Mr. MEADER. Is there any limitation, or did the committee give any consideration to limiting the regulationmaking authority of the Attorney General? Do I understand that his regulations could go so far as to change the terms of the statute?

Mr. GRAHAM. He would have to carry out the provisions of the statute.

Mr. MEADER. He could not in any way change or modify a statute which the Congress has adopted, through his regulatory power?

Mr. GRAHAM. It would be unconstitutional if he did that.

Mr. MEADER. May I ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania if he agrees with me that the purpose of these regulations is to provide for the forms necessary for alien registration, and not to make any substantive regulations, violations of which might lead to this very serious penalty?

Mr. GRAHAM. On page 15, under section 306:

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

Mr. MEADER. Primarily, that is to give the Attorney General the power to prescribe forms for the registration of aliens.

Mr. MEADER. I yield.

Mr. KEATING. I think it would remove a misapprehension in the gentleman's mind to point out that if the Attorney General did make any regulation which was not in conformity with the terms of this title III, it would not be enforcible. In other words, that would be a question which a defendant could raise if he were brought up under it. His regulation would have to be in accordance with, and not at variance with, the law itself.

Mr. MEADER. I wish to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. GRAHAM] and the gentleman from New York [Mr. KEATING] for qualifying and restricting somewhat what appeared to me to be a very broad delegation of power to an administrative official.

Mr. GRAHAM. And we thank the gentleman for bringing it to our attention.

Mr. BENNETT of Florida. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. BENNETT of Florida: Page 10, lines 4 and 5, strike out "in time of war, with intent that the same shall be communicated to the enemy" and insert "with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used in the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation."

On page 10, line 9, strike out "war materials" and insert "national-defense materials (as defined in sec. 2151)."

And on page 10, line 15, strike out "the enemy" and insert "any foreign nation."

Mr. BENNETT of Florida. Madam Chairman, the purpose of my amendment is to make all types of espionage capital offenses in peacetime as well as in wartime. My amendment would

amend subsection (b) beginning at line 4, page 10, of the bill. As reported by committee, subsection (b) now begins, "Whoever, in time of war." My amendment would change that to read exactly as subsection (a) now begins, so that it would make the acts described in (b) capital offenses in peacetime as well as in war.

On page 3 of the report it is stated: It is proposed to make espionage a capital offense, irrespective of when committed, in time of peace or war.

This is not an accurate statement. To make it accurate, my amendment must be adopted. It is true that the committee has made the offenses described in subsection (a) capital in peacetime, but it has not made those described in (b) capital when committed in peacetime.

I may add here at this point that the things which are described in (b) are not lesser things; actually they are greater things and are actually more heinous than the things described in (a). So we have the peculiar situation of having defined separate crimes in the same section and decided that the penalty for the lesser shall be higher than the penalty for the greater.

This is apparent from the beginning of the bill's subsection (b), "Whoever in time of war." My amendment would make the espionage activities described in (b) capital in peacetime as well as in wartime. I have been given no logical explanation as to why the offenses in (a) should be capital in peacetime while those in (b) should not. In fact, the offenses in (b) are more serious, and there is better reason for making them capital in peacetime.

One argument that has been made is that (b) is merely repetitious of (a), and that when the offenses in (b) are committed in peacetime they can be prosecuted under (a). The language of these sections refutes this argument. The offenses in (b) are different from those in (a). For example, it is a crime under (b) to attempt to elicit defense information, while this act is not spelled out in (a).

Moreover, the legislative history of subsection (b) since its first enactment as part of the Espionage Act of 1917 shows that the offenses in (b) are different from those in (a). The Library of Congress tells me that when H. R. 291, the bill which became the Espionage Act, passed the House in 1917, the section corresponding to subsection (b) was not in the bill. However, the sections which were the forerunner of subsection (a) were in the bill. The Senate evidently felt that there were offenses which were not included in (a) and that those offenses should be punished. So they added the forerunner of (b). The House concurred in the amendment. This shows that Congress that year understood the offenses in subsection (b) to be separate and distinct offenses from those in subsection (a).

