CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-DAILY DIGEST

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP65B00383R000200160008-7
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 31
• Document Creation Date: December 15, 2016
• Document Release Date: May 5, 2004
• Sequence Number: 8
• Content Type: OPEN

Approved For Release 2004/05/12 : CIA-RDP651300383R000200160008-7
1962 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? DAILY DIGEST D877
GOVERNMENT INFORMATION MANAGEMENT
Committee on Government Operatirins: Subcommittee
on Reorganization and International Organizations
held hearings in connection with future plans of the
U.S. Government to improve the management of infor-
mation, particularly scientific and engineering informa-
tion. Testimony was received from the following wit-
nesses: David E. Bell, Director, Bureau of the Budget;
Roswell L. Gilpatric, Deputy Secretary of Defense; Dr.
Jerome B. Wiesner, Special Assistant to the President;
Mrs. nlanch Oliveri, Deputy Director, National Agri-
cultural Library, USDA; Dr. L. Quincy Mumford, Li-
brarian of Congress; Burton W. Adkinson, National
Science Foundation; Melvin Day, NASA; Dr. Luther
L. Terry, Surgeon General of the U.S., Public Health
Service; Dr. James A. Shannon, Director, National In-
stitutes of Health; Herbert Holloman, Assistant Secre-
tary of Commerce for Research and Development; and
Raymond Jensen, National Federation of Science,
Washington, D.C.
Hearings were recessed subject to call.
INDIANS
Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs: Subcommit-
tee on Indian Affairs approved for full committee con-
sideration H.R. 9342, to provide for an exchange of lands
between the U.S. and the Southern Ute Indian tribe
(amended); and H.R. 8113, to include the Southern
Ute Indian Reservation among reservations excepted
from the 25-year lease limitation.
Prior to this action, testimony on these bills was re-
ceived from Senator Carroll; and Martin Mangan, As;
sistant Commissioner of Indian Affairs, and Lewis
Sigler, Office of the Solicitor, both of the Department of
the Interior. Messrs. Mangan and Sigler also discussed
the bill H.R. 3529, relating to the sale of timber from
Indian lands.
THE ARTS
Committee on Labor and Public Welfare: Special sub-
committee, in executive session, approved for full corn-
mittee consideration with amendments S. 741, to
establish in the Department of HEW a Federal Advisory
Council on the Arts.
NSF SCHOLARSHIPS
Committee on Labor and Public Welfare: Committee
ordered favorably reported, with amendments, H.R.
8556, requiring applicants for National Science Founda-
tion scholarships to take an oath of allegiance to the U.S.
POSTAL RATES, AND FEDERAL EMPLOYEES'
PAY
Committee on Post Office and Civil Service: Committee
continued its executive consideration of H.R. 7927, pro-
posed Postal Revision Act of 1962, and pending Federal
employees' pay legislation, but did not conclude action
thereon, and will meet again on Monday, September 24.
OMNIBUS FLOOD CONTROL BILL
Committee on Public Works: Subcommittee on Flood
Control?Rivers and Harbors continued its hearings on
projects proposed to be included in the omnibus flood
control bill, with testimony on items, as indicated, from
the following witnesses:
Devils Jump power project on the Cumberland River,
Ky.?Senators Kefauver and Gore, the latter of whom
submitted a statement; Rayburn Watkins, Associated
Industries of Kentucky, Louisville; and A. C. Stewart,
Kentucky Utilities Co.;
New York barge canal?Edward Crawford, Joint
Legislative Commttee on the Barge Canal, Oswego,
N.Y.
Barkley Reservoir area, Ky.?Phillip Glenn, mayor of
Kuttawa ; Tom McGraw, mayor of Cadiz; John Breck-
enridge, State attorney general; Ralph Pickard, State
department of health, and other Kentucky witnesses;
and
Flint River project, Georgia?John Lastinger, the
Georgia Power Co., Atlanta.
Subcommittee recessed subject to call.
House of Representatives
Chamber Action
Bills Introduced: 8 public bills, H.R. 13200-13207; 4
private bills, H.R. 13208-13211; and 8 resolutions, H.J.
Res. 890 and 891, H. Con. Res. 566, and H. Res. 801-805,
were introduced. Pages 19144-19145
Bills Reported: Reports were filed as follows:
S. 3504, providing for alternate representation of sec-
retarial officers of the Migratory Bird Commission,
amended (H. Rept. 2453) ;
S. 3431, to consent to the amendment of the Pacific
Marine fisheries Compact and to the participation of
certain additional States in such compact (H. Rept.
2454);
H.R. 13163, to amend the D.C. Redevelopment Act of
1946, amended (H. Rept. 2455) ;
Twenty-fifth report of the Committee on Govern-
ment Operations entitled "Safeguarding Official Infor-
mation in the Interests of the Defense of the United
States (the status of Executive Order 1050I)" (H. Rept.
2456);
Approved For Release 2004/05/12 : CIA-RDP65600383R000200160008-7
Approved For Release 2004/06/12g&RBP
P878 CONGRESSIONAL
li.j. Res. 865, relative to planning for District of Co-
lumbia New Municipal Theater, amended (H. Rept.
2457);
H. Res. 8or, providing for sending to conference of
HR ? 7283, to amend the War Claims Act of 1948, to
provide compensation for certain World War II losses
(H. Rept. 2458) ;
H. Res. 802, Providing for the consideration of and
2 hours of debate on H.J. Res. 712, to authorize and
direct the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial Com-
mission to raiie funds for the construction of a memorial
(H. Rept. 2459) ;
H. Res. 803, providing for the consideration of and
hour of debate on S. 1123, to extend the child labor pro-
visions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to cer-
tain children employed in agriculture (H. Rept. 2460);
H. Res. 894, providing for the consideration of and 2
hours of debate on S.J. Res. 224, to authorize the Presi-
dent to order units and members in the Ready Reserve
to active duty for not more than 12 months (H. Rept.
2461); -
K Res. 8o5, providing for the consideration of and 3
hours Of debate on S.J. Res. 230, expressing the deter-
mination of the United States with. respect to the situa-
tion in Cuba (H. Rept. 2462) ; and
S. 3389, to promote the foreign commerce of the U.S.
through the use of mobile trade fairs, amended (H.
Rept. 2463). Page 19144
Conference Reports Adopted: The House adoped
conference reports on the following bills:
Tariff: H.R. 12180, to extend for a temporary period
the existing provisions of law relating to the free impor-
tation of personal and household effects brought into
the United States uoder Government orders (cleared for
President by a record vote of 324 yeas to 8 nays).
Pages 19108-19111
Tariff: H.R. 6682, to provide for the exemption of
fowling nets from duty (cleared for President).
Page 19112
Farm products: S. 1037, relating to practices in the
marketing of perishable agricultural commodities (sent
to Senate by a voice vote). Page 19113
Arizona minerals: H.R.:8134, authorizing the sale of
mineral rights to the surface owners of some 4,500 acres
near Phoenix (cleared for the President). Page 19127
Arizona minerals: H.R. 10566, to withdraw some
450,000 acres at Tucson from all forms of mineral entry
(cleared for the President). Page 19127
Gifts to D.C. Minors: The bill I-I R i to18, to amend
the act concerning gifts to minors in the District of
Columbia' and 'Senate amendments thereto, were taken
from the Speaker's table and the House concurred in
drmendment No. i with an amendment. Amendment
No. 2 was concurred. in by the House and the legisla-
tion was returned to the Senate. Pages 19113-19/14
(1A-?
V'Efei 160
September 21
Radi ? Stations: By a voice vote the House
passed H. o amend the Communications Act
of I934 to orize foreign governments to operate
radio stations in the District of Columbia for transmis-
sion of messages outside the United States. A motion
to recommit the bill had been rejected earlier by a
record vote of 95 yeas and 208 nays.
Adopted an amendment requiring that the licensing
of foreign radio statins must be in the interest of na-
tional security.
Rejected an amendment that would have required
congressional committee approval for Communist coun-
try agreements.
H. Res. 779, the rule under which the legislation was
considered, had been adopted earlier by a voice vote.
. -
Pages 19114-19125
Late Reports: The Committee on Interstate and For-
eign Commerce was granted permission to file by mid-
night Saturday a report on H.R. 11581, to assure the
safety, reliability, and efficacy of drugs. Page 19125
Legislative Program: The legislative program for the
week of September 24 through 29 was announced by
the majority whip. Page 19126
Calendar Wednesday: Agreed to dispense with Cal-
endar Wednesday business of September 26.
Page 19126
Mining Claims: House insisted on its amendment to
S. 3451, providing relief for residential occupants of
unpatented mining claims upon which valuable im-
provements have been placed; requested a conference
with the Senate; and appointed as conferees Repre-
sentatives Pfost, Baring, Johnson of California, Saylor,
and Cunningham. Page 19126-19127
Bills Referred: Six Senate-passed bills were referred to
appropriate committees. Page 19143
Record Votes: During the proceedings of the House
today two record votes developed and they appear on
pages 1011, 19112.
Program for Monday; Adjourned at 4:09 p.m. until
Monday, September 24, at 12 o'clock noon. For pro-
gram see Congressional Program Ahead in this DIGEST.
Committee Meetings
LADIES GARMENT WORKERS
Committee on Education and Labor: Ad Hoc Subcom-
mittee on the Investigation of the International Ladies
Garment Workers Union heard testimony from a public
witness.
PEACE CORPS
Committee on Foreign Affairs: Subcommittee on the
Far East and the Pacific met in executive session for a
Approved For Release 2004/05/12: CIA-RDP65600383R000200160008-7
Approved For Release 2004/05/12 : CIA-RDP651300383R000Y00160008-7
1962 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE 19113
House the passing of Mrs. Effegene
(Locke) Wingo, a former Member of the
House of Representatives, who repre-
sented the district which I now have the
privilege and honor of representing.
Mrs. Wingo was born in Lockesburg,
Sevier County, on April 13, 1883. She
attended public and private schools and
Union Female College, Oxford, Miss.
She was graduated from Maddox Sem-
inary, Little Rock, Ark., in 1901, and
moved to Texarkana, Ark., in 1895, and
to DeQueen, Ark., in 1897. She was
elected as a Democrat on November 4,
1930, to the 71st Congress. Her husband
before her had served in the House, rep-
resenting this district for several terms.
She was elected to fill the vacancy caused
by the untimely death of her husband,
Otis Theodore Wingo. Some of the older
Members who were here at that time, I
am sure, remember Otis Wingo and also
his lovely wife, Mrs. Wingo.
On the same day that she was elected
to succeed her husband in the House,
she was elected to the 72d Congress and
served from November 4, 1930, to March
3, 1933. She was not a candidate for
renomination in 1932.
Mrs. Wingo wrote me a letter about a
year ago in which she inquired about
the consideration which the House and
the Congress had given to a program
that she, herself, had sponsored when
she was in the Congress. She was the
cofounder in 1934 of the National In-
stitute of Public Affairs here in Wash-
ington, D.C., engaged in educational and
research work.
Mrs. Wingo passed away September
20, in Brent Memorial Hospital, Burling-
ton, Ontario, where she was living with
her son at the time, Otis T. Wingo, and
where he now lives.
Funeral services will be held this aft-
ernoon at 3 o'clock at St. Albans Church,
interment in Rock Creek Cemetery.
Mrs. Wingo is survived by a daughter,
Mrs. Li. L. Sawyer, who lives here in
Washington, D.C., and by her son, Otis
T. Wingo, Jr. I know I express the sen-
timents of every Member of this if ouse
when we extend to them and all the
family our deepest sympathy in the loss
of their mother.
AMENDMENTS TO PERISHABLE
AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES
ACT, 1930
Mr. GRANT. Mr. Speaker, I call up
the conference report on the bill (S.
1037) to amend the provisions of the
Perishable Agricultural Commodities
Act, 1930, relating to practices in the
marketing of perishable agricultural
commodities, and ask unanimous con-
sent that the statement of the managers
on the part of the House be read in
lieu of the report.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there
Objection to the request of the gentle-
man from Alabama?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the statement.
(For conference report and statement,
see proceedings of the House of Septem-
ber 18, 1962.)
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. GRANT. I yield to the gentle-
man from Iowa.
Mr. GROSS. Are all of the amend-
ments put into the bill in conference
germane to the general subject matter
of the bill? ?
Mr. GRANT. They are absolutely
germane to the bill.
Mr. GROSS. I thank the gentleman.
(Mr. GRANT asked and was given
permission to extend his remarks at this
point in the RECORD.)
Mr. GRANT. Mr. Speaker, the bill
before us is a very important piece of
legislation. It contains numerous im-
provements to? the Perishable Agricul-
tural Commodities Act and a provision
for the increase in fees under that act
which will permit it to continue to be
self-supporting. The Perishable Agri-
cultural Commodities Act is one of the
oldest and most successful regulatory
programs operated by the Department
of Agriculture. Its basic purpose is to
assure producers of fresh fruits and vege-
tables that they will receive fair treat-
ment and fair payment when their com-
modities are shipped to buyers in other
States, and to assure those buyers and
all of the handlers along the route that
they will receive the kind of commodi-
ties they are paying for and that they,
too, will receive equitable treatment.
The act has been entirely self-sup-
porting and has paid its way by collec-
tion of annual fees, presently set at the
maximum of $25 permitted under the
act, collected from those who are li-
censed under the act. The Department
has reached the point where it is no
longer able to operate its program within
this $1.25 limitation and one of the pur-
poses of this bill is to increase the
amount of the license fee which may be
charged in order to continue to have this
program entirely self-sustaining. The
bill permits an ultimate increase in the
license fees to $50 per year, if this should
become necessary. No such increase is
needed or contemplated at the present
time, however, and the Department has
stated, and the committee of conference
so understands, that the immediate in-
crease in license fees will be to a figure
not in excess of $36. If, in later years,
an additional increase is found to be nec-
essary, this is to be announced well in
advance and subject to discussion by the
trade and by the appropriate committees
of Congress before it is placed into effect.
In the form in which this bill was
introduced in both the House and the
Senate, Mr. Speaker, it contained no
element of controversy.
During the hearings, however, amend-
ments to the bill were suggested by rep-
resentatives of food retailers and of
frozen.-food brokers, both of whom are
licensed under the act?the retailers only
If they do an annual business in fresh
and frozen fruits and vegetables exceed-
ing approximately $30,000 worth per
year. During the hearings, representa-
tives of both these groups asked for fur-
ther exemptions for their particular
group from the operations of the act.
The Senate responded to this request
by retaining the basic requirements for
licensing of retailers and frozen-food
brokers exactly where they were in the
act but providing that the increase in
license fee should not apply to these two
groups.
The House went further in acceding
to the request of these groups and pro-
vided that all retailers doing an annual
business in fresh and frozen fruits and
vegetables of less than- $100,000 per year,
and all frozen food brokers representing
vendors should be eliminated from reg-
istration under the act. These provi-
sions were? the only items of the bill in
controversy between the House and the
Senate. While I was very much in favor
of retaining the House version, this was
found impossible.
The conferees have reached what I be-
lieve to be an equitable compromise on
this matter as set out in the conference
report. The conference report will pro-
vide that this act will not cover any re-
tailer who does an annual business of less
than ,f90,000 per year in fresh and frozen
fruits and vegetables, and will apply the
same minimum figure, $90,000, to brokers
of frozen fruits and vegetables. No
broker Qf frozen fruits and vegetables
will be required to register under the act
if he does a business of less than $90,000
per year in these commodities.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The
question is on the conference report.
The conference report was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
GIFTS TO MINORS IN THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA
Mr. McMILLAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to take from the
Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 11018) to
amend the act concerning gifts to minors
In the District of Columbia, with Senate
amendments thereto, and consider the
Senate amendments.
The Clerk read the title of the bill. .
The Clerk read the Senate amend-
ments, as follows:
Page 10, strike out all after line 12 over to
and including line 14 on page 11, and insert:
"Skc. B. (a) A custodian shall be entitled
to reasonable compensation for his services
and to reimbursement from the custodial
property for his reasonable expenses incurred
in the performance of his duties: Provided,
That a custodian may act without compen-
sation for his services.
"(b) Compensation shall be according to:
"(1) Any statute of the District of Colum-
bia applicable to custodians;
"(2) Any statute of the District of Colum-
bia applicable to guardians;
"(3) An order of the court.
"(c) Xxcept as otherwise provided in this
Act, a custodian shall not be required to give
a bond for the performance of his duties.
"(d) A custodian not compensated for his
services shall not be liable for losses to the
custodial property unless they result from his
bad faith, intentional wrongdoing, or gross
negligence or from his failure to maintain the
standard of prudence in investing the cus-
todial property provided In this Act."
Page 15, after line 7, insert:
"(c) Nothing here shall be deemed to re-
peal or modify the Internal Revenue Code of
1954, as amended, and the District of Colum-
bia Income and franchise Tax Act of 1947, as
amended."
Approved For Release 2004/05/12 : CIA-RDP65600383R000200160008-7
19114
Approv
For Releardatgaia-IEW6018MN00160008-7 September 21
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there
objection to the request of the gentle-
man from South Carolina?
Mr. GROSS. Reserving the right to
object, Mr. Speaker, is a copy of this
bill available? I have asked for copies
of all bills coming UP today.
Mr. MasSILI.AN. Mr. Speaker, this bill
passed the House some time ago. The
other body amended this proposed legis-
lation and returned it to the House. I
Imagine copies of the bill are available.
Mr. GROSS. There is no report nor
Is there a_copY of the bill at the desk.
Mr. McMILLAN, I have just stated
the bill passed the House some time ago
and was amended by the Senate, the
report and bill should be available:
Mr. GROSS. I have no doubt it passed
the House some time ago, I will say to
my friend from South Carolina. It, ob-
viously, had to. But I have nothing here
to go on. Will the gentleman please
explain the bill and the amendments?
Mr. WM:L.1JAN. The Senate lidded
an amendment to the bill which as to
do with gifts to minors in the District
of Columbia. We are amending the
Senate amendment so as to makuertain
that the person who is making The gift
can set the fee for the person who ad-
ministers his estate.
Mr. GROSS. You say this bill was
amended?
Mr. McMILLAN, It was amended in
the Senate and was returned. My com-
mittee proposes to amend the Senate
amendment by inserting language to
protect the donor.
Mr. GROSS. Are all the amendments
in this bill, as it is presently before us,
germane to the subject matter of the
bill?
Mr. McM1LLAN, Absolutely, yes. /f
the gentleman from Iowa would care to
see a copy of the bill, he may have my
copy.
Mr. GROSS, I would not be able to
do very much with it in this short space
of time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore fMr.
WALTER]. Is there objection to the re-
quest of the gentleman from South Caro-
lina?
There was no objection. .
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The
Clerk will read the first Senate amend-
ment.
The Clerk read as follows:
? Page 10, strike out all after line 12 over
to and including line 14 on page 11, and
Insert:
to reasonable compensation for his services FMENDING SECTION 305, COMMUNI7I
"Sac. 5. (a) A custodian shall be entitled
gross negligence or from his failure to main-
tain the standard of prudence in invest.ng
the custodial property provided in this Act."
Mr. McivaLLAN, Mr. Speaker, I offer
a motion. ?
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. McMn.TAw moves that the House con-
cur in Senate amendment 1 with an amend-
ment as follows:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be in-
serted by the Senate amendment in subsec-
tion (b) and subparagraphs (1), (2), end
(3) thereof, of section 5. insert the follow-
ing:
"(b) Compensation for the guardian or
custodian shall be according to:
"(1) Any direction of the donor when the
gift is made, provided that it is not in ex-
cess of any statutory limitation of the Dis-
trict of Columbia for guardians or custo-
dians:
"(2) Any statute of the District of Colum-
bia applicable to custodians or guardians;
"(3) Any order of the court."
Mr. MeMILLAN. Mr. Speaker, the
purpose of my amendment to the Senate
amendment is to assure and provide that
any donor of a gift may fix the com-
pensation for the guardian or custo-
dian?which the House bill originally
provided and which the Senate struck
out?but with the proviso that such com-
pensation will not be in excess of that al-
lowed by District of Columbia law for
guardians or custodians.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The
question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr.
MCMILLANI.
The motion was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The
Clerk will read the next committee
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows;
Page 15, after line 7, Insert:
"(c) Nothing here shall be deemed to re-
peal or modify the Internal Revenue Code
of 1954, as amended, and the District of Co-
lumbia Income and Franchise Tax Act of
1947, as amended."
Mr. Mc3.2ILLAN. Mr. Speaker, I offer
a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. MclignzAw moves that the House con-
cur in the Senate amendment No. 2.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The
question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from South Carolina.
The motion was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider the votes by
which action was taken on the sevcral
motions was laid on the table.
and to reimbursement from the custodial
property. for his reasonable expenses Incurred
in the performance of his duties: Provided,
That a cuetocllan may act without compen-
sation for his services,
"(b) Compensation shall be according to:
"(1) Any statute of the District of Colum-
bia applicable to custodians;
"(2) Any statute of the District of Co-
lumbia applicable to guardians;
"(8) An order of the court.
"(c) Except as otherwise provided In this
Act, a custodian shall not be required to
give a bond for the performance of hi a duties.
"(d) A custodian not compensated for his
services shall not be liable for imam to the
custodial property unless they result from
his bad faith, intentional wrongdoing, or
CATIONS ACT OF 1934
Mr. SISK. Mr. Speaker, by direction
of the Committee on Rules, I call up
the resolution, House Resolution 779, and
ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as fol-
lows:
Resolved, That upon the adoption, of ;his
resolution it shall be In order to move that
the ttou.se resolve itself into the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the
Union for the consideration of the bill (11.11.
11782) to amend section 305 of the Com-
munications Act of 1934, as amended. After
general debate, which shall be confinec to
the bill, and shall continue not to exceed
one hour, to be equally divided and con-
trolled by the chairman and ranking minor-
ity member of the Committee on Interstate
and Foreign Commerce, the bill shall be
read for amendment under the five-minute
rule. At the conclusion of the considera-
tion of the bill for amendment, the Commit-
tee shall rise and report the bill ic, the
House with such amendments as may have
been adopted, and the previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the bill and
amendments thereto to final passage with-
out intervening motion except one motion
to recommit.
Mr. SLSIC. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30
minutes to the gentleman from Cali-
fornia [Mr. Smrin] and pending that I
yield myself such time as I may con-
sume.
The SPEAKER The gentleman from
California is recognized.
Mr. SISK. Mr. Speaker, House Reso-
lution 779 makes in order the consid-
eration of the bill H.R. 11732 to amend
section 305 of the Communications Act
of 1934, as amended. It provides for 1
hour of debate and is an open rule.
The purpose of the legislation, Mr.
Speaker, is to amend the Communica-
tions Act of 1934 to authorize the Presi-
dent to license foreign governments to
operate low-power point-to-point radio
stations, as distinguished from broad-
casting stations, in the District of Co-
lumbia, for transmission of messages to
points outside the United States. This
legislation is needed in order to enable
the U.S. Government to offer reciprocity
when attempting to secure permission
from foreign governments for the es-
tablishment by the United States of radio
stations in foreign countries. At present,
the Communications Act prohibits the
granting of such authority to nonciti-
zens.
Mr. Speaker, it is felt that with this
permission which would be on a very
limited basis and very tightly controlled,
that the reciprocity that the United
States could get by being permitted to
establish radio stations in foreign coun-
tries would be a substantial gain. There-
fore, Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption
of House Resolution 779.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of
My time.
Mr. SMITH of California. Mr.
Speaker, I yield myself 10 minutes.
(Mr. SMITH of California asked and
was given permission to revise and ex-
tend his remarks.)
Mr. METH of California. Mr. Speak-
er, House Resolution 779 is an open rule
providing for the consideration of H.R.
11732, which is a measure known as the
Amendment to the Communications Act
of 1934. It will permit the President un-
der reciprocal agreement withother
countries to permit the operation of a
radio station at the Embasy of a foreign
country in Washington, D.C., providing
we are allowed to have a radio station at
our Embassy in the country with which
the agreement is worked out.
I was opposed to the bill as originally
reported but in the meantime it has been
possible to work out an amendment
which the chairman told me he would
accept and which I believe would help
? the bill and take care at least in part of
Approved For Release 2004/05/12 : CIA-RDP651300383R000200160008-7
1962Approvttfvat4tsmAt4ififd8R@IAA%'f2flsIA00383R000200160008-7 19115
my objections, at least to the point where
if my amendment is adopted I can then
support the legislation. I do feel, how-
ever, Mr. Speaker, that we should make a
record here today, so that the President,
whether it be President Kennedy or some
future President, and the State Depart-
ment, the Secretary of State and others,
may know our intent and views in the
matter. I for one feel this is a very dan-
gerous precedent to allow a foreign coun-
try to establish a radio station in this
country. It must be used with the utmost
discretion. I would hate to have the
Soviet Embassy on 16th Street have a
legitimate radio station which could
operate between here and Moscow.
Mr. Speaker. I am making my state-
1 ent based in he fact that f have been
in the past wi e supervise
all the national defense activities in the
Los Angeles office of the FBI prior to and
during the period of the last war. That
had to do with espionage, sabotage, un-
American activities, communism, inter-
nal security measures, plant protection
and others.
In that capacity, where I was in a su-
pervisory capacity, I knew of the im-
portant cases throughout the United
States because we, of course, exchanged
reports.
I can assure you that activities involv-
ing espionage against the United States
were operated out of the German Em-
bassy and Consuls continuously prior to
the war, and it was an extremely difficult
problem.
Japanese boats, for instance, would
bring spies to the Pacific Coast almost
every week. On every ship that came
over here there were a certain number
of these people who immediately would
report to the consul, leave their papers
there, and go on. Of course the Director
of the Bureau and the agents were keen-
ly interested in not having any foreign-
inspired sabotage such as took place
during the First World War when the
Black Tom explosion occurred. It in-
volved some $63 million. I am pleased
to state at this time we did not have any
foreign inspired sabotage during World
War II.
I do not take complete credit for this
on behalf of the Bureau. We had tre-
mendous help from Military Intelligence,
0-2, Naval Intelligence, all of the local
sheriffs' offices, and other police officers
throughout the United States, which
made it possible for us to keep sabotage
to a minimum. Most of the espionage
agents were identified and apprehended.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I want the
RECORD to show I am not in any way
attempting to speak for Mr. Hoover, Di-
rector of the FBI. I am speaking only
for myself. It has always been the
policy of the Director to not comment
on matters which have to do with poli-
cies outside the operation of the FBI.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to state for
the record the specific objections which
I have to the original bill, so that they
will be there as a part of the perma-
nent RECORD.
First. It is extremely difficult to moni-
tor burst types of transmission. While
the United States might well monitor the
No. 171-2
broadcast over a period of time during
which the broadcast would not pose a se-
curity threat to our Nation, the fact re-
mains the Soviet, particularly, could sud-
denly change frequency, get their mes-
sage across, and then go off the air.
