Page images
PDF
EPUB

more publicity dealing with the long investigations and exposures of communism than any other subject that has been under investigation since the beginning of this Republic. We have filled hundreds of file cabinets with information that we have obtained. As a matter of fact, in 1938 and 1939 we seized the records of all the Communist organizations in the United States under subpena duces tecum, and as a result of all those hearings-hearings which occupied the attention of committees and subcommittees in every State and city in every section of the United States, we reached certain conclusions. We have published time and time again the findings and conclusions of the committees. Every committee has agreed in its conclusions. Every committee and court which has considered this question has agreed that the Communist conspiracy is a criminal and a treasonable conspiracy; that Communists preach and practice the planning and perpetration of crime in order to achieve their purpose. In view of all of that, it seems to me that the time has now come when the Congress of the United States ought to spell out in clear and understandable language that this conspiracy is a crime. We certainly characterize theft or murder as a crime. No one contends that that will eliminate those crimes by declaring such actions to be crimes and punishing them as crimes. But when we declare this conspiracy to be a crime, its effect in the United States and throughout the world will be far-reaching. From the very beginning, we have been in an inconsistent attitude. On the one hand, we attempt to deal with the Communists and on the other hand we recognize the legality of the Communist apparatus. If it had not been for that apparatus, they never would have made any progress in this country. It was not what the hard core Communists were able to achieve that constituted the greatest threat to us. It was the fact that they were able to use this legal apparatus as a window dressing in order to deceive gullible and unthinking people. It was the fact that they were able to do what Earl Browder recently said in a statement which was published in New York newspapersable to enlist the support and aid of prominent people, Government officials, civic leaders all over the United States. That was what gave what gave strength and vitality to the Communist movement in the United States.

Until the time comes that we are willing to face this problem realistically and deal with it courageously and realistically, we can never cope with the Communist menace in this country or abroad. The subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary has been conducting hearings for some time under the very able leadership of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. GRAHAM] and his able subcommittee. They have accorded the privilege to all of the interested parties to appear before the committee and testify. In fact, they have held exhaustive hearings. It seems to me the time has now come for the committee to report out my bill or any bill which will outlaw the Communist Party and which will deprive it of its legal rights and say to

the people of our country and to the world, "We regard this as a criminal conspiracy and we will not permit it to exist legally in the United States." When we do that, we will announce to the world that we mean what we say when we say we are opposed to communism.

Mr. Speaker, the Attorney General recommended a bill which he calls a bill to deal with Communist infiltrated organizations, labor organizations. I have read that bill. I think it is a bad bill as now drawn. I think if any bill would jeopardize civil liberties and delegate tremendous Executive power, without adequate safeguards and restriction, that bill would do it. Why do we want to continue to beat around the bush? Why undertake to deal with a cancer by palliatives? Why try to treat sympWhy try to treat symptoms when we can by legislative decree declare that this whole conspiracy was conceived in iniquity, that it is opposed to the Constitution of our country and to the spirit of American freedom?

I urge the subcommittee to do a necessary and constructive thing, regardless of party politics or the views of the Attorney General or anyone else, and bring my bill out to the floor and there will not be a single vote in opposition to it.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DIES] has expired.

Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time. Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.

The

The previous question was ordered. The SPEAKER pro tempore. question is on the resolution. The resolution was agreed to. Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, I move Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H. R. 9580) to revise and extend the laws relating to espionage and sabotage, and for other purposes.

The motion was agreed to.

Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill H. R. 9580, with Mrs. ST. GEORGE in the chair.

The Clerk read the title of the bill. By unanimous consent, the first reading of the bill was dispensed with.

The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. GRAHAM] will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from New York [Mr. CELLER] will be recognized for 30 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. GRAHAM].

Mr. GRAHAM. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

The purpose of this bill is to strengthen the internal security of the United States by amending statutes relative to espionage, sabotage, and the registration of foreign agents.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York [Mr. CELLER] is recognized.