Under this proposed legislation, as an example, a spy who attempts to elicit information in peacetime would not be guilty of any crime under the laws of

the United States. This accidental gap should be closed.

An argument which might be made against my amendment is that the Department of Justice is supposed to be preparing a complete revision of these espionage sections to be presented to Congress next year, and that we should not amend the laws very much at this time. If this argument applies to my amendment, it applies equally to the amendments of the committee. It is my contention that both the committee's amendments and mine are needed now, not next year. It is unwise to postpone needed amendment to this section in the expectation that a better revision will be made next year. We cannot commit the next Congress to action which needs to be taken now. The chances are that we here this afternoon may be considering the last amendments to this section which will be made in many years. We should do the job right now.

Madam Chairman, I urge this amendment to make certain types of espionage capital offenses in peacetime as well as in wartime, and to eliminate the gap between subsections (a) and (b) under which future acts of espionage may escape punishment altogether.

Mr. HYDE. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. BENNETT].

Madam Chairman, while I have some sympathy with what the gentleman from Florida is attempting to do, nevertheless his amendment should not be adopted for a number of very good rea

sons.

In the first place, he is attempting to rewrite substantive law on this subject, which we did not try to do except in respect to the offense being committed. The substantive law involved is under careful study by counsel for the committee and the Department of Justice. We certainly should not try to go into that here on the floor of the House.

Moreover, the language of these two sections has been well defined by the courts and should not be disturbed without very, very careful study because we would not know just exactly what we were doing, particularly if we draft such amendments as these on the floor.

Another point is that the offenses in subsection (b) are different from the offenses in subsection (a), and it might very well be inadvisable to have those offenses applied in time of peace.

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

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

Mr. WALTER. I want to point out that if this amendment is adopted a person could be punished by death for furnishing information to Canada or to some friendly nation.

Mr. HYDE. That is the point I was about to make. Under the gentleman's amendment if a person attempted to furnish information to an ally during war the person who did so would be subject to the death penalty. Certainly the gentleman did not intend to do that. Mr. BENNETT of Florida. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HYDE. I yield to the gentleman

from Florida.

Mr. BENNETT of Florida. The error that the gentleman apparently finds in this language of my amendment does not exist. As a matter of fact, every word in the amendment I have suggested is lifted in haec verba, word for word, from subsection (a). There is not a single word left out of the amendment I have offered.

Mr. HYDE. The gentleman left out some very important language in subsection (a). He does not even say where it is going to be used to the advantage of a foreign nation in time of war; he does not say to the injury of the United States.

Mr. BENNETT of Florida. I disagree with the gentleman. He did not listen to the amendment.

Mr. HYDE. I have the gentleman's amendment before me and it does not inIclude those words.

Madam Chairman, in view of the language of the amendment, the fact that it goes into a substantive change, which has not been carefully considered, and in view of the fact that it might possibly do things which this House certainly would not want to do, I earnestly urge that the amendment be defeated.

Madam

Mr. BENNETT of Florida. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 2 minutes.

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

There was no objection.

Mr. BENNETT of Florida. Madam Chairman, I think the Members realize the situation I am in. I introduced legislation similar to this on the first day of my tenure in Congress, in January of 1949, and I am very much interested in such legislation. It is unfair to Members of Congress to give such inadequate and brief consideration to such important legislation.

The gentleman from Maryland who has raised these objections to my amendment should bear in mind that my amendment was taken word for word from section (a). There is not a word in my amendment which is not copied from section (a). You have this rather anomalous situation, this impossible situation, of having lesser crimes as defined in subsection (a) getting a heavier penalty, because, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania said, you can get the death penalty for peacetime acts under section (a); but under section (b), where worse crimes are listed, lesser punishment is given if the acts are committed in peacetime. In fact no penalty at all is given these worse crimes if committed in peacetime.

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

Mr. BENNETT of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. McCORMACK. It seems to me, without passing upon the merits of the gentleman's amendment, that the argument advanced by the gentleman from Maryland is certainly met by the gentleman's amendment because it says "with intent" or "reason to believe." That shows there has to be intent. And it has to be used to the injury of the United

States. Certainly, if you gave information to Canada and there was no intent involved, Canada being a friendly nation, or reason to believe it would not be to the injury of the United States, the to the injury of the United States, the argument of the gentleman from Maryland would fall to the ground.