Second. Establishment of stations in
the United States by the Soviet and their
bloc nations obviously puts the Soviet in
a position to pose questions to their in-
stallations here and get immediate an-
swers. The proposed setup would give
the Soviet an almost immediate means
of communication and thus puts them in
a position to relay information and take
action thereon more rapidly.
Third. It is well known that Soviet es-
pionage operations are tightly controlled
from Moscow. The new system of radio
contact would permit them instantane-
ous control rather than waiting for dip-
lomatic pouch replies, a relatively slow
method of sending and receiving mes-
sages. The new system would, therefore,
obtain for the Soviet immediate control
and constant control.
Fourth. Enactment of this bill would
make possible establishment by foreign
governments?potentially hostile to the
United States?of instantaneous com-
munications facilities which might be
used to the great detriment of security
of this country. Such facilities might
even be used to indicate the exact mo-
ment an attack on the United States
would be most successful.
Fifth. Once radio transmitters are in-
stalled by foreign governments, there is
no way to effectively assure that the for-
eign government radio operations are
within its authorization. Even the best
monitoring installations and equipment
could not assure that the foreign gov-
ernment would not take advantage of
the authorized installations to sneak use
of higher powered equipment, high speed
radio transmissions, or different radio
frequencies in handling communications
adverse to the interests of the United
States.
It would appear that the United States
could not allow the authorized operation
without making some-attempts to police
it. This would require a considerable
expenditure in manpower and facilities,
even though there could be no assurance
that the policing operation would be
completely successful.
Sixth. The rapidly expanding use of
radio equipment within the United
States and throughout the world has
already created a problem in connec-
tion with the assignment of radio com-
munications frequencies. Allowing for-
eign governments to establish radio
transmitters within this country would
further increase this problem and might
result in action detrimental to the in-
terests of U.S. commercial radio com-
panies.
Seventh. Foreign government embas-
sies are usually located in residential
neighborhoods. Operation of radio
transmitters in such neighborhoods
might cause considerable interference
to the television and radio sets of citizens
In the area. In such cases, the diplo-
matic immunity of the establishment
I would leave no recourse for the citizen
1 and voter.
Eighth. According to Acting Secre-
tary of State Ball's testimony before
the Senate Foreign Relations Commit-
tee on June 21, 1962, in support of S.
3252?same as H.R. 11732?the reason
for this bill is to provide the State De-
partment with a rapid means of com-
munication with its "newer posts
throughout the world?in Africa, Asia,
and Latin America." He said, "Prob-
lem before us is not communication with '
such major capitals as London and Paris
or Bonn."
Mr. Speaker, as to the history of this
bill, 2 weeks ago we had a rather hurried
meeting of the Committee on Rules in
order to try to get out some non- '
controversial bills in order to have some
fillers last week. We considered some
eight bills and seven of them were re-
ported. Five passed, I believe, on an oral
vote. I think only one of them required
a record vote. This was the other bill,
with the exception of the freight for-
warders' bill, which was continued over,
and it was tabled yesterday. We did not
have too much time to read and study
the bills; the meeting being called rather
rapidly in order to try and cooperate. I
did not have an opportunity to thorough-
ly read and study the report on the bill
until after it was sent out under the 1-
hour rule. I then spoke with our distin-
guished Speaker, the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. MCCORMACK] , and
told the Speaker my problem. He told
the distinguished majority leader, the
...gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. ALBERT],
not to set this bill up for consideration
until I had had an opportunity to study
and make appropriate inquiries.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to you
and our distinguished majority leader
that I appreciate the cooperation which
has been extended to me not only on this
bill but on each and every other request
I have made of both of you during the
time you were majority leader, as well as
Speaker of the House.
Mr. Speaker, I discussed this matter
with four men in the Department of
State. I learned that the representatives
of the of the Department of State do not
share the concern which I have in regard
to this measure, as much as I have in-
dicated on my part. They indicated to
me they did not think it would be as I
feel it could be. In any event, after sev-
eral discussions, certain language was
worked out as an amendment, which the
State Department agreed to accept. The
language would be to this effect: It pro-i. that the President may authoriz
a foreign government under such term
and conditions as he may prescribe tcj
construct and operate at the seat of th
Government of the United States a low
power radio station in the fixed servic
at or near the site of the embassy oil
legation of such foreign government foij
transmission of its messages to point
outside the United States.
Mr. Speaker, this is reciprocal. It has
to be worked out so that we may have
such transmission station located in the
foreign countries, and they may have
one here.
Approved For Release 2004/05/12 : CIA-RDP65600383R000200160008-7
???
1g116 Approved For RelekA9R/6440Btialkilift6ftlir3q469SW00160008-7 q o,,
oemuer 21
gi:Spealcer, the language which I am happen, I will have to acknowledge sixn- State of the Union for tbe consideration
sugrpting will change the purport of the ply that I was naive, and I will have of the bill (H.R. 11732) to amend sec-
bill m this way where in section (A/ it to apologize. tion 305 of the Communications Act of
_
states: "The President may," I intend to Mr. DEVINE. Mr. Speaker, will the 1934, as amended.
offer an anaenolnient to this effect: "pro- gentleman yield? The motion was agreed to.
'Med he determines it to be consistent Mr. SMITH of California. I yield to
With, and in the interest of national se- the gentleman from Ohio.
curity." Mr. DEVINE. Mr. Speaker, I wish to
UaYbe you will say to me that this compliment the gentleman on his state-
language is like being against sin, or ment. I think we are fortunate, in-
softiething of that kind. But at least deed, to have a man of the caliber of
this calls it to the attention a the Presi- the gentleman from California in the
dent of the United States. There will House; a man who has had vat expert-
have to be some definite finding, in my ence in the intelligence field, and in hia
opinion, that it is consistent with and supervisory capacity as a special agent
In the interest of our national security, for the Federal Bureau of Investigaticn
I hope' that it will be determined on a for quite a number of years.
? top level, by the President, himself, and I. too, share his concern, having been
not by some career individual in the exposed to the same type of background
State Department. That due and deep and training.
consideration will be given so that the I am a member of the Interstate and
matter is handled in a way that the na- Foreign Commerce Committee and dur-
tional security of the United States of Ing the course of our hearings I at-
America is not in any way injured in tempted to question Mr. Bali of the
extending the privileges under this par-
State Department concerning the pas-
ticular legislation.
sibility that these messages could be in-
If this is agreed upon, I told the State tercepted or jammed in one way or
another. The indication was that they
Department I would support the bill and
Could. I told the very able chairman of theould. We should point out, however,
Committee on Interstate and Foreign that we are not dealing with a broad-
Commerce, the gentleman from Arkan-
casting station: we are dealing with
what they call a low-power point-to-
the
[Mr. Rams) ? He agreed to accept
Point radio station. I asked Mr. Ball
the amendinent and in turn, in view of
rn-
the fact that beth of us had engage-
also, as did other members of the comittee, whether or not this legislation
ments Tuesday on other official business,
which we had had for some considerable Ihad been?I will not use the wm d
"cleared"?hut discussed with the pres-
leadership to place this bill on the
period of time, we specifically asked the
lent intelligence agencies such as the
sus-
pension calendar last Monday. /t was IFederal Bureau of Investgiation and the
No. 13, and when we reached it we were The indication was that it had
about ready to adjourn, and some other beeniscussed with them and that they
problem arose. So it was decided to tapproved this legislation, as set forth on
consider the bill today under the rule Page 2 of the report.
which had been previously granted. As I indicated, I do 'share the concern
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, will the lot the gentleman from California relative
gentleman yield? Ito the wisdom of legislation of this na-
Mr. 51VIITH of California. I yield to Jture. It was pointed out by the repre-
the gentleman from Arkansas. Isentatives of the State Department that
Mr, HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I simply Ithere is a great need as far as U.S. agen-
cies overseas are concerned to have corn-
has said. I would like to compliment want to concur in what the gentleman
munication with Washington through
this means. However, some of the for-
him on the fine way in which he has
eign countries are reluctant to grant this
gone into the problem, and far having
obtained information justifying this ac-
privilege to us unless they have what
they call reciprocity; that is, the same
tion. His understanding is the same as
that. which I had. I agreed to the right to set up similar stations here in
aMendment. I feel it does offer greater the District of Columbia.
protection. I agreed also with the pur- I look upon this bill with a great deal
Poses and intent of the legislation and of reluctance, having had experience,
that the President should have that au- knowing of the case of a radio station on
thorny. This language strengthens it, Long Island during the war which was
arid again I compliment the gentleman used to have communication with the
for his assistance to us in that regard. Nazis when they were our enemies. The
? Mr. SMrflI of California. Mr. gentleman in the well knows better than
Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I the dangers involved.
Should like to make one more statement. Mr. SMITH of California. I thank
the gentleman from Ohio. I know of his
Some of ray friends have said that in
view of the farm bill,and the higher edu- long experience in the Bureau and his
cation bin, my amended language might wonderful service there. I do appreciate
be taken out in the Senate. I person- his comments.
ally have no fear of that. I have not Mr. Speaker, I know of no objection to
tried to efear that with the state De_ the rule, and I have nb further requests
partment or with the gentleman from for time.
Arkansas [Mr. Timms]. I think the Mr. SISK. Mr. Speaker, I move the
State Department desires this bill, even previous question on the resolution.
? with the amendment in it and I think The previous question was ordered.
the Senate will probably pass the Rouse The resolution was agreed to.
bill. I doubt very much that we will Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, / move
have any conference report coming bade that the House resolve itself into the
With this language deleted. if it does Committee of the Whole House on the
? ?
Accordingly, the House resolved itself
Into the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the con-
sideration of the bill H.R. 11732, with
Mr. BAILEY in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
By unanimous consent, the first read-
Mg of the bill was dispensed with.
Mr, HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield
myself 10 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, the distinguished gen-
tleman from California [Mr. Slant], a
member of the Committee on Rules, has
given to the House a very detailed report
and explanation of the background of
this legislation since it reached the Com-
mittee on Rules. At the time when I
appeared seeking a rule?and the rule
was grahted?the questions which he
gentleman from California [Mr. SMITH]
asked helped to clear up some of the
thinking on this important matter. I
want to express my thanks again to the
gentleman from California for his dili-
gence and his efforts and wholehearted
assistance with reference to this highly
important and, I may say, somewhat
sensitive problem.
I also want to comment on the fact
that the gentlelady from Illinois [Mrs.
CHURCH] expressed some interest in this
proposal a few days ago. She is always
diligent in matters before this Congress,
and we appreciate the enlightenment
she has given us from her discussions
and consideration, having been such a
valuable member of the Committee on
Foreign Affairs over such a long period
of time and having contributed so much.
The interest she has shown in this
matter has, in my judgment, contributed
a great deal.
Mr. Chairman, this is a highly impor-
tant piece of legislation. Although it
appears to be simple, being a very short
bill, and has for its purpose a delegation
of authority to the President of the
United States, in this particular limited
field regarding communications, it is, in
my judgment, one of the most impor-
tant pieces of legislation we have had
in the field of our foreign relations and,
particularly, the procedures we have
with reference to communications and
the carrying out of our foreign programs
and our policies.
Mr. Chairman, our committee held
hearings on this legislation which would
amend section 305 of the Communica-
tions Act of 1934. It is recommended
by the administration through the De-
partment of State.
We have the usual reports which are
included in the hearings that are avail-
able, reports from the Executive Office of
the President, the General Counsel of
the Department of Defense, a rather
lengthy report from the Federal Com-
munications Commission which is in-
cluded in the report, another one from
the Department of Justice and then, of
course, the usual report from the Depart-
ment of State. They are all included in
the hearings.
Approved For Release 2004/05/12 : CIA-RDP65100383R000200160008-7
Approved For Release 2004/05/12 : CIA-RDP65600383R000200160008-7
1962 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD HOUSE 19117
In addition to that, the Under Secre-
tary of State, the Honorable George W.
Ball, appeared and testified before the
committee on this matter and on its im-
portance and why this legislation was
needed. That, of course, is in the hear-
ings that are available as well.
Following public hearings, there were
certain questions that members of the
committee had. We then went into ex-
ecutive session at which, in an off-the-
record session, Mr. Ball indicated to us
certain other information that would
give a better understanding about the
reasons for this program and its pur-
poses.
From these hearings and reports and
from the consideration the committee
gave to it, the committee was thoroughly
convinced of the need for this legisla-
tion and, therefore, reported the bill. It
was not unanimously reported at the
time. There were one or two members
of the committee who were not altogether
satisfied because of the sensitiveness of
It and because of some of the possibilities
that probably could develop. They had
in their minds some of the same ques-
tions which were in the mind of the gen-
tleman from California [Mr. &mall , of
the Committee on Rules. It was because
of these feelings that I, together with
others, agreed with the gentleman from
California [Mr. SMITH] on the amend-
ment which he explained to you a mo-
ment ago, in an effort to be doubly sure
that at least the Congress intends this
to be used in the interest of the United
States and for the security of the United
States.
Mr. Chairman, the U.S. Government,
and specifically the Department of State,
has been hampered in the conduct of its
foreign relations over the years by defi-
ciencies in the available commercial
telegraph channels between Washington
and many areas of the world. In today's
tempo of international developments, it
is imperative that the President, through
the Secretary of State, have available to
him immediate on the spot reports from
widely dispersed areas. Neither com-
mercial enterprise nor diplomatic de-
mands have stimulated many foreign
communications administrations to equip
themselves to provide the dependable
around-the-clock telegraph service
which the U.S. Government new requires.
From most European countries and
certain other selected areas the com-
mercial service is good and dependable.
From a limited number of countries we
have high quality, high volume, U.S.
military operated services. In the re-
maining areas the Department of State
has endeavored to install and operate
its own radio communications channels.
These efforts have been impeded pri-
marily by the fact that existing U.S. law
prohibits the operation of similar facil-
ities by foreign nationals in the United
States.
After weighing very carefully the
considerations of national security, the?
impact on the American commercial car-
riers, and the possible problems of fre-
quency assignment, international regis-
tration and so forth, the Department of
State has concluded that it is imperative
In the national interest that steps be
taken to facilitate the establishment of
operating radio stations in many of our
missions abroad and that the only rea-
sonable avenue toward this, end lies in
the creation of means to grant foreign
missions in Washington similar privi-
lege. The proposed amendment to the
Communications Act would give the
President power to authorize negotiation
of selected bilateral agreements under
which such foreign missions could on a
reciprocal basis operate radio transmit-
ters from their Washington chanceries.
The committee is convinced that
agreements will contain sufficient con-
trols to preclude harmful interference
with other U.S. radio operations and that
the balance of advantage would be in
favor of the U.S. Government. It there-
fore recommends passage of the proposed
amendment.
In the course of examination of the
proposed bill the committee satisfied it-
self that the Department of State has
based its proposal to regularize and ex-
pand its radio-telegraph operations, not
on conjectural future possibilities but on
recorded instances of serious delays in
the past. One such delay played a part
in the loss of the life of a Foreign Serv-
ice officer.
In the first delicate days of the crisis
in the Congo, in a situation of civil strife
in Algeria, in the chaotic period follow-
ing the assassination of Trujillo and in
many similar situations, our posts
abroad have been denied access to in-
ternational telegraph facilities and thus
lost entirely their effectiveness in re-
porting to Washington. In every case
It would have been practical to have had
radio equipment at the post, regularly
operated or held in reserve for such
emergencies, to fill the gap.
The committee has further satisfied
itself that the course of action proposed
is in conformity with the normal diplo-
matic practice of most other nations.
Many of our principal allies freely grant
the right of diplomatic radio operation
on a reciprocal basis: It is clearly ap-
parent that the Department of State has
investigated the reasonable alternative
actions without uncovering any other
satisfactory solution.
In summary the need for assured, rap-
id and secure communications between
the Department and our posts abroad
is patent. Existing commercial capabil-
ities in many areas do not now and can-
not be expected in the near future to
satisfy this need. The U.S. Government
cannot usurp the privilege of operating
radio transmitters abroad without ex-
tending similar privilege to foreign
diplomatic missions in Washington.
The Committee on Interstate and For-
eign Commerce therefore recommends to
the Congress passage of H.R. 11732.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. HARRIS. I yield to the gentle-
man from Iowa.
Mr. GROSS. The gentleman brought
in the subject of the Congo. Are the
United Nations mercenaries or any of
the United Nations headquarters equip-
ped with radio transmitting facilities in
the Congo?
Mr. HARRIS. We have on informa-
tion to that effect, and I do not know.
Mr. GROSS. This was not developed
in your hearings?
Mr. HARRIS. No, it was not discussed
because this is a bilateral thing we have
here in which we are interested for our
own purposes and our own security.
This is not a matter about which the
United Nations is concerned. We do this
for our own protection.
Mr. GROSS. Let me ask the gentle-
man this question: There is nothing in
the bill as to the limitation of wattage,
is there?
Mr. HARRIS. Nothing specifically in
the bill, but in the course of the hearings
it was stated and it is stated in the re-
port that these must be low-powered
stations not to exceed 400 watts.
Mr. GROSS. What frequency or fre-
quencies are suggested?
Mr. HARRIS. I do not believe we have
set out any specific frequencies in the
bill. That is a matter which the Presi-
dent would decide after consultation
with the Federal Communications Com-
mission.
Mr. GROSS. Was there a determina-
tion of the effective range of the trans-
mitters, we will say those located in
Washington?
Mr. HARRIS. Yes. That matter was
discussed during the course of the hear-
ings, and in the committee in executive
session. It is very clear that in order
to effectively utilize this procedure it
would be necessary to have relay sta-
tions. We have such relay stations our-
selves.
Mr. GROSS. The gentleman is speak-
ing now, if the gentleman will permit an
interruption, of the U.S. global commu-
nications system otherwise known as
Globecom?
Mr. HARRIS. No. lain talking about
relay stations we have in certain places,
which could be used. Such low-power
facilities together with relay stations
would be effective. Other nations may
not have such relay stations. For that
reason, I am not so sure we are going
to have too many requests for authority
under this legislation at the present
time. Maybe later on, but not now.
Mr. GROSS. What would be the ef-
fective range of one of these transmit-
ters located in an embassy in Wash-
ington?
Mr. HARRIS. May I say this varies
according to conditions. Under ordinary
circumstances, I would say 400 miles but
under ideal conditions it could be more.
Mr. GROSS. You say it would be im-
possible to reach the Middle East with a
400-watt transmitter in a foreign em-
bassy in Washington.
Mr. HARRIS. Not directly, but with
a relay station, yes.
Mr. GROSS. For this purpose. If
there was one in the Russian Embassy,
It would be possible to reach a subma-
rine between Washington and the Mid-
dle East?
Mr. HARRIS. Yes, the gentleman is
correct. That is true.
We have an amendment that we in-
tend to offer here, and the intention of
the committee is that this will be appli-
cable, and the President will use it only
Approved For Release 2004/05/12 : CIA-RDP651300383R000200160008-7
Approved Nil. Release 2004/05/12 CIA-RDP65B0C1383R000200160008-7
C,ONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? MUSE
Wlierew:e have an understanding with
friend:' conntries and where our security
1
Ig involved. It is not anticipated that
such afieernelits will be reached as the
gentleman Might have indicated.
"Mr. BRAY. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman Yield?
,Mr: HARRIS. I yield to the gentle-
man tram Indiana.
Mr. BRAY. How prevalent is allow-
ing another country to place a radio sta-
tion in an -erribassy? For instance, we
have in the "(hilted States today how
Mans, or in England. where they have
an agreerrient where other countries have
radio transmission stations?
Mr, ,PIAARIS. I may say to the gen-
tleman, at T stated in My previous state-
ment here, as far as England is con-
cerned we have commercial facilities
available and we do not need it.
The British Government, however, has
always perniitted foreign embassies to
operate their own radio stations as an
extension of the diplomatic pouch.
? Mx. BRAY. How general is that?
Let us take Prance. Is she one of the
countries that has transmitting sta-
tions?or Russia? How general is what
we are contemplating doing, how gen-
eral has that been?
Mr. HARRIS. I may say in certain
areal- it has not been done as far as
we are concerned at a)) because there
18 rib authority in the law at the pres-
"era time. In other countries, as in the
case of Great Britain, this has been done,
Mr. tittAT. I mean with reference to
other countries is this a general idea
In which we are behind?I do not think
we are behind?but different from other
countries, or are 'we starting something
net? '
rIARRTS. I do not know what
the law is and do not know the pro-
cedure in other countries as to what ar-
rangetrients they have with reference to
CoMinuntrations with other countries.
Mr. ',MAY. If the gentleman will
yield further, the gentleman does not
know Whether any other country in the
world has such an agreement as this
legislation proposes?
Mr-. HARRIS. I do not know which
other countries have or not. I assume
that they have tiled to arrange their own
pre/rains as we do, programs which in
OttrePinfon would be in the best inter-
est of our own country.
HARRIS asked and was given
perfniMoti. V) revise and extend his re-
marks.)
?lifr. WALTER. Mr. Chairman, there
? has been seine Suggestion that passage
of H.11. II732, which would make pos-
Pliible the alithorization of diplomatic
-11:1,dio transmitting stations in foreign
trabassies in Washington, would be in-
t/Mica' to the Internal security of the
faulted States.
After careful consideration of all fac-
tors involved I have concluded that such
OPerated under the specified
controls, wotild represent no threat to
the national sedulity.
There is a great need to have efficient
?Cid rapid conunimications with our
' posts abroad. The United States is one
Of the few remaining nations not afford-
ing to foreign diplomatic representatives
the right of comniunicat'on by diplo-
matic radio. However, we cannot avail
ourselves of the opportunity to establish
such communications because by exist-
ing law we cannot provide a reciprocal
right in this country. H.R. 11732 will
correct this situation. Accordingly. I
support this measure and urge its adop-
tion.
Mr. YOUNGER. Mr. Chairman, I
yield myself such time as I may con-
sume.
(Mr. YOUNGER asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. YOUNGER. Mr. Chairman, this
measure comes from our committee
without record opposition. In my opin-
ion an adequate legislative history has
been made so that there will be no ques-
tion as to the intent of Congress in con-
nection with this legislation and the use
of these stations.
Mr. Chairman, I learned of a case the
other day where even in one of the South
American countries there was a situ-
ation on which our Embassy was trying
to reach Washington, it took them 2
days in order to get a message back to
our own country in connection with that
affair down there. There certainly is a
need for this. I think most of the con-
cern can be obviated because, certainly,
the power of any of these stations or any
of the embassies could be cut off at any
time. So I do not anticipate that there
will be any use by unfriendly countries
In connection with the stations.
Mr. FOFF. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNGER. Yes, I yield to the
gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. POFF. The committee report dif-
ferentiates between point-to-point radio
stations, which are contemplated in this
legislation, and so-called broadcasting
stations. Does that language in the
committee report intend to convey that
the broadcasts made by these stations
could be received only at a specific point,
and with specialized receiving equip-
ment?
Mr. YOUNGER. It is supposed to be
used only between embassies.
Mr. FOFF. If the gentleman will yield
further, as a practical matter would it
be possible for a receiving set near the
location of the broadcasting station to
receive the transmission from that
station?
Mr. YOUNGER. I could not answer
the gentleman en that question. That
is a technical matter, and I have no in-
formation on that.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield to me at that point?
Mr. YOUNGER. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Mississippi.
Mr. WILLIAMS. As I understan?t,
this type station has a directional an-
tenna, and that directional antenna
points to only a certain point where re-
ception can be obtained.
Mr. COIggFR. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNGER. I yield to the ger tle-
man from Illinois.
Mr. COLLIER. I am certainly not
opposed to the purpose nor the intent
of this legislation. But I think we should
explore some of the possibilities and
probabilities that go hand in hand with
a new program of this nature. One is
the fact that the probability of the de-
struction of a U.S. transmitting station
In a foreign Embassy in some areas of
the world is far more likely, of course,
in time of bitter civil strife in those
countries than it would be here in the
United States. I would hope that there
would be some means by which we could
insist that the executive withdraw a re-
ciprocal agreement at least where it ap-
peared that the situation, conditions, or
circumstances in a given country were
such that we might risk the destruction
of a facility where there is deep inter-
nal strife.
We know from the record that on oc-
casion there have been instances of at-
tack against American embassies abroad.
Of course, this has never happened here
in the United States. Since we cannot
write this into the bill, I again say that
I hope if such a situation does occur
that the executive, using the powers
granted to it in this bill, would be able
to cancel any reciprocal agreement
where it appeared in good judgment to
be in the best interest and welfare of
this country.
Mr. YOUNGER. Mr. Chairman, in
answer to the gentleman's question I
think it is covered in the bill. He has
the right to revoke. I am glad the gen-
tleman brought up the point, because it
makes the legislative history indelibly
clear on that point.
Mr. COLLIER. I understood that he
had the right to revoke; although this
Is permissive, it is not something that
is written into the bill in a manner that
would make it incumbent on the execu-
tive to do that.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNGER. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Florida.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I no-
tice on page 2 of the bill the conditions
under which these permits are to be
granted. The first is "where he deter-
mines that the authorization would be
consistent with the national interest of
the United States" and second, "where
such foreign government has provided
reciprocal privileges to the United States
to construct and operate radio stations
within territories subject to its jurisdic-
tion."
Does that second clause eliminate or
include Soviet Russia and Red China?
Mr. YOUNGER. In the first place we
have no embassy in Red China. But it
would include Russia.
Mr. CRAMER. In other words, Russia
gives the United States reciprocal priv-
ileges and therefore they would have re-
ciprocal privileges?
Mr. YOUNGER. If they gave us the
right to establish a station in our Em-
bassy in Moscow then we could give them
the right to establish a station in their
Embassy in Washington. But it is not
mandatory that we negotiate such a deal.
Mr. CRAMER. And if such a station
were established through reciprocity, in
Approved For Release 2004/05/12 : CIA-RDP6 B00383R000200160008-7
1962 Approvett5tOftiqs0N/qtat-R9R96?1p0383R000200160008-7 19119
Washington, that same shortwave radio
could be used for transmitting messages
to Havana, Cuba, could it not?
Mr. YOUNGER. Not necessarily, ac-
cording to the bill. And if that were
done we could revoke the license for
that station.
Mr. CRAMER. How could it be pre-
vented or avoided? If you gave them a
license to establish a station or per-
mitted them to have a low-power point-
to-point radio station, haw could you
prevent the people in Cuba setting up a
receiving station and getting direct in-
formation from the Russian Embassy
in Washington?
Mr, HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield to me?
Mr. YOUNGER. I yield to the gen-
tleman.
