The message also announced that the House had agreed to the report of the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. R. 4974) making appropriations for the Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1954, and for other purposes; that the House receded from its disagreement to the amendments of the Senate numbered 1, 10, 11, and 17 to the bill, and concurred therein; that the House receded from its disagreement to the amendments of the Senate numbered 4, 23, 24, 26, and 28 to the bill, and concurred therein severally with an amendment, in which it requested the concurrence of the Senate, and that the House insisted upon its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 34.

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate a message from the House of Representatives announcing its disagreement to the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. R. 5141) to create the Small Business Administration and to preserve small-business institutions and free competitive enterprise, and requesting a conference with the Senate on the disagreeing votes of the 2 Houses thereon.

Mr. CAPEHART. I move that the Senate insist upon its amendments, agree to the request of the House for a conference, and that the Chair appoint the conferees on the part of the Senate.

The motion was agreed to; and the Chair appointed Mr. CAPEHART, Mr. BRICKER, Mr. Ives, Mr. BENNETT, Mr. MAYBANK, Mr. FULBRIGHT, and Mr. ROBERTSON Conferees on the part of the Senate.

PRINTING OF SMALL BUSINESS

ADMINISTRATION BILL

Mr. CAPEHART. Mr. President, I

ask unanimous consent that the bill (H. R. 5141) to create the Small Business Administration and to preserve small-business institutions and free, competitive enterprise, as amended and passed on yesterday by the Senate, be printed, showing amendments the adopted by the Senate. The PRESIDING OFFICER. With out objection, it is so ordered.

ANNUITIES TO RETIRED COMPTROLLERS GENERAL

The Senate resumed consideration of the bill (H. R. 5228) to amend section 303 of the Budget and Accounting Act, 1921 (42 Stat. 23).

Mr. HOEY. Mr. President, I desire to suggest the absence of a quorum; but first I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of the rollcall, I be recognized.

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

Mr. SMATHERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the call of the roll be rescinded, and that the further proceedings under the call be dispensed with.

any groups of any kind or character.

Mr. HOEY. Mr. President, I wish to call the attention of the Senate briefly to the pending measure, House bill 5228, to amend section 303 of the Budget and Accounting Act. I do not believe this bill will require lengthy discussion. Certainly I shall discuss it briefly.

The bill, which has been passed by the House of Representatives, relates to the retirement of the Comptroller General.

In the House of Representatives, Speaker MARTIN and Republican Leader HALLECK, as well as Minority Leader Minority Leader RAYBURN and his assistant, Mr. McCORMACK, all agreed about the bill, and had the rule suspended; and under suspension of the rule, the bill was passed, after the House had fully considered it. Thirteen Republican Members and 11 Democratic Members of the House committee recommended passage of the bill as amended.

When the bill came to the Senate, it was referred to the Senate Committee on Government Operations. That committee submitted a unanimous report on the bill.

The bill relates to retirement of the Comptroller General of the United States.

Some persons have raised the question of whether the bill will establish a precedent. Mr. President, the bill cannot establish a precedent, because the office of the Comptroller General is the only office of its sort in the United States. It is the only one of its kind, and in all probability there will not be another one like it.

Appointment to the position of Comptroller General of the United States is

for 15 years, and the appointee cannot succeed himself. The present incumbent has served approximately 131⁄2 years.

It is generally known that at this time his health is bad.

Mr. President, this measure is a vital one because of the circumstances. The

General Accounting Office, which is headed by the Comptroller Genéral of the United States, is the only Government agency which represents the Congress. All the other agencies of the Government are under the executive branch. So Congress must necessarily depend upon the services of the Comptroller General, in order that its views may be heard in connection with the determination of important matters arising in the Government.

I think it will be universally admitted that former Representative Lindsay C. Warren, who served for a long time in the Congress before he was appointed Comptroller General, has been a most admirable official. He has not hesitated to differ with the administration which may be in power, but has considered only the service he was called upon to

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

spective of political considerations. The one idea in establishing the office was that it should be removed from politics,

are very much in line with quasi-judicial duties, and the retirement benefits provided for him are the same as those provided for Federal judges throughout the country.

