AMENDMENT TO ACT OF AUGUST 26,1950, RELATING TO THE SUSPENSION OF EMPLOYMENT OF CIVILIAN PERSONNEL OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE INTEREST OF NATIONAL SECURITY

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP60-00321R000300100004-4
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 17
• Document Creation Date: December 23, 2016
• Document Release Date: February 5, 2014
• Sequence Number: 4
• Publication Date: July 10, 1958
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/02/05: CIA-RDP60-00321R000300100004-4
4
12180 CONGRESSIONAL' RECORD ? HOUSE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The
question is on the passage of the bill.
The bill was passed.
The title was amended to read: "Joint
resolution to improve the administration
of justice by authorizing the Judicial
Conference of the United States to es-
tablish institutes and joint councils on
sentencing, to provide additional meth-
ods of sentencing, and for other pur-
poses."
A motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
AMENDMENT TO ACT OF AUGUST 26,
1950, RELATING TO SUSPENSION
OF EMPLOYMENT OF CIVILIAN
PERSONNEL OF THE UNITED
STATES IN THE INTEREST OF
NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr. COLMER. Mr. Speaker, by di-
rection of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 624 and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read as follows:
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 (S.
1411) to amend the act of August 26, 1950,
relating to the suspension of employment of
civilian personnel of the United States in
the interest of national security. After gen-
eral debate, which shall be confined to the
bill and continue not to exceed one hour, to
be equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority Member of
the Committee on Post Office and Civil Serv-
ice, the bill shall be read for amendment
under the 5-minute rule. At the conclusion
of the consideration of the bill for amend-
ment, the Committee 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 without intervening motion except
one motion to recommit.
Mr. COLMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield
the usual 30 minutes to the gentleman
from Ohio [Mr. BRowiq] and pending
that I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 624
makes in order the consideration of S.
1411, a bill relating to the suspension of
Federal employees for security reasons.
The Resolution provides for an open rule
and one hour of general debate.
By the action of the Supreme Court
in the case of Cole versus Young, the
operation of the Government's security
program has been drastically limited in-
asmuch as it was held in the majority
opinion of the Court that it was not the
Intent of Congress that Public Law 733
of the 81st Congress, the existing secu-
rity law, be extended to nonsensitive po-
sitions. This means that since this de-
cision was handed down the government
has had no effective way of removing
disloyal employees from 80 percent of
the positions in the government which
-come under this nonsensitive category.
S. 1411, as amended by the House Post
Office and Civil Service Committee, pro-
vides that all employees of any depart-
ment or agency of the government are
deemed to be employed in an activity in-
volving national security. It also pro-
vides that the head of any department
or agency may, in his discretion, suspend
the employment of any employee when
he deems it necessary in the interest of
national security. However, the depart-
ment or agency head is not required to
suspend an employee prior to the final
disposition of his case. In either event,
employees have certain safeguards for
their protection. An employee is en-
titled, under the provisions of the bill, to
a written statement of the charges
against him, an opportunity to answer
the charges, a hearing at the employee's
I request, and a review and written deci-
sion by the department or agency head.
, If it is found that the suspension or re-
moval is not justified, the employee
would be entitled to compensation for
the period he was not on the payroll.
In addition, an employee is entitled to
appeal the decision to the Civil Service
Commission and the decision of the
Commission would be final.
It hardly seems necessary to point out
to the House the importance of this leg-
islation. I am sure that no one can
argue that there should be in the employ
of the Government individuals who are
not loyal to the United States and con-
stitute a risk to our security. This bill
provides the necessary procedures by
which all persons who are security risks
may be removed from the Federal pay-
roll.
I urge the adoption of House
Resolution 624.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker,
the minority has no requests for time.
Mr. COLMER. Mr. Speaker, I move
the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
Mr. MURRAY, Mr. Speaker, I 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 (S. 1411) to amend the act of
August 26, 1950, relating to the suspen-
sion of employment of civilian personnel
of the United States in the interest of
national security.
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 S. 1411, with Mr.
PRICE 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. MURRAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield
myself 10 minutes.
(Mr. MURRAY asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. Chairman, this
bill as a committee amendment directs
itself to correcting a situation that has
arisen since the decision of the Supreme
Court of the United States in the case
of Cole against Young, on June 11, 1956,
and which in substance held that the
security program covering Federal em-
ployees applied only to those employees
whose positions had been determined to
be sensitive.
The bill amends the act of August 26,
1950, Public Law 733, 81st Congress.
which was enacted for the purpose of
July 10
granting the heads of certain specified
departments and agencies authority to
suspend and to dismiss security risks
and vested in the President the power
to extend such authority to all depart-
ments and agencies of the Government.
Public Law 733 originated on the basis
of a recommendation to the Congress
from the Secretary of Defense, Honor-
able Louis Johnson, on February 21,
1950, and was strongly endorsed by all
of the executive departments and
agencies.
The Secretary of the Navy, Mr. Dan
Kimball, under Secretary of Defense
Johnson, brought the bill to me and dis-
cussed it with me at length before I
introduced it. I thought I thoroughly
understood the purposes and objectives
of the bill when I sponsored it.
The bill was H. R. 7439 and it was
for the purpose of ferreting out and
dismissing or discharging all subversive
employees in our Government. The bill,
which is Public Law 733 first names 11
agencies, starting with the Department
of State, the Department of Commerce,
the Department of Justice, the Depart-
ment of Defense, and others; and then
provides that the provisions of this act
shall apply to such other departments
and agencies as the President may from
time to time deem necessary in the best
interests of national security. That if
any other department or agency is in-
cluded by the President he shall so re-
port to the Committee on Armed Serv-
ices of the Congress.
This bill was approved and became
law op August 26, 1950.
Thereupon, in 1953, the President by
Executive order, extended this law to
all departments and agencies. I have
here a copy of the order which says that
it shall apply to all departments and
agencies. It reads as follows:
The head of each department and agency
of Government shall be responsible for es-
tablishing and maintaining in his depart-
ment or agency an effective program to insure
that the employment and retention in em-
ployment of any civilian officer or employee
within the department or agency is clearly
consistent with the interests of national se-
curity.
That was in 1953. Then in 1956, the
Supreme Court in the case of Cole
dgainst Young held that regardless of
this order of the President in 1953 that
it applied only to sensitive positions, that
it did not apply to nonsensitive positions.
In the case of Cole against Young the
defendant?that is what we would call
him if it were a criminal case?was an
employee of the Food and Drug Admin-
istration. He was a food and drug in-
spector in the city of New York. He
was discharged under Public Law 733.
First he was dismissed under it, and then
he later appealed to the courts. The
facts showed that Cole belonged to a
number of subversive fronts and asso-
ciated with communistic elements. It
showed that he contributed to some of
these subversive causes.
He did not appear for a hearing by
the head of his department. He was in-
vited to appear, but did not appear.
Later he brought suit for his position
to be restored.
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/02/05: CIA-RDP60-00321R000300100004-4
1
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/02/05: CIA-RDP60-00321R000300100004-4
1958 \ CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
I quote from a dissenting opinion of
the Supreme Court of June 11, 1956, de-
livered by Justice Clark and concurred
in by Justices Reed and Minton:
Petitioner, a food and drug inspector em-
ployed in the Department of Health, Edu-
cation, and Welfare, was charged with hav-
ing "established and * * continued a
close association with individuals reliably
reported to be Communists." It was fur-
ther charged that he had "maintained a
continued and sympathetic association with
the Nature Friends of America, which or-
ganization" is on the attorney General's list:
and "by (his). own admission donated funds"
to that group, contributed services to it and
attended social gatherings of the same. Pe-
titioner did not answer the charges but re-
plied that they constituted an invasion of
his private rights of association.
Cole carried that case to the Supreme
Court. The Supreme Court in a divided
decision by a vote of 6 to 3 held that
the head of the Food and Drug Admin-
istration did not have the right to dis-
charge Cole because he was not working
in a sensitive position. There was a
minority opinion in that case delivered
by Mr. Justice Tom Clark, who had been
Attorney General of the United States
before being appointed to the highest
Court of our land. The opinion of Mr.
Justice Clark was joined in by Mr. Jus-
tice Reed and Mr. Justice Sherman
Minton. Here is what Mr. Justice Clark
and the other two Justices stated in the
minority opinion:
They say this:
The President believed that the national
security required the extension of the cover-
age of the act to all employees. That was
his judgment, not ours. He was given that
power, not us. By this action the Court so
interprets the act as to intrude itself into
Presidential policymaking. The Court
should not do this especially where Congress
has ratified the President's action. As re-
quired by the act, the Executive order was
reported to the Congress 'and soon there-
after it came up for discussion and action in
both the House and the Senate. It was the
sense of the Congress at that time that the
order properly carried out the standards
of the act and was in all respects an expres-
sion of the congressional will.
Further, the dissenting opinion said
this:
We believe the Court's order has stricken
down the most effective weapon against sub-
versive activity available to the Government.
It is not realistic to say that the Government
can be protected merely by applying the act
to sensitive jobs. One never knows just
which job is sensitive. The janitor might
prove to be in as important a spot security-
wise as the top employee in the building.
The Congress decided that the most effective
way to protect the GoVernment was through
the procedures laid down in the act. The
President implemented its purposes by re-
quiring that Government employment be
"clearly consistent" with the national secu-
rity. The President's standard is "complete
and unswerving loyalty" not only in s,ensitive
places but throughout the Government. The
President requires and every employee should
give no less. This is all that the act and the
order require. They should not be subverted
by the technical interpretation the majority
places on them today.
I agree wholeheartedly with the dis-
senting opinion of the three Justices
headed by Justice Clark. ,
This legislation is for the purpose of
correcting the majority decision in the
case of Cole versus Young. It holds
that all employees are working in the
interest of national security and can be
discharged under Public Law 733.
I regret that the Supreme Court has
seen fit to deliver this majority opinion
in this case. It is necessary that the
Congress take action to clear up the
situation so it can properly and effec-
tively deal with subversive employees. I
do not care in what capacity an em-
ployee may be in the Government, if he
is subversive, if he is a Communist, then,
if he is a floorsweeper, if he is an execu-
tive, if he is a clerk or stenographer,
I do not care where he works, if he fs an
employee of the Government and is sub-
versive, then that person should be im-
mediately dismissed by the Government.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. MURRAY.. I yield to the gentle-
man from Illinois.