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, I think
before we go too far with this kind of
discussion it should be made abundantly
clear that I cannot conceive of any
agreement that would be reached that
would be applicable to the Soviet Union
or Red China. In the first place, there
has got to be an agreement, a reciprocal
arrangement, between two countries.
Let us not kid ourselves, we are not go-
ing to agree to it ourselves, and let us
not think for one moment that Russia
would ever agree to such an agreement.
And we know certainly that Red China
would not. Besides, we do not have
diplomatic relations with Red China;
therefore, there could not be an agree-
ment.
In the second place, it would be un-
necessary, because there are plenty of
commercial facilities available in Russia
which we use and which they use in this
country. This bill is not for that kind
of situation at all. We would not have
that kind of problem and it is not antici-
pated that we would. I do not think we
should give the impression that that is
what might happen.
Mr. YOUNGER. I answered the
question and said that it was possible
under the bill, and I think it is possible
under the bill; not that it is going to be
done, but there is no prohibition here
against granting such permission to
Russia.
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield further to me?
Mr. YOUNGER. I yield.
Mr. HARRIS. The gentleman is cor-
rect; the President would have the au-
thority.
Mr. YOUNGER. That is right.
Mr. HARRIS. But we have got to
make the record clear that under the
circumstances and conditions it would
not be expected to happen and it is not
so intended.
Mr. YOUNGER. That is correct.
Mr. HARRIS. And the amendment
that is going to be offered by the gentle-
man from California [Mr. Swam] makes
It even more abundantly clear that it
will not be.
Mr. YOUNGER. That is correct.
Mr. CRAMER. The point the gentle-
man has brought out is exactly the
point I was trying to get at based on
the language of the bill itself. There is
no prohibition against the United States
giving such a right to the Soviet Union.
The further question I asked was, Is
there any prohibition against or any way
we could control, if that permission were
given, the setting up of a receiving sta-
tion in Havana, Cuba, so that this radio
station at the Embassy in Washington
could be used to contact Havana, Cuba?
Mr. YOUNGER. May I answer that
question by saying that there is com-
munication between the United States
and Havana, Cuba, now, and un-
doubtedly Russia is using that with their
code messages. That cannot be stopped.
Mr. CRAMER. I understood the pur-
pose of the legislation was to provide for
the transmission of messages to points
outside the United States, and that it is
needed in order to enable the U.S. Gov-
ernment to offer reciprocity when at-
tempting to secure permission from for-
eign governments for the establishment
by the United States of radio stations in
their countries. So I assume the ob-
jective is to give the United States, as
the report indicates, communication
media that will better serve their pur-
poses than is presently available.
Mr. YOUNGER. That is correct.
Mr. CRAMER. Therefore, if the same
permission were given to the Soviet
Union by reciprocity, that better com-
munications system, which I assume is
more secret as well, could be made avail-
able between the Russian Embassy in the
United States and Cuba. Is that right
or wrong?
Mr. YOUNGER. I think it may be
technically correct, but I do not believe
that it would be used for that purpose.
As the gentleman from Mississippi points
out, with the directional antenna I doubt
If they could use that and at the same
time communicate with Cuba.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNGER. I yield to the gentle-
man from Mississippi.
Mr. WILLIAMS. According to what
the gentleman from Florida has said, it
is my understanding these agreements
are based on point-to-point broadcasts.
The point-to-point broadcasts are made
by directional antennas. Unless we en-
tered into some kind of an agreement
with Cuba or with the Soviet Govern-
ment to permit them to broadcast to
Cuba, they would not be able to do so.
That is my understanding of the
legislation.
Mr. CRAMER. I understand that is
the objective. The last thing I would
suggest would be that the committee
would knowingly, intentionally, or pur-
posely bring to the floor of the House a
bill that would permit such a thing to
happen. But I say that in writing the
language of the bill, I wonder if perhaps
by oversight or otherwise such a thing
is not actually being done. What would
prevent the Soviet Embassy in Washing-
ton, D.C., if they get a broadcasting li-
cense, from turning that antenna at mid-
night to Cuba when it is a station-to-
station setup? You might say that if we
find that out we can revoke it, but that
is not the point.
Mr. YOUNGER. I did not say that. I
did not say anything about revoking it.
I say you are setting up certain condi-
tions that I do not believe are going to
exist. They would not need that. They
have plenty of clandestine radio stations
now. We are not naive enough to think
that they do not have ample communi-
cation. This is supposed to be between
our country and our representatives in
other countries, and for our benefit. It
is for those countries where we do not
now have communication. We have
plenty of communication systems be-
tween here and Moscow.
Mr. CRAMER. I agree wholeheart-
edly with the objective of the legislation,
let me say, but I have considerable res-
ervations about not writing into the leg-
islation itself stronger language that
would prevent the misuse of these chan-
nels and of these licenses which are be-
ing provided for specifically through this
legislation that da not now exist.
Mr. YOUNGER. I think the gentle-
man from Florida is a very competent
and able attorney. If he knows how to
write into a law language to prevent peo-
ple from breaking that law, he will have
something that we need very badly here
in Washington, especially with the Crim-
inal Code.
Mr. CRAMER. I think it would be a
very simple matter to provide specifically
in this proviso, as an amendment to it,
that they would not give permission to
any country, and specifically the Soviet
Union, to be used in any manner to set
up communications with Havana, Cuba.
Mr. YOUNGER. Were you here, and
did you hear the gentleman from Cali-
fornia's amendment? I think it places
the responsibility where it actually be-
longs. I doubt that there is going to be
any violation of that.
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield
10 minutes to the gentleman from South
Carolina [Mr. HEMPHILL].
(Mr. HEMPHILL asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. HEMPHILL. Mr. Chairman, I
want to face some facts here, and some
of the things I am going to say are not
going to be very nice. Before I do, let
me thank the distinguished gentleman
from California whose experience as an
FBI agent and his character and integ-
rity in the House reflect honor upon his
country. He is interested in this legis-
lation and I want to thank him for the
assistance he gave to me and to the Con-
gress and to the country in his efforts
in connection with this legislation.
I am under no illusion about world
conditions. I am one of those people
who still recognizes the fact that this is a
Christian nation and since the Corn-
munists seek to destroy it, they seek to
destroy not only Christianity but our
Nation and our way of life; I am under
no illusion about it. When people talk
to me about reciprocal agreements with
Communist countries or neutral coun-
tries, I recognize in the history of the
foreign affairs of this country in the last
two decades a pattern in which no agree-
ment that we have entered into, so far as
I can determine, with any country of that
character has been for our best interests
primarily. The Communists do not
enter into agreements, and the neutrals
do not enter into agreements, unless they
Approved For Release 2004/05/12 : CIA-RDP65600383R000200160008-7
For Re I eettitifil/Rs5ARARWE) laNt9N200160008-7 Septem6er 21
pattern?one of the dangers, one of the
loopholes, one of the places where we are
reciprocating, one of the places where we
use the word "reciprocate" when we have
been reciprocating a long time.
This is dangerous legislation.
The CHAIRMAN. If there are no
further requests for time, the Clerk will
read the bill for amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
? .
farsnaore than we hope to gain,
bey. have taken advantage time
li CS, cf , the largess and the
*or our people and our tax-
ers. - So when this legisla-
n c e up, knoWIng a little bit -about
0,4 krismissionalthough not a whole
lot, Isaw the danger In this.
"'NOW s TpOiess
we Make an agreement
ut)
With the nclian Em th
bassy uptown to e
effect tha we will3ut a radio transmis-
sion statiOp in sgew beIhi and that they
will Put one Usf- in Washington. Then
Mennon, the man who took our money
to buy Russian planes, as / understand,
will immediately, effectuate some sort of
an agreemeht under Which there will be
transmitted. from Washington anything
that tile Communists swish, because India
wishes to remain neutral and has its
hand out to Russia as well as to the
United States, .
Now that ma Y be a naive approach,
but / would rather be naive because I
have a feeling that World conditions are
closing in onus, and T have a feeling that
we are canitig, to a Place in history where
as a hatiOn we. must determine whether
, the future of this sphere we call
the earth shall-lie Christian or slave. /
do not want CO?further the effort of the
Communists in any way. 'When I put
in the additional views on the legislation
I hat( ample reason. We had one days
hearings on this and at about ll:55 &fn.
a Dirx..craveri, of the Federal sCOmmuni-
cations Cominissien, came to the witness
644 ite did not have time to finish.
He put in a statement. / would like just
to quote some of the things that are In
that statement. Ile says:
. ,
At the outset I wish to make clear that the
Commission is not in a position to evaluate
the _need of the lappartment of State for this
legislation. Nor is the Commission in a.
position to assess the extent of the security
problem?an area in which we have no expe-
. ?
rience or expertness.
So In effect what was happening was
that the rederai Communications for
Soniereason paisIng the buck. Ile
went on to say:
There are several problems which arise
with respect to matters within the Con:1-
=8E301'e jurisdiction, and I would like to
refer to briefly: First, the scarcity of fre-
quencies in the 4 to -27.5 megacycles fre-
quendy range used for Most long-distance
com*nicatione. and In which the proppeed
stations would be expected, to operate.
Here is what has happened: We are
becoming Involved op a reciprocal basis
In an area of the ,,rakio transmitting
gnettrum in which there Is not a great
deal of room. We are enabling some of
tliese foreign countries to take places in
ti3e transmitting fiela which could well
bc reserved for the ?education of Ameri-
crs for other good purposes.
He goes onto Say further:
* ond, the potential interference to U.S.
rddlo stations which coald result,
If this Cuba thing erupts, you are not
going to smile at the breakfast table and
enjoy life as you have been. People are
going to die and we people here in Wash-
ington, D.C., those presently enjoying
,diplomatic privileges, Members of Con-
=Ss, arid others are. going to feel very
,
severe results. It could result in the
jamming of civil defense channels in the
spectrum from 4 to 27.5 megacycles.
Aviation experience in the war teaches
us that a transmitter can be changed in
10 seconds and the direction of a direc-
tional antenna can be changed in 30
seconds.
Then, again, directional radio is not
narrowly confined or nearly as direc-
tional as might be supposed. For in-
stance, a directional radio beam from
Richmond, Va., would be an estimated
45 miles wide right here in Washington,
D.C. Not only is that true, but. the ter-
ritorial waters do not extend too far
beyond Washington, DC. There is a
possibility of the potential setting up of
a spy network. If I thought we were
going to set up a good spy network, I
would be for It, but experience Aims my
thinking in this regard.
Next, Mr. Craven said, is the., problem
of enforcement and surveillance. Here
is what we are doing. We are giving
these . foreigners on a reciprocal basis
certain things which we do not, give our
own people, the taxpaying people of the
United States.
The fourth point Mr. Craven brings
up is possible loss of revenue by U.S. com-
munications common carriers as a result
of traffic being diverted to the proposed
embassy radio stations.
I asked who was going to make the de-
cisions, and the Under Secretary of
State said the State Department was.
That concerned me considerably as I
thought about the safety and security of
the American people for the future.
One other thing. I asked why some
country should take millions ofaollars of
our money and not give us a radio sta-
tion, and they said they wanted to be
dignified about It Yes; they want to be
dignified. They want one hand in your
pocket and a transmitter at your ear, but
they do not want to give us anything for
it. They have no friendship for us, and
they do not want to do it reciprocally.
That is no basis for any kind of dealing
at all.
I have every confidence in the Presi-
dent, no matter who is President, while
In the State Department I do not have
that confidence. They could make an
agreement with a foreign country, and
he could say: "You can transmit on such
and such a frequency, and we will trans-
mit on such and such a frequency in
your country."
They will have a station set up in 10
days. We will find all sorts of trouble
!getting our stations up. We are so hon-
est in this country, we would not jam
these frequencies, but they would jam
ours. That is the situation which could
exist.
The gentleman from California said
the thing would be tightly controlled.
The legislation does not say that, the re-
port does not say that, and the testimony
does not say that. He was speaking his
and ray hope that it will be tightly con-
trolled.
This is just a little thing. 't do not
think the passage or the lack of passage
of this legislation is going to make or
break the Nation. It Is just a part of the
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That sec-
tion 305 of the Communications Act of
1934. as amended, is further amended by ad-
dition of a new section as follows:
"(d) The provisions of section 301 and
203 of this Act notwithstanding, the Presi-
dent may authorize a foreign government,
under such terms and conditions as he may
prescribe, to construct and operate at the
seat of government of the United States a
low-power radio station in the fixed service
at or near the site of the embassy or legation
of sun foreign government for transmission
of its messages to points outside the United
States, where he determines that the author-
ization would be consistent with the na-
tional interest of the United States and
where shch foreign government has-prOVided
substantial reciprocal privileges to the United
States to construct and operate radio stations
within territories subject to its jurisdiction.
Foreign government stations authorized
pursuant to the provisions of this subsec-
tion shall conform to such rules and regula-
tions as the President may prescribe. The
authorization of such stations, and the re-
newal, modification, suspension, revocation,
or other termination of such authority shall
be in accordance with such procedures as
may be established by the President and
shall not be subject to the other provisions
of this Act or of the Administrative Pro-
cedure Act."
With the following committee amend-
ments:
Page 1, line 4, strike out "section" and
insert in lieu thereof "subsection".
Page 2, line 2, after "United States,", in-
sert "but only (1)".
Page 2, line 4, after "and", insert "(2)".
Page 2, line 5, strike out "substantial".
The committee amendments were
agreed to.
Mr. SMITH of California. Mr. Chair-
man, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Sat= of Cali-
fornia: On page 1, line 7, after the word
"may" insert "provided he determines it to
be consistent with and in the interest of
national security".
Mr. SMITH of California. Mr. Chair-
man, I attempted to explain the purpose
of this amendment in the presentation
of the rule, and I do not believe it is
necessary for me to repeat any of the
Information at this time. The basic
purpose of it is this: It is my hope under
this language that the President will
use his best judgment and advice so that
this legislation will not in any way jeo-
pardize the national security of the
United States of America.
I commend the gentleman from South
Carolina [Mr. Ilsiwriin.Ll for the excel-
lent statement he made. It was his
statements in the minority views that
brought this subject to my mind. I am
concerned with the same worries which
the gentleman has. However, I have
Approved For Release 2004/05/12 : CIA-RpP65B00383R000200160008-7
1962 Approved FottlNwpsy8VA5L1iLGIA-RDP65B00383R000200160008-7
ECORD ? HOUSE 19121
proposed this language with the hope
that it will satisfy what I have in mind
and that it will not harm the national
security. I cannot assure anyone what
its ultimate result will be, and I may be
all wrong. However, it is the best I
can do, and I have agreed to support
the bill with this language in it, which
language has been accepted by the State
Department and by the chairman of the
committee, the gentleman from Arkan-
sas [Mr. HARRIS].
Mr. LIPSCOMB. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. SMITH of California. I yield to
the gentleman from California.
Mr. LIPSCOMB. Could the gentle-
man say whether under this legislation
as it is now written, giving the authority
to the President to prescribe rules and
,regulations and other determinations,
the President could delegate the author-
ity which he has to any, other persons
such -as the Secretary of State or the
Secretary of Commerce, or to any other
person in the executive branch of the
Government?
Mr. SMITH of California. There
would not be any question in my own
mind but that the President could del-
egate the authority, if he so desired.
However, we use such a phrase as this
hi other legislation where such author-
ity is given to the President of the United
States, or to other Departments. Some
suggestion was made that in this matter
the president personally be required to
make the decision. That would be going
a little bit too far, to ask the President of
the United States to accept language
such as that, regardless as to whether it
was President Eisenhower or President
Kennedy, or some future President of the
United States. But to answer the gen-
tleman's question, yes, I think he can del-
egate such authority, but I hope he will
not. I hope through the information he
has through the CIA, through the State
Department and through all the other
sources that he should have at his com-
mand, and the President is the only in-
dividual in the United States of America
where all of these organizations can fun-
nel information to him, I certainly hope
he would use his every personal effort to
make certain that all of these reciprocal
agreements will not be detrimental in
any way to our national security.
Mr. LIPSCOMB. If the gentleman will
yield further, is there any way we can
determine whether or not the President
will know what is involved in these rules
and regulations and the terms and con-
ditions that are prescribed in this leg-
islation? Is someone in the State De-
partment going to make the decisions
without the President really knowing
what the reciprocal arrangement would
be?
Mr. SMITH of California. I hope not,
but I cannot answer that question, of
course. I cannot answer the gentle-
man's question in that respect at this
time.
Mrs. CHURCH. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in support of the amendment.
(Mrs. CHURCH asked and was given
permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. CHURCH. Mr. Chairman, the
chairman of the full committee, the gen-
tleman from Arkansas [Mr. HARRIS], has
during the debate made very kind re-
marks about my efforts on Monday to
halt action on this bill in order that the
Members of the House might have addi-
tional information. I spent the major
part of the next 2 days seeking that in-
formation. I would like to say that from
every agency of the Government to
which I made inquiry, I received full an-
swer to every question asked.
Mr. Chairman, as a member of the
House Committee on Foreign Affairs, I
have access to material, which cannot
be divulged here today, nor put later
in the RECORD. I would say, Mr. Chair-
man, that I am thoroughly convinced
of the sincerity of the request for this
power to give and receive reciprocal
transmitting privileges. I am thorough-
ly convinced, moreover, on the basis of
what I have learned, that it would be
to our advantage to be able to establish
transmitting stations in certain portions
of the world in which we do not now
have them. The evidence placed in my
hands give the names of those nations
which have to date refused us the privi-
lege of setting up such transmitting sys-
tems in our embassies in their countries.
I would put all that information in the
RECORD and I would tell it to the Com-
mittee if I were at liberty to do so. I
repeat that the State Department and
other agencies have supplied all the in-
formation requested, and I acknowledge
their cooperation gratefully.
What bothers me, Mr. Chairman, is
the "quid" that we may be forced to pay,
in return for the "quo." I have sat on
the floor today earnestly wishing that I
could quiet my own concern?that I could
answer the very sensible, practical ques-
tions that have been asked. Frankly, I
have come to the conclusion that when
so many questions arise, there may be a
danger that this committee today may
later find that it has taken very hasty
action. It is a question to be considered
most carefully; this question as to
whether we are, in order to get some-
thing which we need, giving up protec-
tion which we now have and certainly
also need. It is one of the most "iffy"
questions that I have faced since becom-
ing a Member of Congress. It is one that
every Member of the House must an-
swer for himself.
I am inclined to think, Mr. Chairman,
that the practical commonsense which
characterizes the House of Representa-
tives will, if time is extended, enable it
to cope with this problem. But I am
not happy to rush into action on this
proposal. I would support a motion to
recommit which would permit us to have
a little more time to consider the prob-
lem, in all its implications?implications
that have been forcefully brought out in
this debate.
Mr. DEVINE. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. CHURCH. I yield to the gentle-
man from Ohio.
Mr. DEVINE. Mr. Chairman, I thank
the gentlewoman for yielding.
I should like to ask a question or two
of the gentlewoman because I have the
highest respect for her and I know of
the devoted service she has performed
in trying to get the right answer in con-
nection with this legislation. The gen-
tlelady mentioned the quid pro quo. Is
not the gentlelady convinced that if the
Russians?and our chairman said there
is no use fooling anybody, the Russians
are not going to grant us this reciprocal
right; I am not too sure they will not,
because if they feel it would be to their
advantage to install these facilities in
Washington perhaps they would grant
us the so-called "reciprocal"?and I use
the word in quotes?rights and then jam
our frequency. But the specific question
I would like to ask is this. Assuming
the Smith amendment is adopted?and
I intend to support it?does the gentle-
lady feel secure that there is no longer
any risk that these facilities might be
misused by the "pro" of the quid pro
quo?
Mrs. CHURCH. I thank the gentle-
Man for reminding me that I rose spe-
cifically to support the amendment. The
amendment eliminates some of the dan-
ger, and should be adopted.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentlewoman from Illinois has expired.
Mr. COLLIER. Mr. Chairman; I move
to strike out the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentle-
woman from Illinois.
Mrs. CHURCH. Mr. Chairman, I
thank the gentleman. The gentleman
is right in being very cautious in this
matter. No one can guarantee against
possible misuse of the privilege sought
to be granted. I hope the amendment
will do what we seek to have it do. With-
out it the legislation should not be passed.
But I could not guarantee that the in-
clusion of the amendment, although I
urge the House to adopt it, would remove
the reasons for the fear in the minds of
the House as to what might happen.
Mr. BOW. Mr. Chairman, I move to
strike out the requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I should like to ad-
dress a question to the distinguished
chairman of the committee. It is a ques-
tion that disturbs me although I have
not heard it discussed. I believe that a
radio station can be used as a homing
beacon for aircraft. That is the reason
we have Conelrad, so that we take our
broadcast stations off the air in order
that we will not have a beacon by which
enemy aircraft could find their way into
an area.
My question is this: If we grant the
reciprocal right to some 92 nations, or
whatever it may be, is there not a danger
that event though we take our radio sta-
tions off the air under the control, one
of these radio stations in some embassy
could be used as a homing beacon for
attack aircraft coming in against us?
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. BOW. will be delighted to yield
to the gentleman.
Mr. HARRIS. I cannot conceive of
approval being given under a reciprocal
arrangement here for a channel that
would be available for this particular
use. I suppose, as the gentleman very
well knows, that when you have a facility
Approved For Release 2004/05/12 : CIA-RDP65600383R000200160008-7
19122
-
Approved For ,t1R8Ttigglfa,l/Ai :08606Atittk??000200160008-September 21
that uses a particular channel and that
facility is geared to that? channel, the
gentleman knows the practical situation
that certain other things can be used in
that particular channel other than just
sending mere words. From that stand-
point, I would say that possibly it could
be so Used, but I do not think it is possible
that it could be under the very strict
monitoring provisions that we have and
have constantly utilized in this country.
There is a lot of concern about this, and
I can very well understand it.
Mr. BOW. This is my only concern.
I know there is some need for these fa-
cilities because I know the situation. hav-
ing' served on the Subcommittee on Ap-
propriations for the State Department.
But this does indicate concern that if
these aeilities could be used as a horn-
ing beacon in case of enemy attack they
could find their WAY directly, set their
Instruments to get directly on target.
This question is a very serious situation.
Mr. HARRIS. If that is the only thing
that concerns the gentleman about this,
I would suggest that he really, the way I
see it, has no need for concern, because
if that is going to happen they are going
to set them up legally or illegally for
that purpose, and they are going to have
them in this country anyway. We know
that is going to be a fact.
Mr. BOW. Do I understand the gen-
tleman to say he feels there could be
illegal stations set up that we would
know about, and that we could get rid
of them?
Mr. HARRIS. Yes.
Mr. BOW. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. HARRIS. / do not think I want
to comment any further on that.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike out the requisite number of
Words. "
Mr. GROSS asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
Marks.)
Mr. CiROSS. Mr, Chairman, I should
like to ask a question or two, for I have
very serious doubts about this legisla-
tion. Like the gentleman from Ohio
Mir. Bowl I have no doubt that we need
to improve our communications system
throughout the world, but I question how
far we should go, if I may put it this
way, in legalizing the operation of any
kind Of foreign radio transmitters in
Washington, D.C., or anywhere else in the
country. The gentleman says that this
permission will not be given to unfriendly
countries, that it will go only to friendly
cOUntries, I believe that was the gentle-
Man's statement earlier today in this
debate. Is that correct?
HAR.RIS. That is not so stated in
the language of the bill, but with the
amendment the gentleman has here and
With the language of the bill on page 2
about the national interest it could have
no other interxreta.tion.
Mr. GROSS. But we have unfriendly
embassies in this country. They are still
here despite the fact that we sometimes
,question whether or not it is in the na-
tional security and interest to have them
here.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman Yield?
Mr. GROSS. yield to the gentleman.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Of course, I would
agree with the gentleman on that and
I recognize that fact. But at the same
time, we need a listening Post in these
other countries as much as we need one
in ours, and this is the only way we are
going to get it.
Mr. HARRIS. The important point
I want to make is that this is on a recip-
rocal basis.
Mr. WILLIAMS. That is correct.
Mr. GROSS. We are told, using this
designation of "friendly" and "un-
friendly", and on a basis of reciprocity
that, for example, the Soviets will not
have a transmitter nor do I assume will
any of the satellite countries have trans-
mitters in this country. Neither will we
have transmitters in those countries.
Yet, it seems to me the place where we
need transmitters most is in the un-
friendly capitals where we maintain
embassies. Now how are we curing our
lack of communications in those coun-
tries where we need the communications
the most, on the basis of this legislation?
Mr. WILLIAMS. This is predicated on
the idea that if we are to get something,
we have to yield something and we break
even with them when we permit them
to put their radio transmitter here in
return for our radio being put up in their
country.
Mr. GROSS. But you say they will not
be permitted to have transmitters in
their embassies here?
Mr. WILLIAMS. No; I did not say
that.
Mr. HARRIS. No; we were talking
about two countries here, and they were
Red China and Russia, and I was ex-
plaining why I did not think it would be
applicable insofar as those two countries
are concerned.
Mr. GROSS. Where does this Gov-
ernment need them any worse than in
the Soviet-dominated countries and their
satellites?
Mr. HARRIS. I do not suppose I can
say where we need them any worse, but
there is some limit to what we can give
up here in order to get that kind of
reciprocity.
Mr. GROSS. As I say, you are not
curing the communications problem that
you say you have.
Mr. HARRIS. But we could get
through to a good many places or a
number of places at least that we are
riot getting through to today, which we
could get to by this arrangement.
Mr. GROSS. We have not yet been
given the price tag for this bill, but I
Suspect that if a transmitter is located in
Ouagadougou, where they now have 8
people who seem to have little else to
do but decode and encode two or three
message a? day, there will probably be
8 plus 8, or 18 or more employees. But
that is somewhat beside the point. I am
much more interested in the security of
the United States. That is the impor-
tant consideration.
Mr. HARRIS. There is a comment on
page 2 of the report. The Department
of State has developed a program con-
templating the installation over a period
of 10 years of facilities in as many as 92
countries at a cost of from $5,000 to
$00,000 per station. The estimated to-
tal expenditure during this 10-year pe-
riod for these facilities, including the
first-year cost of operation, is estimated
to be approximately $23 million.
Mr. GROSS. In other words, the total
b.11 is estimated to be $23 million.
Mr. HARRIS. Yes.
Mr. GROSS. I wonder too, what we
are doing here authorizing the spending
of that kind of money when we are going
to have communication satellites, and
not just Telstar but other communica-
tion satellites, as I am sure the gentle-
man well knows.
Mr. HARRIS. It would be a private
corporation if it is set up. And if they
set up facilities where we have commer-
cial facilities available, then this will not
be required or needed.
Mr. GROSS. We are going to have
military communications satellites, the
gentleman knows that; does he not?
Mr. HARRIS. Yes.
Mr. GROSS. And we are going to have
them in the not too distant future.
