gram" (p. 75 of House hearings). In regard to the 1953 program, Mr. Grieves said: "We have devoted the past 2 years to working out a practical approach to this difficult problem" (p. 72, House hearings). A little later in his testimony, Mr. Grieves said: "Five years from now, when this census comes up again, it would appear that there would be a better opportunity to review what is worth doing in the light of the 1953 results" (p. 73, House hearings). Secretary Weeks spoke of "* * planning *** a sample survey ** and see what it brings forth" (p. 5, House hearings).

*

The program offered by the Census Bureau in 1953, for a census of transportation, was superior to the program offered in 1948, but both were totally unsatisfactory in terms of a real census of transportation.

It appears from the statements above noted that the Bureau of the Census had 5 years to plan for the census of transportation, but used only two of the 5 years, and failed to be ready. The Bureau did not have an adequate plan, did not have an adequate justification for the program which it did present, and did not support that program strongly enough.

The program presented for 1953 relied on sampling methods that were not adequately tested. It would seem the Bureau certainly can test methods and determine the kind of statistical detail that can be collected, and

of manufactured products, etc. The 1948 proposal submitted in response to Public Law 671 therefore contemplated the enumeration of businesses primarily engaged in the sale of transportation services because this was the only kind of census which could be taken under the circumstances prevailing at that time.

The primary interest of those seeking additional information on transportation apparently involves transportation as a process wherever it occurs. This concept, of course, offers the possibility of an almost limitless expansion in the traditional concept of census taking, since transportation is an allpervading aspect of modern life. Nevertheless, as soon as funds were made available by the Congress for planning the 1953 census program, in the appropriation for the fiscal year 1952, the services of a transportation expert were retained and intensive exploration of the whole field of transportation was initiated. We were careful in the selection of the expert adviser to choose a person thoroughly familiar with the transportation situation and the intent of the legislation. In the planning process the views of many persons inside and outside of Government were sought to determine the more urgent needs which could be realistically satisfied It was with statistical census measures. found that to satisfy these needs novel, and indeed unprecedented, statistical techniques would have to be devised. Experts from our

inexpensive tests, rather than waiting for costly censuses to determine those facts, as intimated by Mr. Grieves.

Most respectfully, I request advice as to what is the Department's plan for developing a sound and tested program for a census of transportation. I assume the Department must have such a plan, otherwise it would be clear that the law has been and is being ignored.

I should also like to know, and ask to be informed, what is the plan of the Census Bureau for informing the general public with regard to its program for a census of transportation, so that an indication of public need may be obtained.

Kindest personal regards and all good wishes.

Sincerely,

PAT MCCARRAN.

THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE,
Washington, July 8, 1953.

Hon. PAT MCCARRAN,

United States Senate,

Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR SENATOR MCCARRAN: This is in reply to your letter of June 30, in which you raise certain questions concerning the Census of Transportation.

As you know, the House and the Senate have each passed an appropriation bill for this Department providing funds for the fiscal year 1954. In neither bill has there been made any provision for a Census of Transportation. Furthermore, the reports of both the House and the Senate Appropriations Committees explicitly state that funds have been denied for this purpose. This represented the second attempt of the Department to obtain funds to carry out a Transportation Census as required by Public Law 671, 80th Congress. The first attempt, as you noted in your letter, was made in 1948, shortly after the passage of this law, and in this instance, likewise, no funds were appropriated.

Public Law 671 makes explicit provision for censuses of manufactures, mineral industries, distributive trades, transportation, and other businesses. Traditionally, a census taken under such authority involves a canvass of companies primarily engaged in the kinds of business named in the act. example, the Census of Manufactures covers plants primarily engaged in the production

For

to these problems and finally achieved a result which we felt justified the requesting of a significant sum of money at the time the 1953 budget was prepared and submitted to the Congress. The revised budget of this administration requested $1,700,030 for a transportation census to be appropriated for the fiscal year 1954 with $629,011 to be requested in subsequent years to complete the program outlined. It appears to me that this represents a very sizable appropriation to inaugurate a census involving new concepts and new procedures.

