Woman's Society of Chris­

tian Service, Princeton. 37. Art Department, Smithfield Woman's

Club. 38. Johnston County Medical Auxiliary. 39. Benson-Meadows Kiwanis Club, Ben­

son. 40. Junior Woman's Club of Beaufort. 41. Carteret County Registered Nurses

Club. 42. Junior Woman's Club of Morehead.

City. 43. Carteret County Medical Auxiliary.

. 44. Beaufort Book Club. 45. Martin-Washington-T~Tell Medical so.

(liety. 46. Beaufort County Medical Auxlliary. 47. Whiteville Parent-Teachers Assocla•

tion.

48. Ladies Auxiliary, VFW, Post 8073, Whiteville.

49. Hallsboro Parent-Teachers Association. 50. Tabor City Woman's Club. 51. Maj. Gen. Robert Howe Chapter, DAR,

Whiteville. 52. Fair Bluff Woman's Club. 53. Hallsboro Home Demonstration Club. 54. Credit Women's Breakfast Club, White­

ville. 55. Maids and Matrons Club, Chadbourn. I feel sure that you will find interesting

these expressions of opinion from the people whom you represent.

Respectfully, JAMES T. BARNES,

Executive Secretary.

"Whereas the United States has the highest standards of health, of medical care, and of scientific medical facilities of any country in the world, as a result of our system of free enterprise; and

"Whereas compulsory health insurance, wherever tried, has caused a decline in na­tional health and deterioration of medical standards and facilities; and

"Whereas wherever Government has as­sumed control of medical services, the re­sult has been tremendous multiplication of costs over original estimates, extreme tax burdens and national deficits, and gradual extension of socialization into other activi­ties of national life: Now, therefore, be it

"Resolved, That the Wilkes-Alleghany Medical Auxiliary does hereby go on record against any form of compulsory health in­surance or any system of political medicine designed for national bureaucratic control; . "That a copy of this resolution be for­warded to each Senator from the State of North Carolina, and the Representative from our district, and that said Senators and Rep­'resentative be and are hereby respectfully requested to use every effort at their com­mand to prevent the enactment of such legislation."

Mrs. HAROLD B. SMITH, President.

Mrs. J. H. MCNEILL, . Secretary.

Dated this 6th day of April 195)..

BILLS INTRODUCED

Bills were introduced, read the first time, and, by unanimous consent, the second time, and ref erred as follows:

By Mr. BUTLER of Nebraska (for him­self and Mr. WHERRY) :

S. 1789. A bill limiting the application of the Federal Power Act as to States and municipalities, and for other purposes; to the. Committee on Public Works.

(See the remarks of Mr. !BUTLER of Ne­braska when he introduced the above bill, which appear under a separate heading.)

By Mr. HUMPHREY: S. 1790. A bill to provide for the compen­

sation of certain persons whose lands have been flooded and damaged by reason of fluctuations in the water level of the Lake of the Woods; to the Committee on the Judi­ciary.

PAYMENT OF CERTAIN OBLIGATIONS IN­CURRED BY COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE-REFERENCE OF RESOLUTION

On motion of Mr. HUMPHREY, and by unanimous consent, the resolution <S. Res. 164) to pay for certain personal servtces rendered to the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, submitted by him on June 27, 1951, was taken from the table and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration.

-

7514 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE JUNE 30 ADDRESSES, EDITORIALS, . ARTICLES,

ETC., PRINTED IN THE APPENDIX

On request, and by unanimous con­sent, addresses, editorials, articles, etc., were ordered to be printed in the Appen­dix, as follows:

By Mr. KEM: Transcript of services at the unveiling of

a headstone in memory of Rev. Peter Mar­shall, late Chaplain of the Senate, on May 27, 1951, in Fort Lincoln Cemetery in Wash­ington, D. C.

By Mr. CAPEHART: Article entitled "Security," written by

Senator BENNETl'. By Mr. AIKEN:

· Address delivered by Hon. Warren R. Austin, United States Ambassador to the United Nations, at Harvard Uni~ersity, on June 21, 1951.

FOREIGN AID APPROPRIATIONS­ARTICLE BY FULTON LEWIS, JR.

Mr. SCHOEPPEL. Mr. President, in a short while we are going to be consid­ering certain appropriation measures. some of which involve not only hun­dreds of millions of dollars, but several billion dollars. Some of these appro­priations will come to us represented to be necessary for foreign-aid programs covering many activities relating to our foreign affairs, both from the stand­point of the State Department and the military.

Personally, I have received a number of inquiries demanding to know how these funds are actually to be utilized after they have been appropriated. I am sure that many Members of the Sen­ate have received similar inquiries.

Recently there appeared an article by Fulton Lewis, Jr., in his Washington Report, titled "There's More Pov-erty in United States ·Than Found in All of Europe.'' What Mr. Lewis covers in that article by way of a letter from one of his friends is worthy of serious con­sideration, especially in view of the de­mands which will be made upon this Congress for continuing appropriations for our foreign services in such stagger­ing .amounts.

If the contents as set forth in this article are true, and I do not doubt that they are true, then certainly we should evaluate in every practical way the re­quests for foreign funds and make cer­tain that they are justified to the full­est possible extent. So I ask unanimous consent to have the article by Mr. Lewis appear as a part of my remarks in the RECORD. ,

There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: WASHINGTON REPORT-THERE'S MORE POVERTY

IN UNITED STATES THAN FOUND IN ALL OF EUROPE

(By FUlton Lewis, Jr.) WASHINGTON.-Lean back and relax f·or

this one. I've got a friend who wants to get something off his chest. It may boost your blood pressure a. bit, but in the long run it will save you a lot of worrying about all of the so-called downtrodden in Europe we're supporting.

From here, the column ls a letter I received front this friend a few days ago:

"I have only recently arrived in this coun-­try after 7 years abroad. I served as a For­eign Service otncer of the State Department. I was a captain in Artillery during the war. After the war I took a crack at military gov-

ernment in Germany. · When the State De­partment took over I was offered seven thou­sand per annum, which looked pretty good.

"I got a pleasant surprise when I found that'"the job included a 12-room house, well furnished, rent free. Also I got gratis a maid, a butler, a chauffeur, a gardener, and an au­tomobile. I also got free laundry and cleaning service, and the Government paid my tele­phone bill; and also I got an extra hundred dollars per month for entertainment money. This, however. was not enough; I got 10 per­cent of my salary as a bonus for living under what the State Depa1'tment calls extreme h ardsl;lip conditions.

"Nobody in this country could have lived as I did on less than $100,000 per year. And I was only a country resident otncer. There are 165 similar positions.

"I certainly had a lot of fun. I had no duties. I -went fishing one day, picnicking the next, drank the next, played golf the next, loafed the next, and then took off for the week end.

"But I guess there comes a time when a real American gets tired of such unsavory robbing of the titxpayers. About last Christ-

. mas time I threw in the towel and resigned. I intended to let it go at that, Mr. Lewis, but when I came back here and saw some of the poverty in the West Virginia hills I just could not believe that this country is so poor and yet we are spending everything to make Europe rich. There ls more poverty in this State than there is in all of Europe.

"Mr. Lewis, I'm not a beggar, I am gain­fully employed with a respectable company and am making life anew. But this colos­sal swindle of our Government, especially the foreign aid, has got to stop. There is no poverty in Europe. The average European is better off than the average West Virginian. This is true. There are no shacks in Europe. There is no hunger in Europe. We are mak-

. ing absolute dopes of ourselves by pour­ing billions of dollars into countries better off than our own.

"And we're not stopping communism, just encouraging it by increasing welfare and dependency. The Europeans have always despised our way of life and the fact that they can still get anything they want from us, regar~ess of need, still furthers their contempt.

"Anybody that thinks Western Europe is going to fight is just plain stupid. They'll take Uncle Sap's money all right. But they won't pay for it in blood. They won't even return the money. But on we go, deeper and deeper. All a charming British diplomat has to do is to flatter the wives of the honor­able State Department otncials at a Wash­ington tea, and you can bet the Marshall plan billions will begin fiowing.

"Mr. Lewis, this letter, like most letters, ls already too long, so I will close it shortly. I would greatly appreciate a reply, telling me how I can aid in your fight against com­plete destruction of this Nation. Where can I get an audience for what I have to say?

"I can outline case after case of our wastes, our ttownright inefficiency, yes, and. our direct aid to communism and Communists. I am not after personal gain. I have a good job and I am living well. But I want to get in the fight because it ls no longer an argu­m ent; it is a crusade.

"This Nation itself is at stake." I've provided my friend his audience.

I'll be happy to provide any interested con­gressional investigating committee his name and address. It won't take him long to get to Washington.

THE GI BILL OF RIGHTS-LETTER FROM MERLIN RAY HOUSTON TO SENATOR JOHNSON OF TEXAS

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Prest .. dent, I have · received a very excellent letter from a very fine young Texan,

Mr. Merlin Ray Houston, of 2003 Potter Place, Dallas, Tex.; which I ask unan­imous consent to have printed in the body of the RECORD.

There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, ·as follows:

DALLAS, TEx., June 20, 1951. Hon. LYNDON JOHNSON,

United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

DEAR Sm: $5,933.40 ts a rather significant loan or investment to make in an intan­gible commodity without either collateral sec'lirity or suretyship.

This amount was invested in me, as an individual (under the provisio:qs of Public Law 846-GI bill), in order that I might continue m_y education or training.

As I took my master of business admin-1stratlon degree from Southern Methodist University, June 4, 1951, I was fully con­vinced that an expression of my sincere appreciation to the people of the United States for extending me this chance was my very first obligation.

The traditional confidence which Amer­ica has always displayed in the innate worth, value, and dignity of each separate indi­vidual, as my experience has proven, gives us continued hope and courage for preserv­ing the free-enterprise system.

Sincerely yours, MERLIN RAY Hou-sTON.

THE TIMETABLE OF THE ATOMIC BOMB

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Mr. President, yesterday the senior Senator from. Con­necticut [Mr. McMAHON] made reference to some t~legrams which i had placed in the record of the hearings of the Senate Committees on Armed Services and· Foreign Relations, meeting jointly, in connection with the far-eastern policy of the United States. The Senator from Connecticut referred to and read into the RECORD a telegram which I had sent to Lt. Gen. Leslie R. Groves, with ref er­ence to certain information which I had understood he had . given to President Roosevelt shortly before Yalta, and he read General Groves' reply. He did not. however, place in the RECORD the tele­gram which I had sent to Colonel Con­sidine, who made a trip to the Mediter­ranean, and there met with then Secre­tary of State Stettinius just prior to the Yalta Conference, in order to brief Sec-· retary Stettinius on the progress of the· development of the atomic bomb. Therefore, I should like to read those two telegrams into the RECORD, so that they will appear in chronological order.

In the first place, I had been in­formed-and I thought I should verify that information-that both President Roosevelt and Secretary of State Stet­tinius had been advised shortly before Yalta that the atomic bomb was then a practical certainty, that it was only a question of time, and that the timetable would be met. My information was that President Roosevelt had been in­f.armed in 1944 that the target for the completion of the first atomic bomb::; would be in mid-year 1945. So I sent the following telegram to General Groves on June 25, 1951:

JUNE 25, 1951, Lt. Gen. LESLIE R. GROVES,

.Remi ngton-Rand, Inc., Laboratory of Advanced .Research South Norwalk. Conn.:

It has been stated that yo_u and then Secretary of War StimSoh info:rmed Presi~-' .

1951 .CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 7515 dent Roosevelt at the White House just be­fore he left for the Yalta Conference to the effect that it was a 99-percent certainty that the A-bomb would be successful; also, that you told him the first bombs would prob­ably be ready in August 1945 and that the bombs would be extremely powerful. Can yo_u confirm the above by wire to me?

. B. B. HICKENLOOPER, United States Senator.

G 3neral Groves replied to my telegram as follows:

NORWALK, CONN., June 25, 1951. Senator BOURKE B. HICKENLOOPER,

The Capitol, Washington, D. C.: The statement reported in your telegram

of today reference information given to President Roosevelt is correct.

LESLIE R. GROVES.

At the same time I had telegraphed Col. William Considine, who is now a lawyer in Newark, N. J. Colonel Consi­dine was one of the top executive offi­cers under General Groves in the Man­hattan district, and spoke with author­ity'representing the Manhattan district. Colonel Considine now is no longer in the Army. He was a Reserve officer at that time. I sent him the following tele­gram on June 25 1951:

JUNE 25, 1951. Mr. WILLIAM CONSIDINE,

Newark, N. J.: It has been stated that you as colonel

representing the Manhattan district were sent to the Mediterranean to brief then Sec­reta:·y of State Stettinius just prio~ to the Yalta Conference to the effect that the A-bomb was a practical certainty for suc­cess and that the first bombs would prob­ably be ready by August 1945. That you also briefed Stettinius on the power poten­tials of the bombs. Can you verify this to me by wire?

B. B. HICKENLOOPER, United States Senator.

Colonel Considine telegraphed back from Newark as follows:

NEWARK, N. J., June 25, 1951. Hon. BOURKE B. HICKENLOOPER:

At titne mentioned your telegram I deliv­ered certain papers to Mr. Stettinius and discussed their effectuation. Discussion also involved questions of' certainty of explosion, possible date of use, and power potential of A-bomb. I advised him that my infor­mation from General Groves was that bomb would explode, that Groves had double­checked scientists on this, that probable date would be about August 1 in accordance with statement in August 1944 that bomb would be ready in year and that explosion of bomb would wreck a large city. Meeting took place in stateroom of British man of war in Grand Harbor, Malta, few days before Yalta Con­ference.

WILLIAM S. CONSIDINE.

Mr. President, I know that it is dis­appointing, and it is rather sad, I think, to have continued misunderstandings as to some of the historic sequences and some of the historic contributions in the development of the atomic bomb project. I hope I can speak with becoming mod­esty, because I include a number of other Members of the Senate in this statement, especially the nine Members of the spe­cial committee which was created in 1946 to explore· the great new scientific mys­tery which had developed. Atomic en­ergy and atomic science, which had been brought to fruition during World War II, originally represented a weapon inves­tigation activity, but in connection with

the weapon development there were de­veloped vast potentials for human good.