Mr. HARRIS. We will not need this
kind of arrangement where military
communications are available.
Mr. GROSS. Is there any reason why
we cannot use the same military facilities
for coded messages from the embassies?
Mr. HARRIS. That is being done in
certain instances today.
Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in opposition to the pro forma amend-
ment.
Mr. Chairman, it is quite evident to
me from the many questions asked by
Members that there is deep concern
among the membership as to this legis-
lation. It seems to me that in a sense,
we may be legalizing espionage. The
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
HEMPHILL], in his additional views as -
set out in the committee reports, says
that a low frequency station in Wash-
ington, D.C., could well communicate
with a spy-ship just off the coast.
In spite of all the amendments and
restrictions we may adopt, how in the
world is our Government going to super-
vise or know what is going on between
an Embassy in Washington and a spy
ship in the Atlantic? We might find
out to our regret what was going on
after it was too late. I do not know
how we can make this bill absolutely
foolproof. It seems to me we are tak-
ing some risk here and that the bill de-
serves more careful consideration. Per-
sonally, I think the bill should be recom-
mitted.
(Mr. HOLTEN asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise
In support of the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman
from Arkansas is recognized.
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, I
merely want to say that the committee
has done everything it could to bring
this matter to the attention of the House
and give the membership as full and
complete information as we could.
Approved For Release 2004/05/12 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000200160008-7
1962 Approved FcE&Ias_e 2904/05/12 ? CIA-RDP65600383R000200160008-7
URESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE 19123
The committee, with the exception of
one or two members, is very convinced
as to the need for this legislation.
I support the amendment offered by
the gentleman from California. I be-
lieve that the amendment itself together
with the record make it very clear that
this responsibility lies not only with the
President himself, but that it is to be
invoked only when it is in the best in-
terest of our country. If we cannot de-
pend upon the President to take action
in the best interest of the conntry, I do
not know how to suggest you go about
it.
I believe there is ample protection of
our own security, and even though it is
a sensitive matter I think it behooves us
to not try to read something into it that
does not exist, but to recognize our re-
sponsibility to ourselves in an effort to
do what is best for our country by ap-
proving the amendment and adopting
the bill.
Mr. BRAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to
strike out the last word.
(Mr. BRAY asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. BRAY. Mr. Chairman, I think
there is no question but what this legis-
lation could work to the benefit of our
country if you could rely on the honor
and word of the Communist nations, but
you cannot do that. But, Mr. Chairman,
the fact is that not one single agree-
ment we have ever made with Rus-
sia or the Communists has ever worked
in our favor. The reason for this is that
we Americans play the game by one set
of rules, honesty, and straightforward-
ness; the Communists play it by an-
other set of rules entirely. To the Com-
munist lies and chicanery are ways of
life. The result is that no matter how
hard we stick by our accepted principles
the Russians will not. That has been
proven over the many years ever since
the first time we recognized Com-
munist Russia in 1933. Will we ever
learn?
I well remember in Korea at the end of
the war when we were directed by the
State Department to turn the Chickisua
building over to the Communists as a po-
litical headquarters. That building had
one the finest printing presses in all
Korea. Immediately they started mak-
ing counterfeit money and did a great
deal toward destroying the value of the
currency of that country. Such actions
have gone on over the years. This leg-
islation if it becomes law could play into
t4e hands of the Communists. I realize
that this legislation is intended to be
reciprocal but there can be no fair out-
come for us when you play the game by
one set of rules and the Communists play
the game by an entirely different set of
rules. Apparently our State Depart-
ment continues to trust the Russians.
I do not. I do not want Moscow or other
such countries to be able to set up a radio
station in Washington, even though our
State Department believes that they can
properly protect our interests in such a
station and that we can benefit by hav-
ing a station in Moscow.
No. 171-3
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentleman
from California [Mr. SMITH].
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. CRAMER: Page
2, line 16, after the word "Act", strike out
the period and quotation marks and insert
"Provided, however, That when such author-
ity involves a Communist nation or a nation
under Communist domination, such author-
ization shall be subject to the specific ap-
proval of the Foreign Affairs and Foreign
Relations Committees and the Interstate and
Foreign Commerce Committees of the House
and Senate, respectively."
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I think
the same problem is of concern to all of
us that has been expressed by those who
have some reservations as to this legis-
lation.
I was very much impressed with the
remarks made by someone in whom I
have a great deal of confidence, who has
considerable knowledge of our foreign
affairs that is not available to each
Member of the House. I refer to the
distinguished gentlewoman from Illinois,
[Mrs. CHURCH], when she observed that
the problem involved is what is quid and
what is quo. That is what I have at-
tempted to express in regard to this leg-
islation. It is the duty and the responi-
bility of the Congress to retain a review
over the authorization and the licenses
issued to these foreign governments that
have embassies in this country. They
involve Communist-dominated nations,
including the Soviet Union, that have
embassies in this country, and if they
ask for transmitters, the Congress of the
United States should reserve the right
to review what is quid and what is quo,
and what the Soviet-dominated nations
and the Soviet itself has agreed to do in
exchange, and what assurances we will
have that they are going to reciprocate.
I think the issue that has concerned
all of us involves the unfriendly nations,
Communist nations, Communist-domi-
nated nations. Can these transmitters
be used for the purpose of espionage?
We are concerned about making certain
no Communist message could be com-
municated between Washington, D.C.,
and Castro's government in Havana,
Cuba.
I have listened to the answers to these
questions, but I personally am not sat-
isfied it could be used by a government
that has shown it does not intend to live
up to its agreements, meaning Soviet
Russia. It has not lived up to its agree-
ments in the past. Berlin is a .perfect
example of this. I think it is essential
in connection with any arrangement be-
tween Soviet-dominated countries and
the Soviet Union in this country, giving
their embassies in Washington the right
to transmit on a license given by this
Government, the Congress should retain
the power and right to review what
agreements have been entered into and
what assurance we have that our best
interests are going to be served.
I am concerned about this bill. I have
given ,some thought as to how the Con-
gress can be sure that in administratively
carrying this out, it is and will be in
the best interests of the United States.
I am not convinced if the administra-
tion of it lies exclusively in the State
Department, knowing its record of fail-
ures and inadequacies in Cuba, that their
decisions will be in the best interests of
the United States or, for that matter, for
the best interest of the free world.
In my opinion, this amendment would
do much to remove some of the questions
raised with regard to this by satisfying
and assuring us that in connection with
any such agreements entered into those
agreements will be in the best interests
of the free world.
I hope a quo will result from our per-
mitting a quid in the first place.
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in opposition to the amendment.
(Mr. HARRIS asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
[Mr. HARRIS addressed the Commit-
tee. His remarks will appear hereafter
in the Appendix.]
[Mr. YOUNGER addressed the Com-
mittee. His remarks will appear here-
after in the Appendix.]
Mr. COLLIER. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike out the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I take just a moment
to say that I think perhaps we may, in
the emotional feeling of our discussion
here, be losing sight of the fact that this
legislation is in fact an amendment to
the Federal Communications Act.
In reality it is necessary only because
we have an established act to cover
licensing communications and because it
is a wholly new concept. What is fur-
ther involved is nothing more than an
authority within the realm of this new
concept to enter into international nego-
tiations. What would undoubtedly hap-
pen in the performance, if this legisla-
tion is passed, is the same thing that
takes place in other types of interna-
tional negotiations wherein we nego-
tiate country by country to establish
these communications facilities. If it
were not necessary for us to do this
within the concepts of the existing Fed-
eral Communications Commission laws
we would not even be dealing with this
legislation today. The authority and the
power to engage in international nego-
tiations is already vested in the Execu-
tive subject to ratification by the Senate.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. COLLIER. I yield to the gentle-
man from Mississippi.
Mr. WILLIAMS. With respect to the
amendment that is before the House, I
would call the attention of the member-
ship to page 17 of the hearings in which
the gentleman from California [Mr.
YOUNGER] asked Mr. Ball, the Under Sec-
retary of State, the following question:
Mr. YOUNGER. Are you willing to limit this
to friendly nations?
Mr. BALL. I would say we are willing to
limit this to the situation where our own
need for facilities is the overriding consider-
Approved For Release 2004/05/12 : CIA-RDP65600383R000200160008-7
Approved For Release 2004/05/12: CIA-RDP65BOU83F000200160008-7,
19124 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? 1-10Us zeptember 21
ation, and where there would be a judg-
ment by the President that It was in the
national interest for us to have these fa-
cilities in spite of any disadvantages there
might be for that country to have facilities
here. Those disadvantages, as appears from
an examination of the problem?a very care-
ful one?are very slight indeed.
I think that in our discussion we are
possibly losing sight of the purpose of the
legislation. The problem is outlined on
page 2 of the committee report, as the
gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. liasS731
mentioned a moment ago, where it says:
The problem of establishing such corn-
municatIonis exists primarily in some of the
countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.
It does not exist in Western Europe or other
areas where up-to-date commercial commu-
nication systems are available.
It further points out:
This legislation will not create any secu-
rity problems, since the use of these facili-
ties by foreign governments will not mate-
rially enhance their opportunity for trans-
mitting secret information as compared to
currently available commercial facilities and
pouch services.
In other words, for instance Russia
already has ample means of transmitting
information outside of the United States.
Certainly the setting up of a low power
radio station under this program under
a reciprocal agreenient would not en-
hance their opportunity for transmitting
any secret information.
Permit me to say as should be evident
from my votes in this body, that I take
a back seat to no one in my lack of con-
fidence in the State Department, and
I certainly have never been a rubber
stamp for the New Frontier. But here
they are asking for something, as I am
sure the gentleman will agree, that is
definitely in the interest of the United
States of America. For that reason I
support it, notwithstanding the fact that
It may be advocated by the State De-
partment.
Mr. COLLIER. I thank the gentleman
for his contribution.
Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike out the last word.
Mr. Chairman, / am opposed to the
amendment and support the bill, but I
take this time to establish two factors
of legislative history here. In view of
the statement of the gentleman from
Mississippi, are we then to understand
that it is the intent of this legislation
that the Government of the United States
will not permit or authorize the instal-
lation of any such radio facility in a
foreign embassy unless and until a recip-
rocal agreement has been reached and
we are permitted to install similar Amer-
ican facilities' in our own Embassy lo-
cated in the country receiving this privi-
lege from the United States? I want to
find out if this legislation means that no
such authority shall be given to a foreign
country until that country has unequi-
vocally given us similar authority?
Mr. WILLIAMS. That is absolutely
correct; as is provided by the condition
No. 2 which is imposed on the setting
up of these stations or these agreements
, Shown on page 2, line 5.
Mr. PUCTNSICI. Therefore, it is not
the intention of this legislation, for
Instance, to permit the Soviet Union to
establish a station here in their embassy
and then dangle us like a yo-yo for 3 or
4 years while they are debating and
studying whether or not they should give
us the same opportunity in Moscow? In
other words, I understand this legisla-
tion to mean that nothing gets moving
in this country in a foreign embassy
until the agreemept has been nailed
down with the foreign country to permit
us to do the same thing in that foreign
country. Do I understand the situation
correctly?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I think you do. The
language of the bill says, and one of
the conditions is, "where such foreign
government has provided reciprocal
privileges'?it does not say -agrees to
provide"?it says "has provided recipro-
cal privileges to the United States to
construct and operate radio stations,"
and so forth.
Mr. PUCINSKI On that point also,
with reference to that very language
"where such foreign government has pro-
vided reciprocal privileges to the United
States to construct and operate radio
stations within territories subject to its
jurisdiction." Do I understand the lang-
uage "within territories subject to its
Jurisdiction" to mean territories sub-
ject to the jurisdiction of the host
country and not to refer to the im-
mediate area of our own American em-
bassy in a foreign country?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I would think that
would be subject to the terms of the
agreement.
Mr. PUCINSKI. Do we understand
then that in the language "within ter-
ritories subject to the its" that the
word "its" here refers back to the host
country's jurisdiction and not our own
U.S. Jurisdiction in a foreign country?
Do we understand that correctly?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, that is correct
as to the use of the word "its" on page
2, line 8.
Mr. PUCINSKI. I thank the gentle-
man for his explanation.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Florida [Mr. CRAMER).
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. SCHADEBERG. Mr. Chairman, I
have profound respect for the judgment
of my colleague, Mrs. CHURCH from Illi-
nois. She has with complete frankness
suggested that we might well delay a
decision.
I have faith in my colleagues on the
Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce. I have no doubt that we all
have an interest in our security and the
preservation of our great Nation. In
the motion to recommit which I shall of-
fer. I certainly do not question the
loyalty or integrity of any one; Members
of this House; the administration; or
the State Department. Loyalty or in-
tegrity is not the question.
We are dealing here with a very, very
serious matter. We are not dealing with
a mere toy. It is the future of people I
desire to protect and this desire demands
more than a mere hope that this legis-
lation is not damaging to our defense
or security.
Unless we here can be given complete
assurance that immediate action on this
matter is absolutely essential to our na-
tional security and delay would present
unreasonable risks to our security it is
our resnonsibility as representatives of
our people to delay action until the con-
vening of the 88th Congress.
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, I move
that the Committee now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly the Committee rose; and
the Speaker having resumed the chair,
Mr. BAILEY, Chairman of the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the
Union, reported that that Committee,
having had under consideration the bill
(H.R. 11732) to amend section 305 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amend-
ed, pursuant to House Resolution 779, he
reported the bill back to the House with
sundry amendments adopted in Com-
mittee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER. Under the rule, the
previous question is ordered. Is a sep-
arate vote demanded? If not, the Chair
will put them en gros.
The question is on agreeing to the
amendments.
The amendments were agreed to.
The SPEAKER The question is on
the engrossment and third reading of the
bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed
and read the third time, and was read the
third time.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
the passage of the bill.
Mr. SCHADEBERG. Mr. Speaker, I
offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER. Is the gentleman op-
posed to the bill?
Mr. SCHADEBERG. I am.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman
qualifies. The Clerk will report the
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. SCHADEBSSIG moves to recommit the bill
H.R. 11'732 to the House Committee on Inter-
state and Poreign Commerce.
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I move
the previous Question on the motion to
recommit.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
the motion to recommit.
The question was taken and the Chair
announced that the noes appeared to
have it.
Mr. SCHADEBERG. Mr. Speaker, I
object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the
point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER. Evidently a quorum
Is not present.
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, a parlia-
mentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman will
state it.
Mr. HARRIS. Is this a vote on the
motion to recommit or on passage?
The SPEAKER. This is a vote on the
motion to recommit
Mr. HARRIS. I did not so under-
stand it. I understood the Chair to say
the motion had been rejected.
Approved For Release 2004/05/12: CIA-RDP65B00383R000200160008-7
.1962
ty VLINR7o HOUSE
E000200160008-7
Approved For Romiggfp9a
19125
The SPEAKER The vote is on the
motion of the gentleman from Wisconsin
to recommit the bill.
The Doorkeeper will close the doors,
the Sergeant at Arms will notify absent
Members, and the Clerk will call the roll.
The question was taken and there
were?yeas 95, nays 208, not voting 132,
as follows:
[Roll No. 2441
YEAS-95
Alger Feighan
Andersen, Findley
Minn. Ford
Anderson, Ill.
Ashbrook
Ayres
Baker
Baldwin
Baring
Bell
Bennett, Fla.
Berry
Betts
Bolton
Bow
Bray
Brown
Bruce
Byrnes, Wis.
Cederberg
ClilperlIeld
Church
Clancy
Corbett
Cramer
Cunningham
Curtis, Mo,
Dague
Devine
Dole
Durno
Ellsworth
Abbitt
Abernethy
Adda.bbo
Alford
Andrews
Ashley
Aspinall
Avery
Bailey
Garland
Gavin
Goodell
Goodling
Griffin
Gross
Gubser
Hall
Harrison, Wyo.
Harsha
Harvey, Mich.
Hemphill
Hiestand
Hoeven
Hoffman, Ill,
Horan
Roemer
Jensen
Johansen
Jonas
Kilburn
King, NY
Knox
Kunkel
Kyl
Laird
Langen
Lesinski
Lipscomb
NAYS-208
Flynt
Forrester
Fountain
Frazier
Friedel
Fulton
Gallagher
Gary
Gathings
Barry Giaimo
Bates Glenn
? Beckworth Gonzalez
Belcher Granahan
Boggs
Boland
Bonner
Boykin
Brademas
Brewster
Brooks, Tex.
Broomfield Harding
Broyhill Hardy
Burke, Mass. Harris
Burleson Healey
Byrne, Pa. Hechler?
Cahill Herlong
Cannon Holifield
Casey Holland
Chamberlain Huddleston
McCulloch
Matthews
May.
Michel
Miller, N.Y.
Milliken
Mosher
Nygaard
O'Konski
Pelly
Pillion
Ray
Reece
Rogers, Fla.
Roudebush
Rousselot
St. George
Saylor
Schadeberg
Schenck
Schneebeli
Schwengel
Shriver
Slier
Teague, Calif.
Thomson, Wis.
Utt
Van Pelt
Waggonner '
Westland
Wharton
Wilson, Calif.
Mailliard
Marshall
Mathias
Merrow
Miller,
George P.
Mills
Moeller
Monagan
Moorhead, Pa.
Morgan
Morrison
Moss
Grant Murphy
Gray Murray
Green, Oreg. Natcher
Griffiths Nedzi
Hagen, Calif. Nelsen
Haley Nix
Halpern O'Brien, N.Y.
O'Hara, Ill.
O'Hara, Mich.
Olsen
O'Neill
Osmers
Osterta.g
Passman
Patman
Perkins
Chelf Ichord, Mo. Peterson
Chenoweth Inouye Pfost
Clark Jennings Phllbin
Ooad Joelson Pike
Collier
Colmer
Conte
Johnson, Calif. Poage
Johnson, Md. Poll
Jones, Ala. Powell
Cormaa Jones, Mo. Price
Curtin Karsten Pucinski
Daddario Korth Purcell
Daniels Kastenmeier Quie
Davis, John W. Keith Rains
Davis, Tenn, Kilgore Randall
Delaney King, Calif. Reuss
Dent King, Utah Rhodes, Ariz
Dingell Kirwan Rhodes, Pa.
Donohue Kitchin Riehlman
Dowdy Kornegay Roberts, Ala.
Downing Lane Roberts, Tex.
Doyle Lankford Robison
Dulski Lennon Rodino
Dwyer Libonati Rogers, Tex.
Elliott McDowell Rooney
Everett McFall Rosenthal
Evins McMillan. Rostenkowski
Fallon Macdonald Roush
Fascell Mack Ryan, N.Y.
Fisher Madden St. Germain
Flood Mahon Schwelker
Scott
Selden
Sheppard
Shipley
Sisk
Slack
Smith, Calif.
Smith, Iowa
Stafford
Staggers
Stephens
Sullivan
Adair
Albert
Alexander
Anfuso
Arends
Ashmore
Auchincloss
Taylor Wallhauser
Teague, Tex. Walter
Thompson, Tar. Weaver
Toll Whitten
Tollefson Widnall
Trimble Williams
Tupper Willis
Udall, Morris K. Winstead
Tillman Young
Vanik Younger
Van Zandt Zablocki
Vinson
NOT VOTING-132
Gilbert
Green, Pa.
Hagan, Ga.
Halleck
Hansen
Harrison, Va.
Harvey, Ind.
Barrett Hays
Bass, N.H. Hebert
Bass, Tenn. Henderson
Battin. Hoffman, Mich.
Becker Hull
Beerrnann Jarman
Bennett, Mich. Johnson, Wis.
Blatnik Judd
Mitch Kearns
Bolling Kee
Breeding Kelly
Bromwell Keogh
Buckley Kluczynski
Burke, Ky. Kowalski
Carey Landrum
Celler Latta
Cohelan Lindsay
Cook Loser
Cooley McDonough
Curtis, Masa. McIntire
Davis, McSween
James C. McVey
Dawson MacGregor
Denton Magnuson
Derounian Martin, Mass.
Derwinski Martin, Nebr.
Diggs Mason
Dominick Meader
Dooley Miller, Clem
Darn Minshall
Edmondson Montoya
Farbstein Moore
Fenton Moorehead,
Finnegan Ohio
FMo Morris
Fogarty Morse
Frelinghuysen Moulder
Garmatz Multer
Norblad
Norrell
O'Brien, Ill.
Pilcher
Pirnie
Reifel
Riley
Rivers, Alaska
Rivers, S.C.
Rogers, Colo.
Roosevelt
Rutherford
Ryan, Mich.
Santangelo
Saund
Scherer
Scranton
Seely-Brown
Shelley
Short
Sibal
Sikes
Smith, Miss,
Smith, Va,
Spence
Springer
Steed
Stratton
Stubblefield
Taber
Thomas
Thompson, La,
Thompson, N.J.
Thornberry
Tuck
Watts
Weis
Whalley
Whitener
Wickersham
Wilson, Ind.
Wright
Yates
Zelenko
So the motion was rejected.
The Clerk announced the following
pairs:
On this vote:
Mr. Moorehead of Ohio for, with Mr. He-
bert against.
Mr. Bromwell for, with Mr. Derounian
against,
Mr. Beermann for, with Mr. Becker against.
Mr. Hoffman of Michigan for, with Mr.
Frelinghuysen against.
Mr. Taber for, with Mr. Morse against.
Mr. Mason for, with Mr. Auchincloss
against.
Mr. Short for, with Mr. Keogh against.
Mr. Reifel for, with Mr. Rivers of Alaska
against.
Mr. Adair for, with Mr. Garmatz against.
Mr. Harvey of Indiana for, with Mr.
Thompson of Louisiana against.
Mr. Martin of Nebraska for, with Mr. Sikes
against.
Mr. Latta for, with Mr. Spence against.
Mr. Scherer for, with Mr. Blatnik against.
Until further notice:
Mr. Rutherford with Mrs. Weiss.
Mr. Rogers of Colorado with Mr. Springer.
Mr. Roosevelt with Mr. Fino.
Mr. Hagan of Georgia with Mr. Dominick.
Mr. O'Brien of Illinois with Mr. Curtis of
Massachusetts.
Mr. Clem Miller with Mr. Bennett of
Michigan.
Mr. Tuck with Mr. MacGregor.
Mr. Johnson of Wisconsin with Mr.
Pirnie.
Mr. Ashmore with Mr. Judd,
Mr. Alexander with Mr. Martin of Massa-
chusetts.
Mr. Kluczynski with Mr. Battin.
Mr. Breeding with Mr. McIntire.
Mr. Loser with Mr. Wilson of Indiana.
Mr. Burke of Kentucky with Mr. McDon-
ough.
Mr. Cohelan with Mr. Lindsay.
Mr. Montoya with Mr. Meader.
Mr. Morris with Mr. Scranton.
Mr. Dorn with Mr, Norblad.
Mr. Filcher with Mr. Minshall.
Mr. Fogarty with Mr. Sibal.
Mr, Ryan of Michigan with Mr. Derwinski.
Mr, Green of Pennsylvania with Mr.
Moore.
Mr. Barrett with Mr. Kearns.
Mr. Henderson with Mr. Bass of New
Hampshire.
Mr. Shelley with Mr. Fenton.
Mr. Santangelo with Mr. Dooley.
Mr. Thompson of New Jersey with Mr.
Seely-Brown.
Mr. Hull with Mr. McVey.
Mr. FASCELL changed his vote from
"yea" to "nay."
Mr. POWELL changed his vote from
"yea" to nay."
Mr. HARDY changed his vote from
"yea" to "nay."
Mr. GLENN changed his vote from
"yea" to "nay."
The result of the vote was announced
as above recorded.
The doors were opened.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
the passage of the bill.
The bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
C7-4
COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND
FOREIGN COMMERCE
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that the Committee
on Interstate and Foreign Commerce
may have until midnight tomorrow to
file a report on H.R. 11851.
The SPEAKER. Without objection, it
is so ordered.
There was no objection.
FURTHER MESSAGE FROM THE
SENATE
A further message from the Senate
by Mr. McGown, one of its clerks, an-
nounced that the Senate agrees to the
report of the committee of conference
on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses on the amendments of the Sen-
ate to the bill (H.R. 8134) entitled "An
act to authorize the sale of the mineral
estate in certain lands."
The message also announced that the
Senate agrees to the report of the com-
mittee of conference on the disagreeing
votes of the two Houses on the amend-
ments of the Senate to the bill (H.R.
10566) entitled "An act to provide for
the withdrawal and orderly disposition
of mineral interests in certain public
lands in Pima County, Ariz."
The message also announced that the
Senate agrees to the amendment of the
House to the texts of the bill (S. 507) en-
titled "An act to set aside certain lands
in Washington for Indians of the Quin-
aielt Tribe," with an amendment as fol-
lows: In the House engrossed amend-
ment, strike out section 2 and insert in
lieu thereof the following:
SEC. 2. The Indian Claims Commission is
directed to determine in accordance with
Approved For Release 2004/05/12 : CIA-RDP65600383R000200160008-7
Approved For Release 2004/05/12 : CIA-RDP65B0033R0002001,00008;7
19126 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE September 21
the provisions of section 2 of the Act of
August 13, 1946 (60 Stat. 1060), the extent
to which the value of the title conveyed by
this Act should or should not be set off
against any claim against the United States
determined by the Commission.
CORRECTION OF ROLLCALL
Mr. WESTLAND. Mr. Speaker, on
rollcall No. 236 I am recorded as absent.
I was present and answered to my name
and ask unanimous consent that the
RECORD and Journal be corrected accord-
ingly.
The SPEAKER. Without objection,
it is so ordered.
There was no objection.
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that the Committee
on Appropriations may have permission
during the remaining days of the session
to include the customary tabulations
showing the up-to-date status of the
appropriation bills as they are processed.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Mis-
souri?
? There was no objection.
LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM FOR W Lag
OF SEPTEMBER 24
Mr. HOEVER Mr. Speaker, 1 ask
unanimous consent to proceed for 1
minute to ask the majority whip if he
can announce the program for next
- Week.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from
Iowa?
There was no objection.
Mr. BOGGS. Mr. Speaker, Monday
the first order of business will be House
Joint Resolution 224, active duty for cer-
taM Armed Forces Reserves, with 2
'hours of debate.
That will be followed by District Day,
and there are 15 bilis on the District
Calendar, as follows:
a 2795: Insignia of detective and col-
lection agencies.
8. 1651: Contracts approval.
8, 2977: Policies of group life insur-
ance, credit unions.
11,R, 12417: Small claims court.
H.R. 12690: Insurance companies, in-
vestments of funds.
H. Res. '799: Provide for a statue, "the
Maine Lobsterinan."
H.R. 12964: Registered nurse, mini-
muni-age limitation.
8. 2793: Restoration operators' per-
Mita, atsess reasonable fees.