The testimony which you quote, offered by myself, Dr. Burgess, and Mr. Grieves, is consistent with the situation described above and accurately describes the position taken by this Department. I believe that you will agree that in the last analysis, the worthwhileness of a census expenditure can only be determined by the uses to which it is put. We felt that we were in sufficient mastery of the techniques to be employed to warrant a substantial appropriation request. Therefore, it was stated in response to a direct question that the future development of the census in 1958 should be largely determined by the reaction of potential users of such data to the results achieved in 1953. Finally, in response to your inquiry concerning the Department's plan for developing a sound and tested program for the census of transportation I am glad to advise you that it is our intention to continue to explore this whole problem insofar as the appropriations made available by the Congress make this possible. Since final action has not yet been taken by the Congress it is difficult to be specific on this point.

I should like to see this matter brought to a decisive conclusion so that by 1958 the Congress will either appropriate the funds needed to carry out a transportation census or amend the law to relieve this Department of such a responsibility. Sincerely yours,

SINCLAIR WEEKS, Secretary of Commerce.

Hon. SINCLAIR WEEKS,

JULY 11, 1953.

Secretary of Commerce, Commerce Department, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. SECRETARY: Thank you very much for your prompt reply, under date of

July 8, to my letter of June 30 raising certain questions with respect to the Census of Transportation.

I am glad to learn that it is the intention of the Department to continue to work toward the development of a sound and tested program for the Census of Transportation. I assure you that I shall continue to work for an adequate appropriation for this census. I am confident that Congress will not repeal the law calling for the census of transportation, and I believe earnestly that it is false economy to fail to appropriate adequate funds for this census. The day is bound to come when we shall urgently need the statistical data which only such a census can provide, and when that day arrives there will not then be time to take the census.

I shall be grateful if you will keep me advised from time to time respecting the activities of the Department in this connection; and if there is anything I can do to assist the Department in attaining the objectives outlined, I hope you will call upon me. Kindest personal regards.

Sincerely,

PAT MCCARRAN.

FINAL VOTE SHOULD BE SCHEDULED EARLY NEXT YEAR ON ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY

Mr. WILEY. Mr. President, I have

prepared a statement on the subject of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence legislation, S. 2150, and on the related subject of connecting channels for deep water 27-foot access to the upper Great Lakes.

I ask unanimous consent that the statement be printed in the body of the RECORD at this point.

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

STATEMENT BY SENATOR WILEY

It is with deep regret that the proponents of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence seaway note that this legislation, as reported from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, will not be taken up this year.

It is an obvious fact that, at this late stage and assuming a July 31st or August 8th adjournment, an additional issue on which there would be considerable debate such as the seaway, does not appear very feasible for scheduling.

We had hoped, however, that if the seaway had been soundly scheduled before this, that it would not have run into the inevitable last-minute logjam on the floor.

And so, virtually from the outset of this Congress, I, for one, had urged that consideration be given for early scheduling of the seaway.

It is only reporting plain fact when I say that feeling in the Middle West against the failure to schedule the seaway is, I believe, running very high.

After all, it is not as if the seaway were some new bill, suddenly dreamed up to fill some minor, temporary need. The seaway is, on the contrary, a very old bill on a very old, but very major subject, and on which the need is very urgent, very crucial.

OUR GOOD RELATIONS WITH CANADA ARE

INVOLVED

Moreover, the seaway does not simply involve the United States; it involves our relations with the best neighbor in the world— Canada.

To our Canadian friends, the further delay in American decision on the seaway is another weary chapter in a dismal, old story. Looking at the picture from every standpoint, one can well understand why there is bitterness and deep disappointment in the hearts of so many of our Canadian friends.

What have the Canadians ever done to us to merit this sorry treatment on our part? The answer is, nothing.

They have upheld their end of the bargain. They have completed more of the joint construction work than we have of ours. They have been ready, willing, and able to go ahead for a long, long time.

We share their disappointment.

We share their regret at the unfortunate inaction of the Congress. We are sorry as Americans that our great Nation, the leader of the free world, should be guilty of such terrible dillydallying.

We who favor the seaway do not, because of the lack of scheduling, criticize the distinguished acting majority leader, my able colleague from California. He is laboring under mountainous burdens. He is trying to satisfy the needs of the Republican Party and, most important of all, the needs of the Nation as he and the members of the majority party see them.