Whether the words which were spoken in informing the President and the Sec­retary of State, prior to Yalta, of the certainty, or practical certainty, of an atomic explosion a.re agreed to by all parties, I think the record is clear.

General Groves and Colonel Considine both testified that this information was furnished prior to the Yalta Conference:

It has been said by some persons who would tend to · depreciate some of these historic bits of information that no one could have known that we had a bomb, because it was not tested until July 1945. Of course, that is true. We did not test the atomic bomb until the explo­sion at Alamogordo in July 1945.

We do not ·know whether any new scientific discovery, any new drawing­board proposition, will work until it is physically tested. But countless de­velopments have become practical cer­tainties when no definite physical test was either practical or made. The scien­tific information upon which these pre­dictions were made had been approved by exhaustive preliminary tests. They were not proved by explosive tests, be­cause one does not test an atomic bomb more than once . . There is no aspirin­pill-sized atomic bomb. There is no laboratory size, with which a prototype test of the atomic bomb can be made. If the bomb is tested in a laboratory, and there is an explosion in the laboratory, we no longer have a laboratory. In an atomic-bomb explosion, there is nothing around the atomic bomb while it is being tested. So we can test only the bomb it­self. We cannot test an experimental model. However, there is no question, from all the evidence, that so far as con­cerns the verity of .scientific experiment and the proof of the components enter­ing that weapon, it was known that the bomb could be exploded, and that the explosion would be a certainty. It was known that the timetable would work out very accurately.

Mr. LONG. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. I yield. Mr. LONG. Some· information came to

the attention of the junior senator from Louisiana to the effect that when our

•armies broke through into Germany the scientific teams going along behind them to find out what the Germans had done in research and experimentation along this and other lines, discovered that the Germans had been working in an at­tempt to perfect the atomic bomb, but they were off on the wrong track. It was round that there was not much prospect of their ever succeeding in exploding the bomb on the basis on which they were working. Did the information ever come to the attention of the Senator?

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Oh, yes; we went through that very carefully in 1946. I think it is fair to say that the Sena­tor's understanding is not quite correct, but almost. The Germans had been experimenting, and they had spent a considerable amount of time in attempt­ing to develop an atomic weapon. When our armies went into Germany we had scientific teams which went in with the first . .wave. . We w.ere avidly interested

in knowing what progress they had made, as well as the progress which had been made by other interested nations.

I think it is fair to say that while the Germans had been doing a considerable amount of work in the atomic energy field, and had developed some very in­teresting things, their approach was not the proper one. The improper approach was not because they did not have scien­tists or that they could not master the mathematics of the science, because the first man who proved that atomic fission was possible was a German. That was what stimulated us. What they did was to disunite their effort. The success of our project, probably more than to any­thing else, was due to the organizational genius of Gen. Leslie R. Groves, who said, "You must concentrate and coordi­nate the effort, to the exclusion of col­lateral scientific investigations." It was by coordination, unity of purpose, bring­ing all the eggs into one basket, and run­ning the show with one purpose, that we were able to bring together all the scien­tific ends.

The Germans did not do that. They had one plant operating in one part of Germany, and another plant in another part of Germany. The scientists were not coordinated. Their activities were not compartmentalized. They were working at loose ends. It probably would have been a long time before they could have put all the parts together. We put them . together in the original programing of our atomic project. We coordinated them all as we went along. The Germans did not do that.

Mr. LONG. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further?

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. I yield. Mr. LONG. The Senator from Iowa

is a member of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, and as such is one of the Senators who is privileged to receive much information which is not made available to other Senators, who are not serving on the joint committee. How­ever, the chairman of the committee, the senior Senator from Connecticut [Mr. McMAHON], said yesterday that the duty of General Groves related almost en­tirely to the security of the project and to keeping information from leaking out, rather than to actual research. Can the Senator tell us whether that is the actual fact? ·

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. I believe the senior Senator from Connecticut on re­flection will probably wish to revise his statement. It was probably due to an inadvertent use of language.

General Groves was the coordinator of the project: He did one of the most magnificent jobs of coordination and ad­ministration that has ever been done in history. His job was comparable to that of Colonel Goettials in the building of the Panama Canal, except that it was much more mysterious. He was operat­ing in a completely unknown and un­proved field when the operation began. I heard the Senator from Connecticut say that General Groves probably knew less than anyone else about the project. Perhaps he made the statEment in haste and without due consideration. I am certain that the record will show that General Groves knew more about the

751G CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE JUNE 30

atomic project in all its features than any other living man. While he is not a physicist, he is an engineer of great ability, and he is an administrator with­out equal. I believe he knew more about the administrative, progress, coordinat­ing, and development ends of the project than any other living man before or since his time.

Mr. LONG. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further?

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. I yield. Mr. LONG. The Senator from Con­

necticut yesterday also stated that it was General Groves' responsibility to prevent atomic secrets from falling into the hands of spies or traitors, and that it was during General Groves' administration that Dr. Karl Fuchs, David Greenglass, and various otoor spies were successful in obtaining our atomic-energy secrets and giving them to Russia. Does the Senator have any information on that subjec~?

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Yes, I have considerable information on the subject, and I may as well touch on it now, since the Senator has asked the question. The · development of the Manhattan project, as the Senator knows, was an utterly fan­tastic concept. It was considered f easi­ble, but we were delving into the un­known. We were tearing aside the cos­mic curtain. We were attempting to do something which many people some years ago had said could not possibly be done. It was done under the pressures of war. We had only a few years in which to scratch away at the conceal­ment and mystery about the atom, and

· to conduct millioll$ of experiments. It was a matter of great necessity and of great urgency.

Dr. Fuchs worked in the Manhattan project. However, General Groves and the Manhattan project not only had no responsibility for his security, but were forbidden by Executive order even to investigate him or other scientists who had been sent here by other countries. They were forced to accept the certifi­cates of purity given by foreign coun­tries. The FBI could not examine into them. It was a matter of "Do not touch. You must not examine into the integrity or the background of foreign scientists who come here with certificates from their own governments to the effect that they are clean." Fuchs and several oth­ers had certificates from the British Government stating that they had been investigated there and that they were clean and responsible. We were forbid­den to go further. We could not even check on them. ·

Mr. LONG. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further?

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Yes; but I should like first to continue on this one paint. I have in my possession a photo­graph, taken with a long-range tele­scopic camera at the Manhattan district while it was operating, of one of the most prominent persons working in the project, with a Russian espionage agent on one side and a member of the Rus­sian consulate on the other. One of the Russians had in his pocket certain secret papers which this prominent person had transmitted to him. I have the photo-

graph in my office. The Manhattan project was forbidden to prosecute this person. He was a traitor and spy, and they knew he was selling secrets. Yet administratively higher authority pre­vented the Manhattan district from prosecuting him. A number of similar cases can be cited, if the facts ever come out.

Mr. LONG. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further?

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Yes. Mr. LONG. As a matter o/. fact, the

Senator is a member of the Joint Com­mittee on Atomic Energy, and is charged with a great responsibility. He is in pos­session of secrets which, in the interest of national security, cannot be made known to the public, and insofar as he comes into knowledge that should not be brought to the attention of other Senators and of the Nation as a whole, I am certain he will discharge his re­sponsibility.

He is a member, as well as I, of the committee presently investigating the dismissal of General MacArthur. Some of the facts brought out before the com­mittee would indicate that General Mac­Arthur felt that probably certain facts should be made known to the Nation. In that connection it was testified, even by General Bradley and General Mar­shall, that it was their opinion, that when a general charged with serving his Nation found that his orders from his superior officer were, in his opinion, in confiict with his duty to the Nation, he should, even at the expense of resign­ing his commission, step aside and make those facts ·known to the public. Would the Senator feel that General Groves might have had a responsibility to the Nation even beyond his responsibility to his Commander in Chief if he had had any reason to believe that a sci:entist was obtaining our atomic secrets?

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. I do not be­lieve there was any particular reason to believe that enemy scientists were ob­taining our secrets. They came to us with a clean bill of health from their own governments. The Manhattan district was required to accept the certificates from their own governments to the ef­fect that they had a clean bill of health. Certainly tl.J.e people who were stealing our atomic secrets at the time did not work out in the open. They were oper­ating in great secrecy. When the Man­hattan district was forbidden to investi­gate them there was no way in which the Manhattan district could find out any surreptitious activity in which such scientists may have been .engaging. It was only later that the information came out, and it later developed that the information with respect to Karl Fuchs' association with Communists was in the hands of the British Government at the time, and we did not know it.

Mr. CAIN . . Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

The PRESIDING OFFICER <Mr. JOHNSON of Texas in the chair). Does the Senator from Iowa yield to the Sen­ator from Washington?

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. I yield to the Senator from Washington for a question.

Mr. CAIN. How does the able Senator from Iowa reconcile the information be

has jU.St offered to the Senate concerning the state of readiness of the atomic bomb in early 1945 with the testimony recently offered by those in executive authority, by some persons highly placed in the military establishments, and by some Senators, that it was imperatively necessary to bring Russia into the war against Japan in 1945 because the war against Japan could be won only through an invasion of the mainland, employing large masses of ground forces?

Mr. ffiCKENLOOPER. I say to the Senator from Washington that I cannot reconcile that position. I can point to. the documentary evidence that now is extant, showing that the Air Corps was convinced that it could bring Japan to its knees and could force a suit by Japan for surrender within the summer of 1945, and that the NaVY was also thoroughlY convinced of that. Both those branches were thoroughly convinced that it was not necessary to make a frontal land as­sault on Japan. There was the t~sti­mony of a number of Army officers who also were convinced of that.

On the other hand, there was a coterie of thinking, as I understand, and, let us say according to Admiral Leahy's book, there was a coterie of thinking by cer­tain groups in the Army, that a frontal attack with land troops must be made on Japan, contrary to what was known at the time. In other words, this matter is not hindsight, but that information was at hand at the time.

Therefore it is clear that at the time there should have been a proper evalua­tion of the information that no ground­f orces assault against Japan was neces­sary in order to bring Japan to surrender.

The Senator asks me whether I can reconcile the information. I cannot rec­oncile it, because it seems now that the information was available prior to that time, and tht.t, therefore, whatever was given to Russia at Yalta by way of do­minion over Asia and trading the Na­tionalist Chinese, our allies, to Russia, without even the knowiedge of the Na­tionalist Chinese, not only was not nec­essary but, I think, can be subjected to the most caustic criticism in the public interest.

Mr. CAIN. I share the Senator's view, and I think his answer is of value for the RECORD.

Mr. LONG. Mr. President, I regret that the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. McMAHON] is not in the Chamber at this time, because he is a Member of the Sen­ate who is very much interested in this matter.

Personally, I should like to get to the bottom of this matter and I should like to know the real facts, if there is any way of developing them.

With regard to Dr. Fuchs, it is pointed out that the certification of the British Government was accepted by our ofii­cials on that occasion. In my opinion, that was a mistake. I have no knowl­edge of whether General Groves ac­cepted it or questioned it.

It was also pointed out that Green­glass and Gold came into the Atomic Energy work while General Groves was in charge. Let me inquire whether

- GreenglaEs and Gold were Americans or foreigners.

1951 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 7517 Mr. HICKENLOOPER. I believe both

of them were Americans at that time. Mr. LONG. Can the Senator from

Iowa explain to us how those .two Amer­icans, Greenglass and Gold, were able to get into the Atomic Energy Commis­sion and were able to engage in spying and turning secrets over to the Russians?

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. They got in there probably for the same reason that Hiss got in, namely, that the prelim­inary investigation did not show up the skulduggery they intended to do. The records show that they did not engage in those things until a much later date. Therefore, probably when they entered the service, there was nothing in their records to show their ultimate perfidy,

So far as the admission of Fuchs was concerned, that was a diplomatic matter in which our officials were ordered to accept the British certificate as to the cleanliness of his background. Our officials acted under such circum­stances not only in that field but in other fields; it was a matter of comity between governments. Our officials had to take their orders, and they said "O.K."

Mr. LONG. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further?

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. I yield. Mr. LONG. The Senator will agree,

will he not, that if there was anything in the records of those persons to indi­cate that they might be untrustworthy, certainly the responsibility should be placed upon those who failed to prevent them from acquiring secrets?

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Yes. In the case of Fuchs, the responsibility lay overseas, because tbe information on Fuchs as an employee of the Manhattan District was not in this country until long after he had engaged in his activi­ties. At first that information was abroad, and for some time it was not relayed to this country from the place

. where the information was in existence. Mr. LONG. · Mr. President, will the

Senator yield further? Mr. HICKENLOOPER. I yield. Mr. LONG. Does the Senator know

of any person who has divulged any of our atomic secrets, who came into the atomic-energy work after General Groves stepped aside from being in charge of the Manhattan District?

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. · I shall touch on that in a moment. rt is a very deli­cate matter to go into at this time, but I shall touch on it later.

Mr. WELKER. Mr. President, will the Senator from Iowa yield to me, so that I may ask a question of the Senator from Louisiana?

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Yes, I yield for that purpose, if I do not thereby lose the floor.

Mr. WELKER. I understood that the Senator from Louisiana attempted to elicit from the Senator from Iowa some information as to whether General Groves should have been held responsi­ble for the activities of Greenglass and Gold. Am I correct in that under­standing?

Mr. LONG. That is correct. Mr. WELKER. By the same token,.

will the Senator from Iowa answer this

question by me: If General Groves should be held responsible for the activi­ties of Greenglass and Gold, is it not also true, then, that Secretary of State Acheson should be held firmly responsi­ble for the activities of one Alger Hiss?