H.R. 10319: Compensation adjust-
ments, certain police and firemen.
S. 914: Public Assistance Act of 1961.
H.J. Res. 854: Restoration of Belasco
Theater as a Municipal Theater.
H.J. Res. 865: Theaters, antidemoli-
eion bill. ?
H.R. 13163: Redevelopment Act
amendments of 1962.
8, 1291: Increase the fees of learners'
permits. ?
H.R. 8738: Amend Life Insurance Act.
Concur in Senate amendments.
For Tuesday and the balance of the
week, the conference report on the bill
H.R. 10, Self-Employed Individuals Tax
Retirement Act of 1961.
S. 320: Conference report?Registra-
tion of State certificates, Interstate Com-
merce Act.
House Resolution 801: To take H.R.
7283, War Claims Act of 1948, as amend-
ed, from the Speaker's table and send to
conference.
House Joint Resolution 886: Express-
ing the concern of the United States rel-
ative to Cuba. Three hours of debate.
S. 1123: Child labor provisions, Fair
Labor Standards Act. One hour of de-
bate.
Conference reports, of course, may be
brought up at any time and any further
program will be announced later.
Mr. AVERY. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. BOGGS. I yield.
Mr. AVERY, I wondered if the dis-
tinguished majority whip could make
any announcement as to the expectation
of the leadership as to our being able to
finish congressional business next week.
Mr. BOGGS. I presume I can speak
only for myself, but I would be sur-
prised if we finished next week. We will
try to do so.
Mr. AVERY. If the gentleman will
yield further, I do not want to place
words in his mouth, but is he saying that
it appears we are not going to finish
next week?
Mr. BOGGS. Let us put it that way.
Mr. AVERY. I appreciate the gentle-
man's expression.
Mr. GAVIN. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. BOGGS. I yield.
Mr. GAVIN. What time are we ex-
pected to come in on Monday?
Mr. BOGGS. At 12 o'clock.
CALENDAR WEDNESDAY BUSINESS
DISPENSED WITH
Mr. BOGGS. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to dispense with
business in order on Calendar Wednes-
day next week.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Lou-
isiana?
There was no objection.
ADJOURNMENT TO MONDAY,
SEPTEMBER 24
Mr. BOGGS. Mr. Speaker. I ask
unanimous consent that when the House
adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 12
o'clock noon on Monday next.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Speaker, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. BOGGS. I yield.
Mr. WILLIAMS. As the gentleman
knows, the Committee on Interstate and
Foreign Commerce is favorably consider-
ing a rather complicated drug bill which
is in line, I believe, with the President's
program. In all probability the commit-
tee will report that bill within the next
3 or 4 days. Can the gentleman give us
some indication of when that bill might
be scheduled for consideration in the
House? I realize the gentleman cannot,
be specific, but can he give me an edu-
cated guess?
Mr. BOGGS. I would think first it
would depend on when the distinguished
gentleman's committee reports the bill.
If it Is reported in time arid the com-
mittee gets a rule in time we may be
able to consider it next week.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I thank the gentle-
man.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from
Louisiana asks unanimous consent that
when the House adjourns today it ad-
journ to meet at 12 o'clock noon on Mon-
day next. Is there objection?
There was no objection,
CORRECTION OF ROLLCALL
Mr. NYGAARD. Mr. Speaker, on roll-
call No. 236, I am recorded as not being
present. I was here and answered to
my name, and I ask unanimous consent
that the RECORD be corrected accordingly.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from North
Dakota?
There was no objection.
CORRECTION OF RECORD
Mr. KUNK.EL. Mr. Speaker, on page
19019 of the RECORD, it is recorded that
I stated the Western Union Co. said
$113,000. That is an error. It should be
"about $13,000."
I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker,
that the RECORD be corrected accord-
ingly.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Penn-
Ivania?
There was no objection.
RELIEF FOR RESIDENTIAL OCCU-
PANTS OF UNPATENTED MINING
CLAIMS
Mr. ASPINALL. Mr, Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to take from the
Speaker's table the bill (S. 3451) to pro-
vide relief for residential occupants of
unpatented mireng claims upon which
valuable improvements have been placed,
and for other purposes, with a House
amendment thereto, insist on the House
amendment, and agree to the conference
asked by the Senate.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Colo-
rado?
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, reserving
the right to object, I wonder if the gen-
tleman from Michigan [Mr. DINGELL]
has removed his objection to this bill.
Mr. ASPINALL. The gentleman from
Colorado now states that after consulta-
tion with the gentleman from Michigan
[Mr. DINGELL), within 30 minutes, at
which time I asked the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Dniosia.] to be on the
floor. The gentleman from Michigan
[Mr. Diecetr..1 said he had no further
opposition to the appointment of con-
ferees.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, I with-
draw my reservation of objection.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Col-
orado? The Chair hears none and ap-
points the following conferees: Mrs.
PFOST and MeSSeTS, BARING, JOHNSON Of
California, SAYLOR, arid CUNNINGHAM.
Approved For Release 2004/05/12 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000200160008-7
19114 Approved Rgdallgittp:ORMINEedkrBDP6A16M3R00020016000_6-7
,september 21
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there
objection to the request of the gentle-
man from South Carolina?
Mr. GROSS. Reserving the right to
object, Mr. Speaker, is a copy of this
bill available? I have asked for copies
of all bills coming up today.
Mr. McMILLAN. Mr. Speaker, this bill
passed the House some time ago. The
other body amended this proposed legis-
lation and returned it to the House. I
imagine copies of the bill are available.
Mr. GROSS. There is no report nor
is there a copy of the bill at the desk.
Mr. McMILLAN. I have just stated
the bill passed the House some time ago
and was amended by the Senate, the
report and bill should be available.
Mr. GROSS. I have no doubt it passed
the House some time ago, I will say ?to
my friend from South Carolina. It, ob-
viously, had to. But I have nothing here
to go on. Will the gentleman please
explain the bill and the amendments?
Mr. McMILLAN. The Senate added
an amendment to the bill which has to
do with gifts to minors in the District
of Columbia. We are amending the
Senate amendment so as to make certain
that the person who is making the gift
can set the fee for the person who ad-
ministers his estate.
Mr. GROSS. You say this bill was
amended?
Mr. McMILLAN. It was amended in
the Senate and was returned. My com-
mittee proposes to amend the Senate
amendment by inserting language to
protect the donor.
Mr. GROSS. Are all the amendments
In this bill, as it is presently before us,
germane to the subject matter of the
bill?
Mr. McMILLAN. Absolutely, yes. If
the gentleman from Iowa would care to
see a copy of the bill, he may have my
copy.
Mr. GROSS. I would not be able to
do very much with it in this short space
of time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr.
WALTER]. Is there objection to the re-,
quest of the gentleman from South Caro-
lina?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The
Clerk will read the first Senate amend-
ment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 10, strike out all after line 12 over
to and including line 14 on page 11, and
Insert:
"SEc. 5. (a) A custodian shall be entitled
to reasonable compensation for his services
and to reimbursement from the custodial
property for his reasonable expenses incurred
In the performance of his duties: Provided,
That a custodian may act without compen-
sation for his services.
"(b) Compensation shall be according to:
"(1) Any statute of the District of Colum-
bia applicable to custodians;
"(2) Any statute of the District of Co-
lumbia applicable to guardians;
"(3) An order of the court.
"(c) Except as otherwise provided in this
Act, a custodian shall not be required to
give a bond for the performance of his duties.
"(d) A custodian not compensated for his
services shall not be liable for losses to the
custodial property unless they result from
his bad faith, intentional wrongdoing, or
gross negligence or from his failure to main-
tain the standard of prudence in investing
the custodial property provided in this Act."
Mr. McMILLAN. Mr. Speaker, I offer
a motion.
The Clerk read as follows: .
Mr. McMILLAN moves that the House con-
cur in Senate amendment 1 with an amend-
ment as follows:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be in-
serted by the Senate amendment in subsec-
tion (b) and subparagraphs (1), (2), and
(3) thereof, of section 5, insert the follow-
ing:
"(b) Compensation for the guardian or
custodian shall be according to:
"(1) Any direction of the donor when the
gift is made, provided that it is not in ex-
cess of any statutory limitation of the Dis-
trict of Columbia for guardians or custo-
dians;
"(2) Any statute of the District of Colum-
bia applicable to custodians or guardians;
"(3) Any order of the court."
Mr. McMILLAN. Mr. Speaker, the
purpose of my amendment to the Senate
amendment is to assure and provide that
any donor of a gift may fix the com-
pensation for the guardian or custo-
dian?which the House bill originally
provided and which the Senate struck
out?but with the proviso that such com-
pensation will not be in excess of that al-
lowed by District of Columbia law for
guardians or custodians.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The
question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr.
McMILLAN].
The motion was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The
Clerk will read the next committee
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 15, after line 7, insert:
"(c) Nothing here shall be deemed to re-
peal or modify the Internal Revenue Code
of 1954, as amended, and the District of Co-
lumbia Income and Franchise Tax Act of
1947, as amended."
Mr. McMILLAN. Mr. Speaker, I offer
a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. McMILLAN moves that the House con-
cur in the Senate amendment No. 2.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The
question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from South Carolina.
The motion was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider the votes by
which action was taken on the several
motions was laid on the table.
AMENDING SECTION 305, COMMU9
CATIONS ACT OF 1934
Mr. SISK. Mr. Speaker, by direction
of the Committee on Rules, I call up
the resolution, House Resolution 779, and
ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as fol-
lows
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this
resolution it shall be in order to move that
the House resolve itself into the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the
Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R.
11732) to amend section 305 of the Com-
munications Act of 1934, as amended. After
general debate, which shall be confined to
the bill, and shall continue not to exceed
one hour, to be equally divided and con-
trolled by the chairman and ranking minor-
ity member of the Committee on Interstate
and Foreign Commerce, the bill shall be
read for amendment under the five-minute
rule. At the conclusion of the considera-
tion of the bill for amendment, the Commit-
tee shall rise and report the bill to the
House with such amendments as may have
been adopted, and the previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the bill and
amendments thereto to final passage with-
out intervening motion except one motion
to recommit.
Mr. SISK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30
minutes to the gentleman from Cali-
fornia [Mr. SMITH] and pending that I
yield myself such time as I may con-
sume.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from
California is recognized.
Mr. SISK. Mr. Speaker, House Reso-
lution 779 makes in order the consid-
eration of the bill H.R. 11732 to amend
section 305 of the Communications Act
of 1934, as amended. It provides for 1
hour of debate and is an open rule.
The purpose of the legislation, Mr.
Speaker, is to amend the Communica-
tions Act of 1934 to authorize the Presi-
dent to license foreign governments to
operate low-power point-to-point radio
stations, as distinguished from broad-
casting stations, in the District of Co-
lumbia, for transmission of messages to
points outside the United States. This
legislation is needed in order to enable
the U.S. Government to offer reciprocity
when attempting to secure permission
from foreign governments for the es-
tablishment by the United States of radio
stations in foreign countries. At present,
the Communications Act prohibits the
granting of such authority to nonciti-
zens.
Mr. Speaker, it is felt that with this
permission which would be on a very
limited basis and very tightly controlled,
that the reciprocity that the United
States could get by being permitted to
establish radio stations in foreign coun-
tries would be a substantial gain. There-
fore, Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption
of House Resolution 779.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of
my time.
Mr. SMITH of California. Mr.
Speaker, I yield myself 10 minutes.
(Mr. SMITH of California asked and
was given permission to revise and ex-
tend his remarks.)
Mr. SMITH of California. Mr. Speak-
er, House Resolution 779 is an open rule
providing for the consideration of HR.
11732, which is a measure known as the
Amendment to the Communications Act
of 1934. It will permit the President un-
der reciprocal agreement with other
countries to permit the operation of a
radio station at the Embasy of a foreign
country in Washington, D.C., providing
we are allowed to have a radio station at
our Embassy in the country with which
the agreement Is worked out.
I was opposed to the bill as originally
reported but in the meantime it has been
possible to work out an amendment
which the chairman told me he would
accept and which I believe would help
the bill and take care at least in part of
Approved For Release 2004/05/12: CIA-RDP65600383R000200160008-7
Approved For Release 2004/05/12 : CIA-RDP651300383R000200160008-7
1962 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? aousE
House the passing of Mrs. Effegene
(Locke) Wingo, a former Member of the
House of RepreSentatives, who repre-
sented the district which I now have the
privilege and honor of representing.
Mrs. Wingo was born in Lockesburg,
Sevier County, on April 13, 1883. She
attended public and private schools and
Union Female College, Oxford, Miss.
She was graduated from Maddox Sem-
inary, Little Rock, Ark., in 1901, and
moved to Texarkana, Ark., in 1895, and
to DeQueen, Ark., in 1897. She was
elected as a Democrat on November 4,
1930, to the 71st Congress. Her husband
before her had served in the House, rep-
resenting this district for several terms.
She was elected to fill the vacancy caused
by the untimely death of her husband,
Otis Theodore Wingo. Some of the older
Members who were here at that time, I
am sure, remember Otis Wingo and also
his lovely wife, Mrs. Wingo.
On the same day that she was elected
to succeed her husband in the House,
she was elected to the 72d Congress and
served from November 4, 1930, to March
3, 1933. She was not a candidate for
renomination in 1932.
Mrs. Wingo wrote me a letter about a
year ago in which she inquired about
the consideration which the House and
the Congress had given to a program
that she, herself, had sponsored when
she was in the Congress. She was the
cofounder in 1934 of the National In-
stitute of Public Affairs here in Wash-
ington, D.C., engaged in educational and
research work.
Mrs. Winger passed away September
20, in Brent Memorial Hospital, Burling-
ton, Ontario, where she was living with
her son at the time, Otis T. Wingo, and
where he now lives.
Funeral services will be held this aft-
ernoon at 3 o'clock at St. Albans Church,
interment in Rock Creek Cemetery.
Mrs. Wingo is survived by a daughter,
Mrs. L. L. Sawyer, who lives here in
Washington, D.C., and by her son, Otis
T. Wingo, Jr. I know I express the sen-
timents of every Member of this House
when we extend to them and all the
family our deepest sympathy in the loss
of their mother.
AMENDMENTS TO PERISHABLE
AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES
ACT, 1930
Mr. GRANT. Mr. Speaker, I call up
the conference report on the bill (S.
1037) to amend the provisions of the
Perishable Agricultural Commodities
Act, 1930, relating to practices in the
marketing of perishable agricultural
commodities, and ask unanimous con-
sent that the statement of the managers
on the part of the House be read in'
lieu of the report.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there
objection to the request of the gentle-
man from Alabama?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the statement.
(For conference report and statement,
see proceedings of the House of Septem-
ber 16, 1962.)
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. GRANT. I yield to the gentle-
man from Iowa.
Mr. GROSS. Are all of the amend-
ments put into the bill in conference
germane to the general subject matter
of the bill?
Mr. GRANT. They are absolutely
germane to the bill.
Mr. GROSS. I thank the gentleman.
(Mr. GRANT asked and was given
permission to extend his remarks at this
point in the RECORD.)
Mr. GRANT. Mr. Speaker, the bill
before us Is a very important piece of
legislation. It contains numerous im-
provements to the Perishable Agricul-
tural Commodities Act and a provision
for the increase in fees under that act
which will permit it to continue to be
self-supporting. The Perishable Agri-
cultural Commodities Act is one of the
oldest and most successful regulatory
programs operated by the Department
of Agriculture. Its basic purpose is to
assure producers of fresh fruits and vege-
tables that they will receive fair treat-
ment and fair payment when their com-
modities are shipped to buyers in other
States, and to assure those buyers and
all of the handlers along the route that
they will receive the kind of commodi-
ties they are paying for and that they.
too, will receive equitable treatment.
The act has been entirely self-sup-
porting and has paid its way by collec-
tion of annual fees, presently set at the
maximum of $25 permitted under the
act, collected from those who are li-
censed under the act. The Department
has reached the point where it is no
longer able to operate its program within
this $1.25 limitation and one of the pur-
poses of this bill is to increase the
amount of the license fee which may be
charged in order to continue to have this
program entirely self-sustaining. The
bill permits an ultimate increase in the
license fees to ;50 per year, if this should
become necessary. No such increase is
needed or contemplated at the present
time, however, and the Department has
stated, and the committee of conference
so understands, that the immediate In-
crease in license fees will be to a figure
not in excess of $36. If, in later years,
an additional increase is found to be nec-
essary, this is to be announced well in
advance and subject to discussion by the
trade and by the appropriate committees
of Congress before it is placed into effect.
In the form in which this bill was
Introduced in both the House and the
Senate, Mr. Speaker, it contained no
element of controversy.
During the hearings, however, amend-
ments to the bill were suggested by rep-
resentatives of food retailers and of
frozen-food brokers, both of whom are
licensed under the act?the retailers only
If they do an annual business in fresh
and frozen fruits and vegetables exceed-
ing approximately $30,000 worth per
year. During the hearings, representa-
tives of both these groups asked for fur-
ther exemptions for their particular
group from the operations of the act.
The Senate responded to this request
by retaining the basic requirements for
19113
licensing of retailers and frozen-food
brokers exactly where they were in the
act but providing that the increase in
license fee should not apply to these two
groups.
The House went further in acceding
to the request of these groups and pro-
vided that all retailers doing an annual
business in fresh and frozen fruits and
vegetables of less than $100,000 per year,
and all frozen food brokers representing
vendors should be eliminated from reg-
istration under the act. These provi-
sions were the only items of the bill in
controversy between the House and the
Senate. While I was very much in favor
of retaining the House version, this was
found impossible.
The conferees have reached what I be-
lieve to be an equitable compromise on
this matter as set out in the conference
report. The conference report will pro-
vide that this act will not cover any re-
tailer who does an annual business of less
than $90,000 per year in fresh and frozen
fruits and vegetables, and will apply the
same minimum figure, $90,000, to brokers
of frozen fruits and vegetables. No
broker of frozen fruits and vegetables
will be required to register under the act
if he does a business of less than $90,000
per year in these commodities.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The
question is on the conference report.
The conference report was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
GIFTS TO MINORS IN THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA
Mr. MeMILLAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to take from the
Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 11018) to
amend the act concerning gifts to minors
in the District of Columbia, with Senate
amendments thereto, and consider the
Senate amendments.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Clerk read the Senate amend-
ments, as follows:
Page 10. strike out all after line 12 over to
and including line 14 on page 11, and insert:
"Einc. 1. (a) A custodian shall be entitled
to reasonable compensation for his services
and to reimbursement from the custodial
property for his reasonable expenses incurred
in the performance of his duties: Provided,
That a custodian may act without compen-
sation for his services.
"(b) Compensation shall be according to:
"(1) Any statute of the District of Colum-
bia applicable to custodians;
"(2) Any statute of the District of Colum-
bia applicable to guardians;
"(3) An order of the court.
"(c) Xxcept as otherwise provided in this
Act, a custodian shall not be required to give
a bond for the performance of his duties.
"(d) A custodian not compensated for his
services shall not be liable for losses to the
custodial property unless they result from his
bad faith, intentional wrongdoing, or gross
negligence or from his failure to maintain the
standard of prudence in investing the cus-
todial property provided in this Act."
Page 15, after line 7, insert:
"(c) Nothing here shall be deemed to re-
peal or modify the Internal Revenue Code of
1954, as amended, and the District of Colum-
bia Income and Franchise Tax Act of 1947, as
amended."
Approved For Release 2004/05/12 : CIA-RDP65600383R000200160008-7
1962. ApprovecCEItientik402144/CREK201CIA-RINSESIV383R000200160008-7 19115
inV objections, at least to the point where
if my amendment is adopted I can then
support the legislation. I do feel, how-
ever, Mr. Speaker, that we should make a
record here today, so that the President,
whether it be President Kennedy or some
future President, and the State Depart-
ment, the Secretary of State and others,
may know our intent and views in the
matter. I for one feel this is a very dan-
gerous precedent to allow a foreign coun-
try to establish a radio station in this
country. It must be used With the utmost
discretion. I would hate to have the
Soviet Embassy on 16th Street have a
legitimate radio station which could
operate between here and Moscow.
Mr. Speaker, I am making my state-
ment-based on the fact that I have been
in the past with the FBI. I supervised
all the national defense activities in the
Los Angeles office of the FBI prior to and
during the period of the last war. That
had to do with espionage, sabotage, un-
American activities, communism, inter-
nal security measures, plant protection
and others.
In that capacity, where I was in a su-
pervisory capacity, I knew of the im-
portant cases throughout the United
States because we, of course, exchanged
reports.
I can assure you that activities involv-
ing espionage against the United States
were operated out of the German Em-
bassy and Consuls continuously prior to
the war, and it was an extremely difficult
problem.
Japanese boats, for instance, would
bring spies to the Pacific Coast almost
every week. On every ship that came
over here there were a certain number
of these people who immediately would
report to the consul, leave their papers
there, and go on. Of course the Director
of the Bureau and the agents were keen-
ly interested in not having any foreign-
inspired sabotage such as took place
during the First World War when the
Black Tom explosion occurred. It in-
volved some $63 million. I am pleased
to state at this time we did not have any
foreign inspired sabotage during World
War II.
I do not take complete credit for this
on behalf of the Bureau. We had tre-
mendous help from Military Intelligence,
G-2, Naval Intelligence, all of the local
sheriffs' offices, and other police officers
throughout the United States, which
made it possible for us to keep sabotage
to a minimum. Most of the espionage
agents were identified and apprehended.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I want the
RECORD to show I am not in any way
attempting to speak for Mr. Hoover, Di-
rector of the FBI. I am speaking only
for myself. It has always been the
policy of the Director to not comment
on matters which have to do with poli-
cies outside the operation of the FBI.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to state for
the record the specific objections which
I have to the original bill, so that they
will be there as a part of the perma-
nent RECORD.
First. It is extremely difficult to moni-
tor burst types of transmission. While
the United States might well monitor the
No. 171-2.
broadcast over a period of time during
which the broadcast would not pose a se-
curity threat to our Nation, the fact re-
mains the Soviet, particularly, could sud-
denly change frequency, get their mes-
sage across, and then go off the air.
Second. Establishment of stations in
the United States by the Soviet and their
bloc nations obviously puts the Soviet in
a position to pose questions to their in-
stallations here and get immediate an-
swers. The proposed setup would give
the Soviet an almost immediate means
of communication and thus puts them in
a position to relay information and take
action thereon more rapidly.
Third. It is well known that Soviet es-
pionage operations are tightly controlled
from Moscow. The new system of radio
contact would permit them instantane-
ous control rather than waiting for dip-
lomatic pouch replies, a relatively slow
method of sending and receiving mes-
sages. The new system would, therefore,
obtain for the Soviet immediate control
and constant control.
Fourth. Enactment of this bill would
make possible establishment by foreign
governments?potentially hostile to the
United States?of instantaneous com-
munications facilities which might be
used to the great detriment of security
of this country. Such facilities might
even be used to indicate the exact mo-
ment an attack on the United States
would be most successful.
Fifth. Once radio transmitters are in-
stalled by foreign governments, there is
no way to effectively assure that the for-
eign government radio operations are
within its authorization. Even the best
monitoring installations and equipment
could not assure that the foreign gov-
ernment would not take advantage of
the authorized installations to sneak use
of higher powered equipment, high speed
radio transmissions, or different radio
frequencies in handling communications
adverse to the interests of the United
States.
It would appear that the United States
could not allow the authorized operation
without making some attempts to police
it. This would require a considerable
expenditure in manpower and facilities,
even though there could be no assurance
that the policing operation would be
completely successful.
Sixth. The rapidly expanding use of
radio equipment within the United
States and throughout the world has
already created a problem in connec-
tion with the assignment of radio com-
munications frequencies. Allowing for-
eign governments to establish radio
transmitters within this country would
further increase this problem and might
result in action detrimental to the in-
terests of U.S. commercial radio com-
panies.
Seventh. Foreign government embas-
sies are usually located in residential
neighborhoods. Operation of radio
transmitters in such neighborhoods
might cause considerable interference
to the television and radio sets of citizens
in the area. In such cases, the diplo-
matic immunity of the establishment
would leave no recourse for the citizen
and voter.
Eighth. According to Acting Secre-
tary of State Ball's testimony before
the Senate Foreign Relations Commit-
tee on June 21, 1962, in support of S.
3252?same as H.R. 11732?the reason
for this bill is to provide the State De-
partment with a rapid means of com-
munication with its "newer posts
throughout the world?in Africa, Asia,
and Latin America." He said, "Prob-
lem before us is not communication with
such major capitals as London and Paris
or Bonn."
Mr. Speaker, as to the history of this
bill, 2 weeks ago we had a rather hurried
meeting of the Committee on Rules in
order to try to get out some non-
controversial bills in order to have some
fillers last week. We considered some
eight bills and seven of them were re-
ported. Five passed, I believe, on an oral
vote. I think only one of them required
a record vote. This was the other bill,
with the exception of the freight for-
warders' bill, which was continued over,
and it was tabled yesterday. We did not
have too much time to read and study
the bills; the meeting being called rather
rapidly in order to try and cooperate. I
did not have an opportunity to thorough-
ly read and study the report on the bill
until after it was sent out under the 1-
hour rule. I then spoke with our distin-
guished Speaker, the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. MoCoRmAcic] , and
told the Speaker my problem. He told
the distinguished majority leader, the
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. ALBERT],
not to set this bill up for consideration
until I had had an opportunity to study
and make appropriate inquiries.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to you
and our distinguished majority leader
that I appreciate the cooperation which
has been extended to me not only on this
bill but on each and every other request
I have made of both of you during the
time you were majority leader, as well as
Speaker of the House.
Mr. Speaker, I discussed this matter
with four men in the Department of
State. I learned that the representatives
of the of the Department of State do not
share the concern which I have in regard
to this measure, as much as I have in-
dicated on my part. They indicated to
me they did not think it would be as I
feel it could be. In any event, after sev-
eral discussions, certain language was
worked out as an amendment, which the
State Department agreed to accept. The
language would be to this effect; It pro-
vides that the President may authorize
a foreign government under such terms
and conditions as he may prescribe to
construct and operate at the seat of the
Government of the United States a low-
power radio station in the fixed service
at or near the site of the embassy or
legation of such foreign government for
transmission of its messages to points
outside the United States.
Mr. Speaker, this is reciprocal. It has
to be worked out so that we may have
such transmission station located in the
foreign countries, and they may have
one here.
Approved For Release 2004/05/12 : CIA-RDP65600383R000200160008-7
Approved For ReligebiTentMACMAILIAROPRIIBOOMM)200160008-7 September 21.
