Page images
PDF
EPUB

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. I have no objection, if some Senator wishes to have it read. I ask unanimous consent to have it printed in the RECORD, and I shall make a brief explanation of it.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

cute, would a dangerous situation be created? In other words, would the advice of the Attorney General be an absolute defense, as against prosecution, to those who were licensed?

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. No; it could be an absolute defense, in my opinion. I Mr. HICKENLOOPER'S amendment is as do not believe it would create a confollows:

trolling situation, a situation where the On page 48, line 3, amend section 105 c to prior act would be controlling in any read as follows:

"c. Whenever the Commission proposes to issue any license to any person under section 103, it shall notify the Attorney General of the proposed license and the proposed terms and conditions thereof, except such classes or types of licenses, as the Commission, with the approval of the Attorney General, may determine would not significantly affect the licensee's activities under the antitrust laws as specified in subsection 105 a. Within a reasonable time, in no event to exceed 90 days after receiving such notification, the Attorney General shall advise

the Commission whether, insofar as he can determine, the proposed license would tend to create or maintain a situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws. Upon the request of the Attorney General, the Commission shall furnish or cause to be furnished such information as the Attorney General determines to be appropriate or

necessary, to enable him to give the advice

called for by this section.”

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Mr. President, because of certain problems suggested by the Attorney General, the antitrust provision of section 105 c is proposed to be modified by this amendment somewhat to accord with provision in the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act. Under the proposed change, the Attorney General would advise the Commission whether a proposed license would create a situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws. There is no provision for hearing, but the information developed by the Commission would be a part of the administrative record. This amendment was specifically suggested by the Attorney General.

Mr. BRICKER. Mr. President, will the Senator from Iowa yield?

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. I yield. Mr. BRICKER. Does the amendment remove from the bill as it was reported by the committee the provision in regard to the Federal Trade Commission?

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Yes, it does. Mr. BRICKER. This is an amendment adopted by the full committee after I was called into the conference on the housing bill; is that correct?

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. I was not personally present at the time the committee adopted the amendment, but, as I understand, there was no objection. was no objection. Everyone there agreed to it. I am perfectly willing to vote for it myself.

Mr. BRICKER. I was very anxious that the Federal Trade Commission provision be stricken out.

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. The amendment does that. In effect, it says the Attorney General shall advise the Commission whether a proposed license will, in the opinion of the Attorney General, create a situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws.

Mr. BRICKER. If the Attorney General should advise that there would be no violation of the antitrust laws, and then ultimately be called upon to prose

future prosecution or future litigation which might arise. It is an advisory situation under the conditions obtaining at the time the license is applied for.

Mr. BRICKER. Of course, the Attorney General is the legal adviser to the departments of the Government. I was concerned whether making such a provision officially a part of the act might have some binding effect upon the present or future Attorneys General.

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. I would be bound to say to the Senator that if terms and conditions of a license were set forth in the application and the Attorney General advised the Commission that in his opinion at that time the terms and conditions of the license did not create a situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws, and if the license, without any

change or alteration or modification, were granted on that basis, I should think it would have an influence on a later decision.

Mr. BRICKER. Certainly a controlling effect.

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. I would not say "controlling," not necessarily. I do not think the courts would be bound by an opinion of the Attorney General. They could overturn it. But it would have an influence.

Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, will the Senator from Iowa yield?

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. I yield.

Mr. PASTORE. Will the Senator admit that it is the clear intention of the joint committee that the provision shall in no way constitute a bar to or estop future action on the part of the Attorney General for violation of any antitrust law?

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Yes, indeed.

Mr. PASTORE. Will the Senator admit that such a provision is now a part of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act, and that the Attorney General has approved the procedure proposed by this amendment?

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. I believe the Senator has stated it correctly. There is no intention of setting up a preliminary bar to any future legal action, either by the Government or by a private citizen or group of citizens. They will have their rights. It is a matter of advice in the manner of a pretrail examination so to speak, as used in the courts. I would not say it corresponds to a pretrial examination, because I think a pretrial hearing has certain controlling features. Mr. BRICKER. Mr. President, will the Senator from Iowa yield further?

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. I yield. Mr. BRICKER. The doctrine of estoppel does not run against the Government, anyway. It might prove an embarrassing situation to the Attorney General. It may be that this is the only way it can be worked out, but I have always been doubtful that there could logically lie

against a licensee of a Government commission such as the Atomic Energy Commission any antitrust suit. The responsibility lies with the Atomic Energy Commission.

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. An antitrust lawsuit would not lie against the Commission.