He is flooded with requests for scheduling of this bill and that. It would be a shortsighted man, indeed, who attempted to criticize in a personal way the position of the majority leader on the scheduling problem.

I am not criticizing any individual personally. I try not to indulge in personalities. POSITION OF THE PRESIDENT

Moreover, my comments are not, of course, a reflection on the President. My admiration of the President of the United States is too well known to require elaboration at this time.

It is my judgment that Dwight D. Eisenhower has performed superb service in the first 6 months of his administration.

When one contemplates the tremendous problems which he has faced and the limited time in which he has had to deal with them, one feels the deepest gratitude, indeed, that Ike Eisenhower is in the White House to deal so well with the pressing needs of our Nation at home and abroad.

And, so I know that my comments with regard to the unfortunate lack of scheduling of the seaway will not be taken as a personal criticism of the President because they are definitely not so intended.

To anyone who has any doubt of the President's position, I call his attention to Senate Report 441-the report of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on S. 2150.

In this report is President Eisenhower's letter to me as far back as April 23-stating his agreement with the view of the National Security Council that the St. Lawrence seaway is definitely in the national interest.

I cannot say, however, that all phases of the administration downtown have given the sort of leadership or the adequate sort of encouragement to those of us on the Hill fighting its fight on this issue.

The administration downtown took a long time-too long-making up its mind on this issue. This admittedly is partially understandable because of the fact that it only took office 6 months ago. It has been called upon to decide on literally scores of issues for which this or that group waited impatiently.

So, I want to be fair all around. I do not want to join in with those critics who expect the administration to solve everything overnight by waving a magic wand.

But the plain fact of the matter is that there is nothing new about this issue. The administration did not have to explore it from scratch.

The record of every President, of every administration for decades, as well as the record of engineering reports, committee reports, and hearings is clear. Why should all this delay have occurred?

The failure of the administration as a whole to act in time and overcome obstacles and flash the green light on the St. Lawrence seaway speaks for itself.

There can be no explaining it away in spite of all the obvious difficulties which do and did prevail.

I could not allow this session to close without commenting on this issue and presenting these thoughts very frankly. I know that they reflect the views of my constituents and the views of thinking Americans throughout the Nation.

An administration is judged on the basis of its record, not on the basis of its intentions.

I do not doubt the administration's intentions on this issue, but I do say that the record is hardly impressive.

HISTORY NOT INTERESTED IN EXCUSES

This issue has never been a partisan one, but I say that the Republican Party has done itself no good by its failure to schedule the seaway in this session.

The American people are not interested in

excuses.

Great historic opportunities such as we have had for participation in the seaway do not exist forever.

If we had not built the Panama Canal, all the explanations in the world regarding the difficulties of building the canal would not have sufficed. History has a grim way of reckoning results. It brushes aside so-called explanations, excuses, alibis.

I have been what I regard a real supporter of this administration. I shall remain a supporter because I feel that in domestic and foreign affairs, it has been doing, by and large, an excellent job. It has many fine things to its credit.

The public opinion polls, showing that the President is at the peak of his popularity, speaks volumes; so I do not want my remarks to be misinterpreted or exaggerated.

But on this issue of the seaway, the grim facts speak for themselves, and I believe in calling a spade a spade.

VITAL POSITION OF MIDWEST ON CONNECTING CHANNELS

Now I want to point out that we of the Midwest are deeply concerned on the issue of deepening the connecting channels to the upper Great Lakes.

It is absolutely imperative that the upper Great Lakes States have deep water, 27-foot access, to all the ports of the world.

This can only be achieved by the deepening of the connecting channels.

Unfortunately, a Senate-House conference committee, by reducing the amount of funds for Corps of Engineer survey purposes, left some slight doubt as to whether these connecting channels would be the subject of such engineering survey.

To my way of thinking, however, all such doubt should be completely eliminated.

I know of few engineering surveys more important than relate to the deepening of these Midwest channels.

We of the Middle West have too often seen Corps of Engineer funds used for what we regard as insignificant purposes in other areas of the Nation. Waterways which do not carry the tiniest fraction of the traffic the Great Lak`s carry, have received the benefit of tens of millions of dollars of engineering funds.

