Mr. MONAGAN. You don't think they are patriotic in arriving at the policies that they have arrived at?

Mr. SCRANTON. I am not questioning the patriotism of the people in the State Department.

Mr. MONAGAN. Then just what is it that you say

Mr. SCRANTON. I think primarily they have inhibitions on this because of the fact that they are and have to deal with the regular governments all the time.

a

Consequently, I have not seen any real effort on the part of our Government to create policy and to effectuate one which would do what I consider to be the maximum job possible in using what I feel is a very strong right arm that we have against our Communist opponents in this psychopolitical field.

Mr. MONAGAN. I think we are all agreed on the strength of our support.

Assume that you were in charge in the State Department and the slate had been wiped clean and you are there without any inhibitions, what would you do that isn't being done?

Mr. SCRANTON. I don't think they should do them in the State Department, which is the reason I think

Mr. MONAGAN. What should the Government do?

Mr. SCRANTON. First of all, I think it should collect as much information as possible from the people that are here or come in or out of the captive nations, as they go in and out of them, about the conditions there, and particularly with regard to the feeling for independence and freedom.

Mr. MONAGAN. You don't think they are getting that information now?

Mr. SCRANTON. Not to the degree that I think is possible.

Secondly, I feel that such a committee could make suggestions on policy which in itself would start the agencies of our Government, primarily the State Department, thinking in slightly different terms than they are presently thinking with regard to this, after the committee has obtained such information and has come to a conclusion that certain things could be done.

There are innumerable contacts with people and groups behind the Iron Curtain that I frankly believe are being left unespoused, not completely but certainly not to the degree that they should be because of this inhibition.

This doesn't mean that you start a war. It means that you simply keep up the interest there of their desire for freedom.

This has particularly come to my attention because of people in our own area who have come up with schemes and thoughts and presented them to the regular agencies of the Government, and I won't say they have been ignored but they certainly have not received-as I explained to Mrs. Kelly-the kind of attention that I think they might merit. We have a very strong tool here. If we ever needed any indication as to how strong this is, it seems to me it was clearly demonstrated in the reports of the Khrushchev visit here and how he blew sky high so many times on this subject in private conversations and publicly.

The result is that they are using, it seems to me, a cry of imperialism and colonialism against us and our Western friends to a very great degree in countries where it is most effective, and in turn we are not coming back anywhere near to the degree that I think we have the opportunity to do. I think the Government needs pin-pricking on this subject.

Mr. MONAGAN. That may very well be.

Mrs. KELLY. I feel I must make a few statements or further question. I find myself, Mr. Chairman, in many instances in too much agreement with Mr. Scranton. I feel we have failed in this area. I agree with him.

Also, I feel that possibly I have been negligent as chairman of the Subcommittee on Europe in not having a more active subcommittee on the captive nations. However, I do say that with the establishment of your committee we are going to do that.

But we must prick the chairman a little bit and get more staff members, more investigators, so that as I would like to say to the very able witness that we will not be oriented to the State Department, which I would like to sever completely.

As far as the policy

Mr. MONAGAN. Mr. Scranton has never attended any of the hearings of the Foreign Affairs Committee where witnesses from the State Department have been testifying.

Mr. SCRANTON. No; except when I was in the Department. Mrs. KELLY. Do you agree, Mr. Scranton, that at one time there was a containment policy and then there was a liberation policy, and then there was a coexistence policy, and now to a degree there is one of

evolution

Mr. SCRANTON. There seems to be.

Mrs. KELLY. There were these four policies from time to time.

Mr. SCRANTON. It is awfully difficult for me to ascertain precisely what our policy is.

Mrs. KELLY. Those were the four names going which referred to a policy? Mr. SCRANTON. Yes.

Mrs. KELLY. I agree with you also that these people can be a "tool for a great deal of good."

My question on this is that we have endeavored-and I say "we," meaning the State Department and particularly the people themselves to maintain very close association with one another, to be very well organized in their different groups and to stay that way in order that at a later time they may return to their country. They will be needed when their countries are again free.

I think we ought to establish that point, Mr. Chairman, to what degree they have kept their organization, to what degree they are improving their position here, so that they could return if and when necessary, whether militarily or in whatever way they can assume responsibility for their people.

I would like to know how many have requested American citizenship after they have been here?

Mr. MONAGAN. We will ask the staff to make note of that.
Mrs. KELLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MONAGAN. They can supply that information for the record.

87355-62-14

(The information requested was subsequently secured from the Immigration and Naturalization Service and supplied for the record, as follows:)

The first column in the following table shows the number of immigrants who have been admitted to the United States, by country of birth, from July 1, 1945, through December 31, 1961. In the second column is shown the number of immigrants admitted during the same period who have been naturalized, and in the third column the percent who have been naturalized.

Since applications for naturalization are not tabulated by country, the table shows persons naturalized, rather than those who applied for naturalization.

The number of immigrants admitted in calendar year 1961 who were born in Latvia was 259. By country of last residence the number was 50, so that over 200 must have escaped in some prior year.

In addition to the immigrants admitted as shown in the table, the following numbers of persons have been paroled into the United States through June 30, 1962, as refugee-escapees under the act of July 14, 1960: Albania, 326; Bulgaria, 149; Czechoslovakia, 4; Estonia, 11, Hungary, 1,001; Latvia, 50; Lithuania, 39; Poland, 735; and Rumania, 1,224.

Immigrants admitted from specified countries, and the number of such immigrants naturalized, July 1, 1945-Dec. 31, 1961

Mr. MONAGAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Scranton. We appreciate having you with us and giving us the benefit of your experience and thinking on this very important subject.