Since Mr. Warren is the only representative of the Congress in an official capacity, and since the position does not come under the civil-service regulations, and the funds to be provided for retirement are to come out of General Accounting Office funds, I do not think it establishes a precedent, and I believe the pending measure should be passed. I shall not take the time of the Senate longer, because the measure was unanimously reported by the committee, and was passed practically unanimously by the House.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, the salary of the Comptroller General is $17,500 per annum. In the pending bill it is proposed that we establish a precedent of giving a lifetime pension of the full salary to any man who holds this position a minimum of 10 years under certain circumstances, or under all circumstances when they serve the full 15 year term. Under the pending bill, it would mean that if we appoint a man at the age of 50, he would draw $17,500 a year as salary for the 15 years and $17,500 as pension for the remainder of his life. If the man is 45 years of age on the day of his appointment, it means that he will receive $17,500 for 15 years, and $14,875 retirement for the remainder of his life. If a man is appointed at the age of 40, he would receive $17,500 a year for 15 years, and $12,250 a year for the remainder of his life. These figures would be changed upward or downward as the salary is changed in the future.

This is the second time within the past few days that we have been tinkering with the retirement law. At the same time, the Congress has appropriated $50,000 for the purpose of having a study made looking to a general revision of our retirement laws. It would be well for Congress to wait for the recommendations of the commission which has been set up to study this particular question. My thought would be that the whole retirement system should be restudied; it was for that reason that Congress appropriated several thousands to this commission. It does not make sense that we should act on separate retirement measures every week.

Under the pending bill there are no deductions at all from the salary of the person who is participating. In making this objection regarding the pending measure, I want to make it perfectly clear that in so doing there is nothing personal in it, because there is no man in the Government with whom I have had the privilege of working during my service in the Senate for the past 6 years, for whom I have greater respect or higher regard than I have for the present Comptroller General, Mr. Warren. I think he is a great public servant, and

it is most regrettable that he is approaching retirement. Nevertheless, I Nevertheless, I think we would be establishing a dangerous precedent were we to set up a lifetime pension at full pay for Mr. Warren or his successor whoever he may be. Therefore, I shall vote against the pending measure.

something of the sort, though in many cases that probably would not be true.

Furthermore, the independence that is desirable in connection with the Office of Comptroller General is very much comparable to that of the position of Federal judge. We are not at this time proposing to do anything for the Comptroller

Mr. CASE. Mr. President, the Senator from South Dakota shares the high regard for Lindsay Warren which has already been expressed. It was my privilege to serve with him first in the House of Representatives, and following that, after he became Comptroller General I had the privilege of working with him on various pieces of legislation having to do with his office, including the so-called Government Corporations Control Act. When that act was in the House of Representatives I had something to do with it in association with Mr. Whittington, of Mississippi. It was sponsored in the Senate originally by the Senator from Virginia [Mr. BYRD] and the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. BUTLER). That was a bill which threw us into frequent contact with the General Accounting Office.

As a personal matter, because of my high regard for Lindsay C. Warren, and because of the service he has rendered, I should want to see the pending bill made applicable to him; but I think the merits of the bill go beyond that.

In response to what the Senator from Delaware [Mr. WILLIAMS] has said, I think certain things should be pointed out. First, I hope no man will be appointed Comptroller General of the

United States, and no man would normally be so appointed, unless he had devoted a considerable portion of his life to activities which would qualify him for that office in such a way that only a man relatively advanced in years would be appointed.

If the appointee were a man who had not been in Government service, but who, because of his activities in the accounting field and in the business world, should be appointed, it would mean that he had not previously earned any retirement in Government service. If he were to serve less than 15 years in the position of Comptroller General, he could not accumulate sufficient retire

ment so that he could be assured of an adequate income for himself and wife, and possibly other members of his family, following his retirement. So if we are to get the kind of men for the Office of Comptroller General we ought to have, we should get a man who has been in the Government service long enough to have earned a competent retirement, or there should be some provision for an adequate retirement benefit when he ceases to be Comptroller General.

The fact is also that the Comptroller General must be someone who has divorced himself from all other income. He must be free from business connections.