Let there be no doubt whatsoever therefore that the preliminary surveys must be made of the connecting channels, because regardless of the ultimate decision on the overall Great Lakes-St. Lawrence seaway, the channels must be deepened.

The Middle West does not propose to be treated any further as an orphan child. It does not propose to be ignored at the expense of its economic health, and it does not propose to be left in the lurch in dealing with competition with other economic areas of the Nation.

CONCLUSION

With regard to the overall seaway project, fortunately Congress' failure to act this year is not fatal.

We can still act next year and in time to join with Canada.

The antiseaway lobbyists are apparently going to take the license issue to the courts. While the validity of the license is thus being questioned (and, I am sure, confirmed by the courts in the long run) the Congress can take final action.

It is tragic that there should be even this delay, that the antiseaway lobbyists should be trying the one last monkey wrench by an attempt to invalidate the license. But these lobbyists will fail. The cause of progress will win. Of that we are sure.

THE KNOWLAND SUBSTITUTE AND THE BRICKER AMENDMENT Mr. WILEY. Mr. President, yesterday I pointed out on the Senate floor that the substitute of the Senator from California [Mr. KNOWLAND] to Senate Joint Resolution 1, as amended, requires the very careful consideration of the Senate. I feel that the Knowland substitute is very definitely a step in the right direction. It is a step in the direction of protection of the United States Constitution from those who would impair it, however patriotic their motives, however esteemed their personal background.

The Knowland substitute raises, however, extremely consequential points, not only of legal policy and constitutional policy, but of international policy.

Since I am not a cosponsor of the Bricker amendment, I was not consulted with regard to the Knowland substitute to that amendment.

I do feel very frankly, however, that it would have been far better all around if there had been consultation with the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, because of the very significant international implications of this issue.

Be that as it may, this is not a matter of personalities or personal pride. It is my hope that the issues involved in both the Knowland substitute and the Bricker amendment will be carefully reviewed by our Nation.

I hope that the best legal minds of our country will now begin an intensive analysis of the Knowland substitute.

I hope that the best experts on American foreign relations, on treaty law, will also make such an analysis.

Most important of all, I hope that the man in the street will find time to give his attention to a subject which affects the welfare of his Nation so crucially.

My distinguished colleague from Ohio, who has labored so long and so industriously on this problem, has said that he will take the issue to the country. That is, of course, his prerogative. I, for one, welcome the fullest grassroots discussion of his amendment.

I am confident of the outcome-an outcome of decisive repudiation of any impairment of the traditional constitutional separation of power.

This morning's Washington Post carries a rather blunt editorial on this general issue. I believe that its brief comments on the substitute proposal are of

particular interest. I ask unanimous consent that they be printed at this point in the body of the RECORD.

There being no objection, the excerpts were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

[From the Washington Post]

In our opinion, Messrs. Dulles and Brownell went to the edge of danger when they agreed to write into the Constitution a provision to let the Senate decide, in consenting to ratification of a treaty, whether it should thereupon become the law of the land or require further action by the entire Congress. Of course, the Senate could now attach such a reservation to a treaty, but to write a provision of this sort into the Constitution would encourage an unwise practice.

Probably the power would be seldom used, for the Senate would not often yield to the House authority to undo what it was doing by a two-thirds majority vote. Even so, this innovation might be mischievous, and it is certainly not necessary, for without any change in the Constitution Congress can at any time deprive a treaty of its status as internal law by the simple process of passing a statute to that effect. In other words, this part of the Knowland compromise would offer no additional protection against unwise treaties, and might impose more work on the already overburdened Congress * It is unfortunate that the President has given this unnecessary substitute his wholehearted endorsement.

THANKS OF CONGRESS TO GEN. PEYTON C. MARCH

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Senate Concurrent Senate Concurrent Resolution 43.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of the Senator from California.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate proceeded to consider the concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 43), tendering the thanks of Congress to Gen. Peyton C. March, former Chief of Staff of the Army.

Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, I believe the thanks of Congress are long overdue to an eminent officer of the First World War who has now reached the ripe, fine, old age of 88 years. The concurrent resolution was unanimously reported by the committee.

The

The PRESIDING OFFICER. question is on agreeing to the concurrent resolution.

The concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 43) was agreed to, as follows:

Whereas Gen. Peyton C. March retired from the position of Chief of Staff of the United States Army on June 30, 1921, after a distinguished career; and

Whereas, despite his retired status, his interest in national defense has continued to be profound and continuing; and

Whereas he has displayed this interest by many constructive suggestions which have been of great value to the War Department and the Department of the Army: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That the thanks of Congress are hereby tendered to Gen. Peyton C. March for his selfless and patriotic interest in the United States Army since his retirement, manifested so often by his helpful counsel to the War Department and the Department of the Army, thereby contribut

The preamble was agreed to.

CITATION OF HARVEY O'CONNOR FOR CONTEMPT OF THE SENATE Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Senate Resolution 147, citing Harvey O'Connor for contempt of the Senate.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of the Senator from California.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate proceeded to consider the resolution (S. Res. 147) citing Harvey O'Connor for contempt of the Senate.

Mr. MCCARTHY. Mr. President, in this connection I ask unanimous consent to submit a report of the Committee on Government Operations and request that it be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the report (No. 630) was received and ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

The Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Government Operations as created and authorized by the Committee on Government Operations, under the Standing Rules of the Senate, caused to be issued a subpena to Harvey O'Connor. Said subpena directed Harvey O'Connor to appear before the said subcommittee at 9:30 a. m. on July 14, 1953, in room 357, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C., then and there to testify relative to such subject matters under consideration by said subcommittee, designated "Exhibit 1." Attendance pursuant to such subpena was held in public session on July 14, 1953, at which time the witness appeared.

The said Harvey O'Connor, having appeared as a witness and having been asked certain questions, which questions were pertinent to the subject matter under inquiry, made answer as appears in the record of the said hearings on July 14, 1953, which record is annexed hereto and made a part hereof, designated as "Exhibit 2."

As the result of said Harvey O'Connor's refusal to answer questions pursuant to the said inquiry, as appears in the record annexed and designated "Exhibit 2," the subcommittee was prevented from receiving testimony concerning the matter committed to said subcommittee in accordance with the terms of the subpena served upon this wit

ness.

The Senate Committee on Government Operations met on July 16, 1953, and, after reviewing the facts in this matter as set forth in this report, resolved to present to the United States Senate for its immediate action a resolution requiring the United States attorney of the District of Columbia to proceed against the said Harvey O'Connor in the manner and form provided by law.

EXHIBIT 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES

To HARVEY O'CONNOR, Warren Point, Lands End, Little Compton, R. I., Greeting: Pursuant to lawful authority, you are hereby commanded to appear before the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Government Operations of the Senate of the United States, on Tuesday, July 14, 1953, at 9:30 o'clock a. m., at their committee room 357, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C., then and there to testify what you may know relative to the

committee.

Hereof fail not, as you will answer your default under the pains and penalties in such cases made and provided.

To, to serve and return.

Given under my hand, by order of the committee, this 8th day of July, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and fifty-three.

JOE MCCARTHY,

Chairman.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

JULY 10, 1953.

I made service of the within subpena by reading and leaving a true and attested copy thereof in the hands and possession of the within named Harvey O'Connor, at Little Compton, R. I., in said district, at 10 o'clock 47m a. m., e. d. s. t. on the 10th day of July 1953.

CHARLES M. ELDRIDGE,

United States Marshal, District of Rhode Island.

EXHIBIT 2

(Vol. No. 128)

STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION SERVICE (INFORMATION CENTERS)

UNITED STATES SENATE,

SENATE PERMANENT

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS, Washington, D. C., July 14, 1953. The subcommittee met at 10:45 a. m., pursuant to Senate Resolution 40, agreed to January 30, 1953, in room 318 of the Senate Office Building, Senator JOSEPH R. MCCARTHY (chairman) presiding.

Present: Senators JOSEPH R. MCCARTHY (Republican, Wisconsin), KARL E. MUNDT (Republican, South Dakota), EVERETT MCKINLEY DIRKSEN (Republican, Illinois).

Present also: Roy Cohn, chief counsel; Daniel Buckley, assistant counsel; David Schine, chief consultant; Ruth Young Watt, chief clerk.

The CHAIRMAN. Who is your first witness, Mr. Counsel?