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. I think he cannot throw off his responsibility. So far as he is concerned, I will say that I have received information that the members of the United States delegation to the United Nations were told at the San Francisco conference that "they had the goods" on Alger Hiss, yet he con­tinued in that high place in our State Department for a substantial period of time after that. I have received infor­mation that a number of our officials at the San Francisco Conference were given that information. However, it took a great deal of time, during which a great many statements about "red herrings" were made, and a great many difficui.: ties were encountered before the prose­cution could begiri; in fact, as we know, the prosecution against Alger Hiss sim­ply could not get under way for a long time; but finally it took a turn, they went

. after the fellow, and they got him. However, that information against

Alger Hiss was out a long time ago, ac­cording to statements made to me by reliable members of our delegation at San Francisco. So the responsibility is there.

Mr. WELKER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further?

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. I yield. Mr. WELKER. I appreciate the Sena­

tor's remarks. Some comment was made by the Sena­

tor from Louisiana with respect to the MacArthur hearings, in the course of which certain privileged communica­tions were not divulged, although they should have been divulged. I wish the Senator from Iowa to appreciate the fact that I am not a member of those com-

. mittees, but I am distressed about cer­tain confidential relationships which exist with respect to certain communi­cations.

I remember well the statement by the President of the United States, by way of the radio, that ~·when all the facts are known by the American people, my action will be approved by them."

Yet, as a visitor to those hearings, I found certain high-level officers of our Government hiding behind the secrecy of a privileged communication, stating, "It was told to me in the presence of the President, and, therefore, I am not divulging it to the American people; so I cannot go into those matters."

Let me ask when the Senator's atten­tion was directed to the fact that atomic secrets were being stolen by spies of Russia? When was the Senator first notified that Mr. Fuchs was working behind the scenes, or when, if the Sena­tor knows, did our Government first learn of his activity?

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. I cannot re­call the exact date. I had no connec­tion with the matter until 1946, when the special Senate committee was cre­ated. In 1946 we knew of the Canadian spy-ring case. The fact that it reached into the United States at a certain promi­nent atomic installation in this country

has never yet been fully explored and exposed to the American people. But we knew about it, and I think that was the first time we had actual evidence, though we had had suspicions that the Russians were engaged in this matter. On the floor of the Senate in 1946, as I recall, I called attention for the first time to the exposures in the Canadian spy-ring case.

Mr. WELKER. For the purpose of the RECORD, if the Senator from Iowa will yield further, will he tell us when the atomic bomb was first dropped on Japan?

Mr. H!CKENLOOPER. As I recall about August 5 or 6, 1945. It was the first week in August.

Mr. WELKER. The Senator has just stated that, in 1946, we had information of the activities of the Canadian spy ring in stealing our secrets.

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. That is cor­rect.

Mr. WELKER. Does not the Senator fed that, in 1945, and even prior to Yalta, those spies must have known that the atomic. bomb was going to be de­veloped to a point where it would work; otherwise they could not have had their espionage system so completely de­veloped?

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Oh, yes. They got advance information, and they got it during the Manhattan district days; and I may say to the Senator that, without doubt, they have .been getting it since the Manhattan district days.

Mr. WELKER. One other question, and then I shall retire. General Groves' duties were taken over b~r whom?

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. By the Atomic Energy Commission, created un­der the Atomic Energy Act of 1946.

Mr. WELKER. And what is the name of the man who succeeded him?

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. The commis­sion was composed of five men. Mr. Lilienthal was chairman. ·

Mr. WELKER. In what activity is · Mr. Gordon Dean engaged now?

M:-. HICKENLOOPER. Gordon Dean became Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission about a year or a year and a half ago.

Mr. WELKER. I take it his duties are similar to the duties previously perform­ed by General Groves.

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Not exactly. The Atomic Energy Commission has over-all authority, and it consists of five men. Under the Commission · there is a general manager created by law, and much of the coordinating administrative activity is delegated by the Commission to the general manager; so that General Groves had a job which compared to that of the Commission and the general man­ager put together. I might say that the Commission makes broad policy. Groves made policy as well as conducting the administrative activity.

Mr. McFARLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? •

Mr. WELKER. Mr. President, I have but one more question, after which I shall retire.

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. I yield fur­ther to the Senator from Idaho, first, after which I shall yield to the Senator ' from Arizona.

7518 CONGRESSIONAL RECORU-SENATE JUNE 30 Mr. WELKER. Does not the Senator

from Iowa think it a bit unfair that, at this late hour, after a soldier of the dis.,. tinction of General Groves has rendered fine service to his country, he should be accused, . impliedly and expressly, of . carrying on a cafeteria style of disclo-sure of atomic-energy secrets to spies representing a foreign government? Does not the Senator think it a bit un­·fair that, upon the floor of the Senate, he should be tried and convicted, with­out a hearing, upon such an unfounded accusation as that which is made here?

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. As I . said a moment ago, I may say in answer to the question of the Senator from Idaho that I feel that the statements made yester­day were made in haste and without proper consideration of the words used, and probably in the heat of the moment. In my opinion, after reflection and con­sideration, the conclusions stated yes­terday simply cannot be sustained in the RECORD. I feel that they were simply ill-advised.

Mr. LONG. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a further question?

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. I agreed to yield next to the Senator from Arizona. I yield to the distinguished majority leader.

Mr. McFARLAND. I was merely go .. ing to inquire of the Senator whether he expected to take very much longer. The Senator from Louisiana desires to call up a conference report.

Mr. mcKENLOOPER. I may say I hesitate not to yield to Members of the Senate on this important matter.

Mr. McFARLAND. Yes, I understand. Mr. HICKENLOOPER. I only have

about 3 minutes more of what I want to say. If I can complete it, I should like to do so.

Mr. LONG. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for just one more question?

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. I yield to the Senator from Louisiana.

Mr. LONG. It was the impression of the jun1or Senator from Louisiana tnat the facts were that General Groves went to Connecticut when the senior Senator from Connecticut was a candidate for reelection, and made a speech there, or issued a statement, criticizing the activi­ties of the senior Sena tor from Connecti­cut, based upon his activities as chair­man of the Atomic Energy Committee. If that were the case, there would be no reason, as a matter of ·fairness, why the Senator from Connectfout should not be able to defend himself by, in turn, criticizing General Groves. What is fair for one would seem to be fair for the other.

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Mr. President, I am in no way going into that field. I never saw a statement which General Groves ever made about the Senator from Connecticut. I never read a state­ment of that character if he made one. I do not know that he participated in the political campaign. I had business of my own to which I was attending at that time, in the Middle West, so I simply do not know; and I had no connection

· whatever with it. I care not what kind of rumpus may have occurred in the election situation, if there was any rm:n-

pus. I still think, if· it ·occurred', that ·political turmoil in partisan politics should have nothing whatever to do with the recitation of historical facts. I may say for Gen. Leslie Groves that no one has ever been able to stand in either a public or a private forum and successfuly impugn the high degree of his integrity or his great ability. The record is his historical justification for the great job he did, and the Congress of the United States, without a dissent­ing vote in the Armed Services Com­mittee of the Senate, and without a dis­senting vote in the Armed Services Com­mittee of the House of Representa·tives, and without a dissenting vote on the floor of the Senate, and without a dis­senting vote on the floor of the House of Representatves, so far as I know, in appreciation and recognition of the magnificent and unusual job which Les­lie Groves did in the time of our greatest travail and emergency, created him a lieutenant general, upon retirement from the Army of the United States-­a rather unique and, I think, a rather fine tribute to the service which this man rendered to his country.

Mr. President, let me say this in all fairness, because it is my opinion. I

· think Leslie Groves stepped on some toes and probably some pretty sore corns while he was pushing through, with utmost speed, this great new experim€nt energy. He is not a physicist. Of course, he cannot go into the labora1:ory to make an atomic bomb; and very few physicists can. But he was the admin­istrator and coordinator who brought the loose ends together. He cut Gov­ernment red tape. He was given a mis­sion, which was to produce a bomb a.s

. early as possible, and he said, "We will have it by mid 1945." He drove the Manhattan Project mercilessly, in the jaws of war. He drove it to create this new bomb, which, at the outset, it was thought would be needed to end the war. It was not necessarily needed when it came to the end of the war, but the pur­pose was to get it before the enemy got it; and h.e stepped on some toes, I think. He created some animosities perhaps within his own service, and certainly he created some animosities in the leisurely climate which is characteristic of scien­tific investigation in peacetime. He made the scientists work, and he saw that they worked, and he saw that the project was coordinated and developed.

Mr. President, I may say that I have no special friendship, no social associa­tion with General Groves. I probably have see him less than a great number

· of other Senators, and every time I have seen· him it has been strictly in connec­tion with atomic business, the historical background, or some suggestion as to the operation of atomic energy--

Mr. WELKER. Mr. President, will the Sena:tor yield?

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. But I want to say that I have the highest admiration for him as a great soldier, and one of the greatest soldier administrators pro­duced by the United States, a man whose place in history will survive the very evident coalition of attempted defama- · tion which, in various parts of the coun-

·try, has from time to time arisen to take the luster of public accomplishment off the .shield of his honor. I believe that that luster is ineffaceable, and I believe that Leslie Groves will continue to be recognized as a great American, a great patriot, and a man of outstanding abil .. ity in the public service. I believe that Leslie Groves will continue to be recog­·nized as a great American, a great pa­triot, and a man of outstanding ability in public service.

I yield to the Senator from Idaho. Mr. WELKER. I am indebted to the

distinguished Senator from Iowa for his fine tribute to this great soldier. I met General Groves only once. It was a personal meeting, which lasted approxi­mately 5 or 10 minutes. I should like to . say that the Senator from Iowa has ren­dered a great service to General Groves and to all the military men of the Na­tion. Yesterday I heard the character

. of Leslie Groves, impliedlY- and expressly,

. maligned and slandered, comparing him to Alger Hiss and William Remington. I suffered when I heard it. I am grate-

- ful to the Senator because he has told us about the unanimous . vote by which the rank of lieutenant general was con­ferred upon General Groves. Never _ shall I vote for a generalship or any other rank for Alger Hiss or William Remington who, at times, seem to be commended by people in high places iQ this Government. )~

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. The Senator from Idaho is vigorous, and he has a method of expressing his thoughts which certainly is salutary and which should be taken to heart by every pa­triotic Am~rican citizen. I will say to the Senator that I would have spoken about this matter yesterday. ·I am very sorry the Senator from Connecticut

· [Mr. McMAHON] is not present at this time. I did not know he was going to be absent. The minority leader came to me as the Senator from Connecticut was closing his remarks and inquired wheth­er I expected to discuss the question. I said, "Yes; I think it has got to be dis­cussed. There is a misunderstanding as to the facts, and it must be discussed."

He said, "Will you wait until we con­clude the consideration of the confer­ence report? I do not know how long you will speak if you get the floor on this matter."

I said, "I shall be delighted to delay my statement. It is a matter which can be taken up at any time. The confer­ence report and the resolution are im­portant."

So I did not discuss the question at that time. I meant to bow out so that the conference reports and resolutions could be considered. I was outside in the hall, expecting to discuss the matter last night, when the bells for the recess rang. I rushed to the :floor but it was too late. So I have taken the first op­portunity today to discuss the qµestion.

The Senator from Louisiana, who was here a moment ago, asked me a question which I do not think I have yet an­swered. I think this might as well be said now as at any other time. The Sen- . ator from Louisiana asked me whether secrets had been stolen or purloined

1951 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENA 'TE 7519 since the Manhattan District went eut of existence. I shall only say that there have bee-n a disquieting number of dis­appeeranees still unaceounted' for in atomic energy plants. I shaM not say whether t.hey harre been ehamneloo dr­reetly to an enemy, but I say that there haive been mysterious · disappearanees stiD unaceOtMl•oo fw. · I eamwt go m­the1' in my answer at this moment.

Mr. President, I did not inten to take so much time of the Senate. I feel that in war, i:n emergency, 8Jnd in the ten­sions of seeking victory many t1!1mgs are done which, looking bsek, might well have been done in some other way. I

- hare l!>eem the first to admit that there was waste-in the Manhattan Disttiet op... erations. I have been one of the first to admit that tlrere is waste m the At0mic Energy C'ommi'ssMJn ope:rations. The Manhattan .district, however, had a :ree­ord of spending less than $~,00().000,000. lt started frum almost a: pioneer.ring the­o:ry. There had been some la:ooniitory work done on a minor scale. It spe-nt less than $'21,000,000,000i, arr.rd within a little more tha:n 2 years' tFme it produced the mm successfn1 atomic bombs, after leaimmg how to- prt>duce fissionable rrmtem:P in foor dijfeirent ways. Smee that time we hav-e l!>een spending-dependhing orr whose pelflClll we use- and wha:t ltind of oookkeeping we employ, whether it is double-enll"y, tri­ple-entry, qnadnlple-entry, or singi'e­entry bookkeeping-we have been spending many b!lllion dolla:rs a year-. Any ag:emcy that starts fl"E>m scra1teh, with an expe:nditme ef ress. thain $2"' ,

,fHM>, prove& the atomic flsskm :pi.roe­

ess; and lays out the whole fie of atomic emergy, ineludb:tg blueprints for d'eveI0pme-11:t whfc-h have m>t ye:t liJe,e.n attained in atomic enagy-, menils the praise, the gratitude, and the :fair aind ho:monllbie oommendatitm of t.ne. Ameri­can people.

Gen. Leslie- Glo-ves mas received that c mdatiom f:rom the .Auertcan peo­P . Jn their lleal'is> am m~ Ji think his pogti-0n as am admimstrat.or for bis counuy at the mne of' its- g:reat.es:t need is secure. SUPJ>LTING OF' AGRTClJILTURAL WORK­

ERS l"ROM MEXlCO-CONFER'ENCE RE­POR'T

MI~ ELLENDER. Mr. President, r submit a report of the c~mmittee. of coof e:relllce en the dis.agreeiDg vo.t.es Qi the. two Houses o.n the amendment a! the House to the. bill <a. 984) to amend the, Ag:ric.ultWlal Ac.t of 194Q, and I ask unanimous c.onsmt. · far its immediate. conside:L:a tion..