Mr. BRICKER. No; against the licensee. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the Senator from Iowa [Mr. HICKENLOOPER], identified as "I." The amendment was agreed to. Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Mr. President, I call up my amendment 7-14-54-J.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator wish to have it stated?

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. No, Mr. President; I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the RECORD without reading.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. HICKENLOOPER'S amendment is as follows:

On page 103, strike out all after line 11, over to and including line 11, on page 104, and insert in lieu thereof the following:

"Beginning at the center quarter corner of section 30, township 10 north, range 4 east, New Mexico principal meridian, Bernalillo County, New Mexico, thence south no degrees twenty-three minutes thirty seconds west one thousand nine hundred forty-seven and twenty-one one-hundredths feet, thence north eighty-nine degrees thirty-six minutes forty-five seconds east two thousand sixtyeight and forty one-hundredths feet, thence north eighty-nine degrees three minutes fifteen seconds east five hundred and forty-six feet, thence north no degrees thirty-nine minutes no seconds east two hundred thirtytwo and seventy one-hundredths feet, thence north eighty-nine degrees twenty-one minutes no seconds west eight hundred fifty-two and twenty one-hundredths feet, thence north no degrees thirty-nine minutes no seconds east five hundred and sixty-one onehundredths feet, thence along the back of the south curb of West Sandia Drive, Sandia Base, Bernalillo County, New Mexico, eight hundred sixty-five and sixty one-hundredths feet; thence north no degrees thirty-nine minutes no seconds east one thousand three hundred thirty-five and three-tenths feet to a point south eighty-nine degrees twentyseven minutes forty-five seconds west a distance of thirty feet from the quarter corner common to sections 30 and 29, township 10 north, range 4 east, thence south eighty-nine degrees, twenty-seven minutes forty-five seconds west two thousand six hundred twenty-three and forty one-hundredths feet to the point of beginning."

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Mr. President, this is a section, earlier defined in the metes and bounds, of the residential property of Sandia Base over which exclusive jurisdiction is being returned to the State of New Mexico. It has been redefined because of a technical error found in the original language. Exclusive jurisdiction is being given back to the State of New Mexico because the people who live on the reservation really have no acceptable forum in which to have their property rights settled.

They have questions of divorce action and other questions and cannot have them adjudicated. The Commission believes that jurisdiction over the area should be returned to the State of New Mexico so that the laws of that State

will apply. However, when the description was sent to the committee and we put it into the bill as it now appears, in checking it we found with reference to the exact metes and bounds that the line of demarcation ran right down the middle of one of the avenues, and on the boundary line. So one-half of the street would be under Federal jurisdiction and the other half would be under the jurisdiction of the State of New Mexico. Therefore, we asked to have the property so described redrawn and replotted. We now believe that the action taken is without doubt correct and that it accomplishes the purpose. The effect is that one line of demarcation of the property is moved from the middle of the street to the curb line of the right-of-way.

The amendment merely contains a restatement of the metes and bounds, and a description of the property to be retroceded to the State of New Mexico. That is the occasion for the amendment, and I think it is correct.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the Senator from Iowa [Mr. HICKENLOOPER].

money to Communists and Communist causes, if any so do.

No foundation has anything to fear from the amendment if it does not and will not aid subversives and subversive organizations.

The New York newspaper story makes some absurd statements. For instance, it says that under the McCarran amendment the Rockefeller Foundation would have to be able to prove that every Egyptian peasant getting DDT was not a Communist.

Mr. President, the McCarran amendment specifically provides that no penalty shall attach in the case of any donation made by an organization to an individual solely for charitable purposes to supply food, clothing, shelter, or other necessities for such individual or for members of his family or household.

Similarly, the amendment provides that no penalty shall attach in the case of any donation made by an organization to an individual solely for the purpose of providing medical or hospital services for such individual or for members of his family or household.

The newspaper story to which I have referred points out that there is in the

The amendment was agreed to. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill bill a provision which says a foundation is open to further amendment.

REMOVAL OF TAX EXEMPTION

FROM FOUNDATIONS WHICH GIVE FINANCIAL AID TO COMMUNIST AND COMMUNIST-FRONT ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS

Mr. WELKER. Mr. President, on the front page of a New York newspaper of July 14 there appeared a Washington dateline story, with the byline of Edwin L. Dale, Jr., which, in my opinion, is full of misinformation and, in my opinion, is full of propaganda against the McCarran amendment to the tax bill.

Senators will remember this amendment, which passed the Senate without a dissenting vote, and which would remove tax exemption from foundations and other organizations that give money to Communist and Communist-front organizations and individuals.

The headline on this front-page story in the New York newspaper was: "Foundations Imperiled by Sleeper in Tax Bill."