Mr. CонN. Harvey O'Connor, Mr. Chair

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. O'Connor, you have been subpenaed here today to answer questions in regard to the writings which were purchased by the old Acheson State Department. Before we ask you any questions, may I ask:

Mr. Cohn, has it been established and confirmed by the State Department that Mr. O'Connor's writings have been purchased and have been distributed in various information centers throughout the world?

Mr. COHN. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Then, Mr. O'Connor, we will ask you this question: At the time you wrote the books which were purchased by the old State Department, were you then a member of the Communist Party? TESTIMONY OF HARVEY O'CONNOR (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, LEONARD B. BOUDIN) Mr. O'CONNOR. Mr. Chairman, may I make a brief statement?

The CHAIRMAN. No. You will answer the question.

Mr. O'CONNOR. About my objection to the jurisdiction of this committee?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; you may make a statement on that.

Mr. O'CONNOR. Thank you.

Under the first amendment to the Constitution, my writings, my books, and my political opinions are of no legitimate concern to this committee. If I have violated any laws in the writings that I have written, that is a proper concern for the law-enforcement agencies and not the proper concern of this committee.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you get nearer to the microphone, Mr. O'Connor, so that we can hear you?

Mr. O'CONNOR. My second point would be that this committee has no right to inquire into my writings, under the point of the constitutional limitations on the powers of Congress and its committees. I might say in that regard that I have not known until this moment that my books were in overseas libraries, and most certainly I had nothing whatever to do with their selection there.

In the third place, I would object to the authority of the committee, under the statute by which it was created by Congress, to inquire into my writings or my political views.

The CHAIRMAN. Just for your information, Mr. O'Connor, we are not concerned with any political views of yours. We would not be concerned about your writings. You are entitled to write whatever you care to write. Any American or anyone else is entitled to purchase your books, your writing. You are here this morning because your writings were purchased by the old Acheson State Depart

The resolution (S. Res. 147) was agreed to as follows:

Resolved, That the President of the Senate certify the report of the Committee on Government Operations of the United States Senate as to the refusal of Harvey O'Connor to answer questions before the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, said refusal to answer being pertinent to the subject matter under inquiry, together with all the facts in connection therewith, under the seal of the United States Senate to the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, to the end that the said Harvey O'Connor may be proceeded against in the manner and form provided by law.

of laws for District of Columbia," approved March 3, 1901, as amended, to increase the maximum sum allowable by the court out of assets of a decedent's estate for funeral expenses.

Mr. O'CONNOR. I object to the question on the three grounds I have already stated. The CHAIRMAN. You can object. Now you will answer, unless you feel that the answer will tend to incriminate you.

Mr. O'CONNOR. I do not feel that the answer will tend to incriminate me.

The CHAIRMAN. Then you are ordered to

answer.

Mr. O'CONNOR. I have already answered. The CHAIRMAN. I apparently did not hear you answer then.

You are ordered to answer whether or not

you were a member of the Communist Party. Mr. O'CONNOR. On the three grounds I

have stated, I have declined to answer.

The CHAIRMAN. Let us have the record clear, so that we will know what you have declined to answer. I will repeat the question. At the time you wrote the books which were purchased by the old Acheson State Department and distributed in our information centers, were you a member of the Communist conspiracy?

Mr. O'CONNOR. My political affiliations or lack of political affiliations are no legitimate concern of this committee.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you refuse to answer?
Mr. O'CONNOR. Apparently.
The CHAIRMAN. Not "apparently."

refuse to answer?

Do you

Mr. O'CONNOR, I refuse to answer. The CHAIRMAN. You are not refusing on the ground that the answer might tend to incriminate you?

Mr. BARRETT. Mr. President, the purpose of the bill is to change the amount that may be allowed as a preferred claim for funeral expenses in the District of Columbia, from $300 to $600. The figure of $300 was set 51 years ago. The Committee on the District of Columbia heard testimony on the subject, and it was considered to be vital and necessary that the amount be raised to conform to the present-day economy.

Furthermore, the bill raises the amount that may be allowed, for special cause, upon an order of the court, to a total of $1,000. The figure in the present law is $600. The latter figure could not be the subject of a preferred claim, but could be merely deducted for State and inheritance-tax purposes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill is before the Senate and open to amendment. If there be no amendment to be

offered, the question is on the third reading and passage of the bill.