Mr. YATES. I agree with the gentle-
man that if an employee is subversive he
should be fired by the Government. The
information that was given to our appro-
priations subcommittee, which deals with
the appropriations for the Civil Service
Commission, was that the question of
loyalty may now be considered by the
Civil Service Commission in appraising
an employee's job under the term "suit-
ability." We inquired about it, and the
Civil Service Commission told us that if
there were grounds to suspect an em-
ployee of disloyalty he could be dis-
charged under present civil service regu-
lations as an unsuitable person. Would
the gentleman agree with that state-
ment?
Mr. MURRAY. That is a different
field. We provide that if there is a ques-
tion of suitability, or of the fitness of
the employee, then he can be discharged
under the Lloyd-La Follette Act and the
Veterans' Preference Act. But where
an employee has been found subversive,
then the provisions of Public Law 733
should control.
Mr. YATES. I quote to the gentleman
from page 506 of the hearings of the
Independent Offices Appropriation Com-
mittee, where Mr. Irons of the Civil
Service Commission was asked this ques-
tion by ME. THOMAS:,
Do you mean by that that you have loy-
alty mixed up)n this investigation of full
suitability caseS, too)
Mr. Irons said:
Loyalty is involved here, too. Loyalty is a
factor of suitability.
I do not understand the distinction
the gentleman seeks to make between
the question of subversiveness and loy-
alty. Is there a distinction the gentle-
man seeks to make?
Mr. MURRAY. No.
Mr. FORRESTER. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MURRAY. I yield to the gentle-
man from Georgia.
Mr. FORRESTER. May I ask the
gentleinan if the answer to the question
of the gentleman from Illinois is, not
'found in the positive fact that there
were hundreds of these employees on the
roll, and it, has already cost the tax-
payers of America about $450,000 to get
rid of them?
12181
Mr. MURRAY. The gentleman is en-
tirely correct.
Mr. FORRESTER. That is what the
gentleman is trying to do, and that is
what I want to help the gentleman do. ? ?
Mr. MURRAY. I thank the gentle-
man.
About the time the Senate was taking
action on S. 1411, the report of the Com-
mission on Government Security, gen-
erally known as the Wright Commission,
became available. This Commission
was headed by the Honorable Loyd
Wright, of California. Its Vice Chair-
man was the Honorable JOHN STENNIS,
Senator from Mississippi. The other
members were: Hon. Norris Cotton, Sen-
ator from New Hampshire; F. Moran Mc-
Conihe, of Maryland; Hon. William M.
McCulloch, Representative from Ohio;
James P. McGranery, of Pennsylvania;
Edwin L. Mechem, of New Mexico;
Franklin D. Murphy, of Kansas; James
L. Noel, Jr., of Texas; Susan B. Riley, of
Tennessee; Louis S. Rothschild, of Mis-
souri; and the Honorable Francis E. Wal-
ter, chairman of the House Un-American
Activities Committee.
The Wright Commission was set up to
recommend a policy with respect to the
security of our Nation as it relates to the
loyalty and security of individuals. It
was hoped to settle once and for all the
question of what to do when there were
cases of a reasonable doubt of the loyalty
of individuals to the United States.
Legislation was submitted by the Wright
Commission which I introduced as H. R.
8322, and Mr. ReEs of Kansas, the rank-
ing minority member of our committee,
introduced it as H. R. 8323. The official
request for this legislation was referred
to our committee. However, upon
thorough review, it was found that the
bills contained many issues that ran
across jurisdictional lines of the Com-
mittee on Un-American Activities, the
,Committee on the Judiciary, the Armed
Services Committee, the Joint Commit-
tee on Atomic Energy, and possibly
others.
Our colleague, the Honorable FRANcrs
E. WALTER, also had introduced legisla-
tion, H. R. 981, which was intended to
correct situations which arose follow-
ing the Cole against Young decision and
to carry out the original purpose of Pub-
lic Law 733, 81st Congress. This is the
decision to which I referred in my open-
? ing remarks.
Immediately upon receipt of the
Wright Commission report, hearings
were scheduled at which both the gen-
tleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. WAL-
TER] and Mr. Wright testified. It imme-
diately became apparent to our com-
mittee that, because of the comprehen-
siveness of the Wright Commission pro*
posal and the various conflicts of juris-
diction previously mentioned, if we were
going to take any prompt and effective
action we would have to limit it to the
area in which our committee has had ex-
perience and has been in the forefront.
That area, of course, relates specifically
to the-Federal employees' loyalty and se-
curity program.
As chairman of our committee, I was
the author of Public Law 733, 81st Con-
gress, based on legislation submitted by
the administratiOn and brought to me
Declassified and Approved For Release @50-Yr 2014/02/05 : CIA-RDP60-00321R000300100004-4
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/02/05: CIA-RDP60-00321R000300100004-4
12182 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
personally by the Honorable Dan Kim-
ball, the then Secretary of the Navy.
This legislation was intended to super-
sede legislative riders on appropriation
acts that had provided for arbitrary dis-
missal by heads of departments and
agencies without any procedural protec-
tion whatsoever for the individual con-
cerned. Public Law 733 provided such
protection. It spelled out specifically
the departments and agencies to which
it applied. They are Departments of
State, Commerce, Justice, Defense,
Army, Navy, Air Force, and Treasury,
and the Atomic Energy Commission, Na-
tional Security Resources Board, and Na-
tional Advisory Committee for Aero-
nautics. Public Law 733 also provided
that its provisions could be extended by
the President to all other departments
and agencies.
This law was approved to take care of
loyalty situations which could not be met
by then existing Federal employees'
loyalty program which had been set up
under authority of Executive Order No.
9835, dated March 21, 1947.
The present administration, on April
27, 1953, issued Executive Order No.
10450, which superseded the loyalty pro-
gram set up by Executive Order 9835
and is still in effect. This new Execu-
tive order extended the provisions of
Public Law 733 to all departments and
agencies. It did not declare all positions
in the Federal Gbvernment to be posi-
tions affecting the national security but
left that decision up to the heads of de-
partments and agencies.
The head of the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare did not
declare the position held by Kendrick
M. Cole as a sensitive position (one
affecting the national security) . The
Supreme Court, contrary to my view of
Public Law 733?and I point out that I
was the sponsor of that law?has now
held in effect that because of Executive
Order 10450, only those positions de-
clared by the heads of departments and
agencies to be sensitive are positions
from which employees may be dis-
charged under the terms of Public
Law 733.
There have been complaints regarding
certain operations under Public Law '733
which fall in three general categories.
First, there was the lumping together of
figures reporting suitability separations
and strictly security and loyalty separa-
tions. The Members of the House will
recall that there were a number of hear-
ings held both in the House and Senate
on this point.
A second objection was the lack of an
appeal by the individual to an agency
9ther than the agency separating him as
a security risk.
Third, there was the complaint of the
lack of uniformity in security proce-
dures.
The committee amendment, which now
appears in S. 1411, contains first of all
the language of the Senate-passed bill
which will permit employees under in-
vestigation to be kept on the job at the
discretion of the head of the agency un-
til the investigation and hearing are
completed. Secondly, it contains sub-
stantially all provisions of the legislation
introduced by our colleague,- Congress-
man WALTER, in H. R. 981, which by law
extends the provisions- of Public Law 733
to the heads of all departments and
agencies and defines all Federal positions
as positions affecting the national se-
curity.
In addition, our committee amend-
ment contains 3 provisions which di-
rect themselves to the 3 complaints,
voiced against operations under the ex-
isting program. In the first place, it re-
quires that cases of separations for suit-
ability, that is, where loyalty and secu-
rity are not involved?to be handled un-
der existing procedures, set forth in the
Lloyd-LaFollette Act and the Veterans'
Preference Act of 1944 if consistent with
the national security. Secondly, it pro-
vides for an appeal to the Civil Service
Commission by any employee seperated -
as a loyalty or security risk?a provision
which would bring about uniformity of
administration and, as just an aside, in
my opinion, would have developed in an
early stage in the procedures any defi-
ciencies such as caused the Federal Gov-
ernment to have to place back on the
payroll 5 employees removed at Fort
Monmouth, N. J., and pay them $180,000
in back pay.
As to uniformity, it will be clear from
the discussion of the committee amend-
ment that with its enactment the provi-
sions of Public Law 733 will be applied
uniformly on a covernmentwide basis?
that is, to all departments and agencies,
to all employees, and to all positions.
We have yet to hear from the adminis-
tration with respect to a firm recommen-
dation on the Wright Commission's re-
port. As I have indicated, this bill as
reported by the Post Office and Civil
Service Committee pretty well parallels
the recommendations of the Wright
Commission as they relate to Federal
personnel.
With respect to the position of Mr.
Wright, whose report covered some 800
pages, he made this statement at our
hearings:
Mr. Chairman, as an individual citizen, if
I might be privileged to endorse that bill,
H. R. 981 (Mr. WALTER'S bill), I think it is
Imperative that we have some stopgap
legislation.
We have waited as long as we pos-
sibly can for recommendations from the
administration. In the absence of their
recommendations, I hope that the House
Will approve this legislation, which is
An line with the recommendation of Mr.
Wright, in line with the recommenda-
tion of the Post Office and Civil Service
Committee, and in conformity with the
views of one of the greatest experts of
the House in this matter, Representative
FRANCIS WALTER.
The Wright Commission reported 77
documented cases of employees placed
back on the payroll who had been sep-
arated as security risks in matters relat-
ing strictly to security.
I have just received a report from the
Civil Service Commission, made at my
request, which shows that 100 employees
separated under the security program
established by Public Law 733 have been
restored and were paid $421,315.78, and
1,
Declassified and Approved For Release
/
July 10
that there are cases of 6 employees still
'pending which have not ytt been settled.
Mr. Chairman, I hope that the Hbuse
will give this bill an overwhelming vote.
Mr. REES of Kansas. Mr. Chairman,
I yield myself such time as I may require.