Mr. President, the amendment was no "sleeper." The news story says it was accepted without debate. That is not so. The senior Senator from Nevada explained the amendment fully on the floor of the Senate at the time he offered it, and before it was voted into the bill.

Furthermore, the amendment itself was not new. The Senator from Nevada [Mr. MCCARRAN] first offered this proposal on January 7, 1953, in the form of an original bill, which was referred to the Senate Committee on Finance. The Senator from Colorado [Mr. MILLIKIN] stated on the Senate floor, at the time the McCarran amendment was debated, that this was not a new proposal, but was one which had been before the committee for a considerable time.

Mr. President, it is wholly false to say the bill will put any of the big foundations out of business. But it will, I hope, put them out of the business of giving

will be safe if it receives from the recipient of a grant a sworn statement that it or he is not a subversive organization as defined herein-unless the donor organization knows or has reason to know that such organization or individual-is subversive. That is not an accurate quotation from the bill, but in substance, it is a correct statement of what the bill provides. The newspaper story then goes on to say that this means every officer of the foundation would be charged with having opportunity to know that the recipient might be lying. That statement is abmight be lying. That statement is absolutely false. It is the reverse of what solutely false. It is the reverse of what the McCarran amendment in fact provides. What the amendment says is that an organization shall be charged with the knowledge of its officers and agents. In other words, if an officer or agent of a foundation knows that the recipient of a particular donation is a Communist, the foundation itself will be charged with that knowledge. This is a wholly reasonable provision. Foundations are not thinking entities. Foundations are run by people. It is only right that when something is known to the people who are running a foundation, it should be legally chargeable as knowledge by the foundation.

This newspaper article to which I refer, Mr. President, says that the foundations are making a strong effort to have the McCarran amendment stricken from the bill in the conference committee. I the bill in the conference committee. I cannot believe that statement. I do not cannot believe that statement. I do not know to what extent effort is being fosknow to what extent effort is being fostered or promoted by such organizations as the Institute of Pacific Relations, which was for many years the beneficiary which was for many years the beneficiary of grants from foundations. The Institute of Pacific Relations, the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee found, ternal Security Subcommittee found, "has been considered by the American Communist Party and by Soviet officials as an instrument of Communist policy, propaganda, and military intelligence, propaganda, and military intelligence, and which the committee also found was

infiltrated by Communists and was used for pro-Communist and pro-Soviet purposes."

I know, Mr. President, that the amendment was voted into the bill by the Senate of the United States. I am absolutely confident that the House of Representatives, if given an opportunity to vote on the amendment, would not reject it. If the conferees should strike the amendment from the bill, it will be done on their own responsibility. I hope the Senate conferees will not do so, and I do not think they will assent to doing so, for the Senate has voted on the matter and has included the amendment in the bill. The House conferees, I hope, would only vote for striking the amendment from the bill on the theory that the House was opposed to it. But the House has not opposed it. The House has not had an opportunity to vote on it. I hope that if the House conferees are in any doubt at all about this matter, they will take the amendment back to the House in disagreement and get a House vote which will guide them. If the House should vote against the amendment, then, clearly, the House conferees would be justified in opposing it in the conference committee. But unless and until the House has voted against the amendment, if the House conferees seek to eliminate it, the responsibility for doing so will be theirs personally.

Mr. President, I think the people of America are going to watch to see what happens to this amendment. Here is a strong anti-Communist provision which has been written into the tax bill by the Senate of the United States. If it is rejected in the conference committee, I believe the people of the country will want to know why, and who was responsible. The amendment should not be rejected, Mr. President; and I do not believe it will be rejected.

I ask unanimous consent that the news

story to which I have referred, together with the text of the McCarran amendment, as adopted by the Senate, may be printed in the RECORD at this point as a part of my remarks.

There being no objection, the article and amendment were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: FOUNDATIONS IMPERILED BY SLEEPER IN TAX BILL

(By Edwin L. Dale, Jr.) WASHINGTON, July 13.-A sleeper amendment added to the big tax revision bill on the Senate floor threatens to curtail severely or even put out of business the big foundations such as the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations.

The foundations, awakening belatedly to the implications of the amendment, are making a strong effort to have it stricken ference which begins tomorrow.

out of the bill in the House-Senate con

The amendment has an innocent-sound

ing purpose-namely to prevent the foundations and charitable organizations generally from making grants to Communist and Communist-front organizations and individuals.

It was introduced by Senator PAT MCCARRAN, Democrat, of Nevada, and accepted without debate by the Senate after Senator EUGENE D. MILLIKIN, Republican, of Colorado, chairman of the Finance Committee and floor manager of the bill, agreed to take it to con

ference.