He must be free from those things which other people might do in a business way to assure themselves of a competence. It might be that someone would be appointed as Comptroller General who had an independent income, as a result of an inheritance or

the Federal judiciary, that is, a Federal judge. Therefore, it seems to me that we are wholly warranted in taking the action proposed; and if it is to be done, I think there is no better time to start it than when it can be regarded as being done in recognition of the kind of service that has been given to the Government by such a man as Lindsay C. Warren.

The bill

WELKER] that they have been served with a letter by Mr. Charles Ford, an attorney of Washington, representing Major Barrett, and saying that the Internal Revenue Department wants to see those papers. He wants them released from the custody of the committee. I am informed that they may be released only by an order of the Senate.

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator from South Dakota yield? Mr. CASE. I yield.

Mr. KNOWLAND. Do I correctly understand that the letter has been taken up with the majority and minority members of the committee, and that they have no objection to the procedure?

Mr. CASE. As a matter of fact, the letter was addressed to the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. NEELY] and the Senator from Idaho [Mr. WELKER], and those two Senators came to me to ascer

SALE OF

GOVERNMENT-OWNED

RUBBER-PRODUCING FACILITIES The Senate resumed the consideration

of the bill (S. 2047) to amend the Rubber Act of 1948, as amended, to provide for the sale of Government-owned rubberproducing facilities, to repeal and modify certain of its provisions affected thereby, and for other purposes.

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.

Mr. KNOWLAND. Is the unfinished business now Senate bill 2047, Calendar No. 579, a bill providing for the disposal laid aside for the purpose of considering of rubber plants, which was temporarily the bill that has just been passed?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.

Mr. KNOWLAND. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

OFFICER. The

The PRESIDING clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for a quorum call be rescinded and that further proceedings under the call be suspended.

I have consulted with the Parliamentarian, who tells me that the proper procedure is to obtain an order of the Senate. The clerk of the committee has

located the papers. They are in the possession of a committee of the Senate, but, under the Reorganization Act, I unout an order of the Senate. derstand they cannot be released with

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. President, will the Senator from South Dakota yield?

Mr. CASE. I yield.

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Was the statement made by the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the District of Columbia agreeable to all the members of the committee?

Mr. CASE. So far as I know. The Senators most concerned are the Senator from West Virginia and the Senator from Idaho.

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Are they agreeable to the procedure?

Mr. CASE. They asked that this be done.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator from South Dakota restate his request?

ORDER FOR RELEASE OF CERTAIN

PAPERS TO ROBERT J. BARRETT
OR HIS ATTORNEY

Mr. CASE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an order may be issued relative to certain papers which were obtained by the Subcommittee on Crime and Law Enforcement of the Committee on the District of Columbia on the 14th of January 1952. The committee issued a subpena duces tecum to Robert J. Barrett to produce certain books, checks, documents, and other matters. He did produce the papers and he came before the committee with them. I have now been informed by the distinguished Senator from West Virginia [Mr. NEELY] and the distinguished Senator from Idaho

[Mr.

receive a receipt therefor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there it is so ordered. objection? The Chair hears none, and

The order agreed to was subsequently reduced to writing, as follows:

IN THE SENATE OF THE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. It is ordered, That the Senate Committee on the District of Columbia, be and is hereby authorized to return to Mr. Robert J. Barrett, 5811 Seventh Street NW., Washington, D. C., the following documents which were produced by the said Robert J. Barrett on January 14, 1952, in compliance with a subpena duces tecum served upon him on January 12, 1952, by the subcommittee of the Committee on the District of Columbia investigating crime and law enforcement: (1) One hundred and sixty-nine (169) cancelled checks of Robert J. and Mildred C. Barrett, American Security and Trust Company, covering the period January 3, 1949, to December 23, 1949, inclusive.

(2) One hundred and seventy-two (172) cancelled checks of Robert J. and Mildred C. Barrett, American Security and Trust Company, covering the period January 16, 1950, to December 26, 1950, inclusive.

(3) On hundred and fifty-eight (158) cancelled checks of Robert J. and Mildred C. Barrett, American Security and Trust Company, covering the period January 4, 1951, to December 8, 1951, inclusive.