Madam Chairman, although I am not satisfied with many provisions of the bill, I am not opposed to its general intent and purpose. I shall not oppose this bill, but I desire solemnly, deliberately, and objectively to make 1 or 2 observations concerning a very important segment of the bill, and that concerns making peacetime espionage a capital offense. For a society which takes pride in the high value it places on human life, we can find little justification for the extension of the death penalty for peacetime espionage. Why do we do this? Do we expect the penalty to act as a deterrent? Yet criminologists, like Barnes, Jonsen, Taft, Schussler, all eminent in the field, together with a host of others, insist that it is not so. The threat of punishment is among the least considered of all factors by those intent upon the commission of crime. That holds good for a political crime.

It has been pointed out again and again that juries are less willing to convict when the possible penalty is death. Those of us who have had wide courtroom experience know this to be so. Hence, what do we hope to accomplish? An act of revenge? Or retribution? This is the death penalty, I beg you to note, for peacetime espionage. This means the heightening of emotionalism in an area where, by all means, good sense and rationality must prevail.

Prof. George B. Vold, of the University of Minnesota, has said:

In a field in which absolute and exact proof is impossible, the only reasonable inference is that the death penalty does not, and cannot, prevent crime, either specifically in regard to murder or more generally in regard to other kinds of crime.

I am sure when future historians appraise our present era they will note the baneful influence of fear of communism. They will speak of consciousness of the danger of communism but will deplore and severely criticize us for our monomania on the subject of fear of communism. They will say we were often actuated by sensation, not sanity, by passion, not patience. They will charge that the appeal was too often to our adrenal glands. That is why they will challenge our passing this bill making peacetime espionage a capital offense.

Death is final and a mistake in executing an innocent man is irreparable. Juries are not infallible and are certainly open to wider error when dealing with the surcharged climate surrounding espionage. Remember, too, there is no statute of limitation in capital offenses. I interpose no objection to the purposes of the bill itself. But I have the most serious reservations as to the drastic increase in penalties for peacetime espionage. Will it prevent the commission of the act? Or will it glorify with the halo of martyrdom the executed, knowing as we do the unconscionable propaganda chicanery of Communists, against whose international conspiracy this bill is aimed?

Mr. GRAHAM. Madam Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. HYDE], a member of the Mr. CELLER. Madam Chairman, I committee, who has worked very diliyield myself 5 minutes.

gently on this bill.

Mr. HYDE. Madam Chairman, this bill, H. R. 9580, incorporates the provisions of the three bills introduced at the request of the Attorney General. These bills which are incorporated in this one bill are part of the administration program to strengthen internal security and to aid us in our defense against those who would destroy us by subversive activities.

ator of an industry we will say making munitions or barbed wire, both of which were found to be defective, and I think deliberately so, during the last war; the provisions of that section would apply with equal effect to the operator or owner of a manufacturing plant as well as to workmen; is that true?

Mr. HYDE. Oh, yes; to anyone who is guilty of attempting to injure or inTitle I of H. R. 9580 incorporates fully terfere with or to obstruct the national the provisions of H. R. 8749.

The Attorney General has submitted that in view of the technological advance made in scientific research, the · possibilities of sabotage by radioactive, biological, or chemical agents have been greatly increased. The sabotage statute as it is presently worded is not geared to keep pace with our technological advances, therefore certain changes in definitions are necessary. These changes in definitions are incorporated in this bill.

As far as title I of the bill is concerned, that is primarily what is done, namely, to make certain changes in definitions to bring the statute up to meet modern technological advances. For example, section 101 of title I adds to the definition of "war material" and "national-defense material," the words "air" and "water" and to the definitions of "war utilities" and "national-defense utilities" the word "air" has been added; also war utilities and national-defense utilities have been redefined to include airfields, airlanes, and fixtures or appurtenances thereto, which, strangely enough, are not in the present statute.

"National defense material" is amended to conform with "war material" in that "forage and forest products and standing timber" have been added to the definition of "national-defense material."

Section 102 of title I provides for the applicability of section 2153, title 18, United States Code, not only in time of war but also in time of national emergency as declared by the President or by the Congress.

Section 102 also recognizes the possibility of bacteriological warfare by including within it the provisions making it a crime to contaminate or infect war material, war premises, or war utilities. Section 103 makes the sabotage laws effective in time of national emergency as well as in time of war.