The threat to the foundations arises from the details of the amendment whose central point is removal of tax exemption from any institution which makes grants to Communists. The same threat holds for churches and tax-exempt charities generally.

The key gimmick is a provision which would abolish tax-exempt status for any institution which makes a grant to a subversive individual, as distinct from an organization. If out of the 3,000 grants made annually by the Rockefeller Foundation, for example, one went to an individual who later proved to be a Communist-sympathizer, the foundation would lose its tax-exempt status for a minimum of 2 years-enough virtually to put it out of business.

Furthermore, the same rules apply to grants made abroad. Under a strict interpretation of the amendment, the Rockefeller Foundation would have to be able to prove that every Egyptian peasant getting DDT was not a Communist.

The loss of tax exemption would have the effect of cutting in half the income of most of the big foundations. That, in turn, would cut in half their grants. Furthermore, the amendment removes the deductibility from taxable income of gifts made by individuals to institutions which lose their tax-exempt status because of grants to subversives.

The requirement of the bill which, perhaps more than any other, worries the foundations is one which says a foundation will be safe if it receives from the recipient of a grant "a sworn statement that it (or he) is not a subversive organization as defined (herein), unless the donor organization knows or has reason to know that such organization (or individual) is subversive." "OPPORTUNITY TO KNOW"

This means, as the brief of one foundation puts it, that some sort of affidavit would be required with every grant. But worse still, every officer of the foundation would be charged with having "opportunity to know" that recipient might be lying.

The foundation asks: "Would a charge be made in an anonymous letter be held to furnish a 'reasonable opportunity to know?' Would the adverse testimony of a witness before a congressional committee be regarded as placing an organization on notice, even if such testimony was not followed up by a finding of the committee itself? Would a charge by a Senator or Representative that a particular university is subversive endanger the tax exemption of any organization which made a grant to that university?"

This foundation asks: "Would the Congress wish us, before making any grant to the University of Oxford, to demand that its chancellor furnish an affidavit that it neither advises nor teaches the propriety of overthrowing the Government of the United States by force or violence?"

The Treasury has been advised of the fears of the foundations, and the Internal Revenue Service is understood to be opposed to the amendment on the ground that it will cause a tremendous problem of enforcement. The issue, however, now rests with the 5 Senators and 5 Representatives of the conference committee.

The committee comprises Representatives DANIEL A. REED, Republican, New York, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee; THOMAS A. JENKINS, Republican, Ohio; RICHARD M. SIMPSON, Republican, Pennsylvania; JERE COOPER, Democrat, Tennessee; and JOHN D. DINGELL, Democrat, Michigan; the other ranking majority and minority members of that group, and Senators EUGENE D. MILLIKIN, Republican, Colorado, chairman; EDWARD D. MARTIN, Republican, Pennsylvania; JOHN J. WILLIAMS, WILLIAMS, Republican, Delaware; WALTER F. GEORGE, Democrat, Georgia; and HARRY F. BYRD, Democrat, Vir

ginia, ranking members of the Senate Finance Committee.

Amendment intended to be proposed by Mr. MCCARRAN to the bill (H. R. 8300) to revise the internal revenue laws of the United States, viz: At the proper place in the bill add the following:

"Chapter 38 of the Internal Revenue Code is amended by adding at the end thereof a new section as follows:

66

"SEC. 3815. Denial of exemption under section 101 (6) in the case of organizations making donations to subversive organizations or individuals. "(a) Definitions: For the purposes of this section:

"(1) Subversive organization: The term "subversive organization" means any organization which (A) advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the Government of the United States by force or violence, or (B) is on the list of organizations furnished by the Attorney General pursuant to part III, section 3 of Executive Order No. 9835 of March 21, 1947, or (C) is registered (or required by a final order of the Subversive Activities Control Board to register) with the Attorney General under section 7 of the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950.

6

"(2) Subversive individual: The term "subversive individual” means any individual who (A) advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the Government of the United States by force or violence, or (B) is a member of any subversive organization as defined in paragraph (1) of this subsection, or (C) is registered or required to be registered with the Attorney General under section 8 of the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950.

“(3) Donation: The term "donation" includes (A) any gift, contribution, or grant of money, property, services, or any other thing of value, and (B) any loan of money, property, services, or any other thing of value, other than a loan in the course of a bona fide business transaction.

"(b) Denial of exemption:

66 6

'(1) General rule: No organization which makes a donation to any subversive organization or to any subversive individual shall be exempt from taxation under section 101 (6).