(4) Five bank statements, American Security and Trust Company, Washington, D. C., showing account of Mr. Robert J. Barrett or Mrs. Mildred C. Barrett, or surv., from March 28, 1951, through December 18, 1951, inclusive.

(5) Share Savings Account book, Number 16207 of Oriental Building Association, 600 F Street, Northwest, Washington, D. C., issued to Maurice C. Ganley, Robert J. Barrett, Trustee, and Mildred C. Barrett, Trustee.

(6) Seven check books showing stubs as follows: (a) 2-4-49 through 4-20-50; (b) 5-23-50 through 9-27-50; (c) 7-21-50 through 9-7-50; (d) 10-16-50 through 3-16-51; (e) 3-19-51 through 11-2-51; (f) 12-8-51 through 1-7-52; (g) 1-7-52 through

1-11-52.

SALE OF GOVERNMENT-OWNED RUBBER-PRODUCING FACILITIES The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (S. 2047) to amend the Rubber Act of 1948, as amended, to provide for the sale of Government-owned rubberproducing facilities, to repeal and modify certain of its provisions affected thereby, and for other purposes.

Mr. CAPEHART. Mr. PresidentMr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator from Indiana yield?

Mr. CAPEHART. I yield.

Mr. KNOWLAND. Is the Senator about to make a statement with reference to the bill to amend the Rubber Act of 1948, as amended?

Mr. CAPEHART. Yes.

ATTACK ON ROY COHN

major part in the prosecution of the major part in the prosecution of the Rosenberg case. Rosenberg case. He did all the handling of Greenglass, the principal prosecution witness in that case. His entire examination of Greenglass was printed by our Joint Atomic Energy Committee of Congress. He prosecuted William Remington. ington. He was called to Washington to prepare the indictment in the Lattimore case to present to the grand jury, which he did. He served in the Department of Justice for 5 years under Democratic Attorneys General, and he received the highest plaudits from that Department for his outstanding work in exposing and securing the conviction of Communists.

For that reason I find it difficult to understand why two Senators should take the floor of the Senate and attack that young man and attempt a job of character assassination. They have been unable to find anything specific they can say against him, except the usual smear attack on anyone who fights communism, attack on anyone who fights communism, yes, even on the floor of the United States Senate.

I notified both the junior Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. MONRONEY] and the junior Senator from New York [Mr. LEHMAN] that I intended to discuss the matter. The junior Senator from Oklahoma led off. When he was caught, he did not answer. Apparently he did not have the guts to do it. He called upon the junior Senator from New York [Mr. LEHMAN).

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

Mr. MCCARTHY. I will yield in just a moment.

Mr. MONRONEY. Will the Senator from Wisconsin repeat what he just said? I did not hear exactly what the Senator said.

Mr. McCARTHY. The junior Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. MONRONEY] led off with an attack upon my chief coun

Mr. CAPEHART. I yield. Mr. MCCARTHY. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Indiana shall not lose the floor by yielding to me for a brief statement.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and the Senator from Wisconsin may proceed.

Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. President, a few of my colleagues in the past week have taken it upon themselves to use the Senate floor in order to attack the chief counsel of my committee.

I normally ignore any attack made upon me personally, but when there is an attack upon a member of my staff, I feel I must set the record straight.

One Senator made the statement that my chief counsel is damaging the Communist fight. I should like to give a brief record of the young man, Mr. Roy Cohn, who is one of the most brilliant young men with whom I have ever worked. He had practically a 1-man job before the grand jury and was commended by the Senate Judiciary Committee for having been instrumental in procuring the dismissal of 40 Communists from the United Nations. He had charge of the prosecution and secured the conviction of the 13 top Communists who were recently convicted. He took a

"Keystone cop." He could find nothing specific to say against him. It was just a general attack, which was completely unwarranted. Then, when he was called on that, instead of the junior Senator from Oklahoma answering for himself, the junior Senator from New York [Mr. LEHMAN] appeared on the floor and answered.