Mr. WALTER. Madam Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, it is not only injury to the United States, but to the benefit of another nation. The gentleman has not read the statute.

Mr. McCORMACK. I would not say I have not read the statute and I would not say the gentleman has not read it.

Mr. BENNETT of Florida. If the argument against this amendment is good, then subsection (a) is not any good, for it uses the identical words objected to.

Mr. McCORMACK. Madam Chairman, I move to strike out the last word. I would like to ask the gentleman from Florida a question.

Section (b) provides "whoever in time of war" and so forth. Now, we will take the Korean conflict. Is that a war? Suppose somebody gave valuable information about the movement of troops. Suppose we get involved in Indochina. Now, they do not call that a war, but nevertheless it seems to me that giving information about the movement of troops under those circumstances should be made a crime where it is to the injury of the United States.

Mr. BENNETT of Florida. I certainly agree with the gentleman.

Mr. McCORMACK. Paragraph (b) certainly covers offenses that are more serious to the United States in some respects than paragraph (a) does. Mr. BENNETT of Florida. tleman is correct.

The gen

Mr. McCORMACK. Yet, paragraph (a) applies where there is no war on. It may be an emergency, but it is not a war, and yet paragraph (b) is confined to time of war. Suppose somebody gave information about the movement of troops, a division going across to Korea, leaving San Francisco, during the Korean conflict or now, any movement of troops now, or the movement of naval vessels.

Mr. BENNETT of Florida. Or the construction of atomic submarines.

Mr. McCORMACK. Nothing could be done; no prosecution could be made under paragraph (b).

Mr. BENNETT of Florida. That is correct.

Mr. McCORMACK. Yet it might be just as injurious to our country as if it was made in time of actual war.

Mr. BENNETT of Florida. In fact, it is generally more injurious.

Mr. McCORMACK. Now, we have a gap here. It is all right to talk about peace and war, but there is a twilight zone, and we are in that twilight zone

now.

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

Mr. McCORMACK. Iyield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. JUDD. I do not even like the language in section 204 (a). Under the Mutual Security Act, we are giving blueprints of tanks and planes to our allies, which is to our advantage, and they are

foreign nations. This says that whoever with intent and reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury of the United States and to the advantage of a foreign nation, and I think that is all right, but this would make it impossible to carry on our mutual security program, because these things, while they do not injure the United States, they are to the advantage of a foreign nation. I do not see how we can do it under the language here.

Mr. HYDE. And the language has been well defined by the United States Supreme Court so as not to give rise to the danger the gentleman raises.

Mr. McCORMACK. What about the movement of troops during the Korean conflict or the movement of troops now if any were carried out, say, to southeast Asia? Would that come under paragraph (b), where the information would be to the injury of the United States?

Mr. HYDE. It would not have to because he would be prosecuted under paragraph (a), line 1, page 10. If he gave information relating to the national defense, he would be prosecuted under paragraph (a). But paragraph (b) is made to apply only in time of war. I suggest the gentleman look at the language there, where it says, "with intent that the same shall be communicated to the enemy, collects, records, publishes, or communicates, or attempts to elicit any information with respect to the movement, numbers, description, condition, or disposition of any of the armed forces, ships, aircraft, or war materials of the United States," and so forth.

If in peacetime somebody asks a soldier what outfit he is in and where it is or that sort of thing, I am sure the gentleman would not want that person under those circumstances to be subject to prosecution. But if that were done in time of war, that would be a different matter.

Mr. McCORMACK. If the gentleman says that the language on page 10 covers the situation, why does he need paragraph (b)? Paragraph (b) must have a specific purpose. I do not think that "information relating to the national defense" covers the situation provided for in paragraph (b), which refers to specific acts. I do not think you can provide that something is a crime under a general, vague characterization. There is a need for paragraph (a). But it seems to me there is considerable merit to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. BENNETT] because in the world of today, we may be engaged in a conflict that is not called a war.