Mr. Chairman, I agree wholeheartedly
with the splendid statement of Chair-.
man MURRAY with respect to the need
for the enactment of S. 1411, as amended
by the House Post Office and Civil Service
Committee, relating to the suspension
of employment of Federal employees in
the interest of national secuEty.
I have had a ?special interest in this
problem for more than 15 years and I
hope the efforts of those of us in Con-
gress who have tried to secure an effec-
tive security program will not be wasted.
In 1946, I secured the adoption of a reso-
lution for the then Civil Service Com-
mittee to conduct an inquiry into the
malfunctioning of the Federal employees
loyalty program. The findings of our
committee, which showed extreme laxity
in certain quarters in the executive
branch concerning the protection of our
Government from the infiltration of sub-
versive elements, were used by President
Truman to establish a Federal employees
loyalty program.
It became quite clear in the years
which followed that a sound Federal em-
ployees security system, to be really ef-
fective, should lie based on law rather
than upon the whims and caprices of the
particular individual who happens to be
administering the program at that time.
The majority of Members of the House
of ' Representatives in 1948 agreed that
legislation was desirable and approved a
bill which I intioduced establishing a
Federal employees loyalty program.
The other body failed to approve this
legislation and it became necessary in
1952 for the present administration to
provide a security program based upon
Public Law 733, 81st Congress, which
dealt with the summary removal of Fed-
eral employees who act in a manner
jeopardizing nationA _Security. I sug-
gested that any Executive order based
on such legislation could not be truly
effective because it lumps security and
loyalty cases together.
Following the decision in the case of
Cole against Young which invalidated a
portion of the security order issued in
1953, it became necessary for the Federal
Government to reemploy security risks in
nonsensitive positions. As pointed out
by Chairman MURRAY, under this de-
cision and decisions of the Department
of Justice, Federal departments and
agencies have now been required to pay
over $450,000 in back compensation to
persons who were removed from the
Federal payroll as security risks over the
last several years.
The only effective way to deal with
this vital problem which affects the na-
tional defense, is by the enactment of
this legislation which you are now con-
sidering and which provides the follow-
ing:
First. The head of any department or
agency may suspend any employee from
his employment when deemed necessary
in the interest of the national security.
50-Yr 2014/02/05: CIA-RDP60-00321R000300100004-4
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/02/05: CIA-RDP60-00321R000300100004-4
?
1958 CONGRESSIONAI RECORD ? HOUSE
Second. Following such suspension,
within 30 days, any such employee shall
have an opportunity to reply.
Third. Following a complete review
of the investigation the department or
agency head may terminate the em-
ployment of such suspended employee
when he determines that such action
is necessary in the interest of national
security.
Fourth. The suspended employee is
entitled to a written statement of
charges, a reasonable opportunity to
answer, a hearing, a review of the case
by the department head, and a written
decision.
Fifth. The term "national security"
means all Government activities of the
United States .involving national safety
and security.
Sixth. Under section 3 of the bill, as
amended, all employees of every depart-
ment or agency of the Government are
deemed to be employees in an activity
involving national security.
Seventh. Any person who is reinstated
to duty is allowed compensation for the
period of time he was not on the payroll
in an amount not to exceed the amount
he would have earned had he remained
in the position from which he was sepa-
rated and the net earnings of such person
during the period of suspension.
Eighth. Any employee adversely af-
fected under the legislation is entitled to
appeal to the Civil Service Commission
and the Commission's decision, after a
complete review, shall be final and shall
be complied with by the department
head.
The simple purpose of this legislation
is to reaffirm the intent for which Public
Law 733, 81st Congress, was enacted.
The efftct of the decision in Cole against
Young was to eliminate any security pro-
gram for persons occupying nonsensitive
positions in the Federal service. In my
opinion, Communists, those who advo-
cate the overthrow of our form of gov-
ernment, and those who are security
risks are no more entitled to occupy po-
sitions in nonsensitive activities than
they are entitled to have positions in
sensitive areas. As stated by the Civil
Service Commission on July 5, 1955:
The Cole decision limits drastically the
operation of the present security program.
This program can no longer be applied to
the approximately 80 percent of the 21,000
persons entering the Federal service monthly
In nonsensitive positions. ? This decision will
require corrective action in many of the
cases which are 'being processed under the
present program and will also nullify many
actions heretofore taken during the past 3
years in the interests of national security.
For example, at the time of the decision
there were 17 cases in which employees had
been suspended pending adjudication. These
17 individuals have been restored to duty
and their cases must now be processed under
some authority other than the act and Exec-
utive Order No. 10450.
The 2 cases cited below are illustrative
of the type of cases involved among these 17
cases:
Case A: A member of the Communist Party
in 1945 and press director of the Paul Robeson
Club of the Communist Party. An active
supporter of a Communist Party member who
ran for a State office and was subsequently
indicted under the Smith Act and given a
sentence of 5 years and fined $5,000. Subject
has been a close associate of known members
of the Communist Party.
Case B: From approximately 1930 to 1934
was a member of the Young Communist
League and subsequent to 1934 attended mass
meetings and parties of the Young Commu-
nist League and of the Communist Party.
Subject's wife and his brothers were members
of the Young Communist League and subject
has been a close associate of Communist
sympathizers.
In addition to these 17 cases, we estimate
that there are some 280 cases involving in-
dividuals who have been removed under the
program and who will be seeking restoration
and back pay as a result of the decision.
All those cases must be reviewed to deter-
Mine whether further action will be neces-
sary. Whatever action is to be taken can-
not be taken under the limited security
program resulting from the Cole decision.
The effect of this is demonstrated by the
situation wherein the Post Office Department
may be compelled to restore to duty under
the Cole decision at least four indivduals
Who were members of a Communist Party
cell in the New York Post Office.
Incidentally, there were more than
that in the New York Post Office, it was
discovered.
As it has developed many of those
person who were separated on security
grounds have been restored to their
former positions under the Cole decision
and have received large lump sum pay-
ments. Chairman Murray has furnished
you with the most recent information
which the committee has compiled.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. REES of Kansas. I yield to the
gentleman from California, who is a
member of the committee.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. I thank the gentle-
man. Why were they not dispo?ed to
discharge these particular people who
were charged with being Communists
under Public Law 831 of 1950, which
specifically prohibits the employment of
Communists? Or Public Law 252, the
Hatch Act, which also prohibits the em-
ployment of Communists? Why did they
not use that method?
Mr. REES of Kansas. Many of- the
100 employees discharged and then re-
turned are Communist sympathizers,
some are fellow travelers. They are
people not. loyal to the American Gov-
ernment. Public Law 831 deals with
known Communists.
Unfortunately there are some people
who have the idea that being employed
by the Government is a right rather than
a privilege. The gentleman knows that
very well.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Some people have
that idea, but I certainly do not hold it.
I point out, however, that there are two
laws on the books now which prohibit
Communists from working for the Gov-
ernment. The fact that they used the
wrong law to discharge these people does
not establish the need for an additional
law, in my opinion.
Mr. REES of Kansas. There may be
those who thing this legislation is not
strong enough.
Mr. DOLLINGER. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. REES.of Kansas. I yield.
Mr. DOLLINGER. Suppose a person
is discharged as a subversive uiider this
12183
bill. Would he have the right of review
by the Civil Service Commission?
Mr. REES of Kansas. Yes.
Mr. DOLLINGER. Suppose the Civil
Service Commission found that the firing
by the agency was justified, would the
employee have the right of review by the
courts?
Mr. REES of Kansas. He would.
Mr. DOLLINGER. In this bill there is
no provision for the right of review by
the courts. The bill states that the Civil
Service decision shall be final and com-
plete.
Mr. REES of Kansas. There is always
the fundamental right of appeal to the
courts and properly so.
Mr. DOLLINGER. That is the thing
I am troubled about. The person might
be improperly charged with being a sub-
Nersive and might want to have an op-
portunity to defend himself in an impar-
tial tribunal. I want some assurance
written into the bill that he would have
the right of review by the courts.
Mr. REES of Kansas. I would say
that under present law any person has
the right to appeal from the decision of
any commission if he desires to.
Mr. DOLLINGER. In spite of the fact
that the bill provides that the decision
by the Civil Service Commission shall be
final and complete?
Mr. REES of Kansas. Final and com-
plete; but he can always appeal to the
courts. He has that right. You cannot
take that right away from him under
any condition.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield at that point?
Mr. REES of Kansas. I yield.
Mr. YATES. .The gentleman stated a
few moments ago that employment in
the Federal service is not a matter of
right, yet this is a statement of law as
was expounded in the Bailey decision.
If this is not a statement of law and this
bill provides that the final decision of
the Commission shall be determinative
of every question, how, then, may a per-
son go to a court of law for review?
Mr. REES of Kansas. Just as he can
in every case where a person thinks he
has been wronged by any agency; he can
go into court.
Mr. YATES: If he has any right, his
appeal is to the Commission, and this
bill says the Commission shall decide
once and for all about his job; what,
then, is there for the courts to review?
Mr. REES of Kansas. The employee
has the rights he has always had, and
even more. In respect to review, he will
have more rights than he has now.
Mr. HOLTZMAN. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. REES of Kansas. I yield.
Mr. HOLTZMAN. I submit that the
only basis he would have upon which to
go into court would be the constitution-
ality of this bill we are considering to-
day should it pass and become law. In
essence this bill takes away from him
any right of review in the courts.
Mr. REES of Kansas. You cannot take
constitutional rights allay from any in-
dividual. No one approVed that.
Mr. YATES. If the gentleman will
yield, he would only have the right to
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/02/05: CIA-RDP60-00321R000300100004-4
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/02/05: CIA-RDP60-00321R000300100004-4
sc,
12184
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE r July 10
appeal on constitutional grounds. If he
has no constitutional ground for upset-
ting the decision of the Commission, then
I assume under the provisions of this
bill he would not have any right to 'have
the court review it.
Mr. LESINSKI. Mr. Chairman', will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. REES of Kansas. I yield.
Mr. LESINSKI. Is not the Constitu-
tion of the United States the so-called
paramount law of the land?
?Mr. REES of Kansas. It is the law of
the land; yes.
? Mr. LESINSKI. So, irrespective of
this bill, the aggrieved person could ap-
peal to the courts.
Mr. REES of Kansas. Certainly. The
gentleman is correct.
