REMARKS FOR SENATOR ESTES KEFAUVER CONCERNING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP58-00597A000100030004-6
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 16
• Document Creation Date: December 15, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 27, 2003
• Sequence Number: 4
• Publication Date: September 12, 1950
• Content Type: REPORT

Approved For Release 2003/09/02 : CIA-RDP58-00597A000100030004-6
Remarks of Senator Estes Kefauver
concerning the
Internal Security Act
Debate showing need for more
effective legislation to control
Communists and other subversives
Printed in the Congressional Record
of September 12, 1950
Not printed
at Government
expense
United States Government Printing Office, Washington s 1950
Approved For Release 2003/09/02 : CIA-RDP58-00597A000100030004-6
 Approved For Release 2003/09/02 : CIA-RDP58-00597A000100030004-6
REMARKS
OF
HON. ESTES KEFAUVER
The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator
from Tennessee is recognized for 4
minutes.
Mr. KEFAUVER. Mr. President, there
is prevalent in this land today an under-
standable rising fury against commu-
nism and Soviet Russia. Our people are
concerned, alarmed, afraid, and some are
even hysterical. Fear and hysteria are
powerful moving forces, and cause men
to do things which in calm courage they
would never even consider doing.
Were it not for the insidious threat of
communism, and were we not in the very
shadow of world war three, virtually no
thinking American would ever consider
asking Congress to enact laws to control
the thoughts of any of its citizens. But
communism is a fact and the ominous
shadow of another terrible world war is
a fact. And we are ' afraid. The very
nature of communism causes us to fear
harm from within as much or more so
than we fear attack from afar. I think
all of us agree to that, and the multiplic-
ity of bills to control communism within
our borders attest the truth of that as-
sertion.
I am anxious to place on the statute
books the most effective law or laws that
we can draft to deal with this problem.
I know that this feeling is shared by all
of my colleagues. And we want to do
this. before this session recesses.
The question is, What best shall we do
about it? Let us be practical.
The President announced Thursday,
September 7, 1950, that he would not
sign the McCarran-Mundt-Ferguson bill
into law, The President thinks this bill
endangers our basic freedoms, and many
of us agree with him. This means that
Congress might leave Washington with
no antisubversive law on the statute
books. If the McCarran bill is passed
and then Congress carries out its an-
nounced schedule of going into recess
on Saturday, Congress will not be here to
act on the President's veto. The result
would be no legislation at this session.
We all agree that some legislation is nec-
essary. I agree readily that we of the
906548-36516
Congress have our legislative duty to per-
form and that the President has his.
Also I agree that we should not let a
threat of veto deter us from doing our
duty as we see it. But in this case we
have a time set for recess which is bound
to arrive before the President could act
upon this bill. Then we cannot overlook
the fact that the Constitution by the
veto power gives the Chief Executive
legislative power equal to one-sixth of
the membership of the House and of the
Senate.
Five of my colleagues and I have joined
in presenting the Kilgore substitute to
the McCarran bill. That substitute rep-
resents our views of what best we can do
to solve the problem. I think it removes
the objections the President finds in the
McCarran bill. I think the President
would sign the Kilgore substitute into
law, although I am not privileged to speak
for him.
What does the Kilgore substitute anti-
Communist bill do? It puts those dis-
loyal and dangerous individuals within
our borders in confinement immediately
in time of war or national emergency.
It takes them out of circulation; it pro-
vides for action first and talk later; it puts
away spies and saboteurs until the danger
is' past or until they can show by ap-
peals to a board and to the courts that
they are detained wrongfully. That is
best what we can do, Mr. President; that
is what we would have to do and we ought
to have a law for that purpose-round up
the Communists and others who would
harm these United States in time of
emergency and put them behind bars.
That is what I favor; that is what I have
proposed. The FBI does not now have
that authority, and it will not have that
authority under the McCarran bill even
if it should pass over the President's
veto. I do not intend to be stampeded
into voting for a bill which will die
a-borning. The President of the United
States, the Director of the Federal Bu-
reau of Investigation, the Attorney Gen-
eral of the United States, the directors
of all our armed services intelligence
units have said the McCarran bill is not
the way to approach the problem; that
its passage will make matters worse in-
stead of better.
J. Edgar Hoover is the best authority,
the man upon whom we can most confl-
Approved For Release 2003/09/02 : CIA-RDP58-00597A000100030004-6
 Approved For Release 2003/09/02 : CIA-RDP58-00597A000100030004-6
dently rely in this matter. What does
he say? In the 1949 FBI report he says:
Suppression and outlawing of subversive
organizations by legislative enactments are
not the answer. As a Nation, we need have
no fear so long as actions of those residing
within our shores are open and aboveboard.
Mr. Hoover testifying before the House
Un-American Activities Committee ad-
monishes that he "would hate to see a
group that does not deserve to be In the
category of martyrs have the self-pity
that they would at once invoke if they
were made martyrs by some restrictive
legislation that might later be declared
unconstitutional."
This view is shared by outstanding
newspapers such as the New York Times,
the Washington Post, and the Chatta-
nooga Times. Are not these men in
better situation to gage preventive meth-
ods than we? In addition, we all re-
member the points made so forcibly by
Governor Dewey in his memorable de-
bate with Governor Stassen. Governor
Dewey proved conclusively that plans
such as the McCarran-Mundt-Ferguson
bill have never worked in any nation
where they have been tried.
I consider myself to be just as anti-
Communist as Mr. J. Edgar Hoover, and
just as pro-American as Mr. J. Howard
McGrath.
These officials, charged with the duty
of protecting the internal security of the
United States, know what laws they need
as implements to do the job. Mr. Hoover
has said provisions, such as are con-
tained in the McCarran bill, are not the
answer. Mr. Hoover says it is better
in time of peace that actions of Ameri-
can residents remain open and above-
board. Mr. Hoover said Thursday that
the FBI considers about 12,000 Commu-
nists in this country dangerous-half of
them American citizens and many of
them native-born. The FBI knows who
and where these dangerous and 38,000
additional Communists are-knows bet-
ter than we how to deal with them.
I say to my colleagues that it is high
time we stop conjecturing, and act on
the advice of men, such as J. Edgar
Hoover, who are experienced-where we
are not-in the handling of persons who
would harm the United States. We
seem to be running over each other in a
contest to see who can devise the most
"anti" anti-Communist legislation; we
should be listening to the counsel of
906543-36516
J. Edgar Hoover and other experts in
the field.
My support of the Kilgore bill rather
than the McCarran bill means I am not
foolish enough to support a bill which
the experts say will not work and which
the President will not sign, merely be-
cause it is labeled "anti-Communist."
It means that I accept the statement of
J. Edgar Hoover that driving the Com-
munists underground to bore from
underneath is not the answer to the
problem. It means that I am ready and
eager to put all Communists and in-
ternal enemies of the United States be-
hind bars anytime the FBI and men who
know Communists best say the word. It
means that fear shall not drive me to
subtsitute my own theories for the expe-
rience of experts.