Mr. HYDE. The gentleman may be correct. There may be considerable merit in the gentleman's amendment. These two paragraphs, as far as the substantive part of them is concerned, are under serious study now by the Department of Justice and by the counsel for this committee. But we were not ready to go into such serious substantive changes at this time.

Mr. McCORMACK. The gentleman's answer is a very frank one, as he admits that there is a question involved.

Mr. FORRESTER. Madam Chairman, I move to strike out the last word.

I wish particularly to direct the attention of the members of the Committee on the Judiciary to what I am going to say and, of course, at the same time I would ask every Member on the Floor of the House here to listen to the comments I am about to make.

First I want to assure everyone here that I certainly am in favor of punishing people who are guilty of espionage or doing anything that would tend to undermine the security of this country. However, I have noticed with some degree of worry the provisions here relating to conspiracy. Here is the language that is used. I am referring now to page 10, paragraph (c):

If two or more persons conspire to violate this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.

If I construe that language correctly, if I understand the English language correctly, I am afraid that that provision is in direct contrast to our laws on conspiracy. What is said here, as I see it, is that if two or more conspire, that then, after they have conspired, if even one of those conspirators commits that act, then all of the persons who joined in the conspiracy in the first instance are guilty.

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

Mr. FORRESTER. I yield.

Mr. GRAHAM. That is the law now. If one man joints in a conspiracy with others and that one man commits an overt act, they are held guilty of the conspiracy. That is the law now.

or not. What I am saying is, Do we want to make it a crime under those circumstances, if he has fully repented and has fully recanted?

Mr. WALTER. The only way you can get at the crime of conspiracy is through this language, which has been law for years. It certainly does not make it necessary that there be any punishment imposed.

Mr. FORRESTER. I take it that I have it cleared up, that is, the question that I asked I think I have had answered. It is that under this law now, in everyone of these laws relating to conspiracy, if a man ever joins in one of these conspiracies, even though he recants, withdraws, and completely repents, and refuses to have anything to do with the act, he is indictable as one of the conspirators.

Mr. EBERHARTER. Madam Chairman, I move to strike out the last word. Madam Chairman, it is rather late in the day. Of course, everybody on the floor has heard the shouts of "Vote, vote." I take it the shouts of "Vote, vote," are not so much because the Members are desirous of getting home and quitting for the day, although it is 13 minutes after 6; I think it is the general dissatisfaction of the Members here on the floor with the way this legislation has been drawn and with the apparent disagreement between members of the committee who are attempting to defend it. The Members kind of feel they do not have a good cause.

I heard the gentleman from Maryland state that this section and other language is under very extensive consideration and study right now. Of course, gentlemen can get from that, if I heard correctly, that the committee itself is language means. not satisfied as to exactly what the

As I read the language, if the Memwill pardon me for making a statement as to that, whenever you use the word "or" certainly you are speaking in the alternative. If you are speaking in the alternative, then take the language on page 9, under section (a).

Chairman,

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

Mr. EBERHARTER. Just a minute. Let me finish my statement.

Mr. WALTER. The Supreme Court has answered the gentleman's argument. Mr. EBERHARTER. Madam Chairman, I do not yield to the gentleman.

Madam Chairman, referring to page 9, line 7, if you strike out the words "to be used to the injury of the United States or," then the language would read:

Whoever, with intent or reason to believe that it is to the advantage of a foreign nation

Then omitting some of the languageto deliver or transmit a model shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for any term of years or for life.

There is no question in my mind, under a strict interpretation of the English language, that according to those words, if a person would transmit to any friendly nation a model-it does not say what kind of a model, maybe it would be a model of a toy or maybe it would be a model of a statuette of some kind,

it does not say-therefore, I think it is reasonable to believe this legislation has not had sufficient study and that really we are traveling on rather dangerous ground. Certainly, whenever we come here with a bill containing language which it is admitted by one of the members of the Committee on the Judiciary is indefinite, I think the committee ought to hesitate a long time. We are imposing penalties here which are very severe, and it is very late in the afternoon. I think the wisest action that the leadership could take would be to put this matter over until the committee members themselves can agree on what the language actually means.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. BENNETT).