Section 2154 of title 18 of the United States Code is by this bill amended by section 103 to make a crime the construction in a defective manner of war premises or war utilities, in addition to war material. Thus it is proposed to make it a crime wilfully to construct in a defective manner an airbase.

Section 104 adds conspiracy provisions to sections 2155 and 2156 of title 18 of the United States Code. In other words, the new provision here is the crime of conspiracy to commit these acts of sabotage as well as the commission of the acts themselves.

defense by sabotage in a plant which has been defined as a national utility or as a national defense premise.

Mr. GROSS. What change has there been in the penalty?

Mr. HYDE. There is no change here in the penalty, not in title I.

Mr. GROSS. I thank the gentleman. Mr. HYDE. Title II of the bill incorporates the provisions of the original bill, H. R. 9021, and is designed to increase the penalty for peacetime espionage and to correct the deficiencies in sentencing there. That is the title about which the gentleman from New York [Mr. CELLER), just spoke to the House.

Mr. CELLER. The present statute of limitation on peacetime espionage is 10 years?

Mr. HYDE. Yes.

Mr. CELLER. This would remove all statute limitations on espionage?

Mr. HYDE. That is right.

Mr. CELLER. I am not opposed to the bill. I made these observations in passing concerning the penalty with reference to peacetime espionage.

Mr. HYDE. I would like to say to the gentleman from New York that I have a lot of sympathy with the gentleman's point of view. As a matter of fact, one of the difficulties of our society is attempting to define the proper punishment to fit a crime. I might add that we already have in the atomic energy law provision for the death penalty in case of peacetime espionage. It may be that the death penalty is not right in any case, under any circumstances, but it just so happens that our society is at present still struggling with the problem, and we are struggling with that problem as much in connection with this subject as any other.

Mr. CELLER. With reference to atomic energy, you have situations quite different in the facilities than are embodied in this bill. I would not say that those facilities in this bill rise to the importance of atomic energy. Would not the gentleman agree that that is so?

Mr. HYDE. Yes, I would, because that deals with any attempt to communicate any information to a foreign country which would injure the United States. In effect, any person who is engaged in such activity is indirectly thus dealing in murder.

Mr. CELLER. Yes. But there are specific references to "document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, note, instrument," which makes the crime very

Mr. GROSS. Madam Chairman, will broad. the gentleman yield?

Mr. HYDE. No. I think the gentleMr. HYDE. I yield to the gentleman man is aware of the fact that the terms from Iowa.

Mr. GROSS. Section 105, I assume, would apply with equal force to the oper

of that particular section-which are not new, incidentally-have been defined by the Supreme Court in several fined by the Supreme Court in several

cases, which court decisions justly limit the meaning of those to the intent that Congress intended for them, namely, to protect us in the national defense.

Mr. HALE. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HYDE. I yield to the gentleman from Maine.

Mr. HALE. Glancing over this bill hastily, I fail to find any provision in any section that makes the death penalty mandatory.

Mr. HYDE. The death penalty is not mandatory.

Mr. HALE. It is death or imprisonment for any terms of years or for life. Is that correct?

Mr. HYDE. That is correct.

Mr. HALE. So that it would seem that juries would not be deterred by the death penalty because it is not mandatory?

Mr. HYDE. I would not think that they would be deterred in view of the fact that it is not mandatory.

Mr. BAILEY. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HYDE. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.

Mr. BAILEY. Section 104 reads in part:

Whoever, with intent to injure, interfere with, or obstruct the national defense of United States, willfully injures, destroys, contaminates or effects, or attempts to so injure

And so forth.

Mr. HYDE. That is the conspiracy section.

Mr. BAILEY. I would like to ask the gentleman if it is his opinion that if you had an economic strike in progress at one of the defense industries and some Government property was destroyed, that that would be covered by that particular section there, and would the penalty apply.

Mr. HYDE. No. You have to bear in mind that it would have to be a conspiracy to violate section 9, and it must be to interfere with and obstruct the national defense of the United States. If it was an ordinary economic strike, there would be no charge such as the gentleman suggests.