I shall not here deal at length with the
constitutional objections to the McCar-
ran bill. These objections are well set
forth in the minority report, and some
days ago in colloquy with the Senator
from South Dakota [Mr. MUNDT] I ex-
plained some of my particular objec-
tions: One does not need to be a sagacious
constitutional lawyer to find basic ob-
jections to the McCarran bill. Any in-
telligent layman who will read the Con-
stitution and then read the bill will have
a feeling that it endangers many of the
basic rights we Americans hold so dear-
freedom of speech, press, assembly,
thought, and the right not to have to
give evidence against one's self.
Take section 4, for instance. The
Constitution gives a Member of Congress
the right to propose any amendment to
the basic law he desires. It gives the
citizen a right to support that amend-
ment. Yet the Congressman and the
citizen would be guilty of violating sec-
tion 4 if he did any act-proposing a con-
stitutional amendment is not excepted-
which some court might say contributed
to establishing a totalitarian dictator-
ship in the United States. This in-
cludes any town or municipality. To-
talitarian dictatorship is defined in the
preceding section to mean one party rule
where no opposition is permitted. This
could be used by unscrupulous prosecu-
tors to punish people upon suspicion,
hearsay, or flimsy evidence, even though
their acts are protected by the Con-
stitution.
Section 4 (b) could result in convict-
ing an innocent person of orally passing
Approved For Release 2003/09/02 : CIA-RDP58-00597A000100030004-6
 Approved For Release 2003/09/02 : CIA-RDP58-00597A000100030004-6
on confidential information, even though
he may not actually know it was classi-
fied and did not intend to do harm to the
Government.
Section 4 (c) would make Mr. Church-
ill or any representative of a foreign
government guilty if he asked for infor-
mation which was classified or confiden-
tial. The section is not limited to un-
friendly governments. This. is a heavy
burden to put on people with whom we
are trying to get along. -
As to these sections-
They would-
In the words of the late Charles Evans
Hughes, Jr.-
Include attempts to bring about such result
by expression of opinions through speech or
publication, or by participation in peaceable
assemblies, designed to bring about changes
in the Government through orderly proc-
esses of amendment of the Constitution.
Statutes which spread as wide a net as that
violate the first amendment.
e r ? r ?
In addition, section 1 falls to meet the
test of due process which requires that the
definition of a crime must be sufficiently
definite to be a dependable guide to the
conduct of the individual and to the court
and jury which passes upon his guilt or
innocence. This is - true of the critical
terms * * * "vested in,- or exercised by
or under the- domination or control of, any
foreign government, foreign organization, or
foreign individual," and "any movement."
Interpretation of these phrases receives only
the slightest aid from the legislative declara-
tions in section 2, because the latter relates
to a particular "Communist totalitarian dic-
tatorship" and to a "world Communist move-
ment," whereas section 4 denounces at-
tempts to establish any totalitarian dictator-
ship controlled by "any" foreign organiza-
tion and "any" movement so long as it aims
at that end. Especially in such a context
the terms "attempt," "facilitate or aid," and
"actively to participate" are too vague and
indefinite for a criminal statute (p. 416 of
hearings on H. It. 5852).
About last year's section 4a, which is
substantially identical with the present
provision, Tom Clark said:
From the language of the bill, it appears
uncertain whether mere membership in a
Communist organization as defined in sec-
tion 3 would constitute a violation of sec-
tion 4. The principle that a criminal statute
must be definite and certain in its mean-
ing and application is well established; and
principle which may not be satisfied by the
definitions and criteria of the bill. (Con-
nally v. General Construction Co. (269
U. S. 385) ; Lanzetta V. New Jersey (306 U. S.
451) (p. 424 of Hearings on H. R. 5852).)
906548-36516
Seth Richardson, Chairman of the
Loyalty Review Board, had this to say
about the old section 4-and it applies
with equal force to the present language:
I am inclined to the view that before sec-
tion 4 of the act can be deemed a proper
exercise of the power of the Congress to pro-
tect the country against threatened danger,
the bill should providethat efforts to estab-
lish a totalitarian dictatorship must be ac-
companied by force and violence and by
unconstitutional procedures.
Mr. John W. Davis' similar' opinion
was, in part, as follows: -
Without pausing to consider such consti-
tutional questions as are raised by the gen-
eral frame of the bill or others which might
appear in the course of its attempted enforce-
ment, I am constrained to think that because
of its indefiniteness and uncertainty the bill
fails to meet the constitutional requirement
of due process. It is a highly penal statute
.of a character concerning which the Supreme
Court has but recently said: "The standards
of certainty in statutes punishing for offenses
is higher than in those depending primarily
upon civil sanction for enforcement. The
crime 'must be defined with appropriate
definiteness' " (Winters v. New York, decided
March 29, 1948 (338 U. S. 507, 515)) .
In this opinion the Court goes on to
say-pages 515-516. -
There must be ascertainable standards of
guilt. 'Men of common intelligence cannot
be required to guess at the meaning of the
enactment. The vagueness may be from un-
certainty in regard to persons within the
scope of the ;act ? * * or in regard to
the applicable tests to ascertain guilt.
These principles are, I believe, of universal
acceptance in all American courts.
In the light of these opinions by the
Nation's -foremost lawyers, I think we
must agree that the Supreme Court
would reverse convictions under many
sections of the McCarran bill. Then
after years of delay nothing worthwhile
would have been accomplished. The
Kilgore bill does not get into the matter
of thought control or of curbing freedom
of speech or of the press. During time
of danger it merely puts dangerous Com-
munists and fifth columnists out of cir-
culation. There are no valid constitu-
tional objections to doing this, The
Government has a right to protect itself.
Furthermore, the McCarran bill
group together five or six other measures.
Some of these are good. Others are not.
Some need much amending before pas-
sage. One such bill transfers from the
State Department to the Justice Depart-
ment many powers -and rights in dealing
Approved For Release 2003/09/02 : CIA-RDP58-00597A000100030004-6
 Approved For Release 2003/09/02 : CIA-RDP58-00597A000100030004-6
with Ambassadors and foreign repre-
sentatives. The State Department says
this would be calamitous. We should
defer. action on this bill.
I think those Americans who sent me
here will approve my reasons and my
action. I hope my colleagues will re-
consider the ill-conceived McCarran bill
and pass into law the Kilgore substitute.
I shall feel much more confident in
reporting to my people If that is done.
The McCarran bill is a clumsy catch-all
and difficult of enforcement. I do not
favor it as it now stands. I will vote
for it if some amendments to give ade-
quate protection to decent and loyal citi-
zens are adopted. I shall present several
very necessary amendments to section 4.
I do not think we should follow the phil-
osophy of voting for a bill regardless of
whether it meets constitutional require-
ments, regardless of whether it is sound
just because it is called anti-Commu-
nist. When I entered this body I took
an oath to support the Constitution. I
could not live with my conscience if I
gave my approval to a bill which does
violence to the Constitution, to the Bill
of Rights, and which I think destroys
many of those freedoms which make
America the great land of the free. The
Kilgore substitute is realistic and direct
and would give the FBI the tools to do
the job when the time comes.