The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. BENNETT of Florida), there were-ayes 36, noes 81.

So the amendment was rejected. Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Iowa is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. GROSS. Madam Chairman, I yield back 31⁄2 minutes of my time.

Madam Chairman, I have obtained this time in order to ask the committee whether under any language in this bill or the amendments pertaining thereto, there is any obligation for carrying out the provisions consistent with the charter of the United Nations. Will someone give me an answer to that-whether you are making this act dependent in anyway upon the charter of the United Nations?

Mr. GRAHAM. My answer to that would be an emphatic no.

Mr. GROSS. I thank the gentleman. You will remember that we had the foreign giveaway bill before us last week and the first 6 or 7 pages carried language stating that the provisions of that act must be consistent with the charter of the United Nations. I compliment this committee for bringing one bill to the House of Representatives dealing with foreigners, and treaties and agreements with foreign governments, that does not have to be carried out in conformance with the charter of the United Nations.

Mr. BROOKS of Louisiana. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks at this point in the RECORD.

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

There was no objection.

COMMUNISM

Mr. BROOKS of Louisiana. Madam Chairman, I am supporting H. R. 9580. It is not the ideal bill, in my opinion. It does, however, tighten up some of the loopholes which in the past Communists have used in escaping punishment, and it gives more adequate protection to our Defense Establishment.

In Louisiana I am glad to say that the legislature has recently acted to outlaw communism. I have not had an opportunity of studying this law which passed the legislature in Baton Rouge in the last few days; but I am sure it will constitute a most effective measure in our

fight to stamp out this alien philosophy which for so many years has kept our people agitated and has threatened threatened our free institutions. The important thing is that in Louisiana, the people through its legislature, are thoroughly alert to this serious menace and are acting on their own accord and through State agencies to curb and stamp out communism. I certainly commend the legislature for its action in meeting this problem on a State level and directing State agencies to join the United States in its fight against this ugly doctrine of totalitarianism.

Madam Chairman, of course, our uniform code of justice on which I spent many months of work should likewise be tightened in respect to the punishment for espionage. I have drawn up a bill which I have placed in the hopper of the House of Representatives for this purpose and I trust it will soon be acted upon.

Mr. O'HARA of Illinois. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks at this point in the RECORD.

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

There was no objection.

The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the committee rises.

Mr. O'HARA of Illinois. Madam Chairman, in supporting this bill I am guided by the rule that always should prevail among the Members of the Congress of the United States. In time of war, of threatened war or of grave emergency measures regarded as vital to our security by those in closest familiarity with the existing circumstances and charged with responsibility for our protection must be supported.

At the present time we are engaged in a cold war. Sabotage and espionage in the kind of conflict in which we now find ourselves are as much to be met with strong defenses as the hostile maneuvering of enemy forces in a battle area during a hot war.

Moreover we are in the perilous years when new and terrible powers have been placed by the genius of scientific minds in human hands to use for man's ad

vancement or to misuse for his destruction. As yet we have not reached with the other governments of the universe a mutually protective understanding, with valid and binding guaranties. Meanwhile there is forced upon us the exercise of every caution.

PRUDENT TO BE ALERT

It is not only that our plans, our blueprinting, and our secrets must be guarded from spying and unfriendly eyes. It also is prudent to be alert to the possibility of a brutal sabotage, the more horrifying in its possibilities because of the vastness of the opportunities.

Within recent years a bomb planted in a suitcase carried as baggage on a passenger plane caused the loss of the aircraft and many lives. In that instance there was no suggestion of sabotage with political motivation, but that one person seeking the murder of another could with such comparative ease cause the destruction in the air of a

large aircraft and the death of many persons is an index to the dangers among which we live in this very perilous period. Not to take every precaution is to be foolhardy.

QUESTIONABLE DETERRENTS

Whether we strengthen our defense against criminal activities by increasing the severity of penalties I discussed at the severity of penalties I discussed at some length in my remarks yesterday on a bill then before us. It has not been

the experience of mankind that severity of punishment has served as a deterrent of punishment has served as a deterrent of crime. The mind that has no respect for the laws of an organized society accepts as a greater challenge to daring and defiance the greater degree of retribution to be paid if crime is detected. I think most students of the subject, I think most students of the subject, having reviewed the history of experiences in this and other countries, will agree that making penalties more severe has never operated to diminish the number of crimes.