Mr. BAILEY. But there might be some Government property destroyed, and I wonder whether that would be broad enough to invoke the penalty involved here.

Mr. HYDE. No; I think not.

Mr. CELLER. Madam Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, on page 10, we have these significant words beginning in line 4:

Whoever, in time of war, with intent that the same shall be communicated to the enemy, collects, records, publishes, or communicates, or attempts to elicit any information

And so forth. You may remember that some time ago a Chicago newspaper-I think it was the Chicago Tribune-publicized the fact that the Navy had cracked the Jap code. While it was true that the publisher of that newspaper was not certain of his facts, he made that statement, and I understood, of course, that this was during time of war, but suppose that had happened during

time of peace. Could that editor of the newspaper be haled before the court?

Mr. HYDE. No; in the first place, the section the gentleman read applies only in time of war. If such a thing similar to it, should happen, that would come under subsection (a) of section 201. That section has been well defined by the Supreme Court of the United States so that the danger to which the gentleman refers would not arise.

Mr. CELLER. And it must be to the injury of the United States, even though under subsection (a); is not that correct?

Mr. HYDE. That is correct.

Mr. CELLER. And that would be a question for a jury, would it not?

Mr. HYDE. Yes; in a sense it would. But whether or not it had violated this statute, the language of subsection (a), section 201, means what has been defined by the Supreme Court, so that there would be no danger of an innocent newspaper report being construed as being an intent to injure the United States. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired.

Mr. CELLER. Madam Chairman, I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.

Will the gentleman yield to me?

Mr. HYDE. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. CELLER. What about writers, commentators, who gather a great deal of statistics; naval, military, statistics on logistics, and so forth; they might publish them and come within the toils of the statute. That might be a question for a jury to determine whether or not they had the intent to aid the enemy. Mr. HYDE. I think in view of the Supreme Court decisions, two of them, on this very section, that there would be no danger of such an interpretation being put on the statute.

Mr. GRAHAM. If the gentleman will yield to me, in the case of Gorin v. United States (312 U. S. 19), on that very point, it is set out that intent to injure the United States must be proved.

Mr. HYDE. That is correct. Mr. POFF. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield to me for a unanimous-consent request?

Mr. HYDE. I yield.

Mr. POFF. I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks in the RECORD immediately following the remarks of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. HYDE].

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Virginia?

There was no objection.

Mr. HYDE. Madam Chairman, under title II, it is proposed to make espionage a capital offense irrespective of whether it was committed in time of war or in time of peace. It brings it within the purview of title 18, United States Code 3281, which provides that an indictment for a capital offense may be found at any time without limitation. In other words, as has been said, the effect of that would be to remove the statute of limitations on peacetime espionage.

Title III of the bill incorporates the provisions of H. R. 9023 and proposes

to repeal certain sections of the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as amended, and substitute therefor a separate registration statute unconnected with the Foreign Agents Registration Act, and which will require the registration of those persons who have knowledge of or have received an assignment in the espionage, counterespionage, or sabotage service or tactics of a foreign government or a foreign political party, without regard to any present agency status of such persons.

The Attorney General has told us this: Since the registration provisions of the Foreign Agents Registration Act make it clear that only those persons who presently or hereafter act as agents of foreign principals are required to register, persons who are agents of foreign principals by definition, but who are not currently acting as such, are not so required. Hence, persons with knowledge of or training in the espionage, counterespionage, or sabotage service or tactics of a foreign government or political party, who have not since the enactment of section 20 (a) acted as foreign agents, appear to be under no obligation to register.

This section will put such persons under an obligation to register.

Mr. DOYLE. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HYDE. I yield.

Mr. DOYLE. I notice that there is no definition in either wartime or peacetime of the term "defense activities." That is in line 9, page 2, and elsewhere. I am wondering why there is no definition of defense activities, as long as the death penalty, for instance, is involved.

Mr. HYDE. The death penalty is not involved in the title to which the gentleman refers.

Mr. DOYLE. I notice on page 3, line 16, the reference to associate nation is limited to wartime. Why does not that definition also cover peacetime?

Mr. HYDE. I suppose because there might be some difficulty in determining who was an associate nation in peacetime.