The bill was crdered to a third reading, read the third time, and passed.

the Senator from California.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate proceeded to consider the joint resolution (H. J. Res. 253) to amend the joint resolution of June 16, 1938, creating the Niagara Falls Bridge Commission.

Mr. WILEY. In substance the joint resolution is identical with the bill which was introduced by the Senator from New York [Mr. IVES]. The committee heard the testimony of Representative MILLER, the sponsor of the joint resolution. It amends the original joint resolution setting up the Niagara Falls Bridge Commission in two main respects.

It permits the Commission to issue bonds payable from the revenue from all bridges operated by the Commission instead of, as under existing law, permitting the payment of bonds only from the revenues of a particular bridge without prejudice to such bondholders. This change is thought desirable to finance the purchase of a nearby privatelyowned bridge whose toll operation in competition with a toll-free public bridge would cause serious traffic problems. It authorizes the Commission to replace existing bridges with new bridges at approximately the same location.

No public funds are to be appropriated; and bridges will be built by using the proceeds of bonds which will be sold.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The joint resolution is open to amendment.

If there is no amendment to be pro

posed, the question is on the third reading of the joint resolution.

The joint resolution (H. J. Res. 253) was ordered to a third reading, read the third time, and passed.

ENTRY OF CHILDREN ADOPTED BY UNITED STATES CITIZENS SERVING ABROAD

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of House Joint Resolution 228, Calendar No. 607.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. BARRETT in the chair). The joint resolution will be stated by title, for the information of the Senate.

The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. A joint resolution (H. J. Res. 228) to permit the entry of 500 children under 6 years of age, adopted by United States citizens while serving abroad in the Armed Forces of the United States; or while employed abroad by the United States Government.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

question is on agreeing to the motion

of the Senator from California.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate proceeded to consider the joint resolution, which had been reported from the Committee on the Judiciary with an amendment, to strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

That, not to exceed 500 special nonquota immigrant visas may be issued, subject, to all provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act, to eligible orphans as defined in this act who are under 10 years of age at the time the visa is issued and such eligible orphans may be admitted into the United States for permanent residence: Provided, That the issuance of visas under this act shall terminate not later than December 31, 1954.

SEC. 2. When used in this act the term "eligible orphan" shall mean an alien child

(1) who is an orphan because of the death or disappearance of both parents, or because of abandonment or desertion by, or separation or loss from, both parents, or who has only one parent due to the death or disappearance of, abandonment or desertion by, or separation or loss from the other parent and the remaining parent is incapable of providing care for such orphan and has in writing irrevocably released him for emigration and adoption; (2) (a) who has been lawfully adopted abroad by a United States citizen and spouse while said citizen is or was serving abroad in the United States Armed Forces, or while employed abroad by the United States Government, or (b) for whom assurances satisfactory to the consular officer to whom a visa application on behalf of the orphan is made, by a United States citizen and spouse while said citizen is serving abroad in the United States Armed Forces, or while employed abroad by the United States Government, that if the orphan is admitted into the United States they will adopt him in the United States and will care for him properly; and (3) who is ineligible for admission into the United States solely because the nonpreference portion of the quota to which he would otherwise be chargeable is oversubscribed by applicants registered on the consular waiting list at the time his visa application is made.

SEC. 3. No natural parent of any eligible orphan who shall be admitted into the United States pursuant to this act shall thereafter, by virtue of such parentage, be accorded any right, privilege, or status under the Immigration and Nationality

Act.

SEC. 4. Any eligible orphan granted a visa under this act shall be deemed a nonquota immigrant for the purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the committee amendment.

Mr. MCCARRAN. Mr. President, I send to the desk a series of amendments, which I offer, en bloc, to the committee amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendments of the Senator from Nevada to the committee amendment will be stated.

The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. It is proposed to amend the committee amendment as follows:

On page 3, line 10, immediately preceding the word "by", insert "have been given."

On page 3, line 11, strike out "while" and insert "is."

On page 3, line 13, strike out "the orphan" and insert "such child."

On page 3, line 13, strike out "they" and insert "such citizen and spouse."