Mr. MONRONEY. Will the junior Senator from Wisconsin advise me when I was called? The junior Senator from Wisconsin was notified of my speech an hour before it was made. The junior Senator from Wisconsin was not on the floor. At this hour I do not know what the Senator from Wisconsin means when he says I was "called" on my speech.

Mr. McCARTHY. I might say that I was notified that the junior Senator from Oklahoma was going to make an attack. I assumed it would be an attack upon me. I was not interested in hearing the junior Senator from Oklahoma make such an attack. Had I known that the junior Senator from Oklahoma was going to attack members of my staff, I would have been on the floor.

Mr. President, after the junior Senator from New York [Mr. LEHMAN] had set himself up as an evaluator of who is a good anti-Communist and who is not, I took a little trouble to check some correspondence in the Hiss case. I now in

tend to read to the Senate a letter written by the junior Senator from New York [Mr. LEHMAN] to Mr. Hiss, which will perhaps give a better picture of the great authority on how to fight communism who sets himself up to attack members of my committee staff. I read the letter:

NEW YORK, N. Y., August 6, 1948. DEAR MR. HISS: Just a line to tell you how much I sympathize with you in the difficult position you unfortunately have been placed. I want you to know that I have complete confidence in your loyalty, and that, in common with your many other friends, I know that under no conceivable circumstances could you fail to safeguard the interest of your country.

I repeat this is a letter from Mr. HERBERT H. LEHMAN to Alger Hiss. I continue to read:

Your statement yesterday before the committee was forthright and complete, and I hope that your denial will catch up with the unfair accusations that have been made. You have been very badly treated.

With kindest personal regards and best wishes, I remain,

Very sincerely yours,

HERBERT H. LEHMAN.

However,

Mr. President, I repeat, if the junior Senator from New York or the junior Senator from Oklahoma had merely attacked me, I would not be dignifying their attacks by answering. when they took it upon themselves to make a general smear attack against my chief counsel, a young man who has done such an outstanding job over the past 5 years, and who is doing such an outstanding job today, a young man who has been cited by a Senate committee for his exposure and prosecution of communism, a young man who has been active in almost every important Communist prosecution in the United States over the past 3 or 4 years, I feel I have no choice but to set the record straight. [Manifestations of applause in the gal

leries.]

Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President, will the Senator from Indiana yield?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana has the floor. Does the Senator from Indiana yield to the junior Senator from Oklahoma?

Mr. CAPEHART. How much time does the Senator from Oklahoma desire me to yield?

Mr. MONRONEY. I should like to have 5 minutes.

Mr. CAPEHART. I yield 5 minutes to the junior Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President, I have just heard with interest the statement made by the junior Senator from Wisconsin. I presume the implication was the usual implication, namely, that anyone who is against the McCarthy method, or anyone who is against any of the methods of the far-flung staff he has employed under one-man rule of a Senate committee, is ipso facto, automatically, soft on communism, and therefore suspect as to his loyalty to the United States.

I deny those implications; I resent them. I resent the implications made as to the loyalty and patriotism of the distinguished junior Senator from New York [Mr. LEHMAN], whose lifetime of public service we do not need to apolo

gize for to the junior Senator from Wisconsin or to any of his staff members.

Mr. President, I believe the Senate finally must face up to its responsibility for investigations that are being conducted in our name and under our authority-for the wide designation and delegation of authority that is passed out to staff members to roam across Europe or to act in the name of the United States Senate in such a way that discredits us as Members of the United States Senate in the eyes of the world. That was my complaint when I took the floor the other day, and it is still my complaint.

I have no complaint about the personal activities of Mr. Cohn. I have no complaint about his work in prosecuting Communists. I am in favor of that. I was supporting attacks on communism before the junior Senator from Wisconsin ever dreamed of coming to the United States Senate. He can check my record, and I am certain he has.

I say to the junior Senator from Wisconsin that he can go back for 12 years in the House and 2 years in the Senate, and he will find that as to every piece of legislation and every appropriation that came up, save one, the junior Senator from Oklahoma has not only voted for, but oftentimes has spoken in favor of its passage.

However, what I am seeking to do is to defeat communism in an effective way. When we elect a prosecuting attorney in Oklahoma, we like to have a man who does not simply make statements to the press, who does not merely talk about the job. We like to have a man who gets convictions in his cases, and we like him to get them under the Constitution.