Mr. DOYLE. There is included a reference to NATO nations, in another part of the bill. Would they be considered associate nations? I am asking the question sincerely, because I think it is important.

Mr. HYDE. As far as I know-I do not know whether I am entirely accurate on this or not the only reason I can think of at the moment would be the difficulty of determining who was an associate nation in peacetime.

Mr. DOYLE. In other words, the committee had no intent of including any member of the United Nations as an associate nation?

Mr. HYDE. Not under this language. Not under this language. Mr. CELLER. If the gentleman will yield, I understand the Department of Justice has sent down to the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. GRAHAM] an amendment as to the very question the gentleman from California question the gentleman from California has raised just now, namely to include associate nations in there at that very point.

Mr. HYDE. I would have to see what the Department's intention was as to that.

Mr. BROOKS of Louisiana. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HYDE. I yield.

Mr. BROOKS of Louisiana. In title II, section 202 refers to the matter of espionage in time of either peace or war. On the preceding page, 8, you are referred to a status which might be considered neither war nor peace, that is, where an emergency has been declared by the President. In that event, would the gentleman construe that under title II to be in war or peace? What I want to know is, Suppose there is an emergency declared by the President which is short of war and there is espionage under title II, would that be espionage in time of peace or war?

Mr. HYDE. Subsection (a) of section 201 of title II applies in time of either peace or war.

Mr. BROOKS of Louisiana. It would be espionage under (a) but not under (b)?

Mr. HYDE. That is right.

Mr. BROOKS of Louisiana. If during the Korean emergency it would be punishable under (b)?

Mr. HYDE. Under (b) it would be in time of war.

Mr. BROOKS of Louisiana. So espionage committed when we were fighting in Korea would not be punishable under (b)?

Mr. HYDE. Any act set out in (b) would not be punishable unless we were officially in war.

Mr. BROOKS of Louisiana. Does not the gentleman think the penalty should be just as severe in the case of Korea as in time of war?

Mr. HYDE. I think that is covered by section (a), if the gentleman will examine it carefully.

Mr. POFF. Madam Chairman, I support wholeheartedly and unreservedly all of the provisions of H. R. 9580, which is a composite of three bills introduced as a part of the Attorney General's overall antisubversive program.

Title I of this act incorporates in full the language of H. R. 8749, which I introduced on April 7, 1954. Its primary purpose is to plug certain loopholes which have, by reason of certain technological developments, recently manfested themselves.

Section 101 of title I of the measure would amend section 2151 of title 18, United States Code, which defines various words used in the chapter. The definitions of "war material," "war utilities," "national defense material," and "national defense utilities" would be amended so as to include air and water among the items enumerated. It is believed that the possibilities of sabotage by radioactive, biological, or chemical agents made such an amendment desirable. Also, "war utilities" is now defined as including various utilities used, or capable of use, in connection with the "military or naval forces" of the United States. The definition of "national defense utilities" also refers to the "military or naval forces." Since the Air Force is a separate and coordinate Department of the military, it would appear appropriate to substitute "installations of the Armed Forces" in both definitions. Similarly, the definitions of "war prem

ises" and "national defense premises" should be changed in this regard.

The rapid development of aviation requires

that the definitions of war utilities and na

tional-defense utilities be further amended so that specific reference is made in them to airfields, air lanes, and fixtures or appurtenances thereof. Another change which is dictated by the growth of aviation is the broadening of these terms so as to apply not only within the limits of the United States or upon the high seas as now provided, but also elsewhere.

War material is defined to include forage, forest products and standing timber. In view of the importance of this natural resource and the fact that sabotage efforts could well be directed toward it, it is recommended that the definition of the peacetime counterpart, national-defense material, should be amended to conform. It should also be made to conform by covering items adapted to, or suitable for use in the conduct of the national defense.

Section 102 of title I would amend section 2153 of the chapter on sabotage-relating to the destruction of war material, war prem

ises, or war utilities-and section 2155-relating to the production of defective war material and other enumerated items-so as to make it a crime to contaminate or infect such items. This proposed amendment, as did the definition amendments discussed above, contemplates the possibility of sabotage by radioactive, biological, or chemical agents.