That is why I sponsored the Kilgore
substitute rather than the McCarran
bill.
I have certain amendments which I
shall propose at a later time, in connec-
tion with section 4.
The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator
from Tennessee is recognized for 71/z
minutes.
Mr. KEFAUVER. Mr. President, sec-
tion 4 of the bill has given many Mem-
bers of the Senate a great deal of trouble.
It is also the subject matter of consider-
able comment as to its constitutionality.
From time to time such eminent lawyers
as Mr. John W. Davis, Mr. Charles Evans
Hughes, Jr., former Attorney General
Tom Clark, and Mr. Seth Richardson
have expressed opinions that various
versions of section 4 were unconstitu-
tional. It is, I think, the worst section
of the bill, and, in my opinion, the bill
would be greatly improved if that sec-
tion were stricken from it.
If Senators will turn to section 4, it
will be seen that section 4 (a) would
make it a criminal offense for a Mem-
906548-36516
ber of the United States Senate to agree
with a civilian for the purpose of pre-
senting a constitutional amendment for
the purpose of what might be termed
setting up a totalitarian dictatorship. A
totalitarian dictatorship is defined as be-
ing a one-party system where opposition
is suppressed by force. That is a loose
definition under which persons might be
prosecuted for doing something which
they had a legal right to do. Of course,
under the Constitution anyone can offer
a constitutional amendment to accom-
plish anything he wants to accomplish,
and anyone can support such a constitu-
tional amendment without running afoul
of any law.
Furthermore, in section 4 of the usual
constitutional provision with respect to
force and violence is not present. It
covers any act which might include
speaking, writing a letter, a conversa-
tion, or anything else. The usual re-
quirement as to force and violence is
missing.
It should also be pointed out that it
does not mean that a person has to com-
mit an act with a view to setting up a
totalitarian dictatorship in lieu of the
Government of the United States. In
its wide application it applies to munici-
palities, to any township, to any county,
or to any small community that might
contain only 10 persons. So it is a sec-
tion which could be used for prosecution
and persecution of people by thought
control.
Subsection (b) on page 11 provides
that any employee of the Government,
and so forth, who passes any confiden-
tial information to any representative of
a foreign country shall be guilty. I
should like to point out that this subsec-
tion means that one need not actually
see the confidential document. Someone
may tell someone else, and the person
involved may get it fifth-hand. How-
ever, if he told it to Mr. Winston
Churchill when he was here, and it
turned out that the information was con-
fidential or restricted, that person would
be guilty of a violation of this section
of the proposed act, even though he may
have had no intention to harm the Gov-
ernment of the United States. That is
another instance where persons could
be prosecuted right and left for offenses
which they did not know they were com-
mitting, and without any intention to
harm the Government of the United
States.
Approved For Release 2003/09/02 : CIA-RDP58-00597A000100030004-6
 Approved For Release 2003/09/02 : CIA-RDP58-00597A000100030004-6
Subsection (c) provides that any
representative of a foreign government
who asks for or seeks to obtain such con-
fidential information shall be guilty. It
would place a representative of a foreign
country in the position of being guilty
of violating a law of the United States
if he asked anyone for any information
about our defenses, the number of tanks,
and questions along that line, at the
very time when under the Atlantic Pact
we have joined with-foreign governments
for the purpose of uniting our defense
efforts in the Atlantic Pact.
Mr. President, this section in the hands
of an energetic and unwise - prosecutor
could be used to control thought, to keep
people from expressing their opinions
and from doing things which they have
a right to do under the Constitution. I
think the bill would be greatly improved
if the section were deleted.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. McCAARRAN. Mr. President, the
amendment offered by the Senator from
Tennessee provides that on page 10, line
19, there be stricken out section 4. The
amendment is not acceptable to us for
the -reason that it would remove section
4 in its entirety. Section 4 makes it un-
lawful for any person knowingly to com-
bine, conspire, or agree, and so forth, to
perform any act which would substan-
tially contribute to the establishment
within the United States of a totalitar-
ian dictatorship under the control of a
foreign government. It also makes it
unlawful for officers or employees of the
United States to communicate classified
information to foreign agents, and for
such foreign agents to receive such in-
formation. I believe such a provision is
necessary in the bill if we are to meet
the subversive problem on all fronts. I
yield 5 minutes to the Senator from
Michigan, if he desires to speak on the
amendment.
Mr. KEFAUVER. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. McCARRAN. Certainly.
Mr. KEFAUVER. Does not the Sen-
ator think that in some way or other a
differentiation should be made between a
friendly foreign agent and an unfriendly
foreign agent? Certainly we do not
want to place this kind of restriction on
friendly people who come here repre-
senting a friendly government.
Mr. McCARRAN. Mr. President, the
Senator might have asked that- question
of a certain nation 7 or 8 years ago.
906548-36518
Today the answer would be in the nega-
tive. Seven or eight years ago we knew
a friendly nation, which was supposed
to be our ally. Today, how about it?
For anyone to transmit classified infor-
mation, and for anyone to receive it,
should be prohibited by law.
Mr. KEFAUVER. I may say that it
does not speak well of the Atlantic Pact
and our participation in it if we put
representatives of our friends, demo-
cratic countries, under restrictions which
do not permit them to ask the simplest
kind of questions without violating the
law of the United States.
Mr. McCARRAN. If I have any time
remaining, let me say to the Senator
that this is a time when I believe the
United States of America must look out
for itself. We are very happy to- be in
the Atlantic Pact, and we hope to go
along with it. We hope to be able to
assist in the success of the Atlantic Pact.
However, the internal security of the
United States and our continuation un-
der a democratic form of government is
uppermost in my mind, now and at all
times.
Mr. MUNDT. Is it not correct to say
that if the amendment offered by the
Senator from Tennessee prevails we
would be actually striking out of the bill
the provision which makes it illegal to
perform an act which under the Kilgore
substitute they would make it permis-
sible to put a man in a concentration
camp merely for thinking about per-
forming the act? -
Mr. FERGUSON. That is exactly
correct.
Mr. KEFAUVER. The Senator knows
that during the time of a national emer-
gency the Government has a right to do
many things which it cannot do, in times
of peace. That is the distinction be-
tween the Kilgore substitute and the pro-
vision in the bill referred to. This is
proposed legislation for all time, not
merely during the time of an emergency.
Mr. MUNDT. The proposed legisla-
tion requires an act to be performed, not
merely having the Attorney General
think that a man is thinking of perform-
ing it. The man must actually perform
the act. -
Mr. KEFAUVER. No; the section
provides for agreeing to perform an act.
It is not necessary to perform it.
Mr. MUNDT. He must combine or
conspire with someone.
Approved For Release 2003/09/02 : CIA-RDP58-00597A000100030004-6
 Approved For Release 2003/09/02 : CIA-RDP58-00597A000100030004-6
Mr. KEFAUVER. Combine, conspire,
or agree.
