Government during World War I. We mention this to show the potentialities of foreign money in financing revolutionary movements. If it could be done in Russia with German money, why can it not be done with Russian money in the United States? The diversion of large sums of money from Soviet sources could be used to affect at least two critical situations in the United States. Our most sensitive domestic problem is the Negro in the South. The evidence shows that Moscow is eager to fish in these troubled waters. Political Affairs, official theoretical organ of the CPUSA, considers in its January 1959 issue, what it describes as "the critical domestic issue of the day." It boasts that "in 1958 almost a hundred Negroes visited the Soviet Union." It relates that the following "outstanding American Negro internationalists and Marxists" attended the Accra conference in Africa in December 1957, which resounded to Soviet appeals for peaceful coexistence and condemnation of American imperialism and colonialism: Alphaeus Hunton, W. E. B. DuBois, Shirley Graham DuBois, Paul Robeson, Eslanda Robeson, James E. Jackson, Jr., Communist organizer for Negro affairs, is presently in Moscow. He was the first American ever to address a congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. An article by Jackson has been featured in the Moscow Pravda. The largest single item in our Federal budget is national defense against Soviet aggression. The report described herein shows the efforts being made by Harry Bridges and James E. Hoffa, toward a monopolistic alliance in the field of transportation, which might be used to cripple our supply lines. The presence of Harry Bridges in Moscow at this time is of superior significance. The recital of this record makes it obvious that the United States is in the center of a net of Communist and Communist-infiltrated countries dominated by the Kremlin conspirators and that the drawstrings are being hauled tighter and tighter. It is therefore necessary that the Internal Security Subcommittee keep abreast of Communist moves abroad in order that it may discern changes in Communist methods and be alerted to American participants in Communist strategy a matter of more than passing concern now that American Communists may travel to Moscow or elsewhere at will. It is the duty of the Internal Security Subcommittee, under its mandate from the Senate, to ascertain facts and to inform the Congress of Communist efforts to overthrow the Government of the United States and to recommend legislation or other means to counter those threats. During the past 2 years the Supreme Court has ruled that much of the protective legislation enacted in the past is ineffective. The subcommittee, therefore, has given much of its time to an effort to repair deficiencies pointed out by the Court. There has been no figure come forward from among those who were reported to have left the party after Khrushchev's exposé of the Stalin regime nearly 2 years ago who was willing to testify against the conspiracy. The subcommittee has found that, generally, about 3 years elapses between a break with the party and a time when a dissident can disentangle himself emotionally from his past sufficiently to testify aginst the conspiracy. Neither has there been in recent years any defection of an important Soviet official or agent comparable to Gouzenko, Petrov, and Rast vorov. The subcommittee has, however, added certain testimony to its record of Communist activities in the United States, especially in the field of mass communications and on the passport problem. Some witnesses during the past year arrogantly attempted to take advantage of the recent Supreme Court decisions and refused to answer many of the subcommittee's questions, challenging the subcommittee's jurisdiction, questioning the pertinency of various lines of inquiry, and raising the question of privacy. SECTION I THE FACTS, AND THEN THE LAWS Since its inception, the Internal Security Subcommittee has been an industrious gatherer of facts leading to significant and needed legislation. The many important improvements in our body of laws brought about, at least in part, by the work of the subcommittee, is a matter of well-documented public record. Despite this fact, we often hear the specious charge that the subcommittee's work does not serve a valid legislative purpose. The source of this attack is not hard to trace. Because of the very nature of its work, the subcommittee has been the subject of attacks, often vicious, from certain sourcesmostly unfriendly witnesses, their associates and supporters. To give a clear picture of the subcommittee's legislative accomplishments, the Legislative Reference Service of the Library of Congress was asked to prepare a document which subsequently was published under the title "Legislative Recommendations of the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee and Subsequent Action Taken by the Congress and Executive Agencies." The study showed that recommendations of the subcommittee from 1951 through 1957 have been