The bill would also amend sections 2154 and 2156 which relate, respectively, to the willful production of defective war material and defective national-defense material. As presently worded, section 2154 does not appear to protect war premises or war utilities and section 2156 does not appear to protect national-defense premises or national-defense utilities. It is therefore suggested that they be amended in this regard. Such an amendment would, for example, make the section applicable to the defective construction of air bases.

Further, conspiracy subsections would be enacted in sections 2155 and 2156, as is the case with their wartime counterparts, sections 2153 and 2154.

As you know, the Emergency Powers Continuation Act of July 3, 1952 (66 Stat. 330) amended, on a temporary basis, the definition of war material as contained in section 2151, by inserting "or defense activities" immediately before the period at the end of that definition. It likewise amended section 2153 and 2154 by inserting the words "or defense activities" immediately after the words "carrying on the war" wherever they appear in those sections. These amendments were continued on a temporary basis by the later enactment of the act of March 31, 1953 (67 Stat. 18), and the act of June 30, 1953 (67 Stat. 133). It will be noted that the proposal would make these amendments permanent and it is believed that the reasons for doing so are self-evident.

Madam Chairman, the American people are looking to their lawmakers to furnish our Department of Justice with the tools to do its job effectively and thoroughly. All loopholes, however minute, must be plugged. This bill will help to accomplish that purpose. I trust that it will be the will of the Committee of the Whole to express to the world at large our contempt for traitors and saboteurs by passing this bill by a unanimous vote.

Mr. CELLER. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York [Mr. DONOVAN].

Mr. DONOVAN. Madam Chairman, I take this time to ask a question of the I take this time to ask a question of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. HYDE]. I am thinking of section 2 on page 11. I pose this question: Assume a former I pose this question: Assume a former member of the British armed forces who perchance had served in some division perchance had served in some division of the British Army Intelligence in various parts of the world comes to America as an immigrant, lives here the necessary time, makes application for American citizenship, and becomes an American citizen. Does he, too, have to register under this act?

Mr. HYDE. Yes.

Mr. GRAHAM. Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may desire to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. VELDE], chairman of the Committee on UnAmerican Activities.

Mr. VELDE. Madam Chairman, as a former FBI agent in the Counterespionage Division during World War II, I cannot impress upon my distinguished colleagues enough the imperative need for our revising and extending the laws relating to espionage and sabotage.

Aside from the numerous refinements that are embodied in H. R. 9580, I should like to go on record as being particularly impressed with the provision that would make espionage a capital offense, irrespective of when committed, in time of peace or war. This would bring espionage in peacetime within the purview of 18 United States Code 3281, which provides that an indictment for a capital offense may be found at any time without limitation.

Our House Committee on Un-American Activities, in line with the obligation to investigate subversive activities and recommend remedial legislation, recommended this in our annual report of February 17, 1952.

I recall during the period when Canada was was prosecuting her espionage agents, our own Attorney General at the time was telling us that he would not prosecute because we were not at war with Russia.

When the American people finally woke up to the fact that the Communist conspiracy had gained such a hold in this country through these Russian espionage agents and brought public pressure to bear upon the Justice Department to act, the statute of limitations had expired.

Now we have extended the statute of limitations on peacetime espionage to 10 years and we must go one step further and see to it that we enact a single comprehensive espionage statute applicable to both peacetime and wartime. Practical experience dictates that we do not necessarily have to be engaged with a shooting adversary to be in danger.

I wholeheartedly endorse the proposal that would impose a sentence of death or imprisonment for any term of years or for life. I sincerely hope the House will go along with those of us who have had considerable firsthand experience with the machinations of these espiowith the machinations of these espionage agents and spies and want to see them given what is coming to them.

You can all play a part by voting for H. R. 9580.

Mr. CELLER. Madam Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. WALTER].