Mit. -the language which I am happen, I will have to acknowle ge aim- State of the Union for the consideration
gugge4 ng will change the purport of the
hill ik this way where in section (d) it
itatai "The President may," rintend to
over an amendment to this effect: "pro-
vided. -he determines it to be consistent
with and in the interest of national se-
cilritY:fr
Maybe you will say to me that this
language Is like being against sin, or
SOMething of that kind. But at least
this calls it to the attention of the Presi-
dent of the United States. There will
have to be some definite finding, in my
opinion, that It is consistent with and
in the interest of our national security.
/ hope that it will be determined on a
top leirel, by the President, himself, and
not by some career individual in the
State Department. That due and deep
consideration will be given so that the
matter is handled in a way that the na-
tional security of the United States of
America is not in any way injured in
extendinfl the Privileges under this par-
ticular legislation.
If this Is agreed upon, I told the State
Department I would support the bill and
I told the very able chairman of the
Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce, the gentleman from Arkan-
sas (Mr. HARRIS]. He agreed to accept
the amendment and in turn, in view of
the fact that both of us had engage-
ments Tuesday on other official business,
which we had had for some considerable
period of time, we specifically asked the
leadership to place this bill on the sus-
pension calendar last Monday. It was
No. 13, and when we reached it we were
about ready to adjourn, and some other
problem arose. So it was decided to
consider the bill today under the rule
which had been previously granted.
Mr. VAnnis. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
ML SMITH of California. I yield to
the gentleman from Arkansas.
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, / simply
Want to concur in what the gentleman
has said. I would like to compliment
him on the fine way in which he has
gone into the problem, and for having
Obtained information justifying this ac-
tion. His understanding is the same as
that, which / had. I agreed to the
amendment. / feel it does offer greater
protection. I agreed also with the Pur-
.poseS and intent of the legislation and
that ,the President should have that au-
thority. This language strengthens it,
and again I compliment the gentleman
for his assistance to us in that regard.
Mr. SMITH of California. Mr.
Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I
should like to make one more statement.
Some of my friends have said that in
view Of the !arm bill and the higher edu-
e0A14111;!ill, my amended language might
be taken out in the Senate. I person-
ally have no fear of that. I have not
tried to clear that with the State De-
partment or with the gentleman from
Arkansa r. HssinsI. I think the
State Department desires this bill, even
with the amendment in It' and I think
the Senate will probably pais the House
bill. I doubt very much that we will
iav any conference report coming back
with, this language deleted. If it does
ply that I was naive, and I will have
to apologize.
Mr. DEVINE. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. SMITH of California. I yield to
the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. DEVINE. Mr. Speaker, I wish to
compliment the gentleman on his state-
ment. I think we are fortunate, in-
deed, to have a man of the caliber of
the gentleman from California in thc
House; a man who has had vast experi-
ence in the intelligence field, and in his
supervisory capacity as a special agent
for the Federal Bureau of Investigation
for quite a number of years.
I, too, share his concern, having beer.
exposed to the same type of backgrounO
and training.
I am a member of the Interstate anc,.
Foreign Commerce Committee and dur-
ing the course of our hearings I at-
tempted to question Mr. Ball of the
State Department concerning the pos-
sibility that these messages could be in-
tercepted or jammed in one way ol?
another. The indication was that they
could. We should point out, however,
that we are not dealing with a broad-
casting station; we are dealing with
what they call a low-power point-to -
point radio station. I asked Mr. Bali
also, as did other members of the com-
mittee, whether or not this legislation
had been?I will not use the word
"cleared"?but discussed with the pres-
ent intelligence agencies such as the
Federal Bureau of Investgiation and the
CIA. The indication was that it had
been discussed with them and that they
approved this legislation, as set forth on
page 2 of the report.
As I indicated. I do share the concern
of the gentleman from California relative
to the wisdom of legislation of this na-
ture. It was pointed out by the repre-
Sentatives of the State Department that
there is a great need as far as U.S. agen-
cies overseas are concerned to have com-
munication with Washington through
this means. However, some of the for-
eign countries are reluctant to grant this
privilege to us unless they have what
they call reciprocity; that is, the same
right to set up similar stations here in
the District of Columbia.
I look upon this bill with a great deal
of reluctance, having had experience,
knowing of the case of a radio station on
Long Island during the war which was
used to have communication with the
Nazis when they were our enemies. The
gentleman in the well knows better than
I the dangers involved.
Mr. SMITH of California. I thank
the gentleman from Ohio. I know of his
long experience in the Bureau and his
wonderful service there. I do appreciate
his comments.
Mr. Speaker, I know of no objection To
the rule, and I have no further requests
for time.
Mr. SISK. Mr. Speaker, I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I move
that the House resolve itself into the
Committee of the Whole House on the
of the bill (H.R. 11732) to amend sec-
tion 305 of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the House resolved itself
into the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the con-
sideration of the bill H.R. 11732, with
Mr. BAILEY in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
By unanimous consent, the first read-
ing of the bill was dispensed with.
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield
myself 10 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, the distinguished gen-
tleman from California [Mr. SMITH], a
member of the Committee on Rules, has
given to the House a very detailed report
and explanation of the background of
this legislation since it reached the Com-
mittee on Rules. At the time when I
appeared seeking a rule?and the rule
was granted?the questions which he
gentleman from California [Mr. Smut]
asked helped to clear up some of the
thinking on this important matter. I
want to express my thanks again to the
gentleman from California for his dili-
gence and his efforts and wholehearted
assistance with reference to this highly
important and, I may say, somewhat
sensitive problem.
I also want to comment on the fact
that the gentlelady from Illinois [Mrs.
CHURCH] expressed some interest in this
proposal a few days ago. She is always
diligent in matters before this Congress,
and we appreciate the enlightenment
she has given us from her discussions
and consideration, having been such a
valuable member of the Committee on
Foreign Affairs over such a long period
of time and having contributed so much.
The interest she has shown in this
matter has, in my judgment, contributed
a great deal.
Mr. Chairman, this is a highly impor-
tant piece of legislation. Although it
appears to be simple, being a very short
bill, and has for its purpose a delegation
of authority to the President of the
United States, in this particular limited
field regarding communications, it is, in
my judgment, one of the most impor-
tant pieces of legislation we have had
in the field of our foreign relations and,
particularly, the procedures we have
with reference to communications and
the carrying out of our foreign programs
and our policies.
Mr. Chairman, our committee held
hearings on this legislation which would
amend section 305 of the Communica-
tions Act of 1934. It is recommended
by the administration through the De-
partment of State.
We have the usual reports which are
Included in the hearings that are avail-
able, reports from the Executive Office of
the President, the General Counsel of
the Department of Defense, a rather
lengthy report from the Federal Com-
munications Commission which is in-
cluded in the report, another one from
the Department of Justice and then, of
course, the usual report from the Depart-
ment of State. They are all included in
the hearings.
Approved For Release 2004/05/12 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000200160008-7
1962 ApprottgdAPAIMMOMACIRDCIAIRDESEB00383R00020016000849117
In addition to that, the Under Secre-
tary of State, the Honorable George W.
Ball, appeared and testified before the
committee on this matter and on its im-
portance and why this legislation was
needed. That, of course, is in the hear-
ings that are available as well.
Following public hearings, there were
certain questions that members of the
committee had. We then went into ex-
ecutive session at which, in an off-the- -
record session, Mr. Ball indicated to us
certain other information that would
give a better understanding about the
reasons for this program and its pur-
poses.
? From these hearings and reports and
from the consideration the committee
gave to it, the committee was thoroughly
convinced of the need for this legisla-
tion and, therefore, reported the bill. It
was not unanimously reported at the
time. There were one or two members
of the committee who were not altogether
satisfied because of the sensitiveness of
? it and because of some of the possibilities
that probably could develop. They had
in their minds some of the same ques-
tions which were in the mind of the gen-
tleman from California [Mr. SMITH], of
the Committee on Rules. It was because
of these feelings that I, together with
others, agreed with the gentleman from
California [Mr. Sivirril] on the amend-
ment which he explained to you a mo-
ment ago, in an effort to be doubly sure
that at least the Congress intends this
to be used in the interest of the United
States and for the security of the United
States.
Mr. Chairman, the U.S. Government,
and specifically the Department of State,
has been hampered in the conduct of its
foreign relations over the years by defi-
ciencies in the available commercial
telegraph channels between Washington
and many areas of the world. In today's
tempo of international developments, it
is imperative that the President, through
the Secretary of State, have available to
him immediate on the spot reports from
widely dispersed areas. Neither com-
mercial enterprise nor diplomatic de-
mands have stimulated many foreign
communications administrations to equip
themselves to provide the dependable
around-the-clock telegraph service
which the U.S. Government now requires.
From most European countries and
certain other selected areas the com-
mercial service is good and dependable.
From a limited number of countries we
have high quality, high volume, U.S.
military operated services. In the re-
maining areas the Department of State
has endeavored to install and operate
Its own radio communications channels.
These efforts have been impeded pri-
marily by the fact that existing U.S. law
prohibits the operation of similar facil-
ities by foreign nationals in the United
States.
After weighing very carefully the
considerations of national security, the
impact on the American commercial car-
riers, and the possible problems of fre-
quency assignment, international regis-
tration and so forth, the Department of
State has concluded that it is imperative
in the national interest that steps be
taken to facilitate the establishment of
operating radio stations in many of our
missions abroad and that the only rea-
sonable avenue toward this end lies in
the creation of means to grant foreign
missions in Washington similar privi-
lege. The proposed amendment to the
Communications Act would give the
President powef to authorize negotiation
of selected bilateral agreements under
which such foreign missions could on a
reciprocal basis operate radio transmit-
ters from their Washington chanceries.
The committee is convinced that
agreements will contain sufficient con-
trols to preclude harmful interference
with other U.S. radio operations and that
the balance of advantage would be in
favor of the U.S. Government. It there-
fore recommends passage of the proposed
amendment.
In the course of examination of the
proposed bill the committee satisfied it-
self that the Department of State has
based its proposal to regularize and ex-
pand its radio-telegraph operations, not
on conjectural future possibilities but on
recorded instances of serious delays in
the past. One such delay played a part
in the loss of the life of a Foreign Serv-
ice officer.
In the first delicate days of the crisis
in the Congo, in a situation of civil strife
in Algeria, in the chaotic period follow-
ing the assassination of Trujillo and in
many similar situations, our posts
abroad have been denied access to in-
ternational telegraph facilities and thus
lost entirely their effectiveness in re-
porting to Washington. In every case
It would have been practical to have had
radio equipment at the post, regularly
operated or held in reserve for such
emergencies, to fill the gap.
The committee has further satisfied
itself that the course of action proposed
is 4i conformity with the normal diplo-
matic practice of most other nations.
Many of our principal allies freely grant
the right of diplomatic' radio operation
on a reciprocal basis. It is clearly ap-
parent that the Department of State has
investigated the reasonable alternative
actions without uncovering any other
satisfactory solution.
In summary the need for assured, rap-
id and secure communications between
the Department and our posts abroad
is patent. Existing commercial capabil-
ities in many areas do not now and can-
not be expected in the near future to
satisfy this need. The U.S. Government
cannot usurp the privilege of operating
radio transmitters abroad without ex-
tending similar privilege to foreign
diplomatic missions in Washington.
The Committee on Interstate and For-
eign Commerce therefore recommends to
the Congress passage of H.R. 11732.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. HARRIS. .1 yield to the gentle-
man from Iowa.
Mr. GROSS. The gentleman brought
in the subject of the Congo. Are the
United Nations mercenaries or any of
the United Nations headquarters equip-
ped with radio transmitting facilities in
the Congo?
Mr. HARRIS. We have on informa-
tion to that effect, and I do not know.
Mr. GROSS. This was not developed
in your hearings?
Mr. HARRIS. No, it was not discussed
because this is a bilateral thing we have
here in which we are interested for our
own purposes .and our own security.
This is not a matter about which the
United Nations is concerned. We do this
for our own protection.
Mr. GROSS. Let me ask the gentle-
man this question: There is nothing in
the bill as to the limitation of wattage,
is there?
Mr. HARRIS. Nothing specifically in
the bill, but in the course of the hearings
it was stated and it is stated in the re-
port that these must be low-powered
stations not to exceed 400 watts.
Mr. GROSS. What frequency or fre-
quencies are suggested?
Mr. HARRIS. I do not believe we have
set out any specific frequencies in the
bill. That is a matter which the Presi-
dent would decide after consultation
with the Federal Communications Com-
mission.
Mr. GROSS. Was there a determina-
tion of the effective range of the trans-
mitters, we will say those located in
Washington?
Mr. HARRIS. Yes. That matter was
discussed during the course of the hear-
ings, and in the committee in executive
session. It is very clear that in order
to effectively utilize this procedure it
would be necessary to have relay sta-
tions. We have such relay stations our-
selves.
Mr. GROSS. The gentleman is speak-
ing now, if the gentleman will permit an
interruption, of the U.S. global commu-
nications system otherwise known as
Globecom?
Mr. HARRIS. No. I am talking about
relay stations we have in certain places,
which could be used. Such low-power
facilities together with relay stations
would be effective. Other nations may
not have such relay stations. For that
reason, I am not so sure we are going
to have too many requests for authority
under this legislation at the present
time. Maybe later on, but not now.
Mr. GROSS. What would be the ef-
fective range of one of these transmit-
ters located in an embassy in Wash-
ington?
Mr. HARRIS. May I say this varies
according to conditions. Under ordinary
circumstances, I would say 400 miles but
under ideal conditions it could be more.
Mr. GROSS. You say it would be im-
possible to reach the Middle East with a
400-watt transmitter in a foreign em-
bassy in Washington.
Mr. HARRIS. Not directly, but with
a relay station, yes.
Mr. GROSS. For this purpose. If
there was one in the Russian Embassy,
it would be possible to reach a subma-
rine between Washington and the Mid-
dle East?
Mr. HARRIS. Yes, the gentleman is
correct. That is true.
We have an amendment that we in-
tend to offer here, and the intention of
the committee is that this will be appli-
cable, and the President will use it only
Approved For Release 2004/05/12 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000200160008-7
Approved For ReleaSCOMMUSACAIALIRRE
Where we have an understanding with
friendly countries and where our security
IS "?invOlved. It is not anticipated that
suph agreements will be reached as the
gentian= might have indicated.
Mr. BRAY. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. HARRIS. I yiaci, to the gentle-
Mtn frean Indiana.
Mr. BRAY. How pa. valent is allow-
ing another country to place a radio sta-
tion in an embassy') For instance, we
have in the United States today how
many, or' in England, where they have
an agreement where other countries have
radio tranmnission stations?
Mr. HARRIS. I may say to the gen-
tleman, as I stated in my previous state-
ment here, as far as England is con-
cerned we have commercial facilities
available asuiwe do not need it.
The British Government. however, has
always permitted foreign embassies to
operate their own radio stations as an
extension of the diplomatic pouch.
Mr, BRAY. How general is that?
Let us take France. Is she one of the
countries that has transpittting sta-
tions?or Russia? How general is what
we are contemplating doing, how gen-
eral has that been?. ?
Mr. HARRIS. I may say in certain
areas It has not been done as far as
we are concerned at all bccause there
Is no authority in the law at the pres-
ent time. In other countries, as in the
case of Great Britain, this has been done.
Mr. BRAY. I mean with reference to
other countries is this a general idea
in Which we are behind?I do.not think
we are behind?but different from other
countries, or are we starting something
new?
Mr. HARRIS. I do not know what
the law is and do not know the pro-
cedure in other countries as to what ar-
rangements they have with reference to
communications with other countries.
Mr. BRAY.. If the gentleman will
yield further, the gentleman does not
know whether any other country in the
World has such an agreement as this
legislation proposes?
Mr. HARRIS. I do not know which
other they
have or, not. I assume
that they have tried to arrange their own
programs as we do, programs which in
our opinion would be in the best inter-
est of our own country.
(Mr. HARRIS asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
Maks.)
Mr. WALTER. Mr. Chairman, there
has been some suggestion that passage
of H.R. 11732, which would make Pos-
'Bible the authorization of diplomatic
radio transmitting stations in foreign
embassies in Washington. would be in-
imical to the internal security of the
United States.
?
r careful consideration of all fac-
tors Involved I have concluded that such
-stations, operated under the specified
controls, would represent no threat to
the national security.
'There is a. great need to have efficient
and rapid communications with our
"vista abroad. The United States is one
-o*f the few remaining nations not afford-
,
41k_
inffiegi0160008-7 September 21
ing to foreign diplomatic representatives
the right of communication by diplo-
matic radio. However, we cannot vall
ourselves of the opportunity to establish
such communications because by exist-
ing law we cannot provide a reciprocal
right in this country. H.R. 11732 will
correct this situation. Accorclingli, I
support this measure and urge its adop-
tion.
Mr. YOUNGER. Mr. Chairmat, I
yield myself such time as I may con-
sume.
(Mr. YOUNGER asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. YOUNGER. Mr. Chairman, this
measure comes from our committee
without record opposition. In my opin-
ion an adequate legislative history has
been made so that there will be no ques-
tion as to the intent of Congress in c)n-
nection with this legislation and the use
of these stations.
Mr. Chairman. I learned of a case the
other day where even in one of the South
American countries there was a situ-
ation on which our Embassy was trying
to reach Washington, it took them 2
days in order to get a message back to
our own country in connection with that
affair down there. There certainly is a
need for this. I think most of the con-
cern can be obviated because, certainly,
the power of any of these stations or any
of the embassies could be cut off at any
time. So I do not anticipate that there
will be any use by unfriendly countries
In connection with the stations.
Mr. POFF. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNGER. Yes, I yield to the
gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. POFF. The committee report dif-
ferentiates between point-to-point radio
stations, which are contemplated in this
legislation, and so-called broadcasting
stations. Does that language in the
committee report intend to convey that
the broadcasts made by these stations
could be received only at a specific point,
and with specialized receiving equip-
ment?
Mr. YOUNGER. It is supposed to be
used only between embassies.
Mr. Fon'. If the gentleman will yield
further, as a practical matter would it
be possible for a receiving set near the
location of the broadcasting station to
receive, the transmission from that
station?
Mr. YOUNGER. I could not answer
the gentleman on that question. That
Is a technical matter, and I have no in-
formation on that.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield to me at that point?
Mr. YOUNGER. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Mississippi.
Mr. WILLIAMS As I understand it,
this type station has a directional an-
tenna, and that directional antenna
points to only a certain point where re-
ception can be obtained.
Mr. COLLIER,. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNGER. I yield to the gentle-
man from Illinois.
Mr. COLLIER I am certainly not
opposed to the purpose nor the intent
of this legislation. But I think we should
explore some of the possibilities and
probabilities that go hand in hand with
a new program of this nature. One is
the fact that the probability of the de-
struction of a U.S. transmitting station
In a foreign Embassy in some areas of
the world is far more likely, of course,
In time of bitter civil strife in those
countries than it would be here in the
United States. I would hope that there
would be some means by which we could
insist that the executive withdraw a re-
ciprocal agreement at least where it ap-
peared that the situation, conditions, or
circumstances in a given country were
such that we might risk the destruction
of a facility where there is deep inter-
nal strife.
We know from the record that on oc-
casion there have been instances of at-
tack against American embassies abroad.
Of course, this has never happened here
in the United States. Since we cannot
write this into the bill, I again say that
I hope if such a situation does occur
that the executive, using the powers
granted to it in this bill, would be able
to cancel any reciprocal agreement
where it appeared in good judgment to
be in the best interest and welfare of
this country.
Mr. YOUNGER. Mr. Chairman, in
answer to the gentleman's question I
think it is covered in the bill. He has
the right to revoke. I am glad the gen-
tleman brought up the point, because it
makes the legislative history indelibly
clear on that point.
Mr. COLLIER. I understood that he
had the right to revoke; although this
is permissive, it is not something that
Is written into the bill in a manner that
would make it incumbent on the execu-
tive to do that.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNGER. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Florida.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I no-
tice on page 2 of the bill the conditions
under which these permits are to be
granted. The first is "where he deter-
mines that the authorization would be
consistent with the national interest of
the United States" and second, "where
such foreign government has provided
reciprocal privileges to the United States
to construct and operate radio stations
within territories subject to its jurisdic-
tion."
Does that second clause eliminate or
Include Soviet Russia and Red China?
Mr. YOUNGER. In the first place we
have no embassy in Red China. But it
would include Russia.
Mr. CRAMER. In other words, Russia
gives the United States reciprocal priv-
ileges and therefore they would have re-
ciprocal privileges?
Mr. YOUNGER. If they gave us the
right to establish a station in our Em-
bassy in Moscow then we could give them
the right to establish a station in their
Embassy in Washington. But it is not
mandatory that we negotiate such a deal.
Mr. CRAMER. And if such a station
were established through reciprocity, in
Approved For Release 2004/05/12 : CIA-RDP65600383R000200160008-7
1962 Approved JedaIMELSOIZENNOtiSCOMDRDFIMM383R000200160008-7
19119
Washington, that same shortwave radio
could be used for transmitting messages
to Havana, Cuba, could it not?
Mr. YOUNGER. Not necessarily, ac-
cording to the bill. And if that were
done we could revoke the license for
that station.
Mr. CRAMER. How could it be pre-
vented or avoided? If you gave them a
license to establish a station or per-
mitted them to have a low-power point-
to-point radio station, how could you
prevent the people in Cuba setting up a
receiving station and getting direct in-
formation from the Russian Embassy
In Washington?
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield to me?
Mr. YOUNGER. I yield to the gen-
tleman.
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, I think
before we go too far with this kind a
discussion it should be made abundantly
clear that I cannot conceive of any
agreement that would be reached that
would be applicable to the Soviet Union
or Red China. In the first place, there
has got to be an agreement, a reciprocal
arrangement, between two countries.
Let us not kid ourselves, we are not go-
ing to agree to it ourselves, and let us
not :think for one moment that Russia
would ever agree to such an agreement.
And we know certainly that Red China
would not. Besides, we do not have
diplomatic relations with Red China;
therefore, there could not be an agree-
ment.
In the second place, it would be un-
necessary, because there are plenty of
commercial facilities available in Russia
which we use and which they use in this
. country. This bill is not for that kind
of situation at all. We would not have
that kind of problem and it is not antici-
pated that we would. I do not think we
should give the impression that that is
what might happen.
Mr. YOUNGER. I answered the
question and said that it was possible
under the bill, and I think it is possible
under the bill; not that it is going to be
done, but there is no prohibition here
against granting such permission to
Russia.
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield further to me?
Mr. YOUNGER. I yield.
Mr. HARRIS. The gentleman is cor-
rect; the President would have the au-
thority.
Mr. YOUNGER. That is right.
Mr. HARRIS. But we have got to
make the record clear that under the
circumstances and conditions it would
not be expected to happen and it is not
so intended.
Mr. YOUNGER. That is correct.
Mr. HARRIS. And the amendment
that is going to be offered by the gentle-
man from California [Mr. SMITH] makes
It even more abundantly clear that it
will not be.
Mr. YOUNGER. That is correct.
Mr. CRAMER. The point the gentle-
man has brought out is exactly the
point I was trying to get at based on
the language of the bill itself. There is
no prohibition against the United States
giving such a right to the Soviet Union.
The further question I asked was, Is
there any prohibition against or any way
we could control, if that permission were
given, the setting up of a receiving sta-
tion in Havana, Cuba, so that this radio
station at the Embassy in Washington
could be used to contact Havana, Cuba?
Mr. YOUNGER. May I answer that
question by saying that there is- com-
munication between the United States
and Havana, Cuba, now, and un-
doubtedly Russia is using that with their
code messages. That cannot be stopped.
Mr. CRAMER. I understood the pur-
pose of the legislation was to provide for
the transmission of messages to points
outside the United States, and that it is
needed in order to enable the U.S. Gov-
ernment to offer reciprocity when at-
tempting to secure permission from for-
eign governments for the establishment
by the United States of radio stations in
their countries. So I assume the ob-
jective is to give the United States, as
the report indicates, communication
media that will better serve their pur-
poses than is presently available.
Mr. YOUNGER. That is correct.
Mr. CRAMER. Therefore, if the same
permission were given to the Soviet
Union by reciprocity, that better com-
munications system, which I assume is
more secret as well, could be made avail-
able between the Russian Embassy in the
United States and Cuba. Is that right
or wrong?
Mr. YOUNGER. I think it may be
technically correct, but I do not believe
that it would be used for that purpose.
As the gentleman from Mississippi points
out, with the directional antenna I doubt
if they could use that and at the same
time communicate with Cuba.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, will
the dentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNGER. I yield to the gentle-
man from Mississippi.
Mr. WILLIAMS. According to what
the gentleman from Florida has said, it
Is my understanding these agreements
are based on point-to-point broadcasts.
The point-to-point broadcasts are made
by directional antennas. Unless we en-
tered into some kind of an agreement
with Cuba or with the Soviet Govern-
ment to permit them to broadcast to
Cuba, they would not be able to do so.
That is my understanding of the
legislation.
Mr. CRAMER. I understand that is
the objective. The last thing I would
suggest would be that the committee
would knowingly, intentionally, or pur-
posely bring to the floor of the House a
bill that would permit such a thing to
happen. But I say that in writing the
language of the bill, I wonder if perhaps
by oversight or otherwise such a thing
Is not actually being done. What would
prevent the Soviet Embassy in Washing-
ton, D.C., if they get a broadcasting li-
cense, from turning that antenna at mid-
night to Cuba when it is a station-to-
station setup? You might say that if we
find that out we can revoke it, but that
is not the point.
Mr. YOUNGER. I did not say that. I
did not say anything about revoking it.
I say you are setting up certain condi-
tions that I do not believe are going to
exist. They would not need that. They
have plenty of clandestine radio stations
now. We are not naive enough to think
that they do not have ample communi-
cation. This is supposed to be between
our country and our representatives in
other countries, and for our benefit. It
is for those countries where we do not
now have communication. We have
plenty of communication systems be-
tween here and Moscow.
Mr. CRAMER. I agree wholeheart-
edly with the objective of the legislation,
let me say, but I have considerable res-
ervations about not writing into the leg-
islation itself stronger language that
would prevent the misuse of these chan-
nels and of these licenses which are be-
ing provided for specificallYthrough this
legislation that do not now exist.
Mr. YOUNGER. I think the gentle-
man from Florida is a very competent
and able attorney. If he knows how to
write into a law language to prevent peo-
ple from breaking that law, he will have
something that we need very badly here
in Washington, especially with the Crim-
inal Code.
Mr. CRAMER. I think it would be a
very simple matter to provide specifically
in this proviso, as an amendment to it,
that they would not give permission to
any country, and specifically the Soviet
Union, to be used in any manner to set
up communications with Havana, Cuba.
Mr. YOUNGER. Were you here, and
did you hear the gentleman from Cali-
fornia's amendment? I think it places
the responsibility where it actually be-
longs. I doubt that there is going to be
any violation of that.