implemented by 24 laws. In addition to legislation, the document shows that the subcommittee's recommendations have resulted in 48 new or changed regulations by administrative or executive agencies, in further action by this and other committees and by the introduction of numerous bills which have not yet been translated into law. In addition to those which became law, several were approved by one House or the other, and two were passed by both Houses. One of these failed of agreement in conference, the other was vetoed. In the foreword to the printed study, Chairman Eastland pointed out that on not infrequent occasions we have concluded, after investi- Chairman Eastland also said that the subcommittee's continuing study of the internal security of this Nation has In 1958, to a greater extent than usual, the subcommittee was occupied with studies of legislation. 2 It was engaged, during a substantial part of its time, with analyses of the several pending proposals to restore antisubversion statutes to an effective status. On February 3, Senator James O. Eastland, as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, ordered full public hearings before the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee on S. 2646, and published a formal notice in the Congressional Record, advising all who wished to be heard that an opportunity would be afforded them but that the hearings must be completed by March 10. This bill, introduced by Senator William E. Jenner, proposed to cure the troublesome problems of enforcement of subversive controls, which had resulted from a series of Supreme Court decisions, through limitation of the appellate jurisdiction of the high court in five fields. These were (1) with respect to the investigative powers of Congress; (2) with respect to the security program of the executive branch of the Federal Government; (3) with respect to State antisubversive legislation; (4) with respect to home rule over local schools; and (5) with respect to the admission of persons to the practice of law within individual States. 5. Hearings were begun on February 19 and continued through March Oral testimony was received from 53 persons and 38 statements were placed in the record. During and for many weeks following the hearings, thousands of communications regarding the issues raised by the bill were received by the chairman, by Senator Jenner and other committee members, by the Judiciary Committee, and by the subcommittee. These were examined by the subcommittee staff and many of those received during the formal hearings were printed with various pertinent documents in the record, which became a volume of 1,084 printed pages. Discussions on the Jenner bill, and on alternative proposals by Senator John Marshall Butler and others, continued in the Judiciary Committee and on the Senate floor throughout the remainder of the session. An amended bill was reported favorably from the subcommittee on April 30 and from the full committee on May 15. On August 20 a motion by Senator Jenner to add a modified version of his bill to a House-approved measure before the Senate was defeated 49 to 41 and S. 2646 remained on the Senate Calendar without action at the time of adjournment 4 days later. The bill S. 654 by Senator Bridges and others to authorize tho enforcement of State antisubversive statutes was processed by the subcommittee and reported to the Senate by the full committee on August 5 with an amendment. On August 21, 3 days before adjournment, it was recommitted by the Senate to the Judiciary Committee on a vote of 41 to 40. The Internal Security Subcommittee also processed S. 337, by Senator McClellan and others, which sought to establish rules of interpretation governing questions of the effect of acts of Congress on State laws. The bill was reported to the Senate on August 6 but no action was taken there. Besides its work on legislation, the subcommittee held 7 public hearings in which testimony was taken from 21 witnesses. It heard 18 witnesses in executive sessions and the staff interviewed 179 persons in preparation for these and future hearings, Five research documents were published by the subcommittee during the year. Subjects of these ranged from the current status of Hungarian refugees to Soviet treatment of the hundreds of ethnic groups which make up its population. Titles of the documents are: Studies: Communist Passport Frauds. Legislative Recommendations and Action Thereon. The Soviet Empire: Prison House of Nations and Races. Proposed Alliance of Transportation Union. Hearings: An American Prisoner in Communist East Germany, hearing held July 15. Communism in Labor, hearing held May 29. Communist Activity in Mass Communications, part 1, hearing held August 12. Communist Activity in Mass Communications, part 2, hearing held September 23. Communist Activity in Mass Communications, part 3, hearing Communist Use and Abuse of Passports, part 1, hearing held Communist Use and Abuse of Passports, part 2, hearing held Limitation of Appellate Jurisdiction of U.S. Supreme Court on |