On page 3, line 13, immediately preceding the word "adopt", insert "legally." Mr. WATKINS. Mr. President, will the Senator from Nevada yield to me? Mr. MCCARRAN. I yield.

Mr. WATKINS.

Are the amendments to the committee amendment technical amendments, for the purpose of clarification?

Mr. MCCARRAN. They are corrective amendments, correcting the language.

Mr. WATKINS. I have no objection. The PRESIDING OFFICER. WithSenator from Nevada to the committee out objection, the amendments of the amendment will be considered en bloc.

The question is on agreeing to the amendments of the Senator from Nevada to the committee amendment.

The amendments to the amendment were agreed to.

The amendment, as amended, was agreed to.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now is on the engrossment of the amendment and third reading of the joint resolution.

The amendment was ordered to be engrossed, and the joint resolution to be read a third time.

The joint resolution was read the third time, and passed.

The title was amended so as to read: "Joint resolution to permit the entry of 500 eligible orphans under 10 years of age, adopted abroad or to be adopted in the United States by United States citizens serving abroad in the United States Armed Forces or employed abroad by the United States Government."

AND EXCHANGE OF LANDS ALONG CHESAPEAKE & OHIO CANAL

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Senate bill 711, Calendar No. 590.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill will be stated by title, for the information of the Senate.

The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. A bill (S. 711) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to grant easements for rightsInterior to grant easements for rightsof-way through, over and under the parkway land along the line of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal, and to authorize an exchange of lands with other Federal departments and agencies, and for other purposes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of the Senator from California.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate proceeded to consider the bill, which had been reported from the Com

with an amendment, to strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

That the Secretary of the Interior is hereby authorized and directed to grant perpetual easements, subject to such reasonable conditions as are necessary for the protection of the Federal interests, for rights-of-way through, over, or under the parkway lands along the line of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal, now or hereafter acquired, for the purposes of electric, telephone, and telegraph lines or conduits, gas, oil, and water pipelines, tunnels, and water conduits, or for other utility purposes incident to industrial, commercial or agricultural use, or to the supply of water for domestic, public, or any other beneficial use, where it is intended to of the purposes hereinabove named. use such rights-of-way for any one or more

SEC. 2. No part of said easements shall be used for any other than the purposes for which they are granted, and in the event of any breach of this restriction, or in the event of any failure to observe the conditions in said easements, either of which shall continue for a period of 90 days after notice thereof, or in the event the said easement is abandoned for the purposes granted, the entire interest herein authorized to be granted shall, upon a declaration to that effect by the Secretary of the Interior, revert to the United States.

SEC. 3. The Secretary of the Interior shall cause an appraisal to be made of the fair market value of the said easements, including the resulting damage, if any, to the residue of the parkway lands, which appraisal, after approval by the Secretary of the Interior, shall be paid in cash by the grantees requesting the easement as the consideration for said easements when granted by the United States.

SEC. 4. The Secretary of the Interior is further authorized, in his discretion, to grant perpetual easements, subject to such conditions as are necessary for the protection of the Federal interest, for rights-of-way through, over, or under the parkway lands along the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal, now or hereafter acquired, for railroad tracks or for other utility purposes: Provided, That such easements may be granted in exchange for the relinquishment of existing easements across land now or hereafter in Federal ownership within the parkway: Provided further, That the Secretary may cause an appraisal to be made of the value of such easements and may require payment to be made by the grantee as provided in section 3 of this act: Provided further, That no part of said easements shall be used for any other than the purposes for which they are granted, and in the event of any breach of this restriction, or in the event of any failure to observe the conditions in said easements, either of which shall continue for a period of 90 days after notice thereof, or in the event the said easement is abandoned for the purposes granted, the entire interest herein authorized to be granted, upon a declaration to that effect by the Secretary, shall revert to the United States.

SEC. 5. The Secretary of the Interior is hereby authorized, in his discretion, when in the best interest of the United States, to convey, at the fair market value, to counties and municipalities for roads, streets, highways, or other municipal facilities, by proper deed or instrument, any lands or interests in lands of the United States within the parkway along the line of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal, under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior and located within the boundaries of such county or municipality, which are not needed for parkway purposes, but not to the extent of severing in any manner the continuity of the