Tl'le PRESIDING OFFICER <Mr~ J OHN.S.ON at Texas in the. chair) . The report wiU b~ read !o.r the information of the Senate.

The report was read. (Far conference l'epa.rt, see today's

pro~eedings of tbe House of Repliesenta­tives, pp. 753:a-754~)

The. PRESIDING OJilFlCER. Is there objection to the immediate consi<fera­tion af the report?

There behl.g no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the report.

XCVII-474

. Mr. ELLENDER. MY. Pl'esident, as the clerk has just indicated, the co:nfer-· ence report has been signed a:nd ap­proved by eveTy memher flf the oolilfe:r­enre. Tile biU itse-I:t, as iit came frmn the Senate, was ac~ed iJ.Y' the H©use con- · f erees wiith OOt two RmJOl' changes. The · first ehainge from the- Semate ve:rsiE>n is the eJimimaoon o:I the so-eal!Fed Douglas amendment. :rt will be reeaNed tltrait the Homse had a eomPQnion bill bef OTe it for some time. After it 'WfliS comsidend by the Ag:riel:l'Itm'e Committee ot t~1e HotISe, a rule cc:rnkf not )>e obtained for ai long time because of the presence in the Sen­ate w1Ji of th~ su-caHed Douglas amend­merit. PfnaiHy a rule- was obtsimed, and during- the eomt!feratmn of the bm try the House the so-called Douglas amend­ment '\Vais miedi m1t orr a point of order, and the House adopted its own bill, which differs- somewhat firom the Semate bf]Jf. .

Mr. WELKER. Mir. President, Wlil1 the> Se-Jll'aito yield?

Mr. ELLENDER. T yield. Mr. Wft.KER. WFII tl.he S...<>naito:rr- tell

us brre:Oy; what the l)olug.las amend­ment is!'

M:r. ELLEN!DE.R. n made it a felony fo1 any, employe-:r m the lJnited states to emp?Gy a wetbaek Imowmg:Jy, that is,

· to emp. oy ai. Me-::irtcan who crossed cveJi the bID"de1r wiUtoutl' amy rig)lt fo do ro.

Jt r..s. my cml51..dered jud&mem that the bill as approved by the cm>faees. WJ 1 go fa:u i€1Ward c-~ng the weti:Jaell }lTI>b­lem. I have ·no douht a00ut that. There is be£OR the Se:oai.te C.ommittee an the .Jt!ldidary a biDl wbkh il!lCOIJX>­:rat.es the S&-Caillett. Douglas amencbnaxt. As a matt.er oJ fa.el. the Dmlgta.s, amend­meJlli is. derived from the ·lli jua u­ierred! to,. wmeh l intJroouced s~ra ~ eeks. age. I haw the~ of tne

di£tmgmshed eha.iJ!mam '1lf the Jm:lic.iaey Oilmmitt.e.e [MJr. M.cC.DllAN] that my hill,. whicb dea1s wii.lh the Pll"Obtem aklng the lime s.uggested by' the Daoglas, amend­ll!telht, wilh 50&ll re.c:eh~e comidemti

Mr. MILLIKIN. MJi. President, ill the Senaimr yielO?

Mlt. ELLENDim.. l yri!eldt Mr. MILL.IKIM. Has; the. Dm1g1ias.

amendment been taken out of the ccm.­fe.rence repo:irt?-

Mir. IIL~. Yes. That was;-the only way we could obtain a bill We. bi-ed ve-l'y hard, but to no avail, and I tho1i],g]n.t it wise- to make. e:n-ry effort to ge-1l ain. agreement with tln:e Hause and to obtain eAJ!lSi,(laat.i<m of the re}ll().ri te>daY,.

Mr. MUNDT. :W:r. President, wm the Sel!Dmr yield for a t;1iu-esoticm ?-

Mr. ELLUtDi!R In a m<!lm.ent.. 'l'here is a seeomd maim: provision

which the Ho.w;e ser:i!ot:mly obJe.:ted to in the Senait.e- bi1tl. 'l1nat relates to certifi­catir&n as to the- need for Mexi-e.an w'1rk..; ers Oll a natm.nal Qe.s.is. lt will be l'e­caiUed. that the- l!ill:h, a& origma,11y intro...­dueed! in the· Senate-, provided that eeirti­fication was to be made on a State bas.is.

· but on the SeDa1rtr :floor an amendment was a.OOpted reiilliring certifi£atkm on a nati€mal basis. The House had it on a regional basis. Stlo the- HUU5e aglieed to strike bom the bill its own provision

aoout cel"ti:ficamn on a regional basis, ancl accepted OUJ' provision of luning it on a 11aif-0naJ basis. That is, the cati­fication wonld be made- by the Seeret:a:ry of Labo:r.

Mr. HUMPHREY. MJ'. fJ'reSdent, w'ill the S'erJator yJe1d?

l\f:ir. ELLENDER. J yiel'd. Mr. HUMPHREY. Jn mther words; the

amemlment whic!l remiires the SeeJ"eta.ry of LaOO:r to asceIJ'tain whethe-r the.re is domesttie sm>pJyr avaDab?e i!s retainedl m the- bill

Mr. ELLENDER. Tbat is. cerrect. Mr. HuMPHRE'Y. .And he must make

a certification of that after PJ"OPeli' har ­ing?

Mr. ELLENDER. S'eetion SOO. of the orfgina,1 bill provided that the seeretai.ry of Labor must make two detamina­trons-

That ( l'} s.utride.nt ctmnestic worlters who are aMe, wiUmg-, and qn:al'ffied are not amtlJ.­aiP!le- at the' tfnre and prl&ee-n~ to :pe-r­fo:um the wOl'ii for lril,ich ~. lil.riters aire tGJJ he em!llp'~ (2 tl!re emptlb')mfm.1r l!DI: smrla workers will not ad~ltj affec1t tbe • ages and WOl'king e.runi.W:ttion:s. of dc!l!lnesttc agni­cultwaJ.. w;o:r:ke.l1S simi.J;a:ttlly empW.ye.d-

There is a so C'E)ntamed iin the bill a thiirn l'eQuirement, which was adopted at the insistence- of 1!he Senatm- from Mi!mlesota, wihkh pr~fdes.~

And! (3'J reasonaib're e1fartS' have been ma:d'e to 81ttl'act d'<!llnestic w©ftelrs fol' sm:h em­}!>Io/yme:nit at wages and standanl bours of W<ill"k ~able t<O\ 1t1iltioire o11eted: to fomgn W©'.l!Sel:S'.

So. au those J.:e.q17]I:ements mnst he met before the Secretary of Labor can certifT that Mexiean 'WOrkera are nee::ted..

Mr. HUMPHREY. Does the Senator feel that the bill ia a decided improve­ment over the present nonccmttor system tha.t we bave?

Mr. ELLENDER. There is absorutezy no question about it. As I indicated a moment a.go, what p.rom:¢e.d the Senate conferees to agree to the eUmina ti.on of the so-called Douglas amendment was that it made the adoption of the bill 'f>y the Hm.LS_e certain_ Undel'. the bill <il.lll." Go,ve.mment is permitte.d t.fil engag,e with the: Mai-can GOYe'll:am.ent ill recniitm.en.t and guaranteeing of contracts, a» of. whicll will go far toward curbing the wet­back problem. I l'lav:e no do.ubt but that, if the Piogram can be in operation f.or the 2% years as a.lrthariz.ed by the b.ID,, we c.an then have enacted the so-called Dougias amendment through a bill which I now have befa:re the Committee an tbe J'ud'icia.ry fm: consi.delia.tfon... Mr~ HUMPRREY. Tu other words., I

understand that the Sena.tor wfil press for · the passagn oi his hiII, which later on was ma.de the DQUglas ame-ndment.

Mr. ELLENDER. The Senator is cor­rect.

Mr. HUMPHREY~ That is tlile only way we c.an handle. the we.tbaclt problem. ~ncr handle it effectiveiy y is it oot?

Mr. ELLENDER.. Oh ye.s., I have no­doubt about that. That is -what prompt­ed me. to introduce the bill i·n the- Senate.

MI. AIKEN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Ml'. ELLENo.DER I yield f©r a ques­tion.

.7520 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE JUNE 30

Mr. AIKEN. I may point out that, in my opinion, the adoption of the Doug­las amendment was more for its effect upon the public sentiment than for prac­tical value. Under the Douglas amend­ment it would have to be proved that a man knew he was employing a wetback when he employed him, and that would be very difficult to do. In fact I know of no employer who would go into court and say that he knew it. So I think it would have been very difficult ever ·to have obtained a conviction under the Douglas amendment.

Mr. ·MUNDT. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. ELLENDER. I yield. Mr. MUNDT. Is the Senate to under­

stand that the only difference between the proposed legislation· as reported by the Committee on Agriculture and For­estry and as amended in the Senate, and the version adopted by the House is the elimination of the Douglas amendment?

Mr. ELLENDER. No. There are sev­eral, more or less, minor disagreements which were reconciled.

Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, will the Senator explain those to the Senate?

Mr. ELLENDER. Yes; gladly. I was about to do so. It will be recalled that the Senate version contained a provi­sion that a contract between the Mexican workers and United .States employers could not be made unless the workers were in the United States under legal entry. The House sought to strike that provision, but finally agreed to let that provision remain in the bill with a fur­ther amendment. The House conferees explained to us that there were quite a few families living on the border that had been there for many years, some of them for 10 years, who had entered the country illegally long. ago, and that it might be unjust to make the provision apply to those people. So we agreed to amend the section to this effect-and I will read the provision; it is self-explan­atory:

The Secretary of Labor is authorized-( 1) to recruit such workers (including any

such workers who have resided in the United States for the preceding 5 years, or who are temporarily in the United States under legal entry).

In other words, any person from Mex­ico in the United States who has been here for less than 5 years, in order to be able to be contracted under this program must be here under legal entry. But if he has been here for a period of over 5 years, then it is necessary for him to obtain the approval of the Mexican Gov­ernment if he wishes to be employed under this program. That is one of the changes that was made.

Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. ELLENDER. I yield. Mr. MUNDT. Do I understand cor­

rectly from the Senator's statement that a considerable number of Mexicans have been residents of this country illegally for more than 5 years?

Mr. ELLENDER. Oh, yes. There are such people all along the border, in Cali­fornia, Arizona, New Mexico, and in Texas. They have been residing in the United States for a long time, and many

of th3m are living on farms located along the border.

Mr. MUNDT. If they are here ille­gally, why are they permitted to remain?

Mr. ELLENDER. Well, they have been living here for so long they have become ::-, part of the population in that area. The House conferees felt that a grave injustice would probably be done to those people who have been living in the United States for so long. Many of them have children who were born in the United States and who are now citizens. I re­peat, what we did was to provide that in order for them to be able to be employed under this program it would be neces­sary that they obtain the consent of·the Mexican Government before a contract of employment could be entered into.

Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. ELLENDER. I yield. Mr. AIKEN. The Senator from Lou­

isiana pointed out that some of those affected were old people, living with their children, who were American citizens, but that the old people themselves had never been naturalized, and apparently the Immigration Service has been over­looking such cases. However, I cannot conceive of the Mexican Government contracting for the labor of people who have been living in the United States for the past 10, 15, or 20 years, and who have no intention ever to go back to Mexico, unless deported.

Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. ELLENDER. I yield. Mr. MUNDT. It occurs to the Senator

from South Dakota that it is a bit para­doxical for the Congress to be passing legislation which is to be of specific bene­fit to people who are living illegally in the United States. Seemingly there is a breakdown some place in Government if such a condition is permitted to continue.

Mr. ELLENDER. I do not say that we are passing legislation for the benefit of people who have not complied with the immigration laws. People who have lived here for the period described can apply for naturalization. They do not become citizens under the pending measure.

Mr. MUNDT. I understand the per­sons in question are not here through legal entry.

Mr. ELLENDER. They came here years ago when the laws were not so stringent. The proposed legislation would not legalize such entry. The only way they could be employed under tl;lis program would be by virtue of an agree­ment between our country and Mexico. It could not be done otherwise.

Mr. MUNDT. Does the proposed legislation legalize such entry?

Mr. ELLENDER. No. The only thing it deals with is the matter of employ­ment. It does not deal with these people becoming citizens. They would have io conform to our immigration laws to be­come citizens.

Mr. President, it will be recalled that the maximum amount that each em­ployer was to pay for the cost of trans­porting workers within Mexico to a point on the border was fixed by the Senate at

$20. The House fixed it at $10, so we · compromised and made it $15. The re­quirement in the Senate bill that a Mexi­can must be apprehended in the United States before an employer could be made to pay his transportation to Mexico was eliminated. The House conferees took the position that it would stand as an open invitation for employers to induce Mexicans to leave the farm in the hope that they would reach Mexico in some way.

Mr. THYE. Mr. President, may I ask a question?

Mr. ELLENDER. I yield. Mr. THYE. What was done with the

proposal for regional and district cen­ters? We were contemplating one in the Northwest.

Mr. ELLENDER. That provision was not in the bill. It was not agreed to by the Senate or the House.

Mr. THYE. It was under discussion before the Senate committee. We dis­cussed the possibility of establishing such centers.

Mr. ELLENDER. The subject was not in conference.

Mr. THYE. So there is no provision in the bill to . establish regional · offices f-Or the purpose of recruiting?

Mr. ELLENDER. The Senator is cor­rect. That issue was not involved in either bill, and was therefore not in conference.

Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. ELLENDER. I yield. Mr. AIKEN. It was proposed and

killed in the Senate. Mr. ELLENDER. Yes, as I previously

indicated. Mr. THYE. I wanted to make certain

whether any provision comparable to that had entered into the bill.

Mr. ELLENDER. No. Mr. McCLELLAN. Mr. President, will

the Senator yield? Mr. ELLENDER. I yield. Mr. McCLELLAN. As I understand,

the Douglas amendment was eliminated by the conferees, and is not in the bill.