Mr. FERGUSON. There are other
ways of overthrowing a government than
by force and violence. We learned that
in Czechoslovakia. The force and vio-
lence comes afterwards, in order to con-
solidate and expand power and control
acquired by other means. In other
words, we are trying to do something
about the kind of subversive acts that
are really dangerous. I hope the Sen-
ate of the United States will not weaken
the bill by taking out of it section 4.
The VICE PRESIDENT. The ques-
tion is on agreeing to the amendment
offered by the Senator from Tennessee
[Mr. KEFAUVER].
Mr. KEFAUVER and other Senators
requested the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were not ordered.
The VICE PRESIDENT. The ques-
tion is on agreeing to the amendment
offered by the Senator from Tennessee
[Mr. KEFAUVER]. [Putting the question.]
The "noes" appear to have it.
Mr. KEFAUVER. Mr. President, I ask
for a division,
On a division, the amendment was re-
jected.
Mr. KEFAUVER. Mr. President, I
have another amendment, lettered "F,"
which I offer.
The VICE PRESIDENT. The clerk
will state the amendment.
The CHIEF CLERK. On page 10, line
21, after the word "act", it is proposed
to insert "by force and violence."
On page 11, line 2, to strike out the
period, to insert a colon, and the follow-
ing: "Provided, however, That this sec-
tion shall not apply to any act in con-
nection with the sponsorship of a con-
stitutional amendment."
Mr. KEFAUVER. Mr. President-
The VICE PRESIDENT. The Sena-
tor has 71/2 minutes.
Mr. KEFAUVER. Mr. President, this
amendment is a sincere effort to improve
the bill, hoping that on final passage it
will contain certain amendments so that
I can vote for it. I voted a little while
ago for the Kilgore substitute for the
bill. If that had been agreed to, and
some things were done to remove some
of the objections which I have and which
I think others have, I would expect to
vote for the bill in the hope that in con-
ference a bill might be agreed to which
would even be acceptable to the Presi-
dent, so that we could end this session
806548-36516
with some legislation on this subject
enacted.
This amendment is to section 4 (a),
and would require that an agreement to
perform some act must be carried out by
force and violence. Otherwise, if a
Member of the Senate agrees to propose
a constitutional amendment, to have
certain things happen in the Govern-
ment of the United States, and someone
on the outside agrees, if he offers such
an amendment, which he has a perfect
constitutional right to do, and he makes
a speech or speaks to his neighbor about
it, then he would be guilty under the sec-
tion as it is now written. It would open
the way to the promiscuous prosecution
of people for acts which are accompanied
by no force or violence, but merely on
the word of somebody else. There would
be at least justiciable issues under which
people could be haled into court.
Mr. McCARRAN. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield for the suggestion of
an amendment to his amendment?
Mr. KEFAUVER. I have an amend-
ment, and I wish to give my explanation
of it.
All the attorneys who have considered
this proposed legislation have raised
some question as to the legality of or the
constitutionality of section 4 (a) unless
the act is carried out by force and vio-
lence. I think it should also be written
into the bill that this provision should
not apply to any act in connection with
the sponsorship of a constitutional
amendment.
Mr. McCARRAN. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. KEFAUVER. I yield to the Sena-
tor.
Mr. McCARRAN. I wish to make the
suggestion to the Senator that, so far as
I am personally concerned, I would have
no objection if the amendment read like
this, "That this section shall not apply
to the proposal of a constitutional
amendment."
Mr. KEFAUVER. That is only half of
the amendment. The other half is as to
any act requiring force and violence.
Mr. McCARRAN. There is nothing
in this amendment about that.
Mr. KEFAUVER. Yes; it proposes
that on page 10, line 21, after the word
"act" there be inserted the words "by
force and violence."
Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. KEFAUVER. I yield.
Approved For Release 2003/09/02 : CIA-RDP58-00597AO00100030004-6
 Approved For Release 2003/09/02 : CIA-RDP58-00597A000100030004-6
Mr. MUNDT. I was thinking of
speaking along the same line suggested
by the Senator from Nevada. It seems
to me the amendment of the Senator
from Tennessee is altogether too broad in
line 5 to carry out the purpose he has in
mind as indicated by his remarks. Cer-
tainly we must not make the section in-
applicable to any act, because there
could be a great many illegal acts, con-
spiratorial acts, acts of violence. It
seems to me that if the Senator would
insert before the word "acts" some such
modifier as "constitutional" or "legal" in
connection with the constitutional
amendment, he would carry out what he
has in mind.
Mr. KEFAUVER. How about the pro-
vision relating to force and violence?
The Senator and I have the same thing
in mind as to the constitutional amend-
ment provision, and that could be
worked out in conference. The lan-
guage proposed by the Senator from Ne-
vada as to the second part of the amend-
ment sounds all right to me, but that
does not take care of the other objection,
as to requiring that an agreement be
accompanied by force and violence.
Mr. MUNDT. That is correct, but I
think an altogether different element
enters into the consideration of that
part of the amendment, because the
Communist line changes from time to
time from force and violence over to es-
pionage, infiltration, and subversion, and
a great many other techniques and de-
vices which are not accompanied by
force and violence. So I think we
would cripple the administrator if we
limited the provision to acts accom-
panied by force and violence.
I have no objection to the second part,
if it is modified as I have suggested. I
think the first part of the amendment
goes too far, because it would prohibit
the administrator from changing his
tactics to keep up with the constantly
changing line of the Communists, which
does not always entail force and violence.
Mr. KEFAUVER. In my opinion, un-
less the words "force and violence" are
used in relation to some act which may
be committed, it is not constitutional.
I shall be glad to accept the language
of the Senator from Nevada as to the
constitutional amendment feature, but
unless the rest of it is going to be
accepted, I do not see that there is much
to be accomplished.
906548-36516
Mr. LONG: Mr. President, will the
Senator from Tennessee yield?
Mr. KEFAUVER. I yield to the Sena-
tor from Louisiana.
Mr. LONG. What the Senator from
Tennessee has in mind is to preserve
the right of an American to advocate
peaceful change of government by con-
stitutional, legal processes.
Mr. KEFAUVER. That is correct.
Mr. LONG. On the other hand, he is
perfectly willing to outlaw the advocacy
of forcible overthrow of our Government
by anyone.
Mr. KEFAUVER. That is correct.
That is exactly my position.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President,
would it not be more difficult to prove
foreign domination under the amend-
ment than under the Smith Act, which
did not require the proof of foreign
domination?
Mr. KEFAUVER. I say frankly that
"with force and violence" written into
the amendment, the amendment does not
differ greatly from the provisions of the
Smith Act. I think the language "com-
bine, conspire, or agree" is a little
broader than the Smith Act.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. My point is that
under the proposal now made it would
be more difficult to prove foreign domi-
nation than under the Smith Act. It is
not so effective, is it?
Mr. KEFAUVER. Under the bill,
without the amendment, anything could
be proved on anybody. It would be one
man's word against another. It would
be said that two people were getting to-
gether and saying they were going to set
up a dictatorship in some small town.