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield
10 minutes to the gentleman from South
Carolina [Mr. HE M PHIL L ] .
(Mr. HEMPHILL asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. HEMPHILL. Mr. Chairman, I
want to face some facts here, and some
of the things I am going to say are not
going to be very nice. -Before I do, let
me thank the distinguished gentleman
from California whose experience as an
FBI agent and his character and integ-
rity in the House reflect honor upon his
country. He is interested in this legis-
lation and I want to thank him for the
assistance he gave to me and to the Con-
gress and to the country in his efforts
in connection with this legislation.
I am under no illusion about world
conditions. I am one of those people
who still recognizes the fact that this is a
Christian nation and since the Com-
munists seek to destroy it, they seek to
destroy not only Christianity but our
Nation and our way of life; I am under
no illusion about it. When people talk
to me about reciprocal agreements with
Communist countries or neutral coun-
tries, I recognize in the history of the
foreign affairs of this country in the last
two decades a pattern in which no agree-
ment that we have entered into, so far as
I can determine, with any country of that
character has been for our best interests
primarily. The Communists do not
enter into agreements, and the neutrals
do not enter into agreements, unless they
Approved For Release 2004/05/12 : CIA-RDP65600383R000200160008-7
9120 Approved ForRettfircROMMALCAIVRE0d0OB3E0
IN0200160008-7 Sep einber 21
, 4
an gain far more than we hope to gain,
arid they have taken advantage time
after time of the largess and the
Christianity of our people and our tax-
payers' dollars. So when this legisla-
tion came up, knowing a little bit about
radio transmission although not a whole
lot, I saw the danger in this.
Now suppose we Make an agreement
with the Indian Embassy uptown to the
effect that we Will put a radio tran.srnis-
sion station in New Delhi and that they
will put one up in Washington. Then
Mennon, the man who took our money
to buy Russian planes, as I understand,
will immediately effectuate some sort of
an agreement under which there will be
transmitted from Washington anything
that the Communists wish. because India
wishes to remain neutral and has its
hand out to Russia as well as to the
United States.
Now that may be a naive approach,
but I would rather be naive because I
have a feelrng that world conditions are
closing in on us, ankil have a feeling that
we are coining to a place in history where
as a nation we must determine whether
the future of this sphere we call
the earth shall be Christian or slave. I
do not want to further the effort of the
Communists in any way. When I put
in the additional views on the legislation
I had ample reason. We had one day's
hearings on this and at about 11:55 a.m.
a Mr. Craven, of the Federal Communi-
cations Commission, came to the witness
Stand. He did not have time to finish.
He put in a statement. I would like just
to quote some of the things that are in
that statement. He says:
At the outset I wish to make clear that the
Commission fi not In a position to evaluate
the need of the Department of State for this
legislation. Nor is the Commission in a
position to assess the extent of the security
problem?an area in which we have no expe-
rience or expertness.
So in effect what was happening was
that the Federal Communications for
some reason Was passing the buck. He
Went on. to say : -
There are several problems which arise
With respect to matters within the Com-
Mission's jurisdiction, and / would like to
refer to 'briefly: First, the scarcity of fre-
quencies in the 4 to 273 megacycles fre-
quency range used for most long-distance
communicationa and in which the proposed
stations would be expected ro opetate.
Here is what has happened: We are
becoming involved on a reciprocal basis
In an area of the ratio transmitting
spectrum in which there is not a great
deal of room. We are enabling some of
these foreign countries to take places in
the transmitting field which could well
be i erved for the education of Ameri-
cans:
Or for other good purposes.
He goes on to say further:
?
Second, the potential interference to 'U.S.
radio stations which could result.
If this Cuba thing erupts, yoli are not
going to smile at the breakfast table and
enjoy life as you have been. People are
? going to die and we people here in Wash-
ington, D.C., those presently enjoying
diplomatic privilegeS, Menibers of Con-
/1'MS, and others are Being to feel very
severe results. It could result in the
Jamming of civil defense channels in the
spectrum from 4 to 27.5 megacycles.
Aviation experience in the war teaches
us that a transmitter can be changed in
10 seconds and the direction of a direc-
tional antenna can be changed in 30
seconds.
Then, again, directional radio is not
narrowly confined or nearly as direc-
tional as might be supposed. For in-
stance, a directional radio beam from
Richmond, Va., would be an estimated
45 miles wide right here in Washington,
D.C. Not only is that true, but the ter-
ritorial waters do not extend too far
beyond Washington, D.C. There is a
possibility of the potential setting up of
a spy network. If I thought we were
going to set up a good spy network, I
would be for it, but experience dims my
thinking in this regard.
Next, Mr. Craven said, is the problem
of enforcement and surveillance. Here
is what we are doing. We are giving
these foreigners on a reciprocal basis
certain things which we do not give our
own people, the taxpaying people of the
United States.
The fourth point Mr. Craven brings
up is possible loss of revenue by U.S. com-
munications common carriers as a result
of traffic being diverted to the proposed
embassy radio stations.
I asked who was going to make the de-
cisions, and the Under Secretary of
State said the State Department was.
That concerned me considerably as I
thought about the safety and security of
the American people for the future.
One other thing. I asked why some
country should take millions of dollars of
our money and not give us a radio sta-
tion, and they said they wanted to be
dignified about it. Yes; they want to be
dignified. They want one hand in your
pocket and a transmitter at your ear, bur,
they do not want to give us anything fo,..?
It. They have no friendship for us, and
they do not want to do it reciprocally.
That is no basis for any kind of dealing
at all.
/ have every confidence in the Presi-
dent, no matter who is President, while
in the State Department I do not have
that confidence. They could make an
agreement with a foreign country, and
he could say: "You can transmit on such
and such a frequency, and we will trans-
mit on such and such a frequency in
your country."
They will have a station set up in It)
days. We will find all sorts of trouble
setting our stations up. We are so hon-
est in this country, we would not jam
these frequencies, but they would jam
ours. That is the situation which could
exL
The gentleman from California said
the thing would be tightly controlled.
The legislation does not say that, the re-
port does not say that, and the testimony
does not say that. He was speaking his
and my hope that it will be tightly con-
trolled.
This is just a little thing. I do not
think the passage or the lack of passage
of this legislation is going to make or
break the Nation. It is Just a part of the
pattern?one of the dangers, one of the
loopholes, one of the places where we are
reciprocating, one of the places where we
use the word "reciprocate". when we have
been reciprocating a long time. -
This is dangerous legislation.
The CHAIRMAN. If there are no
further requests for time, the Clerk will
read the bill for amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That sec-
tion 305 of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, is further amended by ad-
dition of a new section as follows:
"(d) The provisions of section 301 and
303 of this Act notwithstanding, the Presi-
dent may authorize a foreign government,
under such terms and conditions as he may
prescribe, to construct and operate at the
seat of government of the United States a
low-power radio station in the fixed service
at or near the site of the embassy or legation
of such foreign government for transmission
of its messages to points outside the United
States, where he determines that the author-
ization would be consistent with the na-
tional interest of the United States and
where such foreign government has provided
substantial reciprocal privileges to the United
States to construct and operate radio stations
within territories subject to its jurisdiction.
Foreign government stations authorized
pursuant to the provisions of this subsec-
tion shall conform to such rules and regula-
tions as the President may-prescribe. The
authorization of such stations, and the re-
newal, modification, suspension, revocation,
or other termination of such authority shall
be in accordance with such procedures as
may be established by the President and
shall not be subject to the other provisions
of this Act or of the Administrative Pro-
cedure Act."
With the following committee amend-
ments:
Page 1, line 4, strike out "section" and
insert in lieu thereof "subsection".
Page 2, line 2, after "United States,", in-
sert "but only (1)".
Page 2, line 4, after "and", insert "(2)".
Page 2, line 5, strike out "substantial".
The committee amendments were
agreed to.
Mr. SMITH of California. Mr. Chair-
man, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Saturn of Cali-
fornia: On page 1, line '7, after the word
"may" insert "provided he determines it to
be consistent with and in the interest of
national security".,
Mr. SMITH of California. Mr. Chair-
man, I attempted to explain the purpose
of this amendment in the presentation
of the rule, and I do not believe it is
necessary for me to repeat any of the
information at this time. The basic
purpose of it is this: It is my hope under
this language that the President will
use his best judgment and advice so that
this legislation will not in any way jeo-
pardize the national security of the
United States of America.
I commend the gentleman from South
Carolina [Mr. IlEmpirnxl for the excel-
lent statement he made. It was his
statements in the minority views that
brought this subject to my mind. I am
concerned with the same worries which
the gentleman has. However, I have
Approved For Release 2004/05/12: CIA-RDP65B00383R000200160008-7
00383R000200160008-719121
1962 APPRIgiglitgMRP4M8R:191A101??P
proposed this language with the hope
that it will satisfy what I have in mind
and that it will not harm the national
security. I cannot assure anyone what
its ultimate result will be, and I may be
all wrong. However, it is the best I
can do, and I have agreed to support
the bill with this language in it, which
language has been accepted by the State
Department and by the chairman of the
committee, the gentleman from Arkan-
sas [Mr. HARRIS].
Mr. LIPSCOMB. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. SMITH of California. I yield to
the gentleman from California.
Mr. LIPSCOMB. Could the gentle-
man say whether under this legislation
as it is now written, giving the authority
to the President to prescribe rules and
regulations and other determinations,
the President could delegate the author-
ity which he has to any other persons
such as the Secretary of State or the
Secretary of Commerce, or to any other
person in the executive branch of the
Government?
Mr. SMITH of California. There
would not be any question in my own
mind but that the President could del-
egate the authority, if he so desired.
However, we use such a phrase as this
In other legislation where such author-
ity is given to the President of the United
States, or to other Departments. Some
suggestion was made that in this matter
the president personally be required to
make the decision. That would be going
a little bit too far, to ask the President of
the United States to accept language
such as that, regardless as to whether it
was President Eisenhower or President
Kennedy, or some future President of the
United States. But to answer the gen-
tleman's question, yes, I think he can del-
egate such authority, but I hope he will
not. I hope through the information he
has through the CIA, through the State
Department and through all the other
sources that he should have at his com-
mand, and the President is the only in-
dividual in the United States of America
where all of these organizations can fun-
nel information to him, I certainly hope
he would use his every personal effort to
make certain that all of these reciprocal
agreements will not be detrimental in
any way to our national security.
Mr. LIPSCOMB. If the gentleman will
yield further, is there any way we can
determine whether or not the President
will know what is involved in these rules
and regulations and the terms and con-
ditions that are prescribed in this leg-
islation? Is someone in the State De-
partment going to make the decisions
without the President really knowing
what the reciprocal arrangement would
be?
Mr. SMITH of California. I hope not,
but I cannot answer that question, of
course. I cannot answer the gentle-
man's question in that respect at this
time.
Mrs. CHURCH. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in support of the amendment.
(Mrs. CHURCH asked and was given
permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. CHURCH. Mr. Chairman, the
chairman of the full committee, the gen-
tleman from Arkansas [Mr. HARRIS], has
during the debate made very kind re-
marks about my efforts on Monday to
halt action on this bill in order that the
Members of the House might have addi-
tional information. I spent the major
part of the next 2 days seeking that in-
formation. I would like to say that from
every agency of the Government to
which I made inquiry, I received full an-
swer to every question asked.
Mr. Chairman, as a member of the
House Committee on Foreign Affairs, I
have access to material, which cannot
be divulged here today, nor put later
in the RECORD. I would say, Mr. Chair-
man, that I am thoroughly convinced
of the sincerity of the request for this
power to give and receive reciprocal
transmitting privileges. I am thorough-
ly convinced, moreover, on the basis of
what I have learned, that it would be
to our advantage to be able to establish
transmitting stations in certain portions
of the world in which we do not now
have them. The evidence placed in my
hands give the names of those nations
which have to date refused us the privi-
lege of setting up such transmitting sys-
tems in our embassies in their countries.
I would put all that information in the
RECORD and I would tell it to the Com-
mittee if I were at liberty to do so. I
repeat that the State Department and
other agencies have supplied all the in-
formation requested, and I acknowledge
their cooperation gratefully.
What bothers me, Mr. Chairman, is
the "quid" that we may be forced to pay,
In return for the "quo." I have sat on
the floor today earnestly wishing that I
could quiet my own concern?that I could
answer the very sensible, practical ques-
tions that have been asked. Frankly, I
have come to the conclusion that when
so many questions arise, there may be a
danger that this committee today may
later find that it has taken very hasty
action. It is a question to be considered
most carefully; this question as to
whether we are, in order to get some-
thing which we need, giving up protec-
tion which we now have and certainly
also need. It is one of the most "iffy"
questions that I have faced since becom-
ing a Member of Congress. It is one that
every Member of the House must an-
swer for himself.
I am inclined to think, Mr. Chairman,
that the practical commonsense which
characterizes the House of Representa-
tives will, if time is extended, enable it
to cope with this problem. But I am
not happy to rush into action on this
proposal. I would support a motion to
recommit which would permit us to have
a little more time to consider the prob-
lem, in all its implications?implications
that have been forcefully brought out in
this debate.
Mr. DEVINE. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. CHURCH. I yield to the gentle-
man from Ohio.
Mr. DEVLNE. Mn Chairman, I thank
the gentlewoman for yielding.
I should like to ask a question or two
of the gentlewoman because I have the
highest respect for her and I know of
the devoted service she has performed
in trying to get tlie right answer in con-
nection with this legislation. The gen-
tlelady mentioned the quid pro quo. Is
not the gentlelady convinced that if the
Russians?and our chairman said there
is no use fooling anybody, the Russians
are not going to grant us this reciprocal
right; I am not too sure they will not,
because if they feel it would be to their
advantage to install these facilities in
Washington perhaps they would grant
us the so-called "reciprocal"?and I use
the word in quotes?rights and then jam
our frequency. But the specific question
I would like to ask is this. Assuming
the Smith amendment is adopted?and
I intend to support it?does the gentle-
lady feel secure that there is no longer
any risk that these facilities might be
misused by the "pro" of the quid pro
quo?
Mrs. CHURCH. I thank the gentle-
man for reminding me that I rose spe-
cifically to support the amendment. The
amendment eliminates some of the dan-
ger, and should be adopted.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentlewoman from Illinois has expired.
Mr. COLLIER. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike out the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentle-
woman from Illinois.
Mrs. CHURCH. Mr. Chairman, I
thank the gentleman. The gentleman
is right in being very cautious in this
matter. No one can guarantee against
possible misuse of the privilege sought
to be granted. I hope the amendment
will do what we seek to have it do. With-
out it the legislation should not be passed.
But I could not guarantee that the in-
clusion of the amendment, although I
urge the House to adopt it, would remove
the reasons for the fear in the minds of
the House as to what might happen.
Mr. BOW. Mr. Chairman, I move to
strike out the requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I should like to ad-
dress a question to the distinguished
chairman of the committee. It is a ques-
tion that disturbs me although I have
not heard it discussed. I believe that a
radio station can be used as a homing
beacon for aircraft. That is the reason
we have Conelrad, so that we take our
broadcast stations off the air in order
that we will not have a beacon by which
enemy aircraft could find their way into
an area.
My question is this: If we grant the
reciprocal right to some 92 nations, or
whatever it may be, is there not a danger
that event though we take our radio sta-
tions off the air under the control, one
of these radio stations in some embassy
could be used as a homing beacon for
attack aircraft coming in against us?
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. BOW. will be delighted to yield
to the gentleman.
Mr. HARRIS. I cannot conceive of
approval being given under a reciprocal
arrangement here for a channel that
would be available for this particular
use. I suppose, as the gentleman very
well knows, that when you have a facility
Approved For Release 2004/05/12: CIA-RDP65600383R000200160008-7
1,9122 Approved For ReleaaVigaringAt-lifttWiliffigi00160008-7
tha Imes a particular channel and that
fac1ty is geared_ to that channel, the
ge, eraan,.k4OWS the practical situation
tha, .Certain other things can be used in
that particular channel other than just
sending mere words. From that stand-
point, I would say that possibly it could
be ao used, but I do not think It is possible
that it could be Under the very strict
monitoring provisions that we have and
have constantly utilized in this country.
There is a lot of concern about this, and
I can very well understand it.
Mr, BOW. This is my only concern.
I know there Is some need for these fa-
cilities because I know the $ituation, hav-
ing served on the Subcommittee on Ap-
propriations for the State Department.
But ,this does indicate concern that if
these facilities could be used as a hom-
ing beacon in case of enemy attack they
could find their way directly, set their
Instruments to get directly on target.
This question is a very serious situation.
Mr. HARRIS, If that is the only thing
that concerns the gentleman about this.
I would suggest that he really, the way I
see it, has no need for concern, because
if that is going to happen they are going
to set them up legally or illegally for
that ,purpose, and they are going to have
them in this country anyway. We know
that is going to be a fact.
Ur. BOW. Do I understand the gen-
tleman to say he feels there could be
illegal stations set up that we would
know about, and that we could get rid
of them?
Mr. HARRIS. Yes.
Mr. BOW. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. HARRIS. I do not think I want
to comment any further on that.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike out the requisite number of
Words.
(Mr. GROSS asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
Marks.)
Mr, GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I should
like to ask a question or two, for I have
very serious doubts about this legisla-
tion. Like the gentleman from Ohio
IM.r, Bowl I have no doubt that we need
to improve our communications system
throughout the world, but I question how
far we should go, if I may put it this
way, in legalizing the operation of any
kind of foreign radio transmitters in
Washington, D.C., or anywhere else in the
country, The gentleman Says that this
permission will not be given to unfriendly
Countries, that it will go Qnly to friendly
countries. I believe that was the gentle-
man's statement earlier today In this
debate. Is that correct?
Mr. HARRIS. That is not so stated in
the language of the bill, but with the
amendment the gentleman has here and
with the language of the bill on page 2
about the national interest it could have
no other interpretation.
Mr. GROSS. But we have unfriendly
embassies In this country. They are still
here despite the fact that we soinetlmes
question whether or not it is in the na-
tional security and interest to have them
here.
Mr. WILLTAiva Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. GROSS. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Of course, I would
agree with the gentleman on that and
I recognize that fact. But at the same
time, we need a listening post in these
other countries as much as we need one
In ours, and this is the only way we are
going to get it.
Mr. HARRIS. The important point
I want to make is that this is on a recip-
rocal basis.
Mr. WILLIAMS. That is correct.
Mr. GROSS. We are told, using this
designation of "friendly" and "un-
friendly", and on a basis of reciprocity
that, for example, the Soviets will not
have a transmitter nor do I assume will
any of the satellite countries have trans-
mitters in this country. Neither will we
have transmitters in those countries.
Yet, it seems to me the place where we
need transmitters most is in the un-
friendly capitals where we maintain
embassies. Now how are we curing our
lack of communications in those coun-
tries where we need the communications
the most, on the basis of this legislation?
Mr. WILLIAMS This is predicated en
the idea that if we are to get something,
we have to yield something and we break
even with them when we permit them
to put their radio transmitter here in
return for our radio being put up in their
country.
Mr. GROSS. But you say they will not
be permitted to have transmitters in
their embassies here?
Mr. WILLIAMS No; I did not say
that.
Mr. HARRIS. No; we were talking
about two countries here, and they were
Red China and Russia, and I was ex-
plaining why I did not think it would be
applicable insofar as those two countries
are concerned.
Mr. GROSS. Where does this Gov-
ernment need them any worse than in
the Soviet-dominated countries and their
satellites?
Mr. HARRIS. I do not suppose I can
say where we need them any worse, but
there is some limit to what we can give
up here in order to get that kind of
reciprocity.
Mr- GROSS. As I say. YOU are not
curing the communications problem that
you say you have.
Mr. HARRIS. But we could get
through to a good many places or a
number of places at least that we are
not getting through to today, which we
could get to by this arrangement.
Mr. GROSS. We have not yet been
given the price tag for this bill, but I
suspect that if a transmitter is located in
Ouagadougou, where they now have
people who seem to have little else to
do but decode and encode two or three
message a day, there will probably be
8 plus 8, or 16 or more employees. But
that is somewhat beside the point. I am
much more interested in the security of
the United States. That is the impor-
tant consideration.
Mr. HARRIS. There is a comment on
page 2 of the report. The Department
of State has developed a program con-
templating the installation over a period
of 10 years of facilities in as many as 92
September 21,
countries at a cost of from $5,000 to
$200,000 per station. The estimated to-
tal expenditure during this 10-year pe-
riod for these facilities, including the
first-year cost of operation, is estimated
to be approximately $23 million.
Mr. GROSS. In other words, the total
bill is estimated to be $23 million.
Mr. HARRIS. Yes.
Mr. GROSS. I wonder too, what we
are doing here authorizing the spending
of that kind of money when we are going
to have communication satellites, and
not just Telstar but other communica-
tion satellites, as I am sure the gentle-
man well knows.
Mr. HARRIS. It would be a private
corporation if it is set up. And if they
set up facilities where we have commer-
cial facilities available, then this will not
be required or needed.
Mr. GROSS. We are going to have
military communications satellites, the
gentleman knows that; does he not?
Mr. HARRIS. Yes.
Mr. GROSS. And we are going to have
them in the not too distant future.
Mr. HARRIS. We will not need this
kind of arrangement where military
communications are available.
Mr. GROSS. Is there any reason why
we cannot use the same military facilities
for coded messages from the embassies?
Mr. HARRIS. That is being done in
certain instances today.
Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in opposition to the pro forma amend-
ment.
Mr. Chairman, it is quite evident to
me from the many questions asked by
Members that there is deep concern
among the membership as to this legis-
lation. It seems to me that in a sense,
we may be legalizing espionage. The
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr.
HEMPHILL], in his additional views as
set out in the committee reports, says
that a low frequency station in Wash-
ington, D.C., could well communicate
with a spy ship just off the coast.
In spite of all the amendments and
restrictions we may adopt, how in the
world is our Government going to super-
vise or know what is going on between
an Embassy in Washington and a SPY
ship in the Atlantic? We might find
out to our regret what was going on
after it was too late. I do not know
how we can make this bill absolutely
foolproof. It seems to me we are tak-
ing some risk here and that the bill de-
serves more careful consideration. Per-
sonally, I think the bill should be recom-
mitted.
(Mr. HOEVEN asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise
In support of the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman
from Arkansas is recognized.
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, I
merely want to say that the committee
has done everything it could to bring
this matter to the attention of the House
and give the membership as full and
complete information as we could.
Approved For Release 2004/05/12 : CIA-RDF'65B00383R000200160008-7
1962 Approved FeblitvgispirWeraateDP21518H83R000200160008-7
The comrnittee, with the exception of
one or two members, is very convinced
as to the need for this legislation.
I support the amendment offered by
the gentleman from California. I be-
lieve that the amendment itself together
with the record make it very clear that
this responsibility lies not only with the
President himself, but that it is to be
invoked only when it is in the best in-
terest of our country. If we cannot de-
pend upon the President to take action
in the best interest of the country, I do
not know how to suggest you go about
it.
I believe there is ample protection of
our own security, and even though it is
a sensitive matter I think it behooves us
to not try to read something into it that
does not exist, but to recognize our re-
sponsibility to ourselves in an effort to
do what is best for our country by ap-
proving the amendment and adopting
the bill.
Mr. BRAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to
strike out the last word.
(Mr. BRAY asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. BRAY. Mr. Chairman, I think
there is no question but what this legis-
lation could work to the benefit of our
country if you could rely on the honor
and word of the Communist nations, but
you cannot do that. But, Mr. Chairman,
the fact is that not one single agree-
ment we have ever made with Rus-
sia or the Communists has ever worked
In our favor. The reason for this is that
we Americans play the game by one set
of rules, honesty, and straightforward-
ness; the Communists play it by an-
other set of rules entirely. To the Com-
munist lies and chicanery are ways of
life. The result is that no matter how
hard we stick by our accepted principles
the Russians will not. That has been
proven over the many years ever since
the first time we recognized Com-
munist Russia in 1933. Will we ever
learn?
I well remember in Korea at the end of
the war when we were directed by the
State Department to turn the Chickisua
building over to the Communists as a po-
litical headquarters. That building had
one the finest printing presses in all
Korea. Immediately they started mak-
ing counterfeit money and did a great
deal toward destroying the value of the
currency of that country. Such actions
have gone on over the years. This leg-
islation if it becomes law could play into
the hands of the Communists. I realize
that this legislation is intended to be
reciprocal but there can be no fair out-
come for us when you play the game by
one set of rules and the Communists play
the game by an entirely different set of
rules. Apparently our State Depart-
ment continues to trust the Russians.
I do not. I do not want Moscow or other
such countries to be able to set up a radio
station in Washington, even though our
State Department believes that they can
properly protect our interests in such a
station and that we can benefit by hav-
ing a station in Moscow.
No. 171-3
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentleman
from California [Mr. SMITH].
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. CRAMER: Page
2, line 16, after the word "Act", strike out
the period and quotation marks and insert
"Provided, however, That when such author-
ity involves a Communist nation or a nation
under Communist domination, such author-
ization shall be subject to the specific ap-
proval of the Foreign Affairs and Foreign
Relations Committees and the Interstate and
Foreign Commerce Committees of the House
and Senate, respectively."
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I think
the same problem is of concern to all of
us that has been expressed by those who
have some reservations as to this legis-
lation.
I was very much impressed with the
remarks made by someone in whom I
have a great deal of confidence, who has
considerable knowledge of our foreign
affairs that is not available to each
Member of the House. I refer to the
distinguished gentlewoman from Illinois,
[Mrs. CHURCH], when she observed that
the problem involved is what is quid and
what is quo. That is what I have at-
tempted to express in regard to this leg-
islation. It is the duty and the responi-
bility of the Congress to retain a review
over the authorization and the licenses
issued to these foreign governments that
have embassies in this country. They
involve Communist-dominated nations,
including the Soviet Union, that have
embassies in this country, and if they
ask for transmitters, the Congress of the
United States should reserve the right
to review what is quid and what is quo,
and what the Soviet-dominated nations
and the Soviet itself has agreed to do in
exchange, and what assurances we will
have that they are going to reciprocate.
I think the issue that has concerned
all of us involves the unfriendly nations,
Communist nations, Communist-domi-
nated nations. Can these transmitters
be used for the purpose of espionage?
We are concerned about making certain
no Communist message could be com-
municated between Washington, D.C.,
and Castro's government in Havana,
Cuba.
I have listened to the answers to these
questions, but I personally am not sat-
isfied it could be used by a government
that has shown it does not intend to live
up to its agreements, meaning Soviet
Russia. It has not lived up to its agree-
ments in the past. Berlin is a perfect
example of this. I think it is essential
in connection with any arrangement be-
tween Soviet-dominated countries and
the Soviet Union in this country, giving
their embassies in Washington the right
to transmit on a license given by this
Government, the Congress should retain
the power and right to review what
agreements have been entered into and
what assurance we have that our best
Interests are going to be served.