Mr. ELLENDER. The Senator is cor­rect.

Mr. McCLELLAN. What is the pro­vision in the bill as reported by the con­ferees with reference to the liability of farmers for those who skip?

Mr. ELLENDER. The farmer will be responsible for the cost of transporta­tion from the point of entry into the United States to the farm and return. That provision has not been changed.

Mr. McCLELLAN. I mean those who skip after they are under contract.

Mr. ELLENDER. The United States Government will have to pay any costs above what would have been the cost of returning the worker to the reception center if he had not left his place of employment.

Mr. McCLELLAN. Is there any cost assessed against the farmer when they are apprehended and deported?

Mr. ELLENDER. The only co.st will be what it would have cost to returr_ the employee from the employe_r's farm to the po:int of employment"on the Mexican border. ·

1951 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 7521 Mr. McCLELLAN. That is, the actual

cost? Mr. ELLENDER. The normal cost. Mr. McCLELLAN. Is that cost as­

~essed against the farmer priOI' to the apprehension of the employee who skips, or only after he is apprehended?

Mr. ELLENDER. It wuuld apply re­gardless of appreheasion.

Mr. McCLELLAN. In other words, the farmer must pay if they skip, al­though he has no coiil.tml over them?

Mr. ELLENDER. The Sena.tor is cor­rect. Howeva-, he lis mot Gbld.gated to put up a bond, as b'efore, nor pay the cost of apprehending him.

Mr. McCLELLAN. He is not required to furnish bond, but he is obligated to pay the normal cost of transportation of the empioyee baek to the point of entry?

Mr. ELLENDER. The Senator is cor­rect. That is what the bill provided when it passed the House· and tl:le Sen­.ate conferees agreed to it.

Mr. President, there is another change Wlhich I Lhould like to call to the atten­tion of the Senate. hi the definition of ~·agricultural \employment" the House insisted on including: "horticultural employment, cotton ginning, compress­ing, and storing, the crushing of oil seeds, aind the paddng, cmmmg, freez­ing, drying, or <iJther prooessilllg ef perish­able or seasonable agricultural products."

The Senate conferees agreed to the amendment, for taa.e simple reason that it was felt that, since c&tification ,of need was to be ma.de on a i1ua..00nal basis, by the Secretary of Labor, if the three requiTemem:ts :m tJire bill wllieh I previ­oasly rea'd were fulfilled there 'WOUld lbe sufficient saf-eguards to };n'Otect domes­tic labor.

The Senate conferees agreed to extend the provisions Di the bill to December 31, 1953, in.stead of 1952 as provided for in the Settate bill.

Mil'. Bresiclemt, if ttlere are any fur­tiler questioru; I shaU be glad to make further explanati-on.

I move the adoption of the .conference report.

The PRESIDING OP.FICER. T.he question is -<!>m a:gireemg to the oomif er~mee report. ·

Mr. THYE. Mr. President, I should like to .ask one iurther .question.

How much difference is there between the conference lt'eport and the law which was m existence last yeaT? Whait are the fundamental diff erenees which are written. into the proposed new law, be­yond the law which was on the statute books a year ago?

Mr. ELLENDER. There w.as no law previously. It w.as done by mutual con­tract between United States employers .and the Mwcan Government.

Mr. THYE. '11here had to be a law which pmmitted su.ch mutual .agreement.

Mr. ELLENDER. It was done under our naturalization and immigration laws. As I understand it, authority had to be obtained from the Attorney Gen­eral to permit an employer or an or­ga:qization that recruited labor, to go .to Mexico and enter into an agreement directly with the Mexican employees.

Mr. THYE. That is the question which will arise in the mind of the pro­ducer who is depending on off-.shore labor. He will ask immediately, "What is the provision in this law which is dif­ferent from the regulations imposed on me in acquirin'g off-shore labor in the past?" Can em;iloyers go to Jamaica and get he'lp?

Mr. ELLENDER. Let me say to my good friend that so far as Jam.aic.a, the Bahamas, and C.anada are CCilnc.erned, the law is not changed. This bill ap­plies strictly and solely to Mexican labor. The mt:!tlwd D(l)Win fJJ>r.cefor th:eem:pl'C>Y­ment o!f l!>ff-shore labor, with respect to Jamaiea or any other area, is through contracts between the empioyer in our country and workers living in the off­shore areas.

Mr. THYE. I wished to make certain about it, so that those who examine the record will know specificaily that they may pm.ceed to Jamaica or any other :i;;Jace, as they have done in past years, and that thds provision rela·tes only to the question of ~ labor.

Mr. ELLENDER. The Senator is cor­rect.

Mr. THYE. I wanted to be sure that the record showed that fact.

Mr. ELLENDER. I am gJ.ad to have the Senator raise ·the question.

Mr. THYE. Many ())f ttile emp].())yers in the northwestern area haw:e not been going to Mrexico to get womers. They have been going to the islands.

Mr. ELLENDER. I a;m glad to have the Senator raise the issue, -even though the questiG>n was thQroughly disclll:Ssed .and <iebaited wiben the Semate comsi.ider.ed the om in its .origdnal fmm.

Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, win ·the Senator yield?

Mr. ELLENDER. I :yieid. Mr. MUNDT. In that connection, I

should like to ask the distinguished Senator from Louisiana, the chairman of the ccmmittee, who went to a con­f eren~e in Mexico to try to establish mutually agreeable relationships be­tween Mexico and the United states, whether in hls opinion the bill as it inow CGmes back ifr<0in conference is in sach form tmat it will b~ acceptaili>le to the Mexicans, in line with the eonfierences which were held?

Mr. ELLENDER. I think so. It is not -all that they asked, to be perfectly frank, but it is the best we could obtain. I believe that it will be acceptable to the Mexiiean Government, because it r.ep11e­sents an improvement over the situa­tion which has prevailed in the past.

Mr. MUNDT. Does the Senator feel that in general it will meet with the ap­proval of the Mexican Government?

Mr. ELLENDER. I am reasonably certain th.at it will.

Mr. MUNDT. I believe that .our M-ex­ican friends have wrestled with the prob­lems of democracy long enough to realize that we do not always get 100 percent of what we want.

Mr. ELLENDER. I -made it plain to them -th.at I, as an individual, would cheerfully make every effort to get ap­proval of their requests. . Among the re­quests was something along the line of the so-called Douglas amendment.

Mr. MUNDT. But the Senator be­lieves that this bill fulfills the major purposes?

Mr. ELL~NDER. They wanted to make it even stronger.

Mr. MUNDT. I had in mind particu­larly the objection of the Mexican Gov­ernment to draining away people just south of the border.

Mr. ELLENDER. That is a thing with which we shall still have to settle. I am convinced that the proposed law will per­mit our countTY to enter into more work­able agreements, agreements which will have a g~eater chanee of solving the wet­baek problem. As I stated when the bill was considered some time ago, I sympa­thize with the Mexican view. The econ­omy of Mexico is growing by leaps and bounds. Her industries are developing, and, of course, she needs a great many of the employees-who c<!>me to our coun­try. Particularly is that true in north­ern Mexico. The difference between· wages paid in the United States and wages in Mexico is so great that it acts as an inducement for Mexican laborers to leave their own country a.rul CQille lilere. TheDe is no doubt Jilbout that. Realizing that situa.tion, the Mexican Government is very amxiou.s ithat a l:!li'11 simrlar to the one now being 'C<msirlered be enacted.

Mr. McCLELLAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. ELLENDER. I yjeld. Mr. McCLELLAN. The distinguished

Senator :fTom 'f3'l1111th Dakota inquired about the Mexican Government's satis­faction with tbe law. Of .course I wish to satisfy the M.e:xU!an Government as muclil as ;r can. I am also mterested in kBIDwing iWh.ether the Amm-ieam !fmrmers, wliro exipeet 00> get tfilis . labor, are also g.enera1ly satisfied with the bilt

Mr. ELLENDER. I would s_ay they are. The main objections that we heard with re!er,ence to the pr.esent method of em­plG>y.Lng Mexican J.abQr centered amllllld the reqwr-ement--thre bond prnvision­'lrith whloh the Senator is familiar. Those objections ha-v.e been eliminated: Anotber oqjeetion w.as with reference to making it necessary for oul' own citizens to go into .Mexico to rtecruit labor. Un­deJ;. the bill the Mexican labor would be .selected b_y Government mfficials in Mex­ieo a:ad. 'blto'ught from certain pwints in Mexico to recruiting centers in the United States. At such recruiting cen­ters our employers will bargain with the Mexican laborers.

That is a prov.ision which employers, generally speaking, desire. Ii- will elim­iwt te quite .a lll>t !Gf eXi}i)'ense and it ma-y be possibie te obtain the services of a better class of Mexieans.

Mr. McCLELLAN. The senior Sen­ator from Louisiana is very much inter­ested in the pmblem, and I know he has wDDlted iVery !faithfully in order to g.et a g0od bill. I thougiht I understood him to say a minute ago that the bill is a de­cided improvement over the present met:lLod, under which we have operated so far.

Mil'. ELLENDER.. Y:es. I desire to '5tate that I honestly and sincerely be­lieve that it is the best that could be obtainable under the circumstances.

7522 CONGRESSIONAL . RECORD-SENATE JUNE 30

Mr. President, I should like to have incorporated as part of my remarks at this point in the RECORD a memoran­dum showing in detail the changes made in conference, and the statement of the managers on the part of the House.

The PRESIDING OFFICER <Mr. GEORGE in the chair). Is there ob­jection?

There being no objection, the memo­randum and statement were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: CHANGES MADE IN CONFERENCE TO S . 984 AS

PASSED BY THE SENATE JUNE 29, 1951 1. On page ·2, line 2, after the word "work­

ers" insert "who have resided in the United States for the preceding 5 years, or who are." A large number of Mexicans have lived in the United States for many years and ·have become permanent members of their com­munities, although they entered the coun­try illegally in the first place. They are to be distinguished from the so-called wet­back who simply comes into the country for a short period of time and then returns to Mexico. This amendment would make them eligible for recruitment under the program authorized by the bill, but ·the b~ll also provides that such an arrangement will be subject to agreement between the Gov­ernments of the United States and Mexico.

2. On page 3," line 16, strike out the figure "$20" and insert the figure "$15." This amendment would reduce the maximum re­imbursement to the G9vernment by employ­ers for transportation and subsistence of

' workers from $20 to $15. 3. On page 3, lines 20 and 21, strike out

"and is apprehended within the United States." This amendment provides in the case of a worker not being. returned to the reception center in accordance with the in· dividual work contract, that the employer would pay an amount equal to the normal cost of returning such worker from the place of employment to the reception center. The bill as. passed by the Senate would have provided that such reimbursement would be made only if the worker were appre­hended within the United States.

4. On page 4, line 16, after the word "in", insert "for not less than the· preceding 5 years or." This amendment corresponds to the amendment made on page 2 concerning those Mexicans who have resided in ·the country for a long period of time.

5. On page 6, line 18, strike out the period and insert the following: "horticultural em­ployment, cotton ginning, compressing and storing, crushing of oil seeds, and the pack­ing, canning, freezing, drying, or other proc­essing of perishable or seasonable agricul­tural products." This amendment provides that Mexicans could be employed in the above occupations in addition to the types of work defi"led as "agricultural employ­ment" in the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Internal Revenue Code.

6. On page 6, beginning on line 12, strike out sectiOWl 509. This amendment would strike out the Senate provision making em­ployment of any Mexican alien not lawfully within the United States a felony and pun­ishable by a fine not exceeding $2,000 or im­prisonment for a term not exceeding a year, or both, for each alien so employed.

7. On page 8, line 9, strike out the figure "1952" and insert "1953." This amendment would extend the termination date from December 31, 1952, to December 31, 1953.

STATEMENT OF MANAGERS ON THE PART OF

THE HOUSE

The managers on the part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the House to the bill S. 984, to amend the Agri-

cultural Act of 1949, submit the following statement in explanation of the action agreed upon by the conferees and recom­mended in the accompanying conference report,

The House amendment to the bill struck out all after the enacting clause and in­serted in lieu thereof the text of the House bill ( H. R. 3283) , which had been adopted by the House as reported by the Committee on Agriculture.

The bill as agreed upon by the committee of conference and recommended in the ac­companying report is a substitute in lieu of the amendment made by the House to the Senate bill. In the main it adopts most of the provisions of the Senate bill with the exception of section 509, which has been eliminated from the substitute agreed upon by the committee of conference.

GENERAL STATEMENT

The purpose of this bill is to authorize and implement an agreement wnh Mexico under which Mexican agricultural workers may be available when needed and, when such workers are not available from the do­mestic labor force, to assist in growing, har­vesting, and preparing for consumption crops grown in the United States. It is a bill which is of great interest and benefit to the consumer, as well as to the farmer en­gaged in the production of these crops, for, with the exception of cotton and sugar beets, almost all of the crops on which it is expected such labor may be needed are crops such as fruits and vegetables which move directly to the consumer. If there is in­sufficient labor to tend or harvest these crops, causing even a temporary shortage or ·dis­ruption of their movement to market, this is a situation which is certain to be felt im­mediately by consumers in the form of di­minished supplies of such fruits and vege­tables and higher prices for those which are on the market. It is essential to the stabili­zation of our economy that these agricul­tural commqdities be brought to market in sufficient volume to maintain stability of supplies and prices.

Differences between the House bill and the bill agreed upon by the committee of con­ference and recommended in the accom­panying report are explained below:

SECTION 501

The only change in this section is in sub­section ( 1) wher.e the committee of confer­ence has adopted the Senate language re­quiring that workers eligible for employment under this bill shall be in the United States under legal entry and has added a provision which will permit also the hiring of any Mexican national who has resided in the United States for the pl'evious 5 years. This will prevent the, hiring of so-called wet­backs under the contracts authorized by this bill but will permit those Mexicans who ac­tually have lived for many years in the United States, even though their entry might not have conformed to legal requirements, to obtain agricultural work. The committee of conference believes that this provision is necessary in essential justice to the many Mexicans who, because of the closeness of Mexico and the United States and the tra­ditional freedom of movement across the border, may have entered the United States without complying with immigration formal­ities, but who have been for many years continuous and useful residents in the United States. It should be remembered that even though such Mexicans may meet the requirements of this provision and be acceptable to their American employers, they still cannot be contracted without the consent of the Mexican Government.