Mr. WALTER. Madam Chairman, the only portion of this bill which changes existing law in any respect is the section relating to punishment during peacetime for espionage. A mere casual examination of the language in this section discloses that it is not mandatory in any case for the sentencing judge to impose the death penalty. I could not imagine a case sufficiently grave in which that would be done during peacetime. However, it is extremely important that peacetime espionage be made a capital offense because by so doing the statute of limitations is eliminated entirely. I take the position that if a person may be convicted of a serious crime provided for and spelled out in this section, then it certainly seems to me that if he is not apprehended, and if a statute of limitations applies, then by permitting that situation to exist, we are putting a premium on the ability to hide. All this statute does is to make it possible to prosecute a spy at any time his crime is discovered, and he is apprehended.

Mr. VORYS. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WALTER. I yield.

Mr. VORYS. I wish the gentleman would tell us about title III which apparently provides for registration of spies and saboteurs.

Mr. WALTER. If the gentleman will pardon me, that is exactly what I was going to discuss.

Madam Chairman, title III in effect is a rewriting of existing law with just one exception. It is not necessary to prove an agency under this new language and under existing law it is. That in a word is what title III does. At first blush one would say that we are rather naive in expecting somebody trained in espionage to come forward and register. But, when you look at the situation a little more carefully, you will fird under this language it is possible to prosecute people for a failure to register when you could not prove the overt acts necessary to be proved in spelling out another offense. If the attorney general has information that a person has been trained in espionage, it would be entirely possible and rather easy to prove that fact plus the fact that he did not register, thereby making it possible to prosecute him for a crime when it would be impossible to prove the other offense.

It seems to me with all of the bills that have been sent up here by the Attorney General, in a sincere desire to cope with what I consider a very serious problem, that there is a better solution. We have experienced great difficulty in drafting some of these bills. Two of the measures now under consideration are susceptible of various interpretations, for which reason it is dangerous to act on them hurriedly.

At this time I want to join with the gentleman from the State of Texas [Mr. DIES] in urging that our subcommittee continue its very serious consideration

of the advisability of outlawing the Communist Party entirely. It is not necessary to do more than to enlarge the authority contained in the second section of the Smith Act. I do not agree with the philosophy of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DIES], because if we outlaw the Communist Party today it will be called "the peace movement" tomorrow. It seems to me the thing to do is to take the language of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which has been passed on in numerous decisions of the court, and spell out the activities, without attempting to place a title on the people engaged in those activities. By doing that, with one fell swoop we will make it possible to prosecute these 25,000 people whom the Attorney General and the FBI have properly termed "enemies of the United States." There should not be any question in the mind of anybody any longer but what this conspiracy is a crime and should be dealt with as we deal with any other crime.

Mr. GROSS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WALTER. I yield.

Mr. GROSS. I want to commend the gentleman for his statement. On page 14 I notice a reference to "Agreement regarding status of forces of parties of the North Atlantic Treaty." I will ask the gentlemen if in any way a person charged under the terms of this act can be tried in a foreign court?

Mr. WALTER. No. By no possible interpretation of this act could jurisdiction be placed in a foreign court.

Mr. GROSS. I am glad to hear that. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. WALTER has expired.

Mr. GRAHAM. Madam Chairman, I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes. Mr. JONAS of Illinois. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WALTER. I yield.

Mr. JONAS of Illinois. If we are in a

quandary about anything, now is the time to ask questions. I am going to support the bill, but I am in a quandary about one statement the gentleman made, and that is whether title III is a part of existing law now, or whether it is new language and is new law.

Mr. WALTER. Well, it is new law, although it contains a part of existing law which is restated, and as it is now defined it is new law. But it is part of existing law and designed to embrace existing law, and then define the offenses that make it necessary to establish the fact that the registrant is acting on behalf of a foreign agent.

Mr. JONAS of Illinois. May I call attention to this fact: I understand that under titles I and II we refer to amendments or corrections, or whatever they are, which are added, to title 18 of the United States Code. Title III has reference to the Internal Security Act, as amended. That is another section that is amended. So, in titles I and II all you do is transpose words and sentences that deal with existing law, but in title III you add a new series of statements or language, to the Internal Security Act. Mr. WALTER. May I say in that connection I think it is rather dangerous

what the Department of Justice is doing here, in attempting to enumerate all of these things, because by the doctrine of exclusion, if they fail to specifically define something, then that is construed to be excluded.