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

Mr. McCARTHY. The Senator says he has been active in attacking Communists. Can the Senator give me the name of a single Communist he has exposed during his long period in public life? Or has he merely made general, arm-waving attacks against communism? I call the Senator's attention to the fact that it is very easy to attack communism generally. Every fellow traveler does that, to get a good reputation. The Senator says he fights communism. He has been in a position to do something about it. Can he give me the name of one undercover Communist whom he himself has uncovered during his long period of public life?

Mr. MONRONEY. I thank the junior Senator from Wisconsin. I am not an arm waver. I believe the Senate is a part of the legislative branch of our Government. I believe the FBI, which has received $470 million in appropriations from the Government since 1947, largely for the purpose of fighting communism, is best able to track down subversives and members of spy apparatus.

I say to the junior Senator from Wisconsin that prosecutions have been brought and convictions have resulted under the direction of the executive de partment of the Government. I do not believe that televising hearings of crackpots, Communists, or fellow travelers, no matter who they may be, is an effective

Mr. MCCARTHY. The Senator from Oklahoma has just made a statement which I have heard made very often, namely, that he prefers to let the FBI do the job. The Senator has not yet The Senator has not yet answered my question as to when, if ever, he himself has exposed a Communist. Is the Senator aware of the testimony of J. Edgar Hoover when he was appearing before a House committee and was asked why there were so many Communists in Government when he had the job of exposing them, or something to that effect? Hoover said-and I think I can

quote him verbatim:

I will cite the case of Doxey Wilkerson as an example, in answer to your question. Wilkerson had been thoroughly exposed by the FBI. He had been thoroughly investigated. The FBI sent over to the Federal Security Agency all the information showing that he was a Communist. The FSA refused to fire him, saying that they were not satisfied with the information.

I am quoting J. Edgar Hoover. It may not be verbatim, but it is essentially so. He said:

When Wilkerson resigned, within 24 hours he announced himself as an organizer for the Communist Party. He became a member of the national committee of the Communist Party. In order to qualify for that job he had to be a Communist member in good standing for 4 years.

Hoover cited this case to show that statements such as that which the Senator from Oklahoma has just made are completely ridiculous. The FBI has no power to fire anyone. The FBI can merely gather the facts.

In that connection, is the Senator aware of the fact that this same Doxey Wilkerson appeared before our committee? He was asked the question:

Were you a Communist at the time the FBI sent this report to the effect that you were a Communist, and when the Government kept you on, in the old Democrat regime?

He replied:

I refuse to answer, because if I answer I may go to jail.

He was asked the question:

Were you engaged in espionage when you were in the Government?

Again he replied:

I refuse to answer.

He was asked:

Are you a Communist as of today? Again he replied:

I refuse to answer.

I ask the Senator if he is aware of that testimony of Mr. Hoover. If so, he may wish to correct what he has just said, that it is up to the FBI to keep Communists out of Government. During my entire fight to expose Communists, I found that the FBI, without exception, had given a complete picture to the agency in question of the Communist

activities of various individuals. That evidence was ignored. That, incidentally, was true in the Hiss case, with which I had nothing to do. In that case the FBI sent over complete reports on Alger Hiss. They sent over complete reports before he was promoted and sent to the San Francisco Conference.

So when the Senator from Oklahoma says that it is the FBI's fault that we have Communists in Government, the Senator from Oklahoma is uninformed, or else he is deliberately misstating the facts; and he should not do that to the FBI.

Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President, the junior Senator from Wisconsin is engaging in his usual practice of trying to distort what a person says and draw a conclusion for him.

The junior Senator from Oklahoma said that the principal job of protecting this Government against subversion rests with the FBI and with our law enforcement agencies, and not with the legislative branch of the Government.

The junior Senator from Wisconsin stood on this floor and boasted about the record of his chief counsel, Mr. Cohn, in prosecuting Communists or communism. Where did he get the information? He got it from the FBI. By whom was the FBI directed to proceed? By a Democratic Attorney General and by a Democratic administration.