There would have to be a trial to deter-
mine whether they had tried to create
a dictatorship in some small town, and
Jim Jones, who might be an unnatural-
ized alien, who might be the boss of
the town-
The VICE PRESIDENT. The time of
the Senator from Tennessee has expired.
Mr. McCARRAN. Mr. President, this
amendment would rather effectively
emasculate section 4 (a) of the bill.
This is the section which provides that
"it shall be unlawful for any person
knowingly to combine, conspire, or agree
with any other person to perform any
act which would substantially contribute
to the establishment within the United
States of a totalitarian dictatorship the
direction and control of which is to be
Approved For Release 2003/09/02 : CIA-RDP58-00597A000100030004-6
 Approved For Release 2003/09/02 : CIA-RDP58-00597A000100030004-6
vested in, or exercised by or under the
dominion or control of, any foreign gov-
ernment, foreign organization, or foreign
individual."
This proposed amendment would, first,
limit the category of acts, conspiracy to
perform which is made unlawful, to acts
'.'by force and violence."
Secondly, this amendment would add
a proviso stating that this section shall
not apply to any act in connection with
the sponsorship of a constitutional
amendment.
That phrase "in connection with" is
extremely broad; and it appears that if
this language should be adopted, any
person who had sponsored a constitu-
tional amendment would thereafter be
able to indulge in any form of conspir-
acy without worrying about the pro-
visions of this section; for the bare fact
that he was the sponsor of a constitu-
tional amendment presumably would
protect him.
Possibly what the Senator from Ten-
nessee means to suggest is a proviso
making the section inapplicable to acts
in furtherance of the adoption of a con-
stitutional amendment; but that is not
what his amendment says.
Mr. President, I do not believe this
amendment should be adopted, or that it
will be adopted; nevertheless, I feel it
should be amended before it is voted
upon.
Mr. KEFAUVER. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. McCARRAN. I yield.
Mr. KEFAUVER. I accept the Sena-
tor's suggestion as to the language in
the second part of the amendment.
Mr. McCARRAN. Will the Senator
modify his amendment to that extent?
Mr. KEFAUVER. If the Senator will
yield, I shall ask unanimous consent, Mr.
President-
The VICE PRESIDENT. The Sena-
tor can modify his amendment in any
way he pleases.
Mr. KEFAUVER. Mr. President, I
modify the amendment so as to strike
out the words "any act in connection
with," and the word "sponsorship," and
insert in place of "sponsorship" the word
"proposal."
The VICE PRESIDENT. The clerk
will read the amendment as it is now
offered.
Mr. KEFAUVER. Yes, I wish the
clerk would do so.
906548-36516
The CHISF CLERK. On page 11, line 2,
it is proposed to strike out the period,
insert a colon, and the following: "Pro-
vided, however, That this section shall
not apply to the proposal of a constitu-
tional amendment."
Mr. McCARRAN. Does the Senator
modify the other part of his amend-
ment?
Mr. KEFAUVER. No, Mr. President;
I do not.
Mr. McCARRAN. Oi course, I cannot
accept it unless the Senator does.
Possibly what the Senator from Ten-
nessee means to suggest is a proviso mak-
ing the section inapplicable to acts in
furtherance of the adoption of a consti-
tutional amendment; but that is not
what his amendment says.
Mr. President, I do not believe the
amendment should be adopted or that it
will be adopted; nevertheless I feel that
it should be amended before it is voted
upon. Therefore, Mr. President, I move
to amend the amendment` offered by the
Senator from Tennessee [Mr. KEFAUVER]
so as to make it read:
On page 11, line 2, change the period to a
comma and insert the following: "Provided,
however, That the provisions of this subsec-
tion shall not render unlawful any act done
in furtherance of the adoption of a proposed
constitutional amendment."
The Senator has already accepted that
modification, but as to the first part of
his amendment, he has not made any
modification.
Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. McCARRAN. I yield.
Mr. FERGUSON. Would not that al-
low a conspiracy to overthrow the Gov-
ernment and to do acts in furtherance
of such conspiracy, even to the use of
force and violence? What is the modi-
fication made by the Senator from Ten-
nessee?
Mr. McCARRAN. The second part of
the amendment has been modified.
Mr. FERGUSON. Will the Senator
read the modification?
Mr. McCARRAN. Yes. On page 11,
line 2, it is proposed to strike out the pe-
riod, insert a colon, and the following:
"Provided, however, That this section
shall not apply to the proposal of a con-
stitutional amendment."
Mr. FERGUSON. That covers only
the proposal of a constitutional amend-
ment.
Approved For Release 2003/09/02 : CIA-RDP58-00597A000100030004-6
 Approved. For Release 2003/09/02 : CIA-RDP58-00597A000100030004-6
10
Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, reserving That technique is to gain control in some
the right to object- way by conspiracy and infiltration, and
Mr. McCARRAN. A parliamentary by the blotting out of those who had
inquiry. been in power; then afterward to use
The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator force and violence to retain the power
will state it. they have obtained.
Mr. McCARRAN. Will it be proper at In view of that switch in technique,
over-
this time to ask for a division of the we propose Government, make it acrime me build to and
amendment? throw the The VICE PRESIDENT. Certainly, create a totalitarian government here, by
They are practically two separate acts which are short of force and vio-
amendments anyway. lence. I hope the Senate will not change
Mr. McCARRAN. I ask for a division the language of the bill by adopting the
of the amendment so we may deal with amendment, because that would bring us
that part which has been agreed upon back to the Smith Act, and we are trying
by the Senator first. to do something entirely different here
The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there ob- than was VICE done by the Smith Time has
jection to the adoption-The Mr. KEFAUVER. I should like to have expired.
the whole amendment voted on first, Mr. Mr. KEFAUVER. Is there any time
President. remaining?
The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair The VICE PRESIDENT. There is no
thinks a request for a division is legiti- time remaining.
mate, and the Chair orders that there be The question is on the first branch of
a division of the amendment. the Senator's amendment.
Mr. KEFAUVER. Very well. Mr. KEFAUVER. Is that the "force
The VICE PRESIDENT. And that and violence" part?
there be a vote separately on each. If The VICE PRESIDENT. The "force
there is no objection to agreeing to that and violence" part; yes.
part of the amendment in which the Mr. KEFAUVER. I ask for the yeas
language has been modified, it will be and nays on that part of my amendment.
adopted. The Chair hears none and that The yeas and nays were not ordered.
branch of the amendment is agreed to. The VICE PRESIDENT. The ques-
Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, is tion is on agreeing to the amendment.
there any time left? [Putting the question.] The "noes"
Mr. McCARRAN.. I yield whatever seem to have it.
time I have left, to the Senator from Mr. KEFAUVER. Mr. President, I ask
Michigan. for a division.
Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, I On a division, the amendment was re-
should like to say a few words as to the jected.
other part of the amendment. It pro- Mr. KEFAUVER. May we now have a
poses to insert the words "by force and vote taken on the second part of the
violence." amendment dealing with proposal of a
The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair constitutional amendment?
wishes to say that there are 11/2 minutes The VICE PRESIDENT. That part
remaining. of the amendment was agreed to by
Mr. FERGUSON. The main reason unanimous consent.
for not using the words "force and vio- Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, a par-
lence" was the testimony of Mr. Gates liamentary inquiry.
and Mr. Foster of the Communist Party VICE PThe Sena-
VICE PRESIDENT.