Mr. CELLER. Is it not true that as to this important bill, particularly as to title III, we had no testimony from the Attorney General himself, we had no testimony from the Department of Defense, we had no testimony from any of the departments of the Government; all we had was some of the underlings of the Department of Justice who came down and conferred with us as to language.

Mr. WALTER. That, of course, is true; but that does not disturb me in the least. While these people were underlings, they were in the departments charged with the responsibility of the administration of these particular sections, and I thought they knew what they were talking about. Of course, I may have been mistaken.

Mr. JONAS of Illinois. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield further? Mr. WALTER. I yield.

Mr. JONAS of Illinois. I refer the gentleman to section 306 on page 15 of the bill, to this language:

The Attorney General may at any time make, prescribe, amend, and rescind such rules and regulations and forms as he may deem necessary to carry out the provisions of

this act.

Does that embrace all three sections, 1, 2, and 3, or does this refer to existing law and not to this new section? That becomes very important, in my opinion.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania has just informed me that he has in mind an amendment which will meet that situation.

Mr. WALTER. I think the gentleman I think the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. GRAHAM] has an amendment to meet that situation.

Mr. GRAHAM. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Michigan THOMPSON], a member of our committee.

[Miss

Miss THOMPSON of Michigan. Madam Chairman, I am very happy to recommend H. R. 9580 to the Members of the House. The members of the Committee on the Judiciary, of which I am one, have given a great deal of thought and careful consideration to this bill. I think it is a good bill. I think it is a necessary bill, and I think it is long overdue.

Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CELLER. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAHAM. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. KEATING).

Mr. KEATING. Madam Chairman, I want to congratulate the members of this committee on the way they have handled the very difficult task with which they were confronted. As the gentleman from Pennsylvania said, it is not easy to write legislation in this field.

Madam Chairman, H. R. 9580 consolidates several requests from the Attorney General relating to improvements in the laws governing sabotage and espio

nage. More specifically, it broadens the technical definition of sabotage activities so as to include new techniques which might now be directed at our atmosphere, our water supply, national resources, air defense installations, and so forth, and also to reach vitally important defense facilities whether they are within the limits of the United States or not. It makes espionage a capital offense whether committed in time of peace or time of war. And it will bring out into the open, by compulsory registration, persons who have been trained in spy and sabotage schools abroad and who are now in our midst, whether or not they are making any use of such training. I hope we can act quickly and favorably on the bill.

At the same time, I realize that voting for this bill is a very solemn matter. We are here dealing, Mr. Chairman, with one of the most sweeping and awesome rights of our powerful country. We are relying upon its right of self-defense, and enlarging the powers made available to it for that purpose. Even a private citizen has the most terrible of all rights-the right to take the life of a human being with impunity-in the name of self-defense. Certainly no one I will claim that our Nation should have less. And I think we do not have to labor the point that the Communist conspiracy has become intense and pervasive to the point where such fundamentals as selfdefense are directly involved. We must free our Government to strike hard and strike true whenever and wherever the vicious plotter is exposed among us.

At the same time, Madam Chairman, I wish to focus the attention of my colleagues and of the people in whose name we are acting upon something very re

assuring in this bill. In every provision, including the new provision which will make espionage a capital offense in

peacetime, there is carefully preserved the requirements of knowledge and in

tent. No one will ever be brought to punishment under these drastic laws unless a jury of his peers is satisfied that he knew the implications of his act and that he intended the traitorous consequences. This requirement marks the difference between tyranny and a rule of law. This assures us that, notwithstanding the sweeping and all-inclusive nature of these laws, and the drastic penalties they carry, our fair land will never be degraded by the spectacle of mock trials such as we have witnessed under Communist regimes. These laws will scourge the guilty-the criminally guilty. But they will never lend themselves to being called into play against the innocent.

I think we ought to keep those safeguards clearly in view as we send this bill along its way with the strong support I know it will gather here in this chamber.

The CHAIRMAN. If there are no further requests for time, the Clerk will read the bill for amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Be it enacted, etc., That this act, divided into titles and sections, may be cited as the "Espionage and Sabotage Act of 1954."

« PreviousContinue »