"(2) Exceptions: The provisions of paragraph (1) of this subsection shall not apply in the case of any donation made by an organization to

"(A) an individual solely for charitable purposes to supply food, clothing, shelter,

or other necessities for such individual or for members of his family or household; or

"'(B) an individual solely for the purpose of providing medical or hospital services for such individual or for members of his family or household; or

"(C) an organization which furnishes to the donor organization in advance of such donation a sworn statement that it is not a subversive organization as defined in subsection (a) (1) of this section, unless the donor organization knows or has reasonable opportunity to know that such organization is a subversive organization; or

"(D) an individual who furnishes to the donor organization in advance of such donation a sworn statement that he is not a subversive individual as defined in subsection (a) (2) of this section, unless the donor organization knows or has reasonable opportunity to know that such individual is a

subversive individual.

For the purposes of this subsection, an organization shall, with respect to the making of any donation, be charged with the knowledge or opportunity to know of any officer, agent, or employee of such organization who

actively participates in the making of such donation.

"(3) Taxable years affected: A denial of exemption under section 101 (6) by reason of this section shall be effective for taxable years commencing with the taxable year during which the Secretary, after notice and opportunity for a hearing, determines that an organization has made a donation to which the provisions of this subsection are applicable.

"(c) Future status of organization denied exemption: Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary, any organization denied exemption under section 101 (6) by reason of this section may, during any taxable year following the taxable year in which exemption is denied, file claim for exemption, and if the Secretary, pursuant to such regulations, is satisfied that there is no reason for believing that such organization will again make a donation which would be grounds for denial of exemption by reason of this section, such organization shall be exempt under section 101 (6) with respect to taxable years subsequent to the taxable year in which such claim is filed.

"(d) Disallowance of certain charitable, etc., deductions: No gift or bequest for religious, charitable, scientific, literary, or educational purposes (including the encouragement of art and the prevention of cruelty to children or animals), otherwise allowable as a deduction under section 23 (0) (2), 23 (q) (2), 162 (a), 505 (a) (2), 812 (d), 861 (a) (3), 1004 (a) (2) (B), or 1004 (b) (2) or (3), shall be allowed as a deduction if made to an organization during a taxable year of such organization in which it is not exempt under section 101 (6) by reason of this section, unless such gift or bequest is made prior to the date of the Secretary's determination under subsection (b) (3) that such organization has made a donation to which the provisions of subsection (b) are applicable.'

"SEC. 2. (a) Section 23 (o) (2) of the International Revenue Code is amended by inserting after 'sections 3813' the following: ', 3815.'

"(b) Section 23 (q) of the Internal ReveCode is amended by inserting after 'section 3813' the following:, 3815.'

"(c) Section 101 (6) of the Internal Revenue Code is amended by striking out 'sections 3813 and 3814' and inserting in lieu thereof 'sections 3813, 3814, and 3815.'

"(d) Section 162 (a) of the Internal Revenue Code is amended by striking out 'section 23 (ee);' and inserting in lieu thereof the following: 'section 23 (ee). For disallowance of certain charitable, etc., deductions otherwise allowable under this subsection, see section 3815.'

"(e) Section 505 (a) (2) of the Internal Revenue Code is amended by inserting after 'sections 3813' the following: ', 3815.'

"(f) Section 812 (d) of the Internal Revenue Code is amended by inserting after 'sections 3813' the following: ', 3815.'

"(g) Section 861 (a) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code is amended by inserting after 'sections 3813' the folowing: ', 3815.'

"(h) Section 1004 (a) (2) (B) of the Internal Revenue Code is amended by inserting after 'sections 3813' the following: ', 3815.'

"(i) Section 1004 (b) of the Internal Revenue Code is amended by inserting after 'sections 3813' the following: ', 3815.'

"SEC. 3. The amendments to the Internal Revenue Code made by this act shall be applicable only with respect to taxable years ending after the date of enactment of this act. The provisions of section 3815 (b) of the Internal Revenue Code, as added by this act, shall be applicable only with respect to donations (as defined in section 3815 (a) (3)) made after the date of enactment of this act."

[blocks in formation]

The Chief Clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the call of the roll be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. HENDRICKSON in the chair). Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. JENNER. Mr. President, the International Court of Justice at The Hague has just handed down a ruling which is of vital concern to every person in the United States. I refer to the decision that the U. N. Assembly is to pay the damages awarded to American employees of the U. N. who were asked to testify before the Internal Security Subcommittee about their membership in the Communist apparatus or about acts of subversion in support of the Soviet Union, and who refused to answer under the fifth amendment protection against self-incrimination.