Nor has capital punishment proved a deterrent of crime. Quite some years ago Clarence Darrow, the great defender, and I teamed up on a series of radio discussions exploring the futility of the death penalty as a deterrent, the possibility of the establishment of innocence after the execution of sentence, too late to rectify a human mistake, and the moral right of man as an integral part of an organized society to do that by the law of God forbidden him as an individual to do.

DIVISION OF OPINION

But these are questions upon which, among reasoning men, there is division of opinion. All are honestly seeking for the answer leading eventually to the prevention of crime. When an atrocious crime has been perpetrated, the immediate popular reaction is a cry for revenge, which may meet with just deserts, in an individual case, but may not serve the real objective of society, the prevention of similar or worse crimes in the future. When a national emergency exists, and immediate perils are being faced, the demand always has been and probably always will measures.

be for stern

At the close of the war between North

and South, among some in the North,

was a demand for the execution of the leaders of the forces of the States of the Confederacy. We are a united country today, the scars of earlier years have been effaced, and the inspiration of great Americans on both sides of that conflict are part of the national heritage. This would not have been the case if in the climate of victory the spirit of revenge had taken over.

Following our war with Mexico we entered into a treaty of peace with the fallen enemy country which merits reading and rereading by the present generation. It charted a path of peace which, during the intervening years, has led the two neighboring Republics to the land of understanding and of friendly cooperation.

Our war with Spain terminated in a treaty of peace by the terms of which our country, forebearing to ask for itself the price of revenge, actually gave the

helping hand to the fallen foe, aiding it to regain its feet.

WORLD RESPONSIBILITY

Today we have a world responsibility on a scale forced upon us by destiny. That the spirit of revenge has never motivated our actions, that in victory we never have sought to employ our strength over the vanquished to retaliate for past wrongs upon us, is the measure by which the peoples of the world properly may judge us and appraise the character of our future intentions.

At the moment we are in a cold war. In the Korean phase it was a war of suffering and sacrifice attended with the loss of many American youths far from the shores of our own United States and loved ones at home. The cold war continues in the present phase of evil propaganda seeking to misrepresent and to malign us among other peoples and at home to undermine us by dishonorable practices.

This bill is presented to us as legislation necessary in the existing circumstances. It is intended, as I take it, as

cold-war measure. It cannot be judged by the measure of normal times.

Certainly as applicable to normal times, when again we will be at peace with all the other nations of the world, I would regard as inconsistent with our pledge of friendship to their governments and unfairly reflective upon the loyalty of our own people the provision in this bill making a capital offense of the crime of peacetime sabotage and espionage.

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

The effect of this provision is to remove from the running of the statute of limitations all offenses which actually may be those of sabotage or espionage or by purposeful design may be stretched to that appearance. After many years have passed the ability of the accused to establish his innocence is destroyed by the death of witnesses and the disappearance of competent evidence. This is the reason, founded in good judgment, for the statute of limitations.

Madam Chairman, I think I am expressing not only my own thought but that of many other Members, very prob

ably the majority of Members, that the bill for which we are voting today is for gency, be it the continuance of the cold the period only of the existing emer

war or something worse or something

only slightly better, and upon the termination of that emergency the subject should be reexamined when perils are gone and nerves are quiet.

Accordingly the Committee rose; and Mr. HALLECK, having assumed the chair as Speaker pro tempore, Mrs. ST. GEORGE, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee having had under consideration the bill (H. R. 9580), to revise and extend the laws relating to espionage and sabotage, and for other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution

619, she reported the bill back to the House with sundry amendments adopted in Committee of the Whole.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. HALLECK). Under the rule, the previous question is ordered.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third Magnuson reading of the bill.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was read the third time.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill. Mr. Speaker, on that

Mr. JACKSON.

I demand the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. WALTER. Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.