Mr. LESINSKI. He still has the right
of appeal to the Federal court. There-
fore, irrespective of what the bill pro-
vides he can still go further and appeal
the constitutional right.
Mr. REES of Kansas. That is right.
The statement of the gentleman is cor-
rect.
Mr. LESINSKI. It does not cut that
out.
Mr. REES of Kansas. Oh, no; it does
not take away any constitutional rights.
The gentleman from Michigan [Mr.
LEsiNsici] was among those in the com-
mittee who saw to it that all employees'
rights were protected under this legis-
lation.
Mr. PORTER. 'Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. REES of Kansas. In just a mo-
ment. I would like to finish my state-
ment. As I said a moment ago, there
might be those who think that this leg-
? islation is not strong enough and there
are probably others who think it is too
strong as it appears at the moment, but,
after all, in my opinion, this law ought
to be strengthened, not weakened.
There may be those who say we should
await further consideration' of the
Wright Commission report on Govern-
ment security which was submitted to
Congress on June 21, 1957, a little over
a year ago. They are all misinformed.
This bill will put into effect most of
the recommendations made by the
Wright Commission as they relate to
Federal employees' security. This Com-
mission was appointed by the President
and produced a study covering nearly
1,000 pages in this area.
Mr. Wright, Chairman of the Commis-
sion, appeared before our committee, and
while he testified he favored specifically
? the bill recommended by his Commis-
sion?and as the chairman of our com-
mittee has pointed out, this covers the
jurisdiction of a number of other com-
mittees?he stated as follows:
It is a tragedy, indeed, that we need any
loyalty or security programs, and I fervently
hope that the day will hasten when we can
abolish them. Until that day, however, we
dare not forget that the threat is not only
real but formidable.
As the chairman of our committee has
indicated, we have not yet received the
executive departments' reports on the
rather voluminous study made by the
Wright Commission. I believe it would
be helpful for the House to have restated
here the comments of Mr. Wright under
these circumstances when he was asked,
about legislation such as we are consid-
ering today. I quote from the hearings:
Mr. Chairman, as an individual citizen, if
I might be privileged -to endorse that bill,
H. R. 981, I think it is imperative that we
have some stopgap legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I submit that the Con-
gress has waited too long to act on this
problem. I believe the security of our
Nation is being jeopardianay failure to
act. I think that the overwhelming ma-
jority of civil-service employees are en-
titled to protection against those who
might infiltrate their ranks, who are
security risks. The legislation which has
been approved by the committee repre-
sents years of diligent study and it is the
best legislation that could be enacted un-
der the circumstances created by the
Cole decision. Mr. Chairman, I urge the
Members of the House to approve this
legislation. I hope it will become law
during this session of Congress.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. REES of Kansas. I yield to the
gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. YATES. Will the gentleman tell
us what he means by the term "security
risk" as he used it in his statement?
Mr. REES of Kansas. I realize there
may be implications, but, nevertheless,
any person is a security risk who says
or does anything that might injure the
security of the Government of the
United States of America.
Mr. YATES. What form would this
take? I would assume a person who
'is disloyal would be a security risk. A
subversive would be a security risk. Are
there other actions which would desig-
nate a person as a security risk, in the
gentleman's opinion?
Mr. REES of Kansas. Any action by
an individual employed by the Govern-
ment would make him a security risk if
it jeopardized the United States Gov-
ernment.
Mr. YATES. Does the gentleman in-
tend to limit the term "security risk" to
those cases of employees who are dis-
loyal or subversive?
Mr. REES of Kansas. It may or may
not. It applies to any action that jeop-
ardizes the Federal Government.
Mr. YATES. Can this take another
form that a form of disloyalty or sun-
version, in the gentleman's opinion?
Mr. REES of Kansas. No. ? "
Mr. SANTANGELO. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. REES of Kansas. I yield to the
gentleman from New York, who has given
this matter a lot of study and helped
write this bill, as I remember.
Mr. SANTANGELO. Does the gen-
tleman know whether or not any Com-
munist or any person belonging to a
Communist action organization or a
Communist front organization has been
appointed to any Federal job since the
Cole against Young decision?
M. REES of Kansas. I am unable to
answer the question as to whether such
people have recently been employed. I
can say there are 40 or 50 presently em-
ployed known to be security risks.
Mr. SANTANGELO. Does not the
Hatch Act and also the act of 1950, Pub-
lic Law 831, disqualify anybody who has
been connected with the Communist
Party or a Communist front organiza-
tion or Communist action, and does he
not thereby, because of his association
or membership with such organization,
forfeit his job?
Mr. JOHANSEN. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield right there?
Mr. REES of Kansas. I yield.
Mr. JOHANSEN. Is not the point of
this proposed legislation the reestablish-
ment of the right to suspend in case it
is believed that the national security is
involved?
Mr. REES of Kansas. That is cor-
rect. Public Law 831 applies to known
Communists.
Mr. SANTANGELO. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield further?
Mr. REES of Kansas. I yield. -
Mr. SANTANGELO. This bill is only
aimed at getting rid of those people who
belong to a Communist front organiza-
tion, Communist action organization, or
who are members of the Communist
Party.
Mr. REES of Kansas. Or loyalty risks.
Or security risks.
Mr. SANTANGELO. It is a fact, is it
not, as the gentleman from California
[Mr. HOLIFIELD] has pointed out, that
there are statutes presently on the books
which authorize the Attorney General
to disqualify these persons, and you do
not need this particular legislation?
Mr. REES of Kansas. I do not agree
with that statement at all.
Mr. JOHANSEN. Mr. Chairman, if
the gentleman will yield further,
whether that is true or not, is it not still
essential that the right of suspension
be restored in case there is a security
risk?
Mr. REES of Kansas. That is a fair
statement.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield on this point that the
gentleman raised?
Mr. REES of Kansas. I yield.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I spoke
to the Civil Service Commission imme-
diately before this bill came to the floor,
and I asked them whether under pres-
ent procedures, under the charge of un-
suitability, a person could be suspended
immediately, and I was told that he
could be suspended immediately by the
agency and that the question of loy-
alty is considered to be a part of the
point of suitability. That is what I was
told by the Civil Service Commission.
Mr. REES of Kansas. The fact re-
mains that many of them are still on
the payroll and they ought to be off the
payroll for the protection of our Gov-
ernment and for the protection of more
than 2 million loyal employees in our
Government.
Mr. YATES. I would agree with the
gentleman that that is true, and I do
not know why the agencies are not-doing
it if it is on the books. The fact re-
mains that they have the laws on the
books now with which to do it.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman froth Kansas has expired. -
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/02/05: CIA-RDP60-00321R000300100004-4
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/02/05: CIA-RDP60-00321R000300100004-4
1958 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield
3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon
[Mr. PORTER].
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, this is,
in my opinion, an unnecessary bill. The
title of it is a misnomer. It says "relat-
ing to the suspension of employment of
civilian personnel of the United States."
The original Senate bill did so provide.
This, of course, is something else again.
No one is against security. No one wants
Communists to be employed. But there
are laws, as the gentleman from Cali-
fornia [Mr. HOLIFIELD] has pointed out,
to see that Communists are not em-
ployed?two separate laws, both of
which are cited in the minority report
and which the gentleman from Califor-
nia cited here today.
Now, when this matter came before us
it was said that there was a great emer-
gency. You notice the committee report
is dated August 20 last year. Now it is
July 10, 1958, and has there been any
emergency? Not a word of this has been
heard before our committee, nor have I,
who have been very much' interested in
this bill, heard anything about the great
difficulties the Government is having be-
cause this legislation was not enacted.
There is no emergency. And also, if you
will read the report, you will find that
it was supposed to be -limited in time.
Several people are cited as saying that
this is just interim legislation, for the
time being, and here it is coming up to-
day to change the law of the land per-
manently.
Here is the trouble about it. "Any de-
partment head can, in his absolute dis-
cretion?page 2?and when deemed nec-
essary in the interest of national secu-
rity, suspend, without pay." He has that
power, then, in his absolute discretion,
to suspend. On what ground? Who de-
cides what ground? Was he reading the
wrong magazine? Did he wear the
wrong tie? Nobody knows. No standard
set up at all.
No standards at all are set up. There
is no due process of law in the hearing.
Everybody agrees, and the majority re-
pdrt cites two different committee re-
ports of this Congress and the preceeding
Congress, that people do not know the
difference between a security risk and
a loyalty risk. They tend to think of
them as the 'same. In this case, if you
get fired or suspended as a security risk
you cannot explain it to your children
or to your friends or to+prospective em-
ployers, what the difference is. And yet
you are denominated a security risk
without due process of law.
Mr. Chairman, you never have had a
chance to face your accusers. You never
have had a chance to save your reputa-
tion by the very well established pro-
cedures of our law.
Mr. Chairman, I am going to propose
such an amendment in due course, but
I just point out to you now that this
bill does not provide due process. There
are no standards of what a security risk
is. There is no danger; there is no
pressure for this. Nobody has shown
us that there is a necessity for such a
law which would give every agency head
unbridled discretion to decide whom to
suspend.
No. 115-13
(Mr. PORTER asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. Chairmant I yield
3 minutes to the gentleman froth Cali-
fornia [Mr. HOLIFIELD].
(Mr. HOLIFIELD asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I
appreciate the Chairman's yielding me
3 minutes. I know the time is short and
I know that is as much time as can be
allowed. However, it does not give suf-
ficient time to explain all the points in
this bill which I think need explaining,
and I shall try to avail myself of the
opportunity under the 5-minute rule to
do the job more completely.
In the first place, I want to say that
I hold no criticism of the members of
the committee who are concerned with
this problem. I certainly cannot agree
with some of them..
There are two laws on the books at
this time, Public Law 831, known as the
Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950,
which provides that it is unlawful for
anyone to accept employment with the
United States Government who is a
member of a Communist, a Communist-
front, or any type of organization that
has been declared to be subversive.
There is also the Hatch Act, Public Law
252 of the 76th Congress, 1939, section
9 (a) (1), which makes it unlawful for
any person employed in any capacity by
any agency of the Federal Government
to have membership in any political
party which advocates the overthrow of
the constitutional form of government
to have employment with the Federal
Government.'