Upon presentation of the evidence in our hearings, the Secretary-General, Mr. Trygve Lie, dismissed these employees on the ground that refusal to answer questions about matters that might incriminate them was conduct unbecoming to U. N. civil servants. The dismissed employees appealed. The U. N. Administrative Tribunal, set up to hear employee appeals, upheld the arguments of the dismissed employees and their lawyers. It awarded damages totaling $179,420 to 11 of the employees. Their lawyers argued that Communist membership was not political action, but private opinion. Their arguments followed the familiar Communist practice of legal sabotage of established processes, and use of judicial hearings for agitation and propaganda.

their

The American representative to the U. N., Hon. Henry Cabot Lodge, protested; and the Assembly refused to pay the damages, without having a judicial opinion on the matter. The International Court of Justice has now upheld the Administrative Tribunal. It has ruled in effect that U. N. employees from non-Soviet nations who refuse to deny obedience to the Soviet fifth column are proper civil servants of the U. N.

The fact that damages are to be paid to U. N. civil servants of American nationality, who have a record of pro-Communist acitivity, is important in itself. The people of the United States will have to pay at least one-third of this sum, through appropriations to U. N. The effect on loyal civil servants who have no secret ties with the U. S. S. R. is also obvious.

Far more important, however, is the legal support given by the tribunal and the Court to a fifth column within the U. N. Secretariat, governing the actions of employees who claim to be nationals of non-Communist countries.

The people of the United States and their representatives in Congress view with deep concern the disclosure of a legal network which protects such employees, against the wishes of the Secretary General, and apparently of the U. N. Assembly, in spite of the declared principles of the U. N. that their employees shall not engage in poltical activity, or acts hostile to a member nation.

The question now rests with the U. N. Assembly. It must decide whether it can insure that the U. N. administrative tribunal, in its quasi-judicial functions, will not reverse established U. N. policies, or whether the Assembly is powerless to bring its personnel policies within the bring its personnel policies within the commitments made to member states.

I have addressed the following letter to the American representative to the U. N., the Honorable Henry Cabot Lodge, asking him to continue the efforts he has been making so ably, to present the American point of view on this issue, and to cooperate with representatives of other non-Communist nations which object to use of non-Communist nationals ject to use of non-Communist nationals in the U. N. Secretariat as a secret fifth column of the Soviet Union:

UNITED STATES SENATE, Washington, D. C., July 15, 1954. Hon. HENRY CABOT LODGE,

United States Representative,

The United Nations, New York, N. Y. DEAR MR. AMBASSADOR: The Internal Security Subcommittee of the Senate is interested in the recent findings of the International Court of Justice, which upheld damage awards to the American employees of the U. N. staff, who had been dismissed by the Secretary-General because they refused to answer the committee's questions about their Communist affiliations on the ground of self-incrimination.

Our subcommittee, pursuing the duty assigned it by Congress, to investigate subversive activities by American citizens, made a thorough inquiry into the Communist connections of Americans on the U. N. staff. You were kind enough to appear at this inquiry and testify about the problems involved.

Our subcommittee found that certain American members of the U. N. Secretariat had close links with the Communist apparatus, directed from Moscow. They had, in many instances, been placed in their positions in the U. N. as part of the interlocking subversion between Government departments, private agencies, members of the U. N. secretariat and the Communist apparatus, obviously for no good purpose. When asked about these links, the U. N. employees invoked the fifth amendment and refused to answer questions, because the answer might incriminate them.

Secretary-General Trygve Lie held that refusal to answer questions on such grounds was conduct unbecoming to international civil servants and dismissed the employees involved. This position is similar to that taken by our National Government and various State governments, which dismiss civil servants who have need to invoke the fifth amendment.

The employees appealed to the U. N. Administrative Tribunal, which reversed the Secretary General in 11 cases, and ordered reinstatement, payment of awards for damages, or both, to American employees of U. N. who would not state that they were not Communists.

As you know, the indignation among our people was widespread. For one thing, approximately one-third of such payments must come from funds voted by Congress and paid by American taxpayers. Even more important, the privileges and immunities we

have given to U. N. employees, if abused, constitute a highly dangerous and well-protected opportunity to undermine our Nation's security.

Our subcommittee found, in its report of March 22, 1954, that a Communist fifth column exists within the U. N. staff, and that Soviet agents use U. N. privileges as a cover for espionage and subversion.

This concerns all non-Communist nations, though our concern is greater because most of this activity occurs within our borders. The question now is whether the U. N. Assembly will adjust its personnel policies to conform to the stated U. N. principle that staff members are not to engage in political activities hostile to member states.