I am concerned about this bill. I have
given some thought as to how the Con-
19123
gress can be sure that in administratively
carrying this out, it is and will be in
the best interests of the United States.
I am not convinced if the administra-
tion of it lies exclusively in the State
Department, knowing its record of fail-
ures and inadequacies in Cuba, that their
decisions will be in the best interests of
the United States or, for that matter, for
the best interest of the free world.
In my opinion, this amendment would
do much to remove some of the questions
raised with regard to this by satisfying
and assuring us that in connection with
any such agreements entered into those
agreements will be in the best interests
of the free world.
I hope a quo will result from our per-
mitting a quid in the first place.
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in opposition to the amendment.
(Mr. HARRIS asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
[Mr. HARRIS addressed the Commit-
tee. His remarks will appear hereafter
in the Appendix.]
[Mr. YOUNGER addressed the Com-
mittee. His remarks will appear here-
after in the Appendix.]
Mr. COLLIER. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike out the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I take just a moment
to say that I think perhaps we may, in
the emotional feeling of our discussion
here, be losing sight of the fact that this
legislation is in fact an amendment to
the Federal Communications Act.
In reality it is necessary only because
we have an established act to cover
licensing communications and because it
is a wholly new concept. What is fur-
ther involved is nothing more than an
authority within the realm of this new
concept to enter into international nego-
tiations. What would undoubtedly hap-
pen in the performance, if this legisla-
tion is passed, is the same thing that
takes place in other types of interna-
tional negotiations wherein we nego-
tiate country by country to establish
these communications facilities. If it
were not necessary for us to do this
within the concepts of the existing Fed-
eral Communications Commission laws
we would not even be dealing with this
legislation today. The authority and the
power to engage in international nego-
tiations is already vested in the Execu-
tive subject to ratification by the Senate.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. COLLIER. I yield to the gentle-
man from Mississippi.
Mr. WILLIAMS. With respect to the
amendment that is before the House, I
would call the attention of the member-
ship to page 17 of the hearings in which
the gentleman from California [Mr.
YomrsER] asked Mr. Ball, the Under Sec-
retary of State, the following question:
Mr. YOUNGER. Are you willing to limit this
to friendly nations?
Mr. BALL. I would say we are willing to
limit this to the situation where our own
need for facilities is the overriding consider-
Approved For Release 2004/05/12 : CIA-RDP65600383R000200160008-7
a
19124 Approved For Retwter&ktiRR: aticiW5J3titleft000200160008-7September
ation, and where there would be a judg-
ment by the President that it was in the
national interest for us to have these fa
-
ditties in spite of any disadvantages there
might be for that country to have facilities
here. Those disadvantages, as appears from
- an examination of the problem?a very care-
ful one?are very slight indeed.
I think that in our discussion we are
possibly losing sight of the purpose of the
legislation. The problem is outlined on
page 2 of the committee report, as the
gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Moms)
Mentioned a moment ago, where it says:
The problem of establishing such com-
munications exists primarily in some of the
countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.
It does not exist in Western Europe or other
areas where up-to-date commercial commu-
nication systems are available.
It further points out:
This legislation will not create any secu-
rity problems, since the use Of these facili-
ties by foreign governments will not mate-
rially enhance their opportunity for trans-
mitting secret information as compared to
currently available commercial facilities and
pouch services.
In other words, for instance Russia
already has ample means of transmitting
Information outside of the United States.
Certainly the setting up of a low power
radio station under this program under
a reciprocal agreement would not en-
hance their opportunity for transmitting
any secret information.
Permit me to say as should be evident
from my votes in this body, that I take
a back seat to no one in my lack of con-
fidence in the State Department, and
I certainly have never been a rubber
stamp for the New Frontier. But here
they are asking for something, as I aro
sure the gentleman will agree, that is
definitely in the interest of the United
States of America. For that reason I
support it, notwithstanding the fact that
It may be advocated by the State De-
partment.
Mr. COLLIER. I thank the gentleman
for his contribution.
Mr. PUCINSIti. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike out the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the
amendment and support the bill, but I
take this time to establish two factors
of legislative history here. In view of
the statement of the gentleman from
Mississippi, are we then to understand
that it is the intent of this legislation
that the Government of the United States
will ribt permit or authorize the instal-
lation of any such radio facility in a
foreign embassy unless and until a recip-
rocal agreement has been reached and
we are permitted to install similar Amer-
ican facilities in our own Embassy lo-
cated in the country receiving this Privi-
lege from the United States? / want to
find out if this legislation means that no
such authority shall be given to a foreign
country until that country has unequi-
vocally given us similar authority?
Mr. WILLIAMS. That is absolutely
correct; as is provided by the condition
No. 2 which is imposed on the setting
up of these stations or these agreements
shown on page 2, line 5.
. PUCINSEI *Therefore, It is not
the intention of this legislation, for
Instance, to permit the Soviet Union to
establish a station here in their embassy
and then dangle us like a yo-yo for 3 or
4 years while they are debating and
studying whether or not they should give
us the same opportunity in Moscow? In
other words. I understand this legisla-
tion to mean that nothing gets moving
in this country in a foreign embassy
until the agreement has been nailed
down with the foreign country to permit
us to do the same thing in that foreign
country.. Do I understand the situation
correctly?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I think you do. The
language of the bill says, and one of
the conditions is, "where such foreign
government has provided reciprocal
privileges"?it does not say "agrees to
provide"?it says "has provided recipro-
cal privileges to the United States to
construct and operate radio stations,"
and so forth.
Mr. PUCINSKI. On that point also,
with reference to that very language
"where such foreign government has pro-
vided reciprocal privileges to the United
States to construct and operate radio
stations within territories subject to its
jurisdiction." Do I understand the lang-
uage "within territories subject to its
jurisdiction" to mean territories sub-
ject to the jurisdiction of the host
country and not to refer to the im-
mediate area of our own American em-
bassy in a foreign country?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I would think that
would be subject to the terms of the
agreement.
Mr. PUCItk/SKI. Do we understand
then that in the language "within ter-
ritories subject to the its" that the
word "its" here refers back to the host
country's jurisdiction and not our own
U.S. jurisdiction in a foreign country?
Do we understand that correctly?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, that is correct
as to the use of the word "its" on page
2. line 8.
Mr. PUCINSKI I thank the gentle-
man for his explanation.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Florida [Mr. CRAMER].
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. SCHADEBERG. Mr. Chairman, I
have profound respect for the judgment
of my colleague, Mrs. CHURCH from Illi-
nois. She has with complete frankness
suggested that we might well delay a
decision.
I have faith in my colleagues on the
Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce. I have no doubt that we all
have an interest in our security and the
preservation of our great Nation. In
the motion to recommit which I shall of-
fer, I certainly do not question the
loyalty or integrity of any one: Members
of this House; the administration; or
the State Department. loyalty or in-
tegrity is not the question.
We are dealing here with a very, very
serious matter. We are not dealing with
a mere toy. It is the future of people I
desire to protect and this desire demands
more than a mere hope that this legis-
lation is not damaging to our defense
or security.
Unless we here can be given complete
assurance that immediate action on this
matter is absolutely essential to our na-
tional security and delay would present
unreasonable risks to our security it is
our responsibility as representatives of
our people to delay action until the con-
vening of the 88th Congress.
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, I move
that the Committee now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly the Committee rose; and
the Speaker having resumed the chair,
Mr. BAILEY, Chairman of the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the
Union, reported that that Committee,
having had under consideration the bill
(H.R. 11732) to amend section 305 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amend-
ed, pursuant to House Resolution 779, he
reported the bill back to the House with
sundry amendments adopted in Com-
mittee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER. Under the rule, the
previous question is ordered. Is a sep-
arate vote demanded? If not, the Chair
will put them en gros.
The question is on agreeing to the
amendments.
The amendments were agreed to.
The SPEAKER The question is on
the engrossment and third reading of the
bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed
and read the third time, and was read the
third time.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
the passage of the bill.
Mr. SCHADEBERG. Mr. Speaker, I
offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER. Is the gentleman op-
posed to the bill?
Mr. SCHADEBERG. I am.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman
qualifies. The Clerk will report the
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. &BAMBERG moves to recommit the bill
H.R. 11732 to the House Committee on Inter-
state and Foreign Commerce.
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I move
the previous question on the motion to
recommit.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
the motion to recommit.
The question was taken and the Chair
announced that the noes appeared to
have it.
Mr. SCHADEBERG. Mr. Speaker, I
object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the
point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER. Evidently a quorum
Is not present.
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, a parlia-
mentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER The gentleman will
state it.
Mr, HARRIS. Is this a vote on the
motion to recommit or on passage?
The SPEAKER. This is a vote on the
motion to recommit.
Mr. HARRIS. I did not so under-
stand it. I understood the Chair to say
the motion had been rejected.
Approved For Release 2004/05/12 cIA-RDP65B00383R000200160008-7
1.96e ?
Approved 60008-7
The Si3E4KER. The vote is on the
motion of the gentleman from Wisconsin
to recommit the bill.
The Doorkeeper will close the doors,
the Sergeant at Arms will notify absent
Members, and the Clerk will call the roll.
The question was taken and there
were?yeas 95, nays 208, not voting 132,
as follows:
[Roll No. 244
Y,EAS-95
Alger Feighan McCulloch
Andersen, Findley Matthews
Minn. Ford May
Anderson, Ill. Garland Michel
Ashbrook Gavin Miller, N.Y.
Ayres -, Goodell Milliken
Baker Goodling Mosher
Baldwin Griffin Nygaard
Baring Gross O'Konski
Bell Gubser PeIly
Bennett, Fla. Hall Pillion
Berry Harrison, Wyo. Ray
Betts . Harsha Reece
Bolton Harvey, Mich. Rogers, Fla.
Bow Hemphill Roudebush
Bray Hiestand Rousselot
Brown Hoeven St. George
Bruce Hoffman, Ill. Saylor
Byrnes, Wis, Horan Schadeberg
Cederberg Hosmer Schenck
Chiperfleld Jensen Schneebeli
Church Johansen Schwengel
Clancy Jonas Shriver
Corbett . Kilburn Slier
Cramer King, N.Y. Teague, Calif.
Cunningham Knox Thomson, Wis.
Curtis, Mo. Kunkel Utt
Dague Kyl Van Pelt
Devine Laird Waggonner
Dole Langen Westland
Durno Lesinski Wharton
Ellsworth Lipscomb . Wilson, Calif.
NAYS-208
Abbitt Flynt Mailliard
Abernethy Forrester Marshal/
Addabbo Fountain Mathias
Alford Frazier Merrow
Andrews Friedel Miller,
Ashley Fulton George P.
Aspinall Gallagher Mills
Avery Gary Moeller
Bailey Gathings Monagan
Barry Giaimo Moorhead, Pa.
Bates Glenn Morgan
Beckworth Gonzalez Morrison
Belcher Granahan Moss
Boggs Grant Murphy
Boland Gray Murray
Bonner Green, Oreg. Natcher
Boykin Griffiths Nedzi
Brademas Hagen, Calif. Nelsen
Brewster Haley Nix
Brooks, Tex. Halpern O'Brien, N.Y.
Broomfield Harding O'Hara, Ill.
Broyhill Hardy O'Hara, Mich.
Burke, Mass, Harris Olsen
Burleson Healey O'Neill
Byrne, Pa. Hechler Osmers
Cahill Herlong Ostertag
Cannon Flolifleld '' Passman
Casey Holland Patman
Chamberlain Huddleston Perkins
Chelf Ichord, Mo. Peterson
Chenoweth Inouye Pfost
Clark Jennings Philbin
Coact JoeIson Pike
Collier Johnson, Calif. Poage
Colmer Johnson, Md. Poff
Conte Jones, Ala. Powell
Corman Jones, Mo. Price
Curtin Karsten Pucinski
Daddario Karth Purcell
Daniels Kastenmeier Quie
Davis, John W. Keith Rains
Davis, Tenn. Kilgore Randall
Delaney King, Calif. Reuss
Dent King, Utah Rhodes, Ariz
Dingell Kirwan Rhodes, Pa,
Donohue Kitchin Riehlman
Dowdy Kornegay Roberts, Ala.
Downing Lane Roberts, Tex.
Doyle Lankford Robison
Dialski Lennon Rodino
Dwyer Libonati Rogers, Tex.
Elliott McDowell Rooney
Everett McFall Rosenthal
Evins McMillan Rostenkowski
Fallon Macdonald Roush
Fame11 Mack Ryan, N.Y.
Fisher Madden St. Germain
Flood Mallon Schweiker
Scott
Selden
Sheppard
Shipley
Sisk
Slack
Smith, Calif.
Smith, Iowa
Stafford
Staggers
Stephens
Sullivan
Taylor Wallhauser
Teague, Tex. Walter
Thompson, Tex.Weaver
Toll Whitten
Tollefson Widnall
Trimble Williams
Tupper Willis
Udall, Morris K . Winstead
Ullman. Young
Vanik Younger
Van Zandt Zablocki
Vinson
NOT VOTING-132
Adair Gilbert Norblad
Albert Green, Pa. Norrell
Alexander Hagan, Ga, O'Brien, Ill:
Anfuso Halleck Filcher
Arends Hansen Pirie
Ashmore Harrison, Va. Reifel
Auchincloss Harvey, rnd. Riley
Barrett Hays Rivers, Alaska
Bass, N.H. Hebert Rivers, S.C.
Bass, Tenn, Henderson Rogers, Colo.
Battin Hoffman, Mich. Roosevelt
Becker Hull Rutherford
Beermann Jarman Ryan, Mich.
Bennett, Mich. Johnson, Wis. Santangelo
Blatnik Judd Saund
Mitch Kearns Scherer
Bolling Kee Scranton
Breeding Seely-Brown
Bromwell Shelley
Buckley Short
Burke, Ky. Sibal
Carey Sikes
CeIler Smith, Miss.
Smith, Va.
Spence
Springer
Steed
Stratton
Stubblefield
MacGregor Taber
Magnuson Thomas
Martin, Mass. Thompson, La,
Martin, Nebr. Thompson, N.J.
Mason Thornberry
Meader Tuck
Miller, Clem. Watts
Minshall Weis
Montoya Whalley
Moore Whitener
Moorehead, Wickersham
Ohio Wilson, hid.
Wright
Yates
Zelenko
Kelly
Keogh
Kluczynski
Kowalski
Landrum
Latta
Cohelan Lindsay
Cook Loser
Cooley McDonough
Curtis, Mass. McIntire
Davis, McSween
James C. McVey
Dawson
Denton
Derounian
Derwinski
Diggs
Dominick
Dooley
Darn
Edmondson
Farbstein
Fenton
Finnegan
Fino Morris
Fogarty Morse
Frelinghuysen Moulder
Garmatz Multer
So the motion was rejected.
The Clerk announced the following
pairs:
On this vote:
Mr. Moorehead of Ohio for, with Mr. He-
bert against.
Mr. Bromwell for, with Mr. Derounian.
against.
Mr. Beermann for, with Mr. Becker against.
Mr. Hoffman of Michigan for, with Mr.
Frelinghuysen against.
Mr. Taber for, with Mr. Morse against.
Mr. Mason for, with Mr. Auchincloss
against.
Mr. Short for, with Mr. Keogh against.
Mr. Reifel for, with Mr. Rivers of Alaska
against.
Mr. Adair for, with Mr. Garmatz against.
Mr. Harvey of Indiana for, with Mr.
Thompson of Louisiana against.
Mr. Martin of Nebraska for, with Mr. Sikes
against.
Mr. Latta for, with Mr. Spence against.
Mr. Scherer for, with Mr. Blatnik against.
Until further notice:
Mr. Rutherford with Mrs. Weiss,
Mr. Rogers of Colorado with Mr. Springer.
Mr. Roosevelt with Mr. Fino.
Mr. Hagan of Georgia with Mr. Dominick.
Mr. O'Brien of Illinois with Mr. Curtis of
Massachusetts.
Mr. Clem Miller with Mr. Bennett of
Michigan.
Mr. Tuck with Mr. MacGregor.
Mr. Johnson of Wisconsin with Mr.
Pirnie.
Mr. Ashmore with Mr. Judd.
Mr. Alexander with Mr. avIartin of Massa-
chusetts.
19125
Mr. Kluczynski with Mr. Battin.
Mr. Breeding with Mr. McIntire.
Mr. Loser with Mr. Wilson of Indiana.
Mr. Burke of Kentucky with Mr. McDon-
ough,
Mr. Cohelan with Mr. Lindsay.
Mr. Montoya with Mr. Meader.
Mr. Morris with Mr. Scranton.
Mr. Dorn with Mr. Norblad,
Mr. Pilcher with Mr. Minshall.
Mr. Fogarty with Mr. Sibal.
Mr. Ryan of Michigan with Mr. Derwinski.
Mr. Green of Pennsylvania with Mr.
Moore,
Mr. Barrett with Mr. Kearns.
Mr. Henderson with Mr. Bass of New
Hampshire.
Mr. Shelley with Mr. Fenton.
? Mr. Santangelo with Mr. Dooley.
Mr. Thompson of New Jersey with Mr.
Seely-Brown.
Mr. Hull with Mr. McVey.
Mr.
"yea"
Mr.
"yea"
Mr.
"yea"
Mr.
"yea"
FASCELL changed his vote from
to "nay."
POWELL changed his vote from
to nay."
HARDY changed his vote from
to "nay."
GLENN changed his vote from
to "nay."
The result of the vote was announced
as above recorded.
The doors were opened.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
the passage of the bill.
The bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND
FOREIGN COMMERCE
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous content that the Committee
on Interstate and Foreign Commerce
may have until midnight tomorrow to
file a report on HR. 11851.
The SPEAKER. Without objection, it
is so ordered.
There was no objection.
FURTHER MESSAGE FROM THE
SENATE
A further message from the Senate
by Mr. McGown, one of its clerks, an-
nounced that the Senate agrees to the
report of the committee of confTrence
on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses on the amendments of the Sen-
ate to the bill (H.R. 8134) entitled "An
act to authorize the sale of the Mineral
estate in certain lands."
The message also announced that the
Senate agrees to the report of the com-
mittee of conference on the disagreeing
votes of the two Houses on the amend-
ments of the Senate to the bill (HR.
10566) entitled "An act to provide for
the withdrawal and orderly disposition
of mineral interests in certain public
lands in Pima County, Ariz."
The message also announced that the
Senate agrees to the amendment of the
House to the texts of the bill (S. 507) en-
titled "An act to set aside certain lands
in Washington for Indians of the Quin-
aielt Tribe," with an amendment as fol-
lows: In the House engrossed amend-
ment, strike out section 2 and insert in
lieu thereof the following:
SEC. 2. The Indian Claims Commission is
directed to determine in accordance with
Approved For Release 2004/05/12: CIA-RDP65600383R000200160008-7
Approved For Release 2004/05/12.: CIA-RPP6513,0038&R000200160008-7
19126 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? 110tISE September 21,.
the provisions of section 2 of the Act of
August 13, 1946 (60 Stat. 1050), the extent
to "Mich the value of the title conveyed by
this Act' aim= -or should not be set off
against 'ail Maim against the United States
determined by the Commission.
CORRECTION OF ROLLCALL
Mr. WESTLAND. Mr. Spdaker, on
rolLeall No. 236 I am recorded as absent.
I wag Present and answered to my name
and ask unanimous consent that the
RECORD and Journal be corrected accord-
ingly.
The SPEAKER. Without objection,
It is so ordered.
There was no objection.
COMMITTE'E ON APPROPRIATIONS
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that the Committee
on Appropriations tnay have permission
during the remaining days of the session
to include the cuttomary tabulations
showing the up-to-date status of the
appropriation bills as they are processed.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Mis-
souri?
There was no objection.
LEGISLA rive, PROGRAM FOR WEEK
- OF SEPTEMBER 24
Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. Speaker, / ask
Unanimous donsent to proceed for 1
Minute to ask the majority whip if he
can announce the program for next
week.
, The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from
Iowa?
There was no objection.
Mr. BOGGS. Mr. Speaker, Monday
the first order of business will be House
Joint Resolution 224, active duty for cer-
tain Armed Forces Reserves, with 2
hours of debate.
That will be followed by District Day.
and there are 15 bills on the District
Calendar, as follows:
2795: Insignia of detective and col-
lection agencies.
S. 451: Contracts approval.
S. 2077: Policies of group life insur-
ance, credit unions.
an, 12417: Small claims court.
ma 12690: Insurance companies, in-
vestments of funds.
H. Res. 799: Provide for a statue, "the
Maine Lobsterman."
H.R. 17964: Registered nurse, mini-
MUM-age limitation.
8. 2193: testoration operators' per-
mits, assesS reasonable fees.
HR. 10319: Compensation adjust-
ments, certain police and firemen.
Et. 914: Public Assistance Act of 1961.
Res. 854: Restoration of Belasco
Theater as a Municipal Theater.
ILI Res. 665: Theaters, anticlemoli-
tion bill.
H.R. 13163: Redevelopment Act
amendments of 1962.
S. 1291: Increase the fees of learners'
permits.
11.1rt. 8738: Amend Life Insurance Act.
COUcur in Senate amendments.
Per Tuesday and the balance of the
week, the conference report on the bill
HR. 10, Self-Employed Individuals Tax
Retirement Act of 1961.
IS. 320: Conference report?Registra-
tion of State certificates, Interstate Com-
merce Act.
House 'Resolution 801: To take HR.
7283, War Clalms'Act of 1948, as amend-
ed, from the Speaker's table and send to
conference.
House Joint Resolution 886: Express-
ing the concern of the United States rel-
ative to Cuba. Three hours of debate.
S. 1123: Child labor provisions, Fair
Labor Standards Act. One hour of de-
bate,
Conference reports, of course, may be
brought up at any time and any further
program Will be announced later.
Mr. AVERY. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. BOGGS. I yield.
Mr. AVERY. I wondered if the dis-
tinguished majority whip could make
any announcement as to the expectation
of the leadership as to our being able to
finish congressional business next week.
Mr. BOGGS. I presume I can speak
only for myself. but I would be sur-
prised if we finished next week. We will
try to do so.
Mr. AVERY. If the gentleman will
yield further, I do not want to place
words in his mouth, but is he saying that
it appears we are not going to finish
next week?
Mr. BOGGS. Let us put it that way.
Mr. AVERY. I appreciate the gentle-
man's expression.
Mr. GAVIN. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. BOGGS. I yield.
Mr. GAVIN. What time are we ex-
pected to come in on Monday?
Mr. BOGGS. At 12 o'clock.
CALENDAR WEDNESDAY BUSINESS
DISPENSED WITH
Mr. BOGGS. Mr. Speaker. I ask
unanimous consent to dispense with
business in order on Calendar Wednes-
day next week.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Lou-
isiana?
There was no objection.
ADJOURNMENT TO MONDAY,
SEPTEMBER 24
Mr. BOGGS. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that when the House
adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 12
o'clock noon on Monday next.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Speaker. will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. BOGGS. I yield.
Mr. WILLIAMS. As the gentleman
knows, the Committee on Interstate and
Foreign Commerce is favorably consider-
ing a rather complicated drug bill which
Is in line, I believe, with the President's
program. In all probability the commit-
tee will report that bill within the next
3 or 4 days. Can the gentleman give us
some indication of when that bill might
be scheduled for consideration in the
House? I realize the gentleman cannot
be specific, but can he give me an edu-
cated guess?
Mr. BOGGS, I would think first it
would depend on when the distinguished
gentleman's committee reports the bill.
If it is reported in time and the com-
mittee gets a rule in time we may be
able to consider it next week.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I thank the gentle-
man.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from
Louisiana asks unanimous consent that
when the House adjourns today it ad-
journ to meet at 12 o'clock noon on Mon-
day next. Is there objection?
There was no objection.
CORRECTION OF ROLLCALL
Mr. NYGAARD. Mr. Speaker, on roll-
call No. 236, I am recorded as not being
present. I was here and answered to
my name, and I ask unanimous consent
that the RECORD be corrected accordingly.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from North
Dakota?
There was no objection.
CORRECTION OF RECORD
Mr. KUNKEL. Mr. Speaker, on page
19019 of the RECORD, it is recorded that
I stated the Western Union Co. said
$18,000. That is an error. It should be
"about $13,000."
I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker,
that the RECORD be corrected accord-
ingly.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Penn-
sylvania?
There was no objection,
RELIEF FOR RESIDENTIAL OCCU-
PANTS OF UNPATENTED MINING
CLAIMS
Mr. ASPINALL Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to take from the
Speaker's table the bill (S. 3451) to pro-
vide relief for residential occupants of
unpatented mai"ng claims upon which
valuable improvements have been placed,
and for other purposes, with a House
amendment thereto, insist on the House
amendment, and agree to the conference
asked by the Senate.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Colo-
rado?
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, reserving
the right to object, I wonder if the gen-
tleman from Michigan [Mr. DINGELL)
has removed his objection to this bill.
Mr. ASPINALL. The gentleman from
Colorado now states that after consulta-
tion with the gentleman from Michigan
[Mr. DINGELL], within 30 minutes, at
which time I asked the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. D/NOELL) to be on the
floor. The gentleman from Michigan
[Mr. DINGELL) said he had no further
opposition to the appointment of con-
ferees.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, I with-
draw my reservation of objection.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Col-
orado? The Chair hears none and ap-
points the following conferees: Mrs.
Prosy and MeSSD/S. BARING, JOHNSON .Of
California, SAYLOR, and CUNNINGFIAM.
Approved For Release 2004/05112 : CIA-RDP65600383R000200160008-7
Approved For Release 2004/05/12 : CIA-RDP65600383R000200160008-7
9'.24V61._
MEMORANDUM FOR: THE DIRECTOR
Attached are extracts from the Conplassional
Record containing the House floor debate on the
amendment to the CommunicatioreAct to provide
for reciprocity with foreign countries in the
establishment of radio transmitters in Embassies.
The bill was approved. The Senate Foreign
Relations Committee reported out the Senate
version of this bill with a recommendation that
it also be referred to the Senate Commerce
Committee. Cornmerece Committee has held
hearings but has taken no action on the Senate
bill. The Chairman, Senator Magnuson, does
not plan to have any further meetings of his
Committee in this session. However, Senator
Pastore plans to ask Magnuson's permission
to poll the members of the Committee in an
effort to bring the House bill up for a vote on
the Senate floor.
Lbc
OHN p. 'WARNER
!.,
egisiative Counsel
25 September 1962
(DATE)
FORM NO. 10 1 REPLACES FORM 10-101
1 AUG 54 WHICH MAY BE USED.
(47)
Approved For Release 2004/05/12 : CIA-RDP65600383R000200160008-7