So you have two laws. I say that in
the report before us you do not have the
cases to prove the need of this particu-
lar type of law. The cases that are cited
are of known Communists and they are
quoted as examples of 17 cases, 12 of
whom are still with the Government.
If this be true, if these charges be true,
then they should proceed under Public
Law 831 or Public Law 252 to remove
these people from the rolls. I would
be heartily in favor of such action.
But this is a bill that is not written
for the purpose of getting rid of Com-
munists. This goes further than that.
It goes into vague and uncertain areas
of loyalty, of national safety, of the wel-
fare of the United States Government
and the field of administrative decision
and discretion becomes so wide that the
2 million employees of the Federal Gov-
ernment come under the shadow of a
law which has no clear-cut criterion or
standard by which to judge their activ-
ities. Therefore, they come under the
danger of whimsical removal from office.
This is a dangerous bill and should be
defeated.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from California [Mr. Hom-
FIELD] has expired.
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield
3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia
1Mr. DAvisl .
(Mr. DAVIS of Georgia asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
12185
Mr. DAVIS of Georgia. Mr. Chair-
man, in my judgment this is necessary
and needed legislation. It is not legis-
lation which was proposed and brought
out of our committee without good rea-
son. It was not proposed until the de-
cision of the Supreme Court in the case
of Cole against Young disrupted the law
as everyone understood it and made it
necessary to present legislation to cor-
rect that decision, which changed the
law under which we had been operating,
and read into an act of Congress mean-
ing which was not there.
Some of the gentleman who have
spoken in opposition to this bill have
complained that it will authorize every
agency in its discretion and when it
deems it within the interest of national
security to suspend without pay any em-
ployee, and so forth. That is not new
law; that is on the statute books now.
It is a part of the language of Public
Law 733 of the 81st Congress, approved
August 26, 1950. It is already on the
statute books and applies now to some
400,000 Federal civilian employees in the
various departments which are named
in Public Law 733 of the 81st Congress.
Some objection was voiced, or implied,
at least, by the gentleman from Illinois
[Mr. YATES]. He wanted to know if
employees would be denied the right to
carry the case to court after the Civil
Service Commission on appeal had en-
tered a final order.
I can place the gentleman's mind at
rest on that because that same language
is included in Public Law 733 of the 81st
Congress. It states:
Such determination by the agency head
concerned shall be conclusive and final.
Under that language Cole carried his
case to court. It wound up in the Su-
preme Court, and the Supreme Court re-
versed the action. That decision is the
reason why this bill now is here.
Mr. SANTANGELO. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DAVIS of Georgia. I yield to the
gentleman from New York.
Mr. SANTANGELO. If a member of
the Civil Service Commission files a dis-
senting opinion as to the facts, are the
facts conclusive and binding upon the
petitioner or employee who seeks to
challenge the decision of the Civil Serv-
ice Commission?
Mr. DAVIS of Georgia. I would not
like to answer that question off the cuff
here. I would want to study the ques-
tion before answering it.
I thoroughly agree with the statement
that was made by the chairman of our
committee [Mr. MURRAY] and I agree
with the statement which has been made
by the distinguished gentleman from
Kansas [Mr. REEsl. This is good legis-
lation, it is due, and it should be enacted.
Mr. REES of Kansas. I yield 2 min-
utes to the gentleman from Iowa [Mr.
GROSS].
(Mr. GROSS asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I voted
for this bill in committee and I expect
to vote for it on final passage, but I am
concerned about one word that appears
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/02/05: CIA-RDP60-00321R000300100004-4
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/02/05: CIA-RDP60-00321R000300100004-4
12186 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
on page 2 of the bill, line 9, the word
"welfare." The bill reads:
The interests of the national safety, secu-
rity, and welfare permit.
"Welfare," it seems to me, is open to
wide interpretation. Will the gentleman
from Tennessee accept an amendment to
strike out the word "welfare"?
Mr. MURRAY. I will refer that to the
gentleman from California [Mr. ROOSE-
VELT].
Mr. ROOSEVELT. I will say to the
gentleman from Iowa, I have already
conferred with the chairman of the com-
mittee and the original proposer of the
legislation, the gentleman from Pennsyl-
vania [Mr. WALTER] and brought out
what the gentleman has just called at-
tention to. In reviewing the matter, it
was not in the original law and the chair-
man of the committee and the gentleman
from Pennsylvania are in agreement that
it should be taken out, and I have an
amendment at the desk to take out the
word.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. REES of Kansas. Mr. Chairman,
I tyield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. DENNISON].
Mr. DENNISON. Mr. Chairman, it
has only been 2 years since that decision
was reached in the case of Cole versus
Young. A bill was brought up in the
84th session of the Congress along the
same lines as this, but it never got
through and this particular' measure
came out of the House Committee on the
Post Office and Civil Service last August,
August 1957. No action was taken there-
on until today. I would like to ask the
distinguished gentleman from Tennes-
see, chairman of the committee, a ques-
tion. On page 25 of the hearings, the
chairman stated:
I think by all means this 'congress should
act upon the bill introduced by Representa-
tive WALTER, H. R. 981, as a stopgap or tem-
porary measure to take care of the security
situation until the bill can be acted upon by
the Congress.
The chairman was referring at that
time to-the bill incorporating the recom-
mendations of the Wright Commission.
I would like to ask the chairman-whether
or not it is contemplated that this is a
stopgap measure or weather it is
permanent legislation, and, secondly,
whether -or not the chairman contem-
plates hearings at any time in the future
in connection with the Wright Commis-
sion recommendations.
Mr. MURRAY. As the gentleman
knows, before the Wright Commission
report was sent to our committee, I in-
troduced a bill embodying the recom-
mendations of the Wright Commission
and likewise the ranking minority mem-
ber, Mr. REES, also introduced a similar
bill. Then the gentleman from Penn-
slyvania [Mr. WALTER] introduced H. R.
981, a stopgap measure. Our commit-
tee has been unable to receive a report
from the administration on the Wright
Commission report. The Wright Corn.-
mission report is a very voluminous one
and there are probably different features
contained in it.
Mr. DENNISON. Do I understand
that the Committee on. Post Office and
Civil Service will consider the Wright
Commission recommendations at such
time as they do receive a report from"
the executive department?
Mr. MURRAY. Certainly, the corn-
mittee will.
Mr. DENNISON. The reason I say
that is this. I have in my hand a let-
ter from the Acting Assisting Attorney
General, J. Walter Yeagley. I do not
have the time to read it all, but referring
to the fact that tile Wright Commission
report was subnEtted to them for ap-
proval he says:
Under these circumstances, the Depart-
ment of Justice believes that the interests
of the individual employee as well as of the
Government would best be served by defer-
ring any legislative action relating to this
program until the executive branch has com-
pleted its study of the recommendations of
the Commission on Government Security?
Which is the Wright Commission re-
port.
Mr. MURRAY. I might say that this
information was given to them over a
year ago and they have not reported on
it yet.
Mr. REES of Kansas. Mr. Chairman,
I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. JoHANsExl .
Mr. JOHANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in support of this legislation. I should
like to point out that the purpose of this
legislation is to provide for a lack created
by the Cold decision, to provide for the
opportunity of summary suspension in
those instances in which the national
security and the Nation interest, and the
interest of the national safety require it.
The argument has been advanced here
that there is no need for this legislation
because there is existing legislation that
copes with the situation. I point to the
record as brought Out on page 4 of the
committee report, and to the fact that
_ in the case of the four postal employees
in the New York post office who were
"members of the Communist Party, they
have been restored to duty as a result of
the Cole decision. I have talked with
the counsel of the Post Office Department
and I am advised that they were pro-
ceeded against under this act because the
only other available legislation, requires
not the proof of membership in the party,
but requires the proof of an overt, dis-
loyal act, a matter susceptible of proof
only under the most extraordinary cir-
cumstances and a matter exceedingly dif-
ficult to establish.
Now, if there is existing' to
deal with this situation and if the allega-
tion is that this proposal only duplicates
that legislation, I would rather have two
guards at the gate of national security,
even though it involved duplication, than
to have one guard assigned there who was
inadequate to the task.
I hope that the committee will support
the legislation and that the House will
adopt it.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. JOHAN-
SEN] has expired.
Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. Mr.
Chairman, I have only one other speak-
er.
Mr. REES of Kansas. Mr. Chairman,
I yield the remainder of the time, 11/2
July 10
minutes, to the gentleman from Ohio
[Mr. HENDERSON].
Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in support of this legislation. I
wish to commend to the committee the
statement that has been made by the
chairman of the committee and by the
ranking member as well. I think there
is probably nothing that causes the
temperature of the people of this great
country to rise as much as the Federal
Government's inability to cope with its
own problems, particularly in connection
with the employment of persons who are
deemed to be disloyal to our Govern-
ment. This ridiculous situation has
done more than anytkiing else to cause
the electorate to have misgivings about
the Government's ability to handle its
own affairs. I believe the enactment of
this legislation will meet with consid-
erable approval by the people back home
who have been looking with consider-
able 'disgust at our inability to cope
with the situation.
I would like to call to the -attention
of the Members a letter which is con-
tained in the report on pages 16 and
17, written by our colleague from Penn-
sylvania [Mr. WALTER] in which he sets
forth in as fine detail as could be writ-
ten the reasons why this legislation is
necessary.
If there is anywhere that loyalty, al-
legiance, and devotion to country should
have meaning it should be in the field
'of Federal employment. I cannot fath-
om the thinking of those whose hearts
bleed for disloyalty.
This Congress made its legislative de-
cision in this field some years ago when
it enacted Public Law '733. The Su-
preme Court in the Cole case restricted
the application,of our enactment to sen-
sitive jobs only, saying that employment
in nonsensitive jobs was not encom-
passed.
I do not see the difference between
sensitive and nonsensitive positions
when it comes to having Communists
and disloyal persons. Federal employ-
ment should be a privilege reserved only
to those who are loyal and devoted to
their employer, the United States of
America. I ask my colleagues to join
me in supporting this important bill.
Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. Mr.
Chairman, I yield the balance of the
time, 10 minutes, to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. WALTER].