They the Committee on the Judiciary. The
tor will state it.
They said that they had now eliminated r RUSSELL. I was under the im-
words their teachings and so forth the
words "force and violence." They have pression that the Senate had agreed only
altered their techniques, in other words, to the suggested change in the language
Partly they have done so because teach- of the amendment, but if the amend-
ing or advocating overthrow by force ment, as modified, has been agreed to, it
and violence is prohibited under the is quite all right. I am in favor of that
Smith Act. portion of the amendment.
Anyone who has studied communism Mr. KEFAUVER. Mr. President, I
knows of their alternate techniques. call up my amendment dated 9-11-50-E.
906548-86616
Approved For Release 2003/09/02 : CIA-RDP58-00597A000100030004-6
 Approved For Release 2003/09/02 : CIA-RDP58-00597A000100030004-6
The VICE PRESIDENT. The Secre-
tary will state the amendment.
The CHIEF CLERK. On page 11, line 4,
after the word "thereof", it is proposed
to insert the following: "(but this sub-
section shall not apply to employees of
private corporations in which the Re-
construction Finance Corporation has
ownership of a part of said stock as a
result of the financing or refinancing of
said corporation by the Reconstruction
Finance Corporation)."
On page 11, line 7, after the word
"means," it is proposed to insert "with
intent to harm the United States."
Mr. KEFAUVER. Mr. President, this
section is principally intended to apply
to Government employees who, by vir-
tue of their employment with the Gov-
ernment, have access to certain infor-
mation which they may pass on to a
representative of a foreign country. As
it now stands, if some employee who
might hear second or third hand about
something-and of course this does not
apply to anybody outside the executive
branch of the Government-should meet
a representative of a friendly govern-
ment and should tell him something he,
the employee, had heard, even though
there was no intention to harm the Gov-
ernment of the United States-as a mat-
ter of fact it might be something that
was being discussed in the interest of
helping the Government of the United
States, by the representative of a for-
eign military mission of a friendly coun-
try-then the Government employee
would be guilty of a violation of this sec-
tion. When our employees are acting in
good faith, without any intent to harm
the Government of the United States, I
do not believe they ought to be con-
sidered guilty of something of which the
average citzen would not be guilty.
The second point is that the amend-
ment would include as employees of the
United States the employees of any cor-
poration in which the Reconstruction
Finance Corporation owned a major part,
I believe, of the stock of the company.
The employees might not even know
that they are working for a corporation
in which the major part of the stock is
owned by the Reconstruction Finance
Corporation.
There have been many newspapers
whose stock was owned in major part
by the Reconstruction Finance Corpo-
ration. In such case, a reporter for one
of those newspapers might inadvertently,
906548-36516
even though he should know better, pass
out some information which might be
confidential. In that case, he would be
guilty under the provisions of this meas-
ure, even though he might not know that
the newspaper was partly owned by the
Reconstruction Finance Corporation.
The other day the Senator from Mich-
igan [Mr. FERGUSON] said that if the
du Pont Corp. were to have contracts
for the manufacture of the H-bomb, the
employees of that corporation should be
placed under a restriction which would
forbid their giving out information re-
garding the H-bomb. I think probably
that should be done. However, I do not
believe such a case would be covered by
this amendment, because, as I under-
stand, none of the stock of the du Pont
Corp. Is owned by the Reconstruction
Finance Corporation.
I do not see why the employees of cor-
porations whose stock is owned in part
by the RFC should be treated differently
from the employees of corporations
whose stock is not owned by the RFC.
After all, stock ownership is simply a
matter of financing.
Mr. CHAVEZ. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. KEFAUVER. I yield.
Mr. CHAVEZ. Is it the purpose of the
Senator from Tennessee to exempt em-
ployees who might be connected with any
corporation in which the RFC has an
interest?
Mr. KEFAUVER. That is correct.
Mr. CHAVEZ. That is the purpose;
Is it?
Mr. KEFAUVER. Yes.
Mr. CHAVEZ. What difference would
it make whether a person who commits
a crime which is intended to be covered
by the provisions of this bill, actually
works for the Government or does not
work for the Government?
Mr. KEFAUVER. My point is that
everyone, regardless of the concern for
which he works, should be covered in
that connection. However, I take the
position that without my amendment,
the employees of the Kaiser-Frazier
Corp., for instance, would be covered,
but the employees of General Motors
Corp. would not be covered. It seems to
me that either all employees should be
covered or else the provision should be
limited to Government employees. '
Mr. CHAVEZ. Iwish to say to the
Senator from Tennessee that I under-
Approved For Release 2003/09/02 : CIA-RDP58-00597A000100030004-6
 Approved For Release 2003/09/02 : CIA-RDP58-00597A000100030004-6
stand that his amendment will do so.
I think all employees should be covered.
Mr. KEFAUVER. No; the amend-
ment does not cover all of them. We
are endeavoring to leave out-
Mr. CHAVEZ. Let me say that I can-
not see any reason why certain excep-
tions should be made, so that if A com-
mits a certain act, it will be held to be
a crime because he works for Corpora-
tion B, but if C commits a similar act,
he will not be held to have committed
a crime, because he works for the Gov-
ernment.
Mr. KEFAUVER. Of course I think
there is a distinction, in this case, be-
tween a Government employee and a
private citizen. I think the employees
of a corporation in which the RFC hap-
pens to own some stock are private citi-
zens; and if they are to be covered by
this measure, then, in my opinion, all
private citizens should be covered by it.
Mr. CHAVEZ. That is my point. I
do not think there should be any ex-
ceptions. After all, a crime is a crime,
If in any particular set of circumstances
a certain law applies, it should, be applied
to everyone.
Mr. KEFAUVER. Mr. President, I
yield back the remainder of the time al-
lotted to me.
Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, will
the Senator from Nevada yield some
time to me?
Mr. McCARRAN. I yield to the Sen-
ator from Michigan.
Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, I
wish to present a brief analysis of the
amendment.
First, we must know what we are try-
ing to prevent. The purpose of this part
of the bill is to prevent Government em-
ployees and those working for Govern-
ment agencies and those who are serving
in capacities in which they are likely to
receive very vital information which has
been classified by the President as being
security information, from knowingly
and willfully giving such information to
foreign agents or to persons who belong
to Communist organizations.
Mr. KEFAUVER. Mr. President, this
provision is not limited to Communists.
It would include Winston Churchill or
anyone else who happened to belong to
a foreign government.
Mr. FERGUSON. Of course, Mr.
President, any of us can be imaginative
and can get away up into the clouds in
connection with the consideration of
806548-36516
these provisions; but it seems to me that
we must deal with people who keep their
feet on the ground, and certainly the
Communists do that. They know where
they are going. The purpose of this pro-
vision is to prevent the giving out of
Government secrets to persons who are
known to be Communists.