Yes; we have an administration that is engaged in rooting out communism in Government; and I believe it is more fitting that we have the relentless type of search, including the weighing of evidence by the Department of Justice and by the executive branch of the Government, rather than to have the ridiculous example we have seen in the past 2 weeks, when the junior Senator from Wisconsin gave to the press in giant headlines or they made giant headlines out of it-information to the effect that the McCarthy committee was going to call former President Truman into the atom spy case. So 100 million people in America read that a former President of the United States was to be called before a committee for a crime which practically amounted to treason.

Then we read, on the 15th day of July, on the back page among the want ads, that the junior Senator from Wisconsin said there was nothing to it, after all. He wrote to the Department of Justice, and they were perfectly satisfied.

Would it not have been better, if we are interested in preserving the theory of "I believe in this country" rather than "I doubt," to have taken the trouble to write the Justice Department and find out the facts first before libeling a former President of the United States?

I do not care what party a man belongs to. If he is the President of the United States

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair must advise the Senator that the time allotted to him has expired.

Mr. CAPEHART. Mr. President, I will yield another minute to each of these Senators, and then I think we ought to get on with other business.

[Laughter in the galleries.]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair must advise those occupying seats in the galleries that they are here as

guests of the Senate, and therefore must abide by the rules of the Senate, which do not permit an expression of approval or disapproval of anything said in debate on the floor.

Is there objection to the request of the Senator from Indiana that the Senator from Oklahoma and the Senator from Wisconsin each be granted 1 minute additional, without the Senator from Indiana losing his right to the floor? The Chair hears no objection.

Mr. MCCARTHY. Mr. President, I should like to use my minute to ask again the question which I have already asked the Senator from Oklahoma, and which as yet he has failed to answer.

He has told the Senate that he has been active in fighting Communists. I know that he has been very active in fighting those who fight Communists. Could he now give us the name of a single individual whom he has exposed as a Communist during his long public service? If so, his statement that he fights Communists as well as fighting those who fight Communists might have some effect. I should like to get that answer from the Senator from Oklahoma, a very simple answer. Let him give us the name of one whom he has exposed.

Mr. MONRONEY. The junior Senator from Oklahoma has said before that he has supported all appropriations for the best trained scientific agencies this Government can provide to search out relentlessly-not by television, but by scientific crime detection-those who would infiltrate and subvert our Government.

I think the junior Senator from Wisconsin might begin by telling us how many convictions he has secured, among all the hundreds of people he has charged with being dangerous Communists.

Mr. McCARTHY. I shall be glad to give the Senator from Oklahoma the information if the Senator from Indiana

will give me the time. I shall be glad to give the Senator the names of some of those who have gotten out of the Government.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time allotted to the Senator has expired.

SALE OF GOVERNMENT-OWNED RUBBER-PRODUCING FACILITIES The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (S. 2047) to amend the Rubber Act of 1948, as amended, to provide for the sale of Government-owned rubber-producing facilities, to repeal and modify certain of its provisions affected thereby, and for other purposes.

Mr. CAPEHART. Mr. President, the bill before the Senate is Senate bill 2047, a bill to dispose of Government-owned synthetic rubber plants.

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

Mr. CAPEHART. I yield.

Mr. MAYBANK. I wonder if the able and distinguished chairman of the committee desires a quorum call?

Mr. CAPEHART. I do not believe we need one at the moment. I thank the able Senator for suggesting it.

The House of Representatives has already passed a bill similar to the bill which is now before the Senate. The

Senate Committee on Banking and Currency reported the bill favorably. There were minority views filed against the bill. There is one thing to which I wish every Senator would pay close attention, namely, that not a single witness appeared before our committee-and we invited anyone to testify who cared to do so-to testify against the Government disposing of these rubber plants.

The House of Representatives has passed a bill to dispose of them. Even the minority views filed by members of the Senate Banking and Currency Committee recommended that the Government dispose of these plants. Mr. MAYBANK. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. CAPEHART. I yield. Mr. MAYBANK. The act requires requires that to be done. I thoroughly agree with that recommendation. The only minority views filed by the ranking Democrat on the committee dealt with the question of time and the question of protection under the antitrust laws.