Mr. WALTER. Mr. Chairman, sev-
eral years ago, in making a study of this
very difficult question, a Commission
known as the Wright Commission was
appointed. It so happens that I was a
member of that Commission. I think I
might call your attention to the names
of the other members.
From the House, in addition to myself,
was the Honorable WILLIAM McCuLLocn,
of Ohio; from the Senate there was Sen-
ator COTTON, of New Hampshire, and
Senator STENNIS, of Mississippi. The
executive branch was represented by Mr.
McConihe, Commissioner of Public
Buildings. Also, Louis S. Rothschild,
.
Under. Secretary, Department of Com-
merce. From private life ? two very
prominent citizens: Franklin Murphy,
chancellor of the University of Kansas;
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/02/05: CIA-RDP60-00321R000300100004-4
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/02/05: CIA-RDP60-00321R000300100004-4
1958 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
Dr. Susan Reilly, professor of health,
George Peabody College for Teachers.
The President of the United States ap-
pointed Hon. James McGranery, former
United States Attorney General; Hon.
Edwin Mechem, Governor of New Mex-
ico; and Hon. James L. Newell, Jr., at-
torney at law, of' Texas.
This commission spent a great deal of
time .and study aided by the best staff
that could be selected, in an attempt to
set up the kind of procedures necessary
in order to protect the security of the
United States; and, as has been stated
here today, the commission recom-
mended legislation_ which was intro-
duced in both bodies.
But no report has yet been received,
and it is entirely understandable, be-
cause the recommendations of the corn-
Mission were very comprehensive. But
in the interim it was felt that this stop-
gap legislation was necessary because
the Supreme Court of the United States
very definitely invaded the legislative
field.
We have for a long while criticized the
Supreme Court, and every time that
great body writes a decision that looks
like legislation we say a great deal about
it, but nobody ever does anything about
it. It certainly seems to me that it ill
behooves any Member of this body to
criticize the decisions of the Court and
then stand idly by and do nothing about
it.
It seems to me that the arguments
that are made here today are all made
in support of a bill which, in my judg-
ment, is still the law. It ought to be the
law. I say that for this reason, that
when we wrote the original act, section
I applied to any civilian officer or em-
ployee in certain agencies which were
named; and the third section of the bill
provided that the President of the
United States may under the authority
vested in him by article I of the Con-
stitution, I think it is, promulgate an
Executive order covering any other em-
ployee. Acting in accordance with the
authority thus given the President of
the United States he issued this order
embracing the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare.
In the law we passed we did not say
anything about a sensitive position;
those words are not in the law. We
provided that this statute should apply
to any employee in the enumerated
agencies, any employee. Now, Cole was
an employee in the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare. Cole
was a Communist. Cole was fired.
In answer to the question of my dis-
tinguished friend from Illinois about
going into court, I think the best answer
to that is that Mr. Cole took his case
to the Supreme Court of the United
States, and it would certainly seem to
me that under this law there is ample
provision to go into the courts; else, how
did he get there? That is the answer to
the question of whether or not there can
be judicial review of this decision.
The Supreme Court in examining the
appeal found that Mr. Cole's position
was nonsensitive. Then they said that
he could not be fired, or could not be
discharged, or could not be separated
from his employment because he was
not in a sensitive position. I wish I had
the time to read to you a decision by a
great jurist, Justice Learned Hand, in
discussing this question of judicial legis-
lation. If you have not seen it, look at
it. I put it in the RECORD a long while
ago. It seems to me we are very derelict
in our duty if we do not do everything
within our power to uphold the preroga-
tives of this great body.
The Supreme Court very definitely
legislated by reenacting this legislation.
You will say to the Stipreme Court:
"Look for the legislative intent."
I direct my remarks to those of you
who are members of the legal profession.
Have you not always felt that the Court
looked to legislative intent when there
was some doubt in the Court's mind as
to what was intended? If the Court
did, then I say to you it would have
found the statement made by the gen-
tleman from California [Mr. ROLIFIELD],
who is opposing this legislation, when
he said on the floor of the House:
This act applies potentially to every execu-
tive agency, not only the sensitive ones.
So_it seems to me that if the Supreme
Court had looked at the language of the
gentleman from California, they cer-
tainly could not in good conscience have
found this man should not be discharged
because his position was not sensitive.
Ultimately when the reports come
from the Departments there will be
a comprehensive measure prepared.
There will be a measure presented in
accordance with the recommendations
made by this Commission. But pend-
ing such time and in the interest of the
security of this great Republic I ask you
to reenact the legislation which the,
Supreme Court repealed in toto.
The CHAIRMAN. All time having ex-
pired, the Clerk will read the bill for
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Be it enacted, etc., That section 1 of the
act of August 26, 1950 (64 Stat. 476; 5
U. S. C. 22-1) is amended by changing the
period at the end thereof to a colon, and
by adding the following further proviso:
"Provided further, That nothing in this sec-
tion shall be deemed to require the suspen-
sion of any civilian officer or employee prior
to hearing or termination."
With the following committee amend-
ment:
Strike out all after the enacting clause
and insert "That the act of August 26, 1950,
chapter 803 _ (64 Stat. 476), is hereby
amended to read as follows: 'That, not-
withstanding the provisions of section 6 of
the act of August 24, 1912 (37 Stat. 555),
as amended (5 U. S. C. 652), or the provi-
sions of any other law, the head of any
department or agency of the United States
Government may, in his absolute discretion
and when deemed necessary in the interest
of national security, suspend, without pay,
any civilian officer or employee of the Gov-
ernment. To the extent that such agency
head determines that the interests of the
national safety, security, and welfare per-
mit, the employee concerned shall be noti-
fied of the reasons for his suspension and
within 30 days after such notification any
such person shall have an opportunity to
submit any statements or affidavits to the
official designated by the head of the agency
concerned to show why he should be re-
instated or restored to duty. The agency
12187
head concerned may, following such investi-
gation and review as he deems necessary,
terminate the employment of such sus-
pended civilian officer or employee when-
ever he shall determine such termination
necessary or advisable 'in the interest of
the national security of the United States:
Provided, That any employee having a per-
manent or indefinite appointment, and hav-
ing completed his probationary or trial pe-
riod, who is a citizen of the United States
whose employment is suspended under the
authority of this act, shall be given after
his suspension and before his employment
is terminated under the authority of this
act, (1) a written statement within 30 days
after his suspension of the charges against
him, which shall be subject to amendment
within 30 days thereafter and which shall
be stated as specifically as security consid-
erations permit; (2) an opportunity within
30 days thereafter (plus an additional 30
days if the charges are amended) to an-
swer such charges and to submit affidavits;
(3) a hearing, at the employee's request, by
a duly constituted agency authority for this
purpose; (4) a review of his case by the
agency head, or some official designated by
him, before a decision adverse to the em-
ployee is made final; and (5) a written
statement of the decision of the agency
head: Provided further, That any person
whose employment is so suspended or termi-
nated under thd authority of this act may,
in the discretion of the agency head con-
cerned, be reinstated or restored to duty, and
if reinstated or restored, by action of the
agency head under this proviso or pursuant
to determination and decision of the Civil
Service Commission under sectiOn 4, shall
be allowed compensation for all or any part
of the period of such suspension or termi-
nation in an amount not to exceed the dif-
ference between the amount such person
would normally have earned during the pe-
riod of such suspension or termination, at
the rate he was receiving on the date of
suspension or termination, as appropriate
and the interim net earnings of such per-
son: Provided further, That nothing con-
tained in this act shall be deemed to re-
quire the suspension of any civilian officer
or employee prior to hearing oafrtermina-
tion: Provided further, That to'Ithe extent
consistent with the interest of the national
security in the light of the facts and cir-
cumstances of the particular case, the de-
partment or agency head concerned shall
utilize, in lieu of other provisions of this
act or any Executive order issued under this
act, the provisions of section 6 of the act
of August 24, 1912 (Public Law 623, 83d
Cong.), and section 14 of the Veterans'
Preference Act of 1944 in connection with
the suspension or termination of employ-
ment of any civilian officer or employee.
"'Sac. 2. Nothing contained in this act
shall impair the powers vested in the Atomic
Energy Commission by the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954 or the requirements of section
161 of such act that adequate provision be
made for administrative r w of any de-
termination to dismiss any loyee of such
Commission.
"'SEC. 3. As used in th act, "national
security" means all gover ntal activities
of the United States Gover ent involvba
the national safety and security, includinT
but not limited to activities concerned with
t
the protection of the United Stated- rom in-
ternal subversion or foreign aggresse. . All
employees of 'any department or a cy of
the United States Government are deemed to
be employed in an activity of the Govern-
ment involving national security.
"'SEC. 4. It shall be the duty of the United
States Civil Service Commission, upon the
request of any employee, to review the de-
cision, under this act and under any Execu-
- tive order issued pursuant to this act, of
the agency head concerned in the case of
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/02/05: CiA-RDP60-00321R000300100004-4
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/02/05: CIA-RDP60-00321R000300100004-4
12188 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
such employee with respect to the validity
and truth of the charges made and with re-
spect to the procedures followed. The Com-
mission shall prepare a written opinion and
decision in each such case containing its
recommendations with respect to the deci-
sion of the agency head. The Commission
shall transmit its opinion and decision to the
agency head concerned for action in accord-
ance therewith. The determination by the
Commission of any question or other mat-
ter connected with such review shall be final
and conclusive. If any member of the Com-
mission does not concur in such opinion
and decision, he may file a dissenting
opinion.'
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Chairman,( I
rise in opposition to the committee
amendment.
(Mr. HOLIFIELD asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I
ask unanimous consent to proceed for 5
additional minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
California?
There was no objection. -
Mr. HOLI}eihLD. Mr. Chairman, in
my opinion, this bill is not a wise bill to
pass. The gentleman from Pennsyl-
vania quoted my interpretation of the
original Act when I said that I thought
it applied to all of the agencies of Gov-
ernment.
I happened to be in agreement with
him. I did not think that the Supreme
Court took into consideration the legis-
lative history of the act and, therefore,
I happened to be in agreement with him
that the Supreme Court did not follow
the legislative history. That does not
change my position which in 1950 was
against this type of legislation and which
is against it today.