If any person who owns stock in a
Government corporation receives secrets
from the Government of the United
States-and in such case the fact of his
ownership of stock in that corporation
would be the basis of his receipt of such
secret information-such person should
not be permitted to divulge those secrets
to Communists.
Mr. KEFAUVER. But on page 11 of
the bill, in lines 9 and 10, we find the
words "has reason to believe to be an
agent or representative of any foreign
government."
The bill does not say "Communists"
at that point.
Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, let
me return to what we said in regard to
the previous amendment, namely, if a
man is an agent of a foreign govern-
ment, and if he comes to the United
States and obtains from an American
citizen or from a United States Govern-
ment agency a secret to which he has no
right, that man is an espionage agent.
That is the sort of situation we are try-
ing to reach by this measure. There are
ample provisions through proper chan-
nels to waive this section in the case of
representatives of foreign governments
who may be entitled to the information.
The only persons who are entitled to
receive such secret information are those
whom the President of the United States
or the heads of the departments allow
to have such information. That is as it
should be. Should Winston Churchill or
anyone else come to the United States
and go to certain Government employees
and obtain our secrets from them? No;
they should go through the channel that
is provided for such purposes, namely,
the State Department; or they should go
to the President of the United States.
He has the power to give them those se-
crets. If he does not, I say such persons
should not get the secrets.
Mr.KEFAUVER. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. FERGUSON. I yield.
Mr. KEFAUVER. The Senator from
Michigan knows that in all the depart-
ments, practically all documents are
Approved For Release 2003/09/02 : CIA-RDP58-00597A000100030004-6
 Approved For Release 2003/09/02 : CIA-RDP58-00597A000100030004-6
13
marked "confidential" or "restricted." prove a specific intent to harm the
Under. such circumstances, it would be United States.
impossible for anyone to have a full ap- So why should it not be made a crime
preciation of what might be marked "re- for anyone to give to such person this
stricted." kind of secret information, regardless of
This measure does not mean that any- whether they specifically intend to harm
one who might be so charged would have the United States. Otherwise, why have
to have seen what was so marked. On classified data? After all, the giving of
the contrary, if such a person should pass such information could very, easily harm
on such information third hand, and if the United States. That is why we
subsequently it should turn out to have should not include these words in this
been marked "restricted," that person measure, and thus compel the Govern-
would be guilty, because the amendment ment to prove beyond a reasonable doubt
does not provide that the person passing that when such persons give away such
on the. information must have seen it. material, they intend to harm the United
Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, that States.
is not a fact. The amendment provides Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, will the
that such a person must know that the Senator yield?
material is restricted or must have rea- Mr. FERGUSON. I yield.
son to believe that it is restricted. How Mr. MUNDT. Is it not true that in
.would that situation develop? It would the Hiss case, in the Coplon case, and in
develop in this way: If certain informa- all the other cases of that sort, the de-
tion is classified by the President or by fendants always said they had no inten-
the head of any Department or agency, tion of harming the Unitrrd States?
with the approval of the President, then Mr. FERGUSON. That is correct.
if any person knows that a certain paper Mr. MUNDT. And it was virtually im-
possible certain information has been classi- possible to prove that they did intend
fled by the President or, on his author- to harm the United States.
ity, by someone else as affecting the secu-
rity of the United States, such person Mr. FERGUSON. Of course.
should not give the information to any Mr. KEFAUVER. Mr. President, will
foreign agent or any foreign govern- the Senator cite a case in which it has
ment; it should be a crime for anyone not been possible to prove intent? It a
to do so. good, decent, American citizen gives in-
So we come back to the second part formation to a representative of a for-
of the amendment, and I think we should eign government, is that American to be
have separate votes on the two parts of put in jail merely because he passes on
this issue. The amendment proposes the information? Should it be possible
that in order to come within the provi- for such an American to be put in jail
sions of this measure, a person who gives unless there is a showing that in talking
to a known Communist or a known for- with the representative of the foreign
eign agent such secrets belonging to the nation or foreign government, that
United States, which have been classified American citizen intended to harm the
by the President or have been classified Government of the United States? It
under his authorty, must be proved to is unthinkable that such a thing should
have an intent to harm the United be provided, Mr. President.
States. Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, I
The Attorney General of the United say to the people of all friendly nations
States came before the committee in re- as I say to the citizens of America who
gard to the other bill, when it was before may go into other friendly nations, the
us in another form. He does not want place to obtain information is at the
that language in the law any longer, be- top, not to snoop around and try to get
cause if that language is included- information here and there from people
namely, the word "with intent to harm who are not authorized to give informa-
the United States"-it will be found that tion. Suppose this amendment were to
in almost all cases it is impossible to apply,'and someone asked, "Why should
prove such intent. not a man down the line somewhere give
After all, what did the defendants in information concerning atomic energy
the Coplon case say? They said they secrets?" It ought to be a crime for
never intended to harm the United -him to do that, whether he intends to
States. However, it was necessary to harm the United States or not.
906548-36516
Approved For Release 2003/09/02 : CIA-RDP58-00597A000100030004-6
 Approved For Release 2003/09/02 : CIA-RDP58-00597A000100030004-6
Mr. KEFAUVER. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. FERGUSON. I yield.
Mr. KEFATT(: ER. I have been on mis-
sions with Members of the Senate, when
I was in the House-even with the dis-
tinguished Senator from Michigan. I
recently heard the Senator from Wash-
ington make a report. Had we gone to
a friendly country and had we been con-
fronted with the restrictions such as are
contained in this proposed legislation,
we would all have returned home very
wrought up about it. We would have
said, "We cannot get those fellows to
tell us anything. They have to run up
and see the director of the division. They
would not even talk with us." In his re-
cent report, the Senator from Washing-
ton told about the vast amount of in-
formation which he received and the
friendly manner in which he was re-
ceived by the officials. Had they had in
their own country a restriction such as
this, the Senator from Washington
would have returned home without any
information, and he would have favored
kicking them all out of the Atlantic
Pact, I am afraid.
Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, I
again say that the agent of any friendly
nation who comes to the United States
wanting information which is secret, and
is classified by the President, should go
to the President or to the agency head
and obtain clearance, in order that he
might receive it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. (Mr.
HoEY in the chair). The Senator's time
has expired.
Mr. FERGUSON. I hope that both
of these amendments will be voted down.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment offered by the Senator from Ten-
nessee.
Mr. KEFAUVER. I ask for the yeas
and nays.
The yeas and nays were not ordered.
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. KEFAUVER. Mr. President, I
have one more amendment which I de-
sire to offer. It is my amendment of
September 11, 1950, lettered "D."
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will state the amendment.
The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. On page 11,
line 23, after the word "indirectly", it
is proposed to insert "with intent to harm
the United States."