Mr. CAPEHART. As I say, the minority views of able members of the committee likewise recommend disposal of the plants. In the 1948 Rubber Act Congress made the following declaration of policy:

It is further declared to be the policy of the Congress that the security interests of the United States can and will best be served by the development within the United States of a free, competitive synthetic-rubber industry.

That was the policy adopted by Congress in 1948.

Mr. President, I hold in my hand a letter from the Secretary of Defense, Mr. Wilson, who advocates unequivocally disposing of the plants. I shall not take the time of the Senate to read the letter, but I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the RECORD at this point, as a part of my remarks.

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

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, Washington, July 15, 1953.

Hon. HOMER E. CAPEHART,

United States Senate. DEAR SENATOR CAPEHART: This letter is to reaffirm the Department of Defense position on the problem of disposal of the Government-owned synthetic-rubber plants to private industry, as stated by a representative of this Department at a recent hearing of the Senate Banking and Currency Committee on Senate bill, S. 2047.

The Department of Defense has always strongly supported the policy of the present Rubber Act that one of the key points of our national security in rubber is the development within the United States of a privately owned, competitive synthetic-rubber industry. Within the last 2 years it has become increasingly evident that not only is synthetic rubber now able to compete successfully with the natural product without the mandatory usage of controls formerly required but also that, in the foreseeable future, significant increases in the capacity to produce synthetic rubber will be needed to meet our national requirements, and that such new capacity may be in the form of plants of significantly different design than those now owned by the Government. For these reasons, it seems quite clear that now is the time for legislation to be enacted which will give private industry the opportunity to make suitable proposals for the purchase of these Government-owned plants.

S. 2047, as recently reported out by your committee, appears well designed to accomplish an orderly transfer of this industry bill contains adequate safeguards for the nafrom Government to private ownership. The tional interest by requiring a fair return to the Government and the development of a competitive industry. It also meets defense interests by providing that the plants will be sold only subject to an appropriate nationalsecurity clause and making provision for maintaining in the national industrial reserve those plants which are not sold.

The Department of Defense feels that action by Congress during the present session to make possible the development of a private synthetic-rubber industry in this country is highly desirable.

Sincerely yours,

C. E. WILSON. Mr. CAPEHART. Mr. President, I have before me a letter from Mr. Dodge, the Director of the Bureau of the Budget, in which he says, in part:

In a message which the President sent to the Congress on April 14, 1953, he recommended the prompt enactment by the Congress of legislation in regard to the disposal of the Government-owned rubber-producing facilites.

I shall not read the remainder of the letter, but I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in its entirety in the RECORD at this point, as a part of my remarks. There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, BUREAU OF THE BUDGET, Washington, D. C., July 10, 1953. Hon. HOMER E. CAPEHART,

Chairman, Committee on Banking and Currency, United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: In a message which the President sent to the Congress on April 14, 1953, he recommended the prompt enactment by the Congress of legislation in regard to the disposal of the Government-owned rubber-producing facilities. Further, in that message, the President stated that he had not prepared the text of legislation would most appropriately result any legislation, as it was his belief that such

from the joint efforts of the committees of Congress and representatives of the interested executive agencies.

We are gratified to learn that the Banking and Currency Committee of the Senate has agreed with the House of Representatives and its Committee on Armed Services that disposal should go forward at this time.

We have considered S. 2047 in the form in which it was ordered reported by the Senate Banking and Currency Committee. The bill provides legislative authority by which disposal can be achieved in a manner consistent with the objectives mentioned by the President in his message to the Congress. It contains provisions safeguarding national security and protecting the public interest, while taking the initial and indispensable step toward achieving the policy determination established by the Congress in section 2 of the Rubber Act of 1943, as amended, that is the development within our country of a free, competitive syntheticrubber industry. It also authorizes continued operation of the plants during the disposal period and after the presently established date of expiration of the Rubber Act.

The Bureau of the Budget is authorized to advise you that enactment of this legislation in its present form would be in accord with the program of the President. Early action by the Congress is strongly recommended in order to avoid the undesirable consequences of handling plant disposal