The reason I am against this type of
legislation is that it broadens by an un-
certain diteria the standard of loyalty
by which an employee is judged. It uses
phrases such as "welfare" and "national
safety" and "security", these words have
no clear legislative intent or determina-
tion. The area of judgment for an ad-
ministrative head of an agency to sus-
pend Federal employees is too wide.
Under the legislation which exists and
which the Supreme Court ruled upon,
the discharge of an individual had to be
on the ground of national security. In
other words, he had to be occupying a
sensitive position.
Now listen to the language in section
3 as follows:
All employe f any department or agency
of the United tes Government are deemed
to be employ in an activity of the Gov-
ernment invol g national security.
These wor s broaden the sensitive
glassification of the employees from the
some 450,000 which Judge Davis men-
tioned in his discourse to another 1,920,-
000 employees in the United States
Government.
Now, no one believes that a Commu-
nist or a person who is of a subversive
nature should enjoy Federal employ-
ment. Certainly I do not believe that.
Mr. WALTER. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOLIFIELD. / yield to the gen-
tleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. WALTER. I would like to point
out to the gentleman that there are
about 52 employees in that category, that
is, occupying nonsensitive positions, in
the employ of the Post Office Depart-
ment.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Well, I think I can
answer this to the gentleman's satisfac-
tion. Public Law 831, which was known
as the Subversive Activities Control Act,
title I, section 5 (1) (b), says that it is
unlawful for any Communist or mem-
ber of a Communist-front organization
or subversive group to hold?and I quote,
"to hold"?any nonelected office or em-
ployment in the United States Govern-
ment. Now, this is one act that is
already on the books, where the Gov-
ernment could proceed under that pro-
cedure and remove them. There is also
another act, Public Law 252, passed by
the 76th Congress in 1939. Section 9 (a)
says that it is unlawful for any person
employed in any capacity by any agency
of the Federal Government?and it goes
on with some other language?to have
membership in any political party which
advocates the overthrow of the constitu-
tional form of government of the United
States. And section 9 (a) ,(2) provides
for the immediate removal, immediate
discharge, of that person.
So because the Government agency
did not proceed under laws which are
on the books, which clearly gave them
the right to discharge these people, does
not mean that you should put another
law on the books that is so much wider
in its impact upon the employees of the
Government that it makes every em-
ployee subject to the wide discretion of
any agency head of Government.
Now, I want to point out some of the
vague language or some language which
I think is bad in the act. On page 2 it
says "The head of any department or
agency of the United States Government
may, in his absolute discretion and when
deemed necessary in the interest of na-
tional security, suspend, without pay, any
civilian officer or employee of the Gov-
ernment." Then it goes on to say?and
I want you to listen to the language?
"To the extent that such agency head
determines that the interests of the na-
tional safety, security, and welfare
permit"?and I understand "welfare"
will be knocked out?"the employee con-
cerned shall be notified"?in other words,
if the agency head wants to notify him,
if he considers that it is necessary or
it is advisable or desirable to notify him
of the charges against him, he can so do,
but if he does not consider it necessary,
he does not have to. This gives no guar-
anty that the employee will be con-
fronted with definite charges.
Then we go down to line 15. "The
agency head concerned may, following
such investigation and review as he
deems necessary"?placing it completely
upon the discretion of the agency head
as to the type of review he gives and then
he can?"terminate the employment."
Then we go over to the so-called ap-
peal provision on page 3, and on line 8, I
call your attention to this language "(3)
A hearing, at the employee's request, by
a duly constituted agency authorized for
this purpose." In other words, the man
July 10
that fires him appoints an "agency au-
thority" within the agency and this man
can go to that agency authority within
the agency, all appointees of the head of
the agency, for his appeal. Then, after
that is over, we find this language "(4)
A review of his ,case by the, agency head
or some official designated by him."
This is your right of appeal. This gives
the man the right to go to the man that
fired him and appeal his case or to appeal
to a man that the agency head desig-
nates. Or he goes first to an agency
authority appointed by the man who
fired him for his first appeal.
I have already given you section 3
which puts all Government employees in
the sensitive class, or the so-called sensi-
tive class; whether the individual digs a
ditch out in the forest, or whatever he
does. If his employer deems it neces-
sary that he be fired, he may be fired.
Again, going down to section 4?and
this applies to those who have civil serv-
ice status?this man is entitled to go to
the Civil Service Commission and appeal
his discharge. But on what basis? On
the basis of the validity of the truth of
the charges. If the head of the agency
makes a charge against him and it hap-
pens to be true, although it may be of
other things than being a member of the
Communist Party?then only the va-
lidity of the charge is in issue. This
language goes far beyond being a mem-
ber of the Communist Party?he may
only appeal with respect to the proce-
dures followed and to the truth of the
charges; not the merit of the charges,
as to whether he should be fired or not
on merit, but whether the charge that
was made was a true charge and wheth-
er the procedures were followed as set
up in this bill. This is the dangerous
part of the bill. In other words, he gets
no decision on merit. It is similar to
the Administrative Procedures Act un-
der which act, if an agency head han-
dles the case, the evidence brought un-
der that Administrative Procedures Act
is only allowed in the court case which
follows. The case is not decided upon
the merits of the case itself. It is de-
cided upon the evidence produced in the
administrative procedures case.
And so here you have again certain
charges brought. They may be true or
false. But if they are true, and even if
they are not charges that he is a Com-
munist or a subversive, they may still be
true, a man may only appeal his case on
the basis of the procedures and the truth
of the charges made.
This is a far cry from the condition
in which Cole found himself under the
old act. Cole had the right to go before
the court on the merits of the case. But
in my opinion?and I am not a lawyer,
and maybe I am treading on dangerous
ground, and if I am treading on danger-
ous ground, undoubtedly some gentle-
man of the bar will expose my fallacy in
this regard?but I say that the proce-
dures and the c4arges may be true, the
man does not have to be a Communist
or a subversive and still he cannot take
the extraneous matter beyond the ad-
ministrative record into the courts to be
tried on its merits.
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/02/05: CIA-RDP60-00321R000300100004-4
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/02/05: CIA-RDP60-00321R000300100004-4
1958 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
There are laws on the books to take
care of Communists and subversives. I
would like to say a word about the cost.
It costs $692 for each clearance that
an employee of the Government receives,
and if you are going to use the FBI on
any procedures involving 1,920,000 peo-
ple, you can see what that cost would
be.
Mr. Chairman, I will ask for unani-
mous consent in the House to place after
my present remarks a quotation from
that great defender of civil rights, the
great Chief Justice Oliver Wendell
Holmes.
FREEDOM OF IDEAS
When men have realized that time has
upset many fighting faiths, they may come
to believe even more than they believe the
very foundations of their own conduct that
the ultimate good desire is better reached
by free trade in ideas?that the best test of
truth is the power of the thought to get
Itself accepted in the competition of the
market, and that truth is the only ground
upon which their wishes safely can be carried
out. That at any rate is the theory of our
Constitution. It is an experiment, as all life
is an experiment. Every year if not every
day we have to wager our salvation upon
some prophecy based upon imperfect knowl-
edge. While that experiment is part of our
system I think that we should be eternally
viligant against attempts to check the ex-
pressions of opinions that we loathe and
believe to be fraught with death, unless they
so imminently threaten immediate inter-
ference with the lawful and pressing pur-
poses of the law that an immediate check
is required to save the country.
OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from California [Mr. Hord-
FIELD] has expired.
Mr. ROOSEVELT. Mr. Chairman, I
offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. ROOSEVELT:
Page 2, line 9, after the word "security"
strike out the words "and welfare" and in-
sert the word "and" between the words
"safety, security", eliminating the comma.
Mr. ROOSEVELT. This is the matter
referred to in the colloquy with the gen-
tleman from Iowa [Mr. GROSS] a few
minutes ago. I would simply like to say
that I have cleared with the chairnlan
of the committee and with the distin-
guished author of the amendment, Mr.
WALTER, of Pennsylvania, and in the
opinion I think of both those gentlemen
these words are not necessary and their
use could lead to some trouble and mis-
interpretation.
The bill refers to the national secu-
rity and safety, and the matter of welfare
could well be a matter which has nothing
to do with either the security or the
safety of the Nation, inasmuch as it is
not in the original act in any way, shape,
or form.
I trust that the committee will accept
this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentleman
from California [Mr. ROOSEVELT] to the
committee amendment.
The afnendment to the committee
amendment was agreed to.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment to the committee amend-
ment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. PORTER, of Ore-
gon, to the committee amendment: On page
3, line 8, after the word "hearing," insert
"conducted in accordance with due process
of law, and."
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, what
my amendment provides for is simple
justice for people who are accused of
being security risks. As I pointed out
and as I think everyone here recognizes,
there is no clear distinction in the minds
of most people between a person who
is called a security risk and one who is
called a loyalty risk. This simply pro-
vides that the procedures in this bill
will be conducted in accordance with
due process of law, which, of course, has
a definite legal meaning and would mean
that before a person is denominated a
security risk he would have the tradi-
tional due process of law.
I certainly agree with everything my
colleague from California [Mr. Hold-
FIELD I said. May I add that the people
back home, and this was mentioned
earlier, especially the very capable, con-
scientious, and energetic members of the
League of Women Voters, did not like
this legislation when they had a chance
to look at it, and the league has looked
at it. So I suggest to the Members here
who have not been in touch with the
people back home about this legislation
that they consider that the very capable
League of Women Voters is opposed to
this legislation because it does. not pro-
vide for proper due process of law.
The Civil Service Commission cer-
tainly is no judge in this matter, yet as
it is now it will get a record which is
not prepared by due process of law, and
the bill provides the Commission will
be the judge. Certainly that is a re-
grettable part of it.
However, the main thing is that there
is no emergency; there is no need for
this legislation. There is no manifesta-
tion of a great need. It has been sleep-
ing since the past August 20, and we
have not had anybody come to our com-
mittee, nor has there been any outcry
at all that we needed this legislation.
Further, this legislation does not pro-
vide for greater security. I ask you to
put yourself in the place of an employee
of the United States. Your agency head
decides he does not like you. He can
without more ado just find some pretext.
I do not think many agency heads would
do this, but they can do it if this becomes
law. As the gentleman from California
[Mr. HoLIFIELD] described, he can go
through the whole procedure completely
untouched by any safeguards that really
protect the employee.