Mr. SORANTON. I appreciate the opportunity to do so. Thank you very much.

Mrs. Kelly, I don't want you or anybody else to get the impression that I don't think that the House Foreign Affairs Committee and your subcommittee is competent, ma'am. I am very much in favor of the committee and the personnel on it.

I think I tried to make myself clear why I thought an independent committee would be helpful. This is meant as no aspersion on you, ma'am, or

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. We regret that you are not going to stay in the House long enough

Mr. SCRANTON. That is certainly no disaster for the Nation. Mr. MONAGAN. We are happy to have with us Mr. Bruno Albats, who is secretary general of the American Latvian Association. Mr. Albats, we welcome you and will be glad to hear from you. Do you have a prepared statement?

STATEMENT OF BRUNO ALBATS, SECRETARY GENERAL, AMERICAN

LATVIAN ASSOCIATION

Mr. ALBATS. Mr. Chairman, madam, members of the committee, I have a prepared statement. My statement is relatively brief. It is in the nature of a summary. Perhaps I would be permitted to read it.

Mr. MONAGAN. We would like to have a brief biographical sketch for the record. Would you just begin by telling us a little of your background, and then proceed with the statement.

Mr. ALBATS. My name is Bruno Albats. I have now lived here 13 years. I am secretary general of the American Latvian Association.

I graduated from the University of Riga, Latvia, Law School, and now I am working in the United States with the American Latvian Association.

Mr. MONAGAN. After your graduation from law school?

Mr. ALBATS. I became a judge of the magistrate court. I graduated in 1934 from law school.

Mr. MONAGAN. And you became a judge.

Mr. ALBATS. A judge in Latvia.

Mr. MONAGAN. When was that?

Mr. ALBATS. After graduation, after some 2 years' preparation. Mr. MONAGAN. I didn't know whether you meant you became a

judge right after graduation.

Mr. ALBATS. Not immediately, but after a couple of years.

Mr. MONAGAN. Then you served as a judge until you left the country?

Mr. ALBATS. In Riga, yes. Until the occupation by the Communists.

Mr. MONAGAN. How did you leave the country?

Mr. ALBATS. I escaped from the Communists because in 1941 my father, who was Ambassador to the Vatican from Latvia, was deported to Siberia and two of my brothers killed, and myself and my wife and small child escaped to Germany and until 1949 were in the American zone in Germany, displaced persons camp.

After that I emigrated to the United States and became in 1955 an American citizen.

Mr. MONAGAN. Thank you very much.

You may proceed with your statement.

Mr. ALBATS. One of the main objectives of the American Latvian Association, which was established in 1951, is to support the Government of the United States of America in its struggle against communism and totalitarianism, and in its efforts to safeguard the rights and freedoms of nations and individuals, especially to further the aspirations of the Latvian people toward the restoration of freedom and independence.

The American Latvian Association represents more than 170 local Latvian societies and church groups from all part of the United States. Their members are, in the main, American citizens of Latvian descent and origin.

The following observations are based on my experience and knowledge of communism, acquired in Latvia, in Europe during and after World War II, and in my work as secretary general of the American Latvian Association for the past 11 years.

The sources of the facts and studies which form the basis of my assertions are the Communist press, radio broadcasts, and escapees from Latvia the latter are, of course, few in number, but there are some. I have knowledge of the general character of the situation, especially of Latvia and the other Baltic States.

It is well known that the three independent Baltic States of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, were forcibly overrun by the U.S.S.R. in June 1940. After the purging of the legitimate Baltic governments, farcical elections, mass deportations, tortures, and executions, the three states were brutally incorporated into the U.S.S.R.

This act of incorporation has not, of course, been recognized as legitimate by the Government of the United States of America.

The frightful pattern of Soviet aggression strategy has been sufficiently well documented and reported that it is unnecessary for me to repeat here the nature of these horrors.

A recent tendency has been observed in some circles of the free

com

world, which candidly espouse espouses the belief that international munism has taken on a "softer" nature, that violence, fear, and cruelty do not play the part in this changed communism that they did in Stalin's regime.

During Khrushchev's turbulent experience in 1953 in East Germany and 1956 in Hungary, a lessening of oppression was, perhaps, a fact, but when Khrushchev again gained full control, such moderateness was neither necessity nor fact. The aggressive designs of communism, and its implements of deceit, fraud, and oppression have in no way changed.

It is hard to understand what the alleged "softening" of Khrushchev's approach in the captive nations could refer to except a clever point of propaganda. Most certainly the lives and freedoms of Latvians in Latvia have experienced none of this.

What is "a turn for the better" where at this moment there is no freedom of election, speech, press, or association; no freedom of movement within the country, and none out of it; no freedom of religion; and where strict police control insures that these freedoms not be assumed?

An especially instructive fact is the question of religious freedom. Here, Khrushchev represents an immeasurably more destructive and hostile force than Stalin. The closing of numerous churches, and the persecution and harassment of ministers are consistently more frequent occurrences in Latvia.

For instance, the archbishop's cathedral in Riga has been turned into a museum, and a Baptist church in the vicinity of Riga into a radio station.

Previously clergy could go and preach in different parishes, but now they can do so only in their own parishes. The same applies to the choirs. Previously some Baptist parishes had very well-known choirs. They were invited to participate in religious ceremonies in many parts of the country, but now it is forbidden. They can only appear in their own parishes.

Communists are trying also to abolish in Latvia many religious ceremonies, such as funerals, confirmations, and weddings, and have