Mr. WALTER. I understand there was an agreement reached with respect to a rollcall vote. I am wondering whether it would be possible to defer the rollcall until tomorrow.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair knows of no such understanding. The Clerk will call the roll.

The question was taken; and there were yeas 324, nays 0, answered "present" 0, not voting 110, as follows:

Mahon

Mailliard
Marshall
Martin, Iowa
Matthews
Meader

Merrill
Merrow

Miller, Calif.

Miller, Kans.

Rayburn
Reams

Reece, Tenn.
Reed, Ill.
Reed, N. Y.
Rees, Kans.

Rhodes, Ariz. Rhodes, Pa. Riehlman

Miller, Md.

Mills Mollohan Morgan Morrison Moss

Mumma

Murray

Natcher

Neal

Nelson Nicholson

Norrell

Oakman
O'Brien, Ill.
O'Brien, Mich.
O'Hara, Ill.

O'Konski
O'Neill
Osmers
Ostertag

Patten

Pelly

Hagen, Calif.

Pfost

Hagen, Minn.

Philbin

Hale

Halleck

Haley

Cole, Mo. Cole, N. Y.

Colmer

Hand

Abbitt

Abernethy

Addonizio

Alexander

Allen, Calif.

Cooley

Phillips

Harden

Allen, Ill.

Frazier

Hardy

Angell

Harris

Harrison, Nebr.

Barden

Hart

Battle

Hays, Ark.

Bentley

Hays, Ohio

Berry

Hébert

Bishop

Herlong

Bonin

Heselton

Bonner

Mr. Allen of Illinois with Mr. Metcalf.
Mr. Sadlak with Mr. Carnahan.

Mr. Angell with Mr. Fallon.

Mr. Norblad with Mr. Fine.

Mr. Curtis of Nebraska with Mr. Keogh.

Mr. Cotton with Mr. Klein.

Mr. Patterson with Mr. Roosevelt.

Mr. Radwan with Mrs. Kelly of New York.

Mr. Wharton with Mr. Dollinger.

Mr. Shafer with Mr. Regan.

Mr. Busbey with Mr. Sikes.

Mr. Coon with Mr. Lantaff.

Mr. Harrison of Wyoming with Mr. Harrison of Virginia.

Mr. Bow with Mr. Camp.

Mr. James with Mr. Wheeler.
Mr. Knox with Mr. Landrum.
Mr. Bentley with Mr. Moulder.
Mr. Clardy with Mr. Shuford.
Mr. Cretella with Mr. Frazier.
Mr. Mason with Mr. Fisher.

Mr. Hoffman of Michigan with Mr. Thompson of Louisiana.

Mr. Hunter with Mr. Passman.

Mr. Johnson of California with Mr. Long. Mr. Small with Mr. Heller.

Mr. Wampler with Mr. Buckley.

Mr. Bishop with Mr. Kelley of Pennsylvania.

Mr. O'Hara of Minnesota with Mr. Barden. Mr. Weichel with Mr. Machrowicz.

The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

PROGRAM FOR NEXT WEEK

Mr. ARENDS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Illinois?

There was no objection.

Mr. ARENDS. Mr. Speaker, I take this time in order to announce the program for next week.

Beginning on Monday, and for the balance of the week, the following bills will be before us for consideration:

H. R. 9144, Federal Reserve Act, loans by Small Business Administration.

S. 1276, to amend the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act.

S. 2987, to transfer hay and pasture seeds from Commodity Credit Corporation.

Senate Concurrent Resolution 79, to continue Texas City Tin Smelter.

If rules are granted, the following will be considered:

H. R. 8386, conservation of water resources.

We expect various bills from the Committee on the Judiciary dealing with control of Communists.

S. 3539, reenlistment bonuses, from the Committee on Armed Services.

S. 3458, the so-called tanker bill. H. R. 9689, having to do with Assistant Secretaries of Defense.

H. R. 8356, reinsurance bill from the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. It is the hope of the leadership that this bill will be reported out on tomorrow.

Conference reports may be brought up at any time and any further program. will be announced at a later date.

It is hoped that we can take up on Monday as the No. 1 bill Senate Concurrent Resolution 79, the tin smelter bill, which I mentioned just a moment ago.