SECTION 502

In subsection (2) the amount "$10" is changed to "$15."

SECTION 503

Two changes are made in this section: (1) The committee of conference has

accepted the Senate requirement that the determination as to the availability of domestic workers for agricultural purposes shall be made by the Secretary of Labor, instead of by the Regional Director, Bu­reau of Employment Security, United States Department of Labor for the area involved, as provided in the House bill. This appears to the committee of conference to be a relatively minor change, since the Regional Director works under and by delegation of authority from the Secretary of Labor and it is assumed by the committee of confer­ence that, inasmuch as time . is frequently of the essence in the hiring of agricultural labor and harvesting of agricultural crops, the Secretary of Labor will delegate to the Regional Director the authority to make these determinations where the time ele­ment is important and where reference to the Secretary himself would entail any measurable delay.

(2) The committee of conference also accepted the provision of the Senate bill requiring that the Secretary of labor must certify before foreign labor may be utilized under the terms of this bill that reasonable efforts have been made to attract domestic workers for such employment at wages and standard hours of work comparable to tl1ose offered to foreign workers. ·

SECTION 504

Two changes are made by the committee of conference in this section:

( 1) On page 4, line 12 of the House bill after the word "in" the words "for not less than the preceding 5 years or" have been

· added. This is the· same change made in section 501 (1) and was discussed under · the amendments to that section.

(2) The conference has accepted the pro­viso to this section contained in the Senate bill which provides that no workers shall be made available under the terms of this bill nor permitted to remain in the employ of any employer who is using "wetback" labor.

SECTION 508

In this section the committee of confer­ence has accepted the House language of subsection (1). This permits the employ­ment of workers made available under th~ bill in various types of processing -plants which are intimately related to and con­nected with the production of agricultural commodities anc:i which perform functions which must be carried out before those com­modities can be made available for use or ·consumption. Virtually all of these proc­essing plants are located actually out in the country or in small cities and towns which are entirely rural in character. They are affected by the same labor conditions which apply to the farms, orchards, and other agri­cultural operations in the area. In those few instances where processing plants of this type are located in larger cities-where there might be presumed to be some supply ·of domestic labor available-they will be nec­essarily removed from agricultural areas and environments to such an extent that the required certification by the Secretary of Labor that domestic labor is not available will in most instances amount to a certifi­cation for each individual plant.

In subsection (2) of section 508 the com­mittee of conference has adopted the Senate language which requires that associations who act as employers under the terms of this bill shall be acceptable for that purpose only if the individual members thereof are bound by the obligations made by the association or if the Secretary determines that such individual liability is not necessary.

1951 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-- SENATE 7523 DOUGI!AS AlilEN1DiUlM'1'

The committee of conference has elimi­nat ed from the bill se£tion 5D9 ot the Sen­ate bill. It has. done this on the grounds. that this geneal revision a1! tile immigration I.a ws is not germane to the purpose oi this bill, which is that of providing, statutory au­thority for the use of Mexican workers under a; contractual rela tionship betw~n the United States and Mexieo and with the wod:­ers them~s The: committee of eonfer­enee is symp,at:hetic to the 0bjeetives Of e.Mm­inating the abuses which haye. stemmed from the empl.oymen.t of wetback la.bar. It be--. lieves that the bill reported herewith will gQ. far in correcting that situation and that any general revision of the immigration laws which may be necessal'Y to fuirther improve this situation should be made by the com­mitt,ee:s of the respective Hau:ses having, a jurisdictiun a.vet' that subject matter. 'l'.he committe.e necognizes as a matte;r of general knowledge that such. legisla.llim ls now pend.­mg in the Senate and that the appropriate commtttee Of the House has undertaken hearings and inv~g-at1ons for the pmpose of bringing out sueh legislation in t .he Ho.use if it is found to be necessary.

The. committee> believes- that this bill will, in fact, do much to help- solve thU? vexing problem. li will provide an open door through which those Mexicans who want to work in the United Sta"tes. can enter and be employed here Iegal1y under terms . whi<:h will safeguard their rights and their inter­ests in ai naanner :fax betier than theyr could ever be saf.eguamed under- an~ f(i)r.m oi illegal entry and em.p1o?i1Ilent. It forbids any em­ployer who has, wetback. labor in. his employ­ment from obtaining assistance under the term'S of tlrls legislation. It thus makes tt di~tinctJ;y to the advantage of both the em­ployer and! the Mexican worker to operate on an en1i1'el:y legal basis under the pr~viskms o.f this bill.

Tbe PR~IDING OPFICER. The question is on ~greeing to th-e :report.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. Presi:G'€nt, I rise to obj~t to the oonferenee report. Ftrst I ask to haiv-e printed in the body of the Rl:CORD, a:t this point in my remarks, an editorial on the wetbaekp:roblem. rt was published in the San Francisoo Chroni­cle of recent date.

'I11ere being no- objection, fue editorial was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows~

AN ALIEN' PuzzLE' striking A. F. of L. faTm la bar unionists in

the Imperial Valley are ctnmatizfng then $?­an-hour-deman<is in 81 e<!Jnventional wage: dis­pute with the Imperial Valley' Parm.er&' As­sociation by an int.eresting stra.~m. They have beco.Inb voltunteer ·enforeers ill the im­migration :ta.ws oi two nati©ns-Mexhro and the United Stat.es--and pursuant thereto are rounding up some 300 Mexican wetback l'aDoref'S daily un'der citizen anest".

Since· a wet back is by definition an alien ill'egany present in tlJe. t:rnited sta~es. the fann uni.on. citizens a:re in the superfici:aniy imp:eeeable position. of helping Federal. of­ficers to enforce- the United States law~ Furthermme~ they a.re adw:ertently helping

--·-- Mexican consuls to e.nforce both Mexican laws, whieh condemn illegal passages across th :: international bot'~. a,n<i a Me~n agreement which cans rm the cleararu:e or all .Menean nationals f:wm a lahar dispute zone~

In uruierlaking the funct ion of sentinels for the sister Republic.s, however, the f.a.rm union strikers am treading upon a higply deiiea te and' immensely complicated ·inter­n a11funal situation, and tbat situation Is m.oSt probably no:t ~ to be hdped by .any such. self-interested t actical efforts as the strike~ are using.

Hun:gry-. jobless Mexicans beeom.e "wet­backs" b:y swimming across 9anals or streams at unguarded l!>order pain ts-or by walking ovel'. the border dlty-footed-in search of rel­atively well-paid American farm jobs. The annual "wetback" invasion of the Uni"ted states is tremendotrs; its extent is indieated by the faci that in 1950 some 565,000 ' et­backs'" were deported or voluntarily retun:ied to M.exicci (Not that many diff:erent indi­vkiuals. were deported, smee a consid.-erable number made. mo.re ~ one round trip..) This year an Immigration Service official esti­mates, the captures and enforced departmes arong the California, Arizona, New Mexico, and ':'exas borders may reach 800,000.

So oomm(i)n is the· practice of "wetbacks" to come· ba.ck over the border after having been deported J.ust oTer the line that the

. Immigration Serviee. has. inaugurated an air lift from the Imperial Valley y employing tbl:ee chartered planes to pick up the "wetbacks" and fly them 1,100 miles away- to Guadala­j'ara. "We have found that the mere shoving of Mexicans over the border iS futile," says R. R. Landan, regional Immigration Service. Director in Los Ange.Ies. "There ha~e been instances in which a single Mexican laborer has illegally crossed the bo~der as many as six times in 1 day. B'ut it's a long walk from Guadalajara.''

This deportatron proeed.UFe m111y be con­venient to the purp:Jses of the Immigration Bervice. but it raises the question o1 whether­it is legal to air-lift the unlucky "wetbacks" 'to a deep interior place, instead of ta the point of their illegal entry. We find the question disturbing. and ft is just one of the dfstUrbing 1t1Spects Of the problem.

Pundamentally, the illegal Mexiean en­trants are responding to an understandable economic push. As the President's Commis­sion on .Migratory Labor recently reported. in a thorough discussion of the · weftliack problem, farm wages in the north of Mexico •. near the border, are onl'y about 69 cents a day, in terms of United states money. On this side, wetbacks make around 25 cents an hour on the farms of the· Rio Grande Val­ley in Texas and around 40 eents an hour tn. the Imperial Valley, aeeording to the cam. mission's repOl't. These are. sky-high wages ­for the wetbacks in relation to wbat. they can earn a1i home, if and when there ar&

jobs tJ::rere at all; but they are depressed wages in relation to t he. general American &gricultura'f pay level. Th-at is a big ele­ment in the hostility of the Imperial Valley citizen strikers toward the wetbac)fs.

The farmers are caught between their need r-or seasonai:t, migratoey: labor. whether

- oJ legal or illegal origin, and their natmal desire to take adTaillt.age of a situation tend­ing toward lmw labm costs. 'l'be wetbadc. is wage exploitable because. as an igno;ran°" alien oi. illegal en.try, he .is in no position. to complain about the diffe.re.ntial between. what citize·n farm laborers earn and what ~gets. '

A llKlre tnvol'red conflict of ·e<:onomre ™'eds, eoonomie rights, human needs, and human right& than exists. tn. tb,e wetback problem would be baJ'd to imagine . . The President's Commission prcposes tD make it unlawful fOI farmers 'to employ wetbacks, and a: bill is now before. the Senate making it a fel.o,ny. But laws of Congress are not going to repeal the economic push that propels Mexican na­tionals fTOI!l th'eir town plazas . ovet the hor­de!" into the relative prosperity of migratory farm jobs, nor are bl.ws going to repeal the eoonomi.e need Qf the ~r-State faYmers for- ~nal field hands. ln Calif0ttnia we have lived with this problem, in differe.nt forins and in various al'eas. for a century, and nobody has yet come up with a good solution.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President,. in my opinion it would be better t.o bave no law

at all on the Mexican labor problem than to adC!>pt the conf ere.nce repart. I believe the conference report is bad in a great many ways. Its greatest weakness lies iu the fact that no advance is made. a.nd the wetback situation remains as a dis­graceful seal!' on the labor economy of our country.

One need read only the report of the President'"s Commission, headed b~ the Vel!'Y able citizen from North Carolina, Mr. Van Heelte, to l now whereof I speak. The report was before us when the bill was be-ing considered by the Senate~ The facts contained in the report a:re avail­able to Senators. and have been available during the past weeks. In my opinion what it i-e:vea.ls is no less than shocking. In view af the fact that this great objec­tive study on the itinerant labor problem in the United states has been made, and the facts are befo1--e us. we should insist now, when we have the first opportunity by way of legislation, on at least taking some action to better the situation, in­stead of adopting the report, which ad­mittedly really does oothing in regard to sol'Villg the wetback problem in the border states.

I would be opPQSed to the reporl if for no o.ther reason than that facts are be­fore us which call ujJan us to take action to end this kind of human exp:Witation. We are doing nothing about it in the conference repcrt bill. In fact the re­port eliminates the one amendlnent we were able to attach to, the bill when it was before the Senate. We tried to take positive ae-tion to check at least the type oi hum.an degradation which character­izes the wetback problem among the border states~ The failure of the con­ference report to deal Wiith that problem makes it impossible for me to support the report.

Secondly~ I wish tu say that l am ap­pesed to the report because ii oontinues a type of unfair discrimination against other states. ill effect-and I say it most respect!uDy~the net result of the bill would be to continue in the border States fue opportunity to get. cheap labor, to the detriment of American lab.or in general The Van Heeke repoJrt points out that if we really wish to organize properl'F and administer effec­tively the itine..rant labor problem, we would PJ'O'W.de decent standards of living for itinerant la.boJ', and reeogni~e that the harvesting of seasonal cJ"ops~ which requires a large m.un~ of itinerant laborers. is a national. problem. The whole burden oj it should not be placed upon the particular area which has im­mediate need oi. the labcnr, but~ fOF the good of the economy o.f our country, should be handled. on a national scale~ If Congress would act a.long those lines, we would not have the kind of problem that is attempted to be alleviated by the pending bill which is now before the Senate in the farm of a conference rePort.

The Van Hecke :report states that the only effective way of treating the itiner­ant-labor problem i$ by way of a long­rang~ program, on a national basis. To the extent that we need foreign labor,

e n.e£d it this sea50Il. on an emergency basis, because of our failure in the past

7524 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE JUNE 30

to handle this problem on a national basis. We do not have a long-range program. To the extent that we need the foreign itinerant labor this year to meet the emergency labor needs in handling our harvests, we need it beyond the border States, too. We need it in other sections of the country as well.

Certain proposals were made in the Senate to solve this problem. The Sen­ator from Minnesota [Mr. THYEJ al­luded to them a few moments ago. Pro­posals were made to establish reception centers in other areas of the country, beyond the border States. As shown by the yea-and-nay votes, we were met with almost united opposition by Sen­atars from States which would benefit particularly under the conference report bill. We tried to point out that the bill in its present form discriminates against other sections of the country. We could not get very far in the Senate in the ef­fort to have adopted an amendment which would have provided for the es­tablishment of reception centers in the Pacific Northwest, the Northwest, and in the Northeast, as well, if there was need for labor there, and which would have provided for the Government pay­ine the transportation cost from Mexico to the !'eception centers, where Ameri­can farmers could enter into contracts with Government officials for the work-· ers, and pay the transportation cost from the reception centers to the farms.