906548-36516
Mr. KEFAUVER. Mr. President, para-
phrasing the provision of the bill, it says
that any agent or representative of
a foreign government, whether it be
friendly or unfriendly, who comes to the
United States and seeks to obtain, or at-
tempts to obtain, directly or indirectly,
from any officer or employee of the Gov-
ernment, information which turns out to
have been classified or confidential, or
who attempts to obtain from any corpo-
ration the stock of which in whole or in
part may be owned by the Government,
would then be guilty. The burden would
be placed upon a visitor from a friendly
nation to this country of ascertaining
whether the person with whom he con-
versed had the authority of the Presi-
dent to impart to him the information
desired.
Furthermore, he would have to ascer-
tain whether a corporation from whom
he was seeking information had an RFC
loan; otherwise he might be getting in-
formation which would come within the
prohibition of this bill. I think it would
completely put an end to communication
and exchange of information between
the military officials of this country and
other countries. For example, it is im-
practical to expect General Montgomery
or some.Canadian general who may come
here for the purpose of conferring with
the military leaders of the United States
to ascertain whether, when he is talking
with a colonel or with someone connected
with the National Resources Board, try-
ing to effect arrangements involving the
defense of this country as well as his own
country, to be placed in a position of
having violated the law unless he first
goes to the trouble of finding out what
the law is, and, second, finding out
whether the person with whom he is
talking has been designated by the Presi-
dent or by the agency head as a proper
person to impart to him the information
sought.
I yield the remainder of my time.
Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, I
should like to say merely a few words
regarding this amendment. It is iden-
tically the same as the amendment the
Senate voted on before, except that it
comes under the "(c)" section regarding
the receiving or the attempt to receive
information. We should not change the
section. The argument which we made
regarding the other amendment is also
applicable to this. The Attorney Gen-
Approved For Release 2003/09/02 : CIA-RDP58-00597A000100030004-6
 Approved For Release 2003/09/02 : CIA-RDP58-00597A000100030004-6
eral says it is practically impossible'to
prove intent to harm the United States.
Mr. KEFAUVER. Mr. President, if the
Senator will yield, can he cite one case
in which the proof of intent broke down?
Mr. FERGUSON. I cannot cite cases,
now.
Mr. KEFAUVER. The Senator says it
is impossible to prove the intent to harm
the United States, yet he is unable to cite
any case in support of that contention,
I take it.
Mr. FERGUSON. I say it 's practi-
cally impossible, in view of the fact that
the intent must be proved beyond a rea-
sonable doubt.
Mr, KEFAUVER. Will the Senator
name one case in which it has not been
proved?
Mr. FERGUSON. There have been
very few indictments under sections of
this kind, and it is therefore impossible
to cite cases. The Attorney General says
that the inability to prove specific in-
tent is the reason that more indictments
have not been returned. That was the
situation in the Alger Hiss case. That
was the reason assigned for not prosecut-
ing him originally. It was feared that
the intent to harm the United States
could not be proved.
Referring to the illustration given by
the Senator of a supposed visit to this
country by General Montgomery, does
the Senator think that if he came here
for information he would be talking in-
discriminately to everyone within the
department concerned? No; he would
be talking to the head of the depart-
ment who had been authorized to talk
with him. If the head of the depart-
ment had not been authorized to talk
with him, then he should not give him
the information requested. There may
even be secrets which the President of
the United States does not want to have
imparted to anyone, and, if he so classi-
fies certain information and does not
thereafter declassify it and authorize
that it be given to the head of a foreign
government, or to a Communist, or to an
officer of the Communist Party, then the
information should not be imparted.
Mr. O'CONOR. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. FERGUSON. I yield for a ques-
tion.
Mr. O'CONOR. In the event of a duly
accredited representative of a foreign
government coming to the United States
906548-36516
in order to work in conjunction with our
own authorities, would it not be possible
to have any information which ought to
be given to him, given with the approval
of the President or head of the depart-
ment?
Mr. FERGUSON. That is correct,
and it will be given to him because he
will be contacting the head Of the de-
partment, and he will be receiving the
information which will have been de-
classified so far as he is concerned.
Mr. KEFAUVER. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield to permit me to ask the
Senator from Maryland a question?
Mr. FERGUSON. I ask unanimous
consent that I may yield for that pur-
pose without losing the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER: Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KEFAUVER. The question by the
Senator from Maryland brings up the
very objection I have to this provision.
The Senator from Maryland supposed
a case in which the representative of a
friendly foreign government comes to
the United States and contacts the offi-
cials in a certain department. That
person ought to have the right to ask
the people he is contacting in the Gov-
ernment, who supposedly have been des-
ignated for the purpose of giving him
certain information, and they ought to
be cleared by the President to talk with
him. But are we to place upon that rep-
resentative of a friendly country the bur-
den of ascertaining whether someone in
uniform with whom he talks, who ap-
parently has the right to impart to him
the desired information, when he goes
to the proper place to get the informa-
tion-are we to require him to insult our
country and the people with whom he is
talking by asking them, "Have you been
cleared by the President to talk with
me? I cannot listen to you because I
do not know whether you have authority
to give me this information."
Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield at that point?
Mr. KEFAUVER. I yield.
Mr. FERGUSON. The Senator from
Tennessee does not have the floor, but I
am glad to yield.
Mr. KEFAUVER. I am sorry.
Mr. KNOWLAND. Let us take for
example an atomic scientist who comes
to the United States, who perhaps has
had full access to our information, and
who talks with someone in this Govern-
ment. Should he not be required to
Approved For Release 2003/09/02 : CIA-RDP58-00597A000100030004-6
 Approved For Release 2003/09/02 : CIA-RDP58-00597A000100030004-6
know that the person he talks to is au-
thorized to divulge information of the
kind he is seeking. The person, though
wearing a uniform, may have no author-
ity, and perhaps should have no author-
ity, to reveal secrets, and it would be a
violation of security if he did so. The
mere fact that a man wears a uniform of
the Army does not entitle the visitor to
accept from him information of a secret
nature. Anyone who served in the re-
cent war would know that there are var-
ious classifications. People were cleared
to receive certain types of information.
The fact that a man wore a uniform did
not of itself entitle him to receive or to
impart secret information.
Mr. KEFAUVER. The Senator from
California brings up another inequity.
This foreign agent might talk with a
representative of the du Pont Co.
who might be manufacturing a secret
weapon. He might talk with complete
impunity. But if he talked with some
major or colonel who has not been speci-
fically cleared, he would be guilty. A
great burden would be placed upon a
906548-36616
friendly foreign representative who
comes to this country.
Mr. FERGUSON.' Mr. President, what
we are trying to do is to'catch espionage
agents who are trying to secure secrets
which have been classified by the Presi-
dent of the United States for the safety
of America. I hope the Senate will leave
the section as it was drawn in the Judi-
ciary Committee, where we spent hours
.and days trying to make the bill comply
with what the Attorney General felt he
needed in order to catch espionage
agents, so thpthe would not have to prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that they
were harming the United States:.
I hope the Senate will vote down the
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the .men--
ment offered by the Senator from Te3n-
nessee. [Putting the question.] The
"noes" seem to have it.
Mr. KEFAUVER. Mr. President, I
ask for a division
On a division, the amendment was re-
jected.
Approved For Release 2003/09/02 : CIA-RDP58-00597A000100030004-6