The position of counsel for the dismissed employees was, in general, that Communist activities were not political acts but private beliefs. This flies in the face of all the evidence that membership in the Communist apparatus imposes the obligation of continuous political activity favorable to the Soviet Union and dangerous to the existence

of the United States and other nonCommunist states.

The U. N. Administrative Tribunal upheld the position of the lawyers for the dismissed Secretary General. It ruled that the ememployees, against the position of the ployees had been damaged, not by their con

nections with communism or subversion, but by being asked to tell of their activities openly.

The International Court has upheld the curious position of the administrative tribunal. The situation now is that the position of the American Government, the U. N. Assembly, and the U. N. Secretary General, has been reversed by a U. N. administrative agency concerned with employee grievances, and that this board, heavily biased in favor of the Soviet position, has been upheld by the International Court.

It may be too late to stop such shocking awards in the case of past services, but the United States Congress must make certain that no such awards to secret pro-Communists shall be paid again. It must also have assurance that the U. N. staff is truly nonpolitical, and does not harbor an unrecognized outpost of the Cominform, working against the interests of our country and all other free nations.

The Senate has voted, but the House has not yet approved, S. 3, which will prevent employment of Americans in the U. N. Secretariat who cannot get clearance that they have not engaged in subversive activities. Passage of this bill should remove from the U. N. Secretariat Americans who have served the fifth column. Perhaps the representatives of other non-Communist nations will wish to cooperate in efforts to remove all members of the Soviet fifth column, claiming to be loyal citizens of any non-Communist nations.

The responsibility falls on the U. N. Assembly to make clear its position on the obligations of U. N. civil servants, and to insure that its stated commitments will be carried out by all parts of the U. N. establishment.

I hope you will be able to press for a final decision by the Assembly on whether employees may remain on the staff of the U. N., if they are secret Communists, working for the ends of the Soviet Union, while asking to be accepted as loyal citizens of non-Communist states.

I trust you will urge the U. N. Assembly to reexamine the U. N. Administrative Tribunal, and decide how its policies may be brought into line with U. N.'s stated objectives.

The U. N. Assembly should make its policies on this critical issue of the integrity of its staff, clear beyond the shadow of a doubt. If the U. N. Assembly is unable to impose its stated policies on its staff members, and the U. N. staff can be used as a beachhead for the advance of Communist power, then

[ocr errors]

Congress should know the facts. It can then reexamine its legal ties with, and its financial contribution to, an agency whose staff includes secret collaborators with the Soviet attack on free nations.

Sincerely yours,

WILLIAM E. JENNER.

Mr. WELKER. Mr. President, will the
Senator from Indiana yield to me?
Mr. JENNER. I yield.

Mr. WELKER. I should like to ask the Senator from Indiana whether it is a fact that of the original administrative

tribunal which made the outlandish decision which resulted in the two of us going to New York to hold further hearings, not one American was a member?

Mr. JENNER. That is correct. But in view of the way the tribunal is composed that could logically follow, because its membership is not static and permanent.

Mr. WELKER.

Of course that is true.

activity directed toward the overthrow
of governments of other nations, con-
trary to the regulations of the United
Nations Organization?

Mr. JENNER. It certainly is. That is
the reason for this letter calling the sub-
ject to the attention of our Ambassador.
If the matter cannot be settled within
the United Nations Organization, Con-
gress must know about it so that it can
act accordingly.

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. I congratuI congratulate the Senator for bringing this extraordinary decision and action of the International Court of Justice to the attention of the country. I can only say, disappointed at the failure of the Interto put it mildly, that I am very much national Court to come to grips with the realities of the issue of international communism. It raises a question in my mind as to the ability of the International Court to approach realistically,

Will the Senator from Indiana yield judiciously, and judically the very patent

for a further question?

Mr. JENNER. I yield.

Mr. WELKER. In the cross-examination of some of those who have been granted the large indemnities and reinstatement

Mr. JENNER. Indemnities, primarily.

Mr. WELKER. Yes. I should like to ask whether it is a fact that their appeal was perfected upon unsworn statements, not in the form of affidavits at all.

Mr. JENNER. That is my understanding. Furthermore, the hearing was held in this country, because those who are asking for damages were not allowed to have passports to go to Europe, where the tribunal should sit.

Mr. WELKER. Will the Senator from

Indiana state why they were not allowed passports?

Mr. JENNER. I do not know that I can say that. But they were not cleared by the State Department's Immigration

Service.

Mr. WELKER. Very well. I thank the Senator from Indiana.

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

Mr. JENNER. I yield.

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Does the Senator feel that this strange and fantastic decision by the members of the International Court of Justice who sat in this case indicates a complete ignorance on the part of those jurists as to the nature of the international Communist conspiracy?