Oh, no, we could not get that kind of cooperation from most border-State Sen­ators in order to make it a fair bill and a nondiscriminatory bill. It had to go through the Senate in the form in which it was reported from the committee ex­cept for such changes as the Douglas amendment. In my judgment, the con­ference report, if adopted, will result. primarily in giving to the border states the cheap labor which they seek and de­sire, as against farmers in .other sec­tions of the country, who for this .sea­son need emergency relief by way of itinerant farm workers.

Fur thermore, it is difficult for me to believe that the Mexican Government would ever subject its citizens to what I believe will be the hardships result ing from the terms of the bill. I am hope­ful that the Mexic2,n Government will teach us a lesson by making it clear to us that if this is the best we can do to eliminate the kind of exploitation the Van Hecke report pointed out, they will not consummate any agreement with the American Government to give effect to the law.

I am perfectly aware of the fact that my voice is a voice in the wilderness this afternoon, because there will be suf­ficient votes to adopt the report. How­ever, I will make my record against it. I will make the record in the hope that in due time the Senate will proceed to take action which will meet the recom­mendations of the Van Hecke · report, and that we will adopt a program which will so raise the standards for Amer­ican farm workers that we will have enough American workers to do the job.

Mr. CHAVEZ. Mr. ·President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. MORSE. I will not yield at this time. As the Van Hecke report points out, we have the workers in this coun­try to do the job if we will only take the steps necessary to see to it that their standards of labor are decent and re­spectable. No one will have any reason to doubt the situation which exists in this country if he will only do what I have done on more than one occasion, namely; really inspect some of the itinerant-worker camps and the itiner­ant-worker conditions which exist. They are shameful; they are a disgrace to the American people, and they should demand that their elected representa­tives remedy the situation by enacting proper and effective legislation and not such legislation as is proposed by the pending bill.

Mr. President, because I think a full quorum should be on the floor of the Senate before the conference report is adopted, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, will the Senator withhold that suggestion?

Mr. MORSE. No; I will not withhold my suggestion of the absence of a quo­rum. I think a quorum should be here now.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the rc.ll.

The Chief Clerk called the roll, and the following Senators answered to their names: Aiken Anderson Butler, Nebr. Cain " Capeh art Carlson Case Chavez Clemen t s Connally Cordon Dirksen Duff Dworshak Ellender Ferguson Fulbright George Gillette Green Hayden

Hendrickson Hennings Hickenlooper Hoey Holland Humphrey Ives Johnson, Tex. Kem Kerr Know land Langer Lehman Long Magnuson Malone Maybank McCarran McClellan McFarland McKellar

Millikin Monroney Moody Morse Mundt Neely Nixon Robertson Sch oeppel Sparkman St ennis Taft Thye Tobey Underwood Watkins Welker Wh erry Wiley Young

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I announce that the Senators from Connecticut [Mr. · BENTON and Mr. MCMAHON]' the Sena­tor from Virginia [Mr. BYRD], the Sen­ator from Illinois [Mr. DouGLAsJ, the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. EASTLAND], the Senator from Delaware [Mr. FREAR], the Senator from Alabama [Mr. HILL], the Senators from Wyoming [Mr: HUNT and Mr. O'MAHONEY], the Senator from Colorado [Mr. JOHNSON], the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. KEFAUVER], the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. KIL­GORE], the Senator from Maryland [Mr. O'CoNOR], the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. PASTORE], the Senator from Georgia [Mr. RussELL], and the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. SMITHJ are absent on official business.

The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. JOHNSTON] is absent on official commit­tee business.

The Senator from Montana [Mr. MURRAY] is absent by leave of the Senate on official business, having been ap­pointed a representative of our Govern­ment to attend the International Labor

Conference being held in Geneva, Swit­zerland.

The Senator from Florida [Mr. SMATHERS] is absent because of -illness. · · ·

Mr. WHERRY. I announce hat the Senator from Utah [Mr. BENNETT], the Senators from Maine [Mrs. SMITH and Mr. BREWSTER], the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. BRIDGES], the Senator from Montana [Mr. ECTON], the Senator from Vermont [Mr. FLANDERS], the Sen­ator from Massachusetts [Mr. LoDGE], the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. McCARTHY], the Senator from Massa­chusetts [Mr. SALTONSTALL], and the Senator from Delaware [Mr. WILLIAMS] are absent on official business.

The Senator from Ohio [Mr. BRICKER], the Senator from Maryland [Mr. BUTLER], and the Senator from New Jer­sey [Mr. SMITH] are necessarily absent.

The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. MARTIN] is absent because of illness.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quo­rum is present.

The question is o:n agreeing to the conference report.

Mr. CHAVEZ. Mr. President, I shall not take very much of the time of the Senate, but I think a record should be made, and that the American people should know what would be done if this conference report should be adopted.

First, I invite the attention of the Senate to the record and history of the past 10 years. Our political thinking and our so-called philosophy of govern­ment have resulted in hundreds of thou­sands of white crosses over the graves of American boys. It was hoped that they had not died in vain. It was hoped that they ha;d died in an effort to carry for­ward an idea. We sermonize all over the world, asserting that we are for free peoples, and we suggest to the Congress the appropriation of funds out of the pockets of the American taxpayers in order to help so-called forgotten people, or those who are not doing very well.

If it were not for such legislation as the Senate is now called upon to pass, we would not need the .four-point pro·­gram. If we were more opposed to im­perialism and colonialism, even in eco­nomics, we would not need a point 4 program, or even need to talk about for­gotten peoples.

Mr. President, I congratulate my good friend the senior Sena tor from Louisiana [Mr. ELLENDER]. I think he has a fair bill, as a whole, but I, for one, do not believe in slave labor, even if it happens to involve a Mexican. I prefer the phi­losophy of Jefferson, who said that the Government should be for people in­stead of for dollars. It seems to be the trend of the moment to · forget about humanity and to take advantage of an opportunity to make a measly dollar. Then we talk about doing something tor free people all over the world.

Does the Senate know why there are backward people in Iran and Saudi­Arabia? It is because of the basic idea in the bill which the Senate is asked to approve this afternoon. Do Senators know why there are starving Mexicans? It is because we are so anxious to make 10 cents or a dollar. Do we mean what we say? There is colonialism in Indo-

1951 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 7525 china, in Java, and elsewhere, and there are many backward people there. That situation is fostered by the basic idea and philosophy of the pending legisla­tion, because it is not based upon hu­manity; it is not based upon freedom about which we love to boast and about which we do so little. It is based upon permitting a few people to take advan­tage of someone who is hungry. That is what it is, purely and simply.

I invite the attention of every Senator to the fact that a seat in the United States Senate is not worth that kind of action. I pref er to convey to the Ameri­can people the idea that I believe in those things which made the Declara­tion of Independence possible. . There are :;,>robably those who do not like what I am saying, but I still say it. Fighting for things which I do not feel I should fight for is not worth a seat in the United States Senate.

Mr. President, only a few years back some of our ancestors left Europe or elsewhere to come to America. For what reason? In order to take advan­tage of the sacred freedom of this coun­try.

Without questioning the motives of a single Member of this body, I say that approval of this bill is contrary to com­mon American fair play and decency.

Mr. ROBERTSON. Mr. President, I do not want to discuss either the Mexi­can labor bill or what may come out of the conference on the .appropriation bill. I just reached the Chamber thinking that we were called here to adopt the conference report on the continuing res­olution to finance the Government for another month. There was extended debate this week on the defense-produc­tion bill. It involved a fundamental principle in which I am deeply inter­ested, and in which I think every Amer­ican is interested, namely, the proper conception of property, the right to own property, and the qualified right to use it.

I have prepared a statement which I have entitled "The Christian View of Property," which I hope to be able to pres:mt to the Senate when I can be rec­ognized next Tuesday, because I think it has a very direct bearing on what we are trying to do in a war emergency, namely, to place temporary restraints on the use of property without violating a very fundamental and Christian principle with respect to the private ownership of property.

Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, I only wish to say that the bill is far from be­ing a perfect bill. it is a regional bill. I do not think it can be considered a bill to produce and conserve harvests and conserve food and fiber generally over the United States. It is a bill which is, in effect, a step toward more orderly methods of importing Mexican farm la­bor into the Southwestern States of the United States. I might say that it is not satisfactory in many respects, so far as I am concerned, and I so advised the conference committee. However, it is better than no bill at all, and it appeared to be the best the conferees could get.

The House accepted the so-called Humphrey amendment which provides

that the Secretary of Labor-not the re­gional director for the States, but the Secretary of Labor himself-must deter­mine that labor is not available in the area where it is to be used. The Secre­tary of Labor also has to determine that the employment of such Mexican labor­ers will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of domestic ag­ricultural workers similarly employed. So if we call this a slave-labor bill, we have really got to assume that the Sec­retary of Labor will permit the use of slave labor here in the United States. That, I believe, would be an unwarrant­ed assumption.

I should have liked to have the Doug­las amendment, so-called, remain in the bill, although I think that the penalties provided were too strong. ·The Douglas amendment provided that anyone who knowingly employed a Mexican alien or had reasonable grounds to believe or suspect or by reasonable inquiry could r..ave ascertained that such alien is not lawfully within the United States would be guilty of a felony, subject to a' fine of $2,000, or 1 year's imprisonment, for employing such Mexican alien. I thought those penalties were too stiff· and the House preferred to have no bili at all rather than to have the Douglas amendment remain in the bill. They said it would affect several thousand of the older Mexican people along the bor­der who admittedly are in this country illegally, and have been for 10, 15, 20, or 30 years, living with their children, who, in the majority of cases, are Ameri­can citizens. The Immigration Service apparently has let them remain.

However, if we are to have a penalty for the employment of alien labor in the United States I think that it is un­fair to impose that penalty on farmers along the Mexican border alone. If it­is to be a felony to employ alien labor illegally in the United States, I believe that the penalty should apply to the employer in New York City or Brooklyn or Chicago or any other section of the country, and also to aliens from any part of the world, whether Mexico or Italy or Germany or any other place.

Mr. CHAVEZ. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. AIKEN. I yield. Mr. CHAVEZ. I agree completely with

the Senator from Vermont that the pen­alty should apply to all. One of the objections to the bill is that its provi­sions are not confined to Mexican aliens alone.

Mr. AIKEN. That is true. Mr. CHAVEZ. One objection I ad­

vanced was that- it does not apply to aliens from any other part of the world; that when we make it a criminal offense and apply penalties with respect to Mex­icans the penalties should apply to the whole international picture; that if a · penalty is provided for bringing in a Mexican illegally, the same penalty should apply to bringing in a Peruvian or a Cuban, or a person of any other nationality. My objection to confining the legislation to Mexican labor is that it applies to them alone, although there is a class of workers from other places \vho need work of this kind.

Mr. AIKEN. The legislation applies to the Mexican nationals, because the Mexican Government insisted on some form of regulation for importation of laborers from that country into this country.

Mr. LANGER. Mr. President will the Sena tor yield? '

Mr. AIKEN. I yield. Mr. LANGER. Not being a member

of the committee, I should like to ask the distinguished Senator from Vermont a question. Suppose some poor citizen of the United States wanted to go to Mexico to work in Mexico, what laws are there in Mexico that would take care of such a laboring man from the United States?

Mr. AIKEN. I have not heard of any but I have not heard of any poor citi­zens of the United States who wanted to go to Mexico to work. The ones who want to go to Mexico are generally pretty well to do.

Mr. LANGER. Are we receiving rec­iprocity from Mexico with respect to the labor situation?

Mr. AIKEN. I do not know that Mex­ico objects to American labor coming into Mexico. I know that Americans go to Mexico and operate ranches and businesses of different sorts. They are under the Mexican laws when they oper­ate in Mexico.

Mr. LANGER. I have a very distinct recollection of a friend of mine who went to Mexico to work on a railroad. The treatment received by hiJ;n was quite dif- . ferent from the treatment accorded citi­zens of the United States who work on railroads in this country.

Mr. AIKEN. Whenever I have re­ceived complaints of unfair treatment in Mexico-and I have received such complaints-I have taken them up with the State Department, which has made representations to the Mexican Govern­ment, and so far such difficulties have been straightened out. Of course, I do not know how long that situation will continue.

Another amendment which I reluc­tantly agreed to was the one which ex­tended the definition of agricultural labor so as to include cotton ginning, crushing of oil seed, packing, and can­ning. There again the Secretary of Labor has to find that there is -no Amer­ican labor available; that there is dis­tinct need for the Mexican labor, and that the employment of such labor will not affect the wages and working con­ditions of domestic agricultural work­ers. We have that safeguard.

I do not know whether the Mexican Government would carry out the threat, or promise, not to permit its nationals to come to this country to work after July 1 or not, but in any case it is be'"ter to hav.e them come under an orderly and legal arrangement.

Again I want to say that I did not find this bill satisfactory in some respects. It does appear, however, to be a step toward the orderly handling of the im­migration of foreign workers. If the Secretary of Labor exercises complete vigilance I think that no damage will come from it.

/

7526 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE JUNE 30

So far as the wetback situation goes, with no legislation at all I would expect the situatlon to be worse than it would be if we have a bill which is not satisfac­tory, but which goes part way toward solving the problem.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the conference report.

Mr. CAIN. Mr. President, I wanted, sir, to suggest that my good friend from Oregon [Mr. MoRsEJ is riot always cor­rect when he sometimes states that he speaks for no one other than himself. A few minutes ago the Senator from Ore­gon said that he was raising his voice in the wilderness against the weaknesses .apparent to him in the conference report. My wish is to say to the Senator from Oregon that he . has some company in that wilderness. The Senator from Washington has generally agreed with the views expressed by the Senator from Oregon today, and wishes to .associate himself with that position.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, will the Sena tor yield?

Mr. CAIN. I yield. Mr. MORSE. It is still a pretty black

wilderness. Mr. CAIN. It has more life in it than

the Senator began with. I thought that fact ought to be brought to his attention.

Mr. MORSE. I thoroughly enjoy the company of the Senator from Washing­ton.

Mr. CAIN. I thank the Senator from . Oregon.

Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. CAIN. I yield. · Mr. MUNDT. I wonder if the Senator from· Washington wishes to modify the generality to apply specifically to this legislation, rather than all matters in­volving public questions.

Mr. CAIN. I thought I made myself clear on that subject. I make haste to do so. I was referring only-as an ex­ception in itself-to the present question.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the conference report. · ·

Mr. WILEY. Mr. President, I did not quite get the import of the statement of the Senator from Washington. Am I to understand that the Senator from Wash­ington and the Senator from Oregon are adrift in the wilderness?

Mr. CAIN. I think I shall not bother at the moment to answer that conclu­sion, erroneous as it is.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The . question is on agreeing to the confer­ence report.

The report was agreed to. EXE.'MPTION OF STATE OR LOCAL HYDRO­

ELECTRIC POWER PROJECTS ON NON:. NAVIGABLE STREAMS FROM CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE FEDERAL POWER ACT

Mr. BUTLER of Nebraska. Mr. Pres­ident, on behalf of myself and my col­league the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. WHERRY], I ask unanimous consent to introduce a bill to exempt hydroelectric power projects constructed by State or local governmental agencies on non.:

navigable streams from certain of the provisions of the Federal Power Act.

The · bill was prepared by the Legisla­t::-. tive Committee of. the National Rec­lamation Association and has been ap­proved by the association's board of di­rectors, and is in conformity with Reso­lution No. 17 of the association, adopted at its Spokane, Wash., meeting of Novem­ber 1950.

Under existing law, the present situa­tion is that any State or public agency thereof which proposes to build a hydro­electric power project on a stream, is required under provisions of the Federal Power Act to file a declaration of inten­tion, including plans and specifications, with the Federal Power Commission. If upon investigation, the Commission finds that the proposed construction affects the interests of interstate or foreign commerce, such works may be construct­ed only under a license issued by the Cammission. Such license may run for 50 years, and shall contain a provision by which the United States, upon or after expiration of the license period, may thereafter operate and maintain such works upon payment of certain costs to the licensee. This provision is called the recapture clause.

This bill proposes the amendment of the Federal Power Act-Sixteenth United States Code, pages 791a-825u-for the purposes of invalidating the recapture clauses in all existing licenses under which State public agencies are now op­erating, and extinguishes such recapture rights as to future projects, contingent upon certain findings of the Secretary of the Army relating to navigability of the streams in the Nation.

The bill further exempt3 from the jurisdiction of the Federal Power Com­mission all project works, as defined in the bill, which any State public agency intends to construct on any stream, also contingent upon the same findings re­specting navigability.

The Federal Power Act when applied . to publicly owned projects is expensive, serves no useful purpose, and is unfair. I offer the following illustrations in sup­port of this statement:

First. It is expensive: For example, it cost the central Nebraska public power and irrigation district of Nebraska $48,-856.82 to prepare and file the report of its actual legitimate original cost. This job is not done yet. The district paid to the Federal Power Commission as annual charges for 1950, $7,649.25. Sub­stantially the same sum is paid each year. The district is required to prepare an annual report, Form No. 1, of about 75 pages. This report covers the year's op­erations. It is also required to file a report annually of about 18 pages on FPC Form No. lA. Then the district has to file a report pursuant to Com~

. mission Order No. 143, showing the pro­duction and distribution in kilowatt­hours of its power.

This district is also required to file with the regional office of the Federal Power Commission in Chicago annually, FPC Form No. 12-A, showing capacities and production and incidental data rel­ative to each of its power plants, and is also required to file monthly construc­tion. progress reports, detailed rep'orts

on operating conditions, power-produc­tion reports, financial statement, and reports on hydraulic operations.

All of these numerous and sundry re­ports take a great amount of time to prepare and cost public agencies a sub­stantial amount of money. This cost, of course, has to be passed on to the power users and users of irrigation water.

Second. It serves no useful purpose: All of this expense and inconvenience could be tolerated without complaint if it served any real purpose or did anyone any substantial amount of good, but it does not. Certainly the public agency receives no benefit. The Federal Power Commission does not control power rates or irrigation rates where this service is included. It has no control over opera­tions. The only use the Federal Power Commission can make of these annual reports is to determine how much it in­tends to assess public agencies in annual charges.

Third. It is unfair: The Federal Power Act provides that at the termination of the license the Federal Government can, by making certain payments, take over the project.

The Nebraska project I have men­tioned, in common with similar projects in the country, are operated by State agencies. They are under the control of the people of a State through its legisla­ture. The Nebraska streams from which these projects take their waters are nonnavigable. If these projects ef­fect navigation in the Missouri River that effect is beneficial. It has been s~ found by the Federal Power Commission as to these Nebraska projects and is so recited in their licenses. The waters these "projects use are strictly the prop­erty of the State. These State agencies confine their activities to the State of Nebraska. Why any Federal Bureau under these circumstances should have the power to take away from the people of a State a power system the people themselves own, and which they control, is a question which cannot be logically answered by anyone who believes in de­mocracy and the right of the people to run their own affairs.

There is no logical reason why the people of any State should be compelled to pay annual charges to the Federal Government for which they receive no benefits in return.

The change in the law advocated by the National Reclamation Association should be adopted.

I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the RECORD at this point as a part of my remarks.

There being no objection, the bill <S. 1789) limiting the application of the Federal Power Act as to States and mu­nicipalities, and for other purposes, in­troduced by Mr. BUTLER of Nebraska (for himself and Mr. WHERRY), was received, read twice by its title, referred to the Committee on Public Works, and or­dered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

Be it enacted, etc.-SECTION 1. This act .shall be applicable to

dams and project works built or intended to be built by States and municipalities across, along, or in navigable waters within the United States.

1951 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE 7527 SEC. 2. (a) The word "mulliclpal:ity" _means

A city. county, district, or <>the!' ptilitieal subd.i'visions or public agency of a State.

(b) The pmjj,se "project works" means an dams and works comprised in and ap­purtenant to the affected dams, reservoirs, diversion <Channels, power.hlmSes, water poweT and electric generating an1i trans­mitting equipment anu facilities.

SEc. 3. Aftier p.assage of "this act :any State -or municipality intending 1lD construct on any stream or str-eams ,any pmject works, for which it would otherwise be required by -the Federal Powe- :A-et to fi.1~ '8. a.ec'laration of intention with ':the Feder.al Power Com-

. mission, .shall not lbe :ire:quired oo file such declaration with the Commission _nor to .obtain any preliminary permit or Ueense therefor, if the Secretary ·Qf the y shs.11 .find and certify. upon :application nf .such .State or municipality~ either that such 'Stream is not navigable in tact, or that such pr.oject works will .not materially and ad­versely affe~t tbe navigability of waters then being used or "improved for navigation.

&c. 4. Any staiie or municipality which as .heretofc.me .obtalned .a J.toense under the

Federal Power Act and which would not, under tile terms of this act, be required to obtain such license, ma.J file with the See­retary of the Army a .presentation of the facts -with -reference to its prnject wOiks and lf th~ Se«~retary uf the ~rmy shall find and certify, either that the stream or streams are not navtgab11:l in .fa'Ct, .or that such proJ­eet works will nut .materially and adversely alfect thl:} na.vi'gability of waters then 'being used or improved for navigation, or will impr.Ov1l tbe navigability of such waters, or :provide n. better .navigation .route, the license sh-all terminate, and .such State or munici­pality may .Complete -com;truction, main­tain, and operaiie the dam and project works without :such license, .and 'the Fe.da-al Power Commission shall exercise no control over such projects thereafter. Projects IQn na-vi­gable streams shall comply fully with the regulations oI the Corps of Engineers of the United. States Anny 1"or the operation and maintenance of navigation facilities.

SEc. 5. An:y .tights reserved in "the -United States by the Federal Power Aci or by -a;ny license or permit ther.eunder to take over and thereafter to maintain and operate any project works "Constructed or owned by a ~tate or municipality upon or r.fter th'e · .expiration of _a; license ar.e hereby -relin­guished as to lleenses heretofore gnmted. and uo such .rights shall exist as to project works hereafter constructed by State or municipalities.

RECESS

"Mr. HOEY. Mr. President. if no oth'er Senator has anything he wishes to bring up at this time, I move that the Senate standjn recess for a few minutes, subject to the call of the Chair.

The motion was agreed to; and <at 3 o'-clock arr.:i 19 minutes p. m.) the Senate took a reeess, subject to the call of the Chair.

At 4 o'clock and 50 minutes p. m., the E'ienate reassembled when called to order by the Presiding Officer <Mr. GEORGE in the Chair~ .

MESSAGE FROM THE HO-USE

A message from the House of Repre­sentatives by Mr.Maurer. one oi its re.ad­ing clerks, .announced that the House had agreed to the report of the commit­tee of conf e.rence on the disagreeing votes of the two Ruuses on th~ amend­~nt cif the Hm1se to the bi11 (8. '9~4) to amend the Agricultural Act'1>f 1949.

The message also -announced that the House had disagreed to the amendments

of the Senate to the joint resolution <H. J. Res. i77) making temporary ap­propriations for the fisea1 year 1-952, and for other purposes; agreed to the eon­fe,t1enee asked by the Senat-e on the dis­agreeing votes of the two Houses thereon, -and that Mr. CANNON, Mr. RoONEY, Mr. GARY, Mr. 81I'EFAN, 'Rnd Mr. CLEVENGER were appointed managers on the -part of the House at the ronferenoe.

Mr. McFARLAND. Mr . .Presitlent, a parliamentary inquiry.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it .

Mr. McFARLAND. 'Ille Senate has already appointed conferees on the part of the Senate, has it not"?

The PRESIDING OFFJCER. That is correct; the conferees -were appointed yesterda-y.

RECESS

Mr. McFARLAND. Mr. President, I inove that the Senate stand in recess sub­ject t.o the eall of the Chair.

The motion was agreed to; .:and (at 4 -0'eloek and 51 minutes p. m. > the Sen­ate took a recess, sub~. to the ea11 of the Chair.

At '8 o'clock .and 15 minutes p . .m.. the Senate· .reassembled, when called to ()r­der by the President pro tempore.

MESSAGE FROM THE 'HOUSE

A message from the House of Repre­sentatives, by Mr. Maurer, one of its reading clerks, announced that the Huuse had agreed to the report of the com­mittee 'Of conference on the disagreeing

· votes of the two Houses on the amend­ments of the Senate to the joint resolu­tion <H. J. Res. 277) making temporary .appropriations fDr the .fiscal year 1952, and !or other purposes.

TEMPORARY APPROPRIATIONS, 1952-CONFERENCE REPORT

Mr. HAYDEN. Mr. President, I sub­mit a roeport oi the committee of eonter­ence on the disagreeing JJotes of t~ two

·Houses on the amendments of the Sen­ate to the joint resolution <H. J. Res. 277) making temporary appropriations for the fiscal year 1952, and ior other purposes, .and I ask unanimous consent for lts 1mmediate consideration.

The PRESIDENT _pro tempore. The report will be read .!or the inf ol'mation of the Senate.

The report w.as read. (For conference report, see House pro­

ceedings of today, pp. 7542-"7..543.) The PRESIDENT pro tempore. ls

thei·e objection to the present consider­ation of the conference report?

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the report.

Mr. HAYDEN. Mr. President. I move the adoption of the conference report.

Mr. CASE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield fo·r a question?

Mr. "!:AYDEN. I yield. Mi:-. CASE. As the .Senator knows, he

and I were discussing the provisions of the conference report a minute or two ago. I should like to ask him now the question which I then asked.

With respect to the appropriations for mutual defense assistanee and economic cooperation aid, -and other like measures for the foreign -aid program which have not yet been brought before the Can-

gress, is it understood that the appro­priations authorized by House Joint Res­olution 277 for the ensuing month are only for that month, and do not neces­sarily establish any rate of anticipated appropriation for the regular appropri­ation bill when it comes before us?

Mr. HAYDEN. They are not in any sense a pattern. They are ba'Sed upon past performance, during this year. Furthermure, I may say to th-e S-en.ator that it is contemplated that whatever sums are appropriated by this joint reso­lutiun, the a.mounts appropriated for the month of July will be deducted from the a:ppropriations which are made for the 1'2-month period .

Mr. CASE. So the Congress is left free to act upon those appropriations on their merits?

Mr. HAYDEN. There is nnthing bind­ing in this. measure.

Mr. CASE. I thank the Senator. Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, will

the Senator yield for a further ques­ti'On?

Mr. HAYDEN. I yield. Mr. FERGUSON. It also should be

understood by the Senate, as w.ell as by the Gnvernment -departments and agen­cies, that with respeet to provisions, with re'latinn to the 10-percent- reduction of personnel, chauffeurs, publicity agents, and various other things placed in ap­propriation bills, it should not be taken f-0r granted that such provisions are be-

. ing eliminated. Mr. HAYDEN. Again, that is a mat­

ter which will have to be dispused of by the Congress.

Mr. President, I move the adoption of the .conference report .

The PRESIDENT pro tempo.re. The question is on .agreeing to the confer­ence repnrt.

The report was agreed . to. .AUTHORIZATION FOR SIGN.ING ENROLLED

BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS DUR­ING RECESS

.Mr. HAYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that during the re­cess fnllowing today's session·, the Pre­siding Officer be authorized to sign duly enrolled bills and joint resolutions passed by both Houses.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. With­out objection, it is so ordered.

RECESS TO MONDAY

Mr. HAYDEN. I move that the Sen­ate stand in recess until 12 .o'clock noon on Monday next.

The motion was agreed to; and <at 8 o'clock and l9 minutes p. m.) the Sen­ate took a recess until .Monday, July 2, 1951, at 12 o'cl-ock meridian.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SATURDAY, JUNE 30, 1951

The House met at 12 o'clock noon. The Cha-plain, Rev. Bernard Bras­

kamp,. D. D., offered the following prayer:

Most merciful n.nd gracious God, grant that in our moments of prayer our minds and hearts may be purged from