Mr. JENNER. Apparently it does. Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Does not that indicate an utter naivete on the part of those persons who sat in judgment in this case, and that the international Communist conspiracy is, in fact, a political as well as a military movement for the purpose of the enslavement of all the free peoples of the world?

Mr. JENNER. It certainly does. Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Is it not fantastic to think that men who are at least presumed to be intelligent and to have some breadth of vision could be so naive as to hold that those persons who probably had been associated with the international Communist conspiracy are only faddists in their own minds, and that they are not participating in any

facts that anyone who has any knowl-
edge of the international Communist
conspiracy knows to exist.

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

HENDRICKSON in the chair). Does the
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
Senator from Indiana yield to the Sena-
tor from Idaho?

Mr. JENNER. I yield.

Mr. WELKER. I know that in the Senator's letter to the Ambassador, he says that perhaps it is too late to correct the past situation. However, I wish to assure the Senator from Indiana that when and if I am called upon to vote for one dollar of indemnity or liability or damage to any individuals who are haled before the committee on which I have the honor of serving with the Senator from Indiana, I shall say, "No; never will I ask the taxpayers of America, some of whom have lost boys in Korea, and others who may lose them in other places, to spend one dime of their hard-earned money for indemnifying that class of people."

Mr. JENNER. I am hopeful that the entire Senate will take the same attitude.

REVISION OF THE ATOMIC ENERGY

ACT OF 1946

The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (S. 3690) to amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1946, as amended, and for other purposes.

RETT], the Senator from Nebraska [Mrs. BOWRING], the Senator from Arizona [Mr. GOLDWATER], and the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. UPTON] are necessarily absent.

Mr. CLEMENTS. I announce that the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. ELLENDER], the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. GREEN], the Senator from Nevada [Mr. MCCARRAN], the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. MCCLELLAN], and the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. NEELY] are absent on official business.

The Senator from Missouri [Mr. HENNINGS] is necessarily absent.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quorum is not present.

Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, I move that the Sergeant at Arms be directed to request the attendance of absent Senators.

The motion was agreed to.

Sergeant at Arms will execute the order

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

of the Senate.

After a little delay Mr. ANDERSON, Mr. BEALL, Mr. BENNETT, Mr. BRICKER, Mr. BRIDGES, Mr. BURKE, Mr. BUTLER, Mr. BYRD, Mr. CAPEHART, Mr. CHAVEZ, Mr. CLEMENTS, Mr. COOPER, Mr. CORDON, Mr. CRIPPA, Mr. DANIEL, Mr. DOUGLAS, Mr. DUFF, Mr. EASTLAND, Mr. ERVIN, Mr. FERGUSON, Mr. FLANDERS, Mr. FREAR, Mr. GILLETTE, Mr. HILL, Mr. IVES, Mr. JACKSON, Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado, Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina, Mr. KEFAUVER, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. KILGORE, Mr. LANGER, Mr. LEHMAN, Mr. LONG, Mr. MANSFIELD, Mr. MAYBANK, Mr. MCCARTHY, Mr. MORSE, Mr. PASTORE, Mr. PURTELL, Mr. REYNOLDS, Mr. ROBERTSON, Mr. SALTONSTALL, Mr. SMATHERS, Mrs. SMITH of Maine, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, Mr. SPARKMAN, Mr. STENNIS, Mr. WELKER, Mr. WILEY, Mr. WILLIAMS, and Mr. YOUNG entered the Chamber and answered to their names.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. bill is open to further amendment.

The

Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President, in consideration of the bill to modernize and bring up to date the Atomic Energy Act, Congress will be taking a monumental step into a future which may be filled with a new kind of headlines.

If in the years to some the fears which may come from headlines that a new type H-bomb has been devised, either by ourselves or by the Russians, can be replaced with news of new blessings to all mankind from the peaceful release of Mr. GORE. Mr. President, I suggest neuclear and gaseous fusion, we shall the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. HENDRICKSON in the chair). The Secretary will call the roll.

The Chief Clerk called the roll, and the following Senators answered to their the following Senators answered to their

[blocks in formation]

have a different kind of world.

If in the bill before us, the blueprint for helping to create a new kind of world filled with the blessings of atomic energy, instead of a world in which the people live in the shadow of fears, is a good one, the 83d Congress will have kept the faith.

That is why the bill is of such tremendous importance as we cross the threshold of peaceful use of the atom on a scale which has not been contemplated in the present era.

The importance of the Atomic Energy Commission in the blueprint will be paramount. The members through their decisions will affect the pattern of our economics and our growth, as well as

« PreviousContinue »