This to me ought to stop many people
here from being too hasty in voting for
this legislation. The legislation does not
provide for greater security for the Na-
tion. We have laws on the books that
take care of that.
Mr. MURRAY. If the gentleman will
yield, we had this amendment before the
committee and it was voted down.
Mr. PORTER. I offered this amend-
ment before the committee and it was
voted down. I opposed the bill in com-
mittee and was voted down. This may
happen here today, but I have been
heard.
12109
Mr. JOHANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise
to oppose the amendment to the com-
mittee amendment, and rise for the pur-
pose of asking the gentleman from Ore-
gon a question. It arises from the fact
that a great many of our colleagues in
the House, and I am one of them, are not
lawyers, not members of the bar. I am
very much interested in having a state-
ment as to precisely what is meant in
relation to this hearing by "due process
of law." What does the term mean?
Mr. PORTER. I thank the gentleman
from Michigan for asking me that ques-
tion. It means that you will have the
right to cross-examine the witnesses
against you, know their names, face
them, know the charges. It is provided
in the bill that you will get to know the
charges, although the charges can be
anything because there are no criteria
for the charges. The bill does provide
that you get a written statement about
what it is all about, and you get to an-
swer, but it does not provide that you
get to see the witnesses and cross-
examine them. They can be these face-
less accusers we have heard about.
Mr. JOHANSEN. May I ask the gen-
tleman this further question: Does this
due process to be required in the matter
of a hearing before a departmental
group require the disclosure of confiden-
tial FBI files?'
Mr. PORTER. May I say also you
have the right of counsel. There is the
right to get information that is to bear
against you, but the judge has the power,
as has been pointed out by the courts
before, to protect you.
Mr. JOHANSEN. The point is, as I
understand it, this is a departmental
hearing and if I understand the point
to which this applies, it is item 3 on page
3; is that correct?
Mr. PORTER. It is item 3 on page 3.
Mr. JOHANSEN. The language on
page 3, item 3, reads:
A hearing at the employee's request by
duly constituted agency authority for this
purpose.
Certainly, you are not going to give
to the head of that Agency authority
the judicial right to determine whether
there is to be a disclosure of FBI files.
Mr. PORTER. The gentleman will
recall, there was a bill passed by the
House last session against which 17 of
us voted. The bill at that time did pro-
vide for certain protections which many
of us thought were already in the law.
Mr. JOHANSEN. Do these protec-
tions that you relate to this specific pro-
cedure?it does not involve a judge?
Mr. PORTER. Oh?which do not in-
volve a judge?
Mr. JOHANSEN. This procedure
that you refer to on this amendment?
to which the gentleman's amendment
relates?does not involve a judge.
Mr. PORTER. There is, if the gentle-
man will note, on line 4 this language,
"and which shall be stated as specifi-
cally as security considerations can per-
mit." I will say this would require the
production of evidence against the per-
son so that he knows what he is charged
with and what is against him.
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/02/05: CIA-RDP60-00321R000300100004-4
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/02/05: CIA-RDP60-00321R000300100004-4
12190 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
Mr. JOHANSEN. I think the gentle-
man has adequately answered my ques-
tion.
Mr. HEMPHILL. Mr. Chairman, I
rise to oppose the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the
Members of the House, I respect the
sincerity of the gentleman from Oregon,
Mr. PORTER, and the gentleman from
California, Mr. HOLIFIELD, but this
amendment was voted down in the com-
mittee, and should be voted down here:
Here is what you have: We are setting
up an administrative process by which
these people who are discharged as secu-
rity risks, as security risks and not for
any other purpose, are given an oppor-
tunity to have the charges presented to
them and to have a hearing. There is
no way on earth to deprive a man of due
process of law, but if the Porter amend-
ment is written into this legislation, it
will be a vehicle in which to impede the
purposes of this legislation and with
which to put some loopholes into the ad-
ministrative procedures which this com-
mittee has outlined.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. HEMPHILL. I yield.
Mr. GRIFFIN. In view of the form
of this legislation, if amendments are
adopted which would have the effect of
providing additional loopholes, is it not
true that those loopholes thereafter
would be available to security risks in
sensitive positions as well as to those in
nonsensitive positions?
Mr. HEMPHILL. That is right.
Mr. GRIP.e.i.N. Accordingly, we must
be particularly careful not to weaken the
legislation which now exists and now
applies at least as far as employees in
sensitive positions are concerned.
Mr. HEMPHILL. The gentleman is
correct.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. HEMPHILL. I yield.
Mr. YATES. May I refer The gentle-
man to the language on page 2, line 7,
which reads as follows:
To the extent that such agency head de-
termines that the interests of the national
safety, security, and welfare permit, the em-
ployee concerned shall be notified of the
reasons for his suspension?
And so forth. Suppose the head of the
agency decides that no information
should be given to the employee as to
why he is suspended. May he then un-
der the terms of this bill not give any
information for the suspension to the
employee?
Mr. HEMPHILL. No; he has to give
information, if the gentleman will read
further down on the page.
Mr. YATES. May I ask the gentleman
then, what does the phrase which I have
just read mean?
Mr. HEMPHILL. It means at the time
he suspends him, he may or may not give
the information, but if the suspended
employee demands it, as you will see
written in the bill, he is to be given a
written statement in 30 days, and he is
to be given an' opportunity within 30 days
plus an additional 30 days to answer the
charge. He is being given a hearing.
That answers the gentleman's argument,
because if he is given a hearing, he gets
his chance to answer the charge at the
hearing.
So do not let anybody tell you a man
is not going to get a hearing if he asks
for one, because we have written that
into this legislation.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. HEMPHILL. I yield.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. I think the gentle-
man's recent remark is right in the case
of those who have received a civil-service
status as is carried down from line 20
on, but on the part of those who have
temporary appointments, they do not
have that right.
Mr. HEMPHILL. I might say to the
gentleman that I listened to his remarks
a while ago. It is not possible under any
statute to write into that statute a safe-
guard against any abuse of that statute.
But we are trying in this legislation to
answer all the demands and questions
of the ediployees, that they be given some
administrative procedures. Under the
Constitution of these United States no
one can deny them an appeal from an
administrative decision to the courts of
this land.
I might say also to the gentleman from
California to his statement earlier about
absolute discretion, the courts of this
land have consistently held that when
any administrative body abuses discre-
tion, or the discretion is not based upon
sound facts, one aggrieved may appeal,
and the reviewing board or appellate
court can reverse that decision.
Mr. MORANO. Will the gentleman
yield?
Mr. HEMPHILL. I yield.
Mr. MORANO. Under the Constitu-
tion every person has a right of due proc-
ess of law.
Mr. HEMPHILL. As a matter of fact,
I think that is elementary.
Mr. MORANO. So there is no need for
this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr.
HEMPHILL] has expired.
(By unanimous consent (at the re-
quest of Mr. HOLIFIELD) Mr. HEMPHILL
was granted 3 additional minutes.)
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?'
Mr. HEMPHILL. I yield.
Mr. PORTER. My friend is a keen
and conscientious lawyer, but I cannot
believe that he is serious? when he says
there is no way to do away with due
process of law. When there are people
who do not have the money and they
are wrong, the gentleman knows they
do not have equal access to our courts.
Mr. HEMPHILL. The gentleman from
Oregon also knows that if this Court
across the way has attempted to repeal
former legislation that this bill seeks to
implement, and it has, if there was at-
tempt to deprive one of due process of
law, that same Court would hop on the
phrase to misinterpret again. So, after
much study, we have written this legis-
lation as it should be written. When you
talk about due process of law, it is some-
thing you cannot take away from an
American. We do not want a phrase
put into this legislation which would be
Declassified and Approved For Release
July 10
subject to misinterpretation, like the
clause in former legislation that causes
us to come to the House today with this
legislation.
Mr. HYDE. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HEMPHILL. I yield.
Mr. HYDE. Is it not true that the
courts decided/ in the Bailey case that a
person whose job was being jeopardized
did not have the absolute right to cross-
examine witnesses or confront the wit-
nesses, and the other matters that form
due process of law such as we have in
the courts. Was that the decision in the
Bailey case?
Mr. HEMPHILL. I am not so fa-
miliar with it. I think they did, on the
ground that there Was no absolute right
to the job.
Mr. HYDE. Therefore, you had no
right to be confronted with the wit-
nesses or to cross-examine the witnesses.
Mr. HEMPHILL. Well, we have pro-
vided for hearings to take care of that
situation.
Mr. Chairman and members of the
Committee, this is good legislation, and
we should not let this amendment ruin
it. We need the legislation, and we
need it now.
No Communist has a right to a job
with our Government. No Communist
has a right to enjoy all the privileges a
Federal employee has, live off the tax
money, and enjoy all the benefits, such
as retirement, leave, and sick leave.
We are not hard enough on the Com-
munists. They treat us harshly. They
only respect the iron fist.
A vote for this legislation is a vote
against communism. I am grateful for
the opportunity to vote for the legisla-
tion.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr.
HEmpruLL1 has again expired. -
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike out the last word.
As stated by the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. WALTER] this is a very
sensitive piece of legislation. In con-
sidering it, we must keep in mind the
American concepts of justice and fair
play. There are 2 million and some Fed-
eral employees with whose fate we are
dealing in this bill. I have had cases,
as has every Member of Congress, of em-
ployees who have been suspended as se-
curity risks for one Yeason or another?
not for reasons of disloyalty?and who
found that they were unable to obtain
employment in private industry as a re-
sult of their having been discharged as
a security risk. There are so many things
encompassed within the term "security
risk," so many implications, and it be-
comes impossible for such a person to
explain. Jobs in private industry are
closed to him. The brand "security risk"
blacklists him.
Therefore, it is important, if there is
to be such legislation, that it be most
seriously considered.
In voting for or against this bill, it
is not a question Whether we are voting
for or against Communists or subversive
agents. All of us in this House are op-
posed to communism. We are opposed to
hiring or retaining in Federal employ-
ment those who are Communists or are
50-Yr 2014/02/05: CIA-RDP60-00321R000300100004-4
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/02/05: CIA-RDP60-00321R000300100004-4
1958 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
subversives. But there is much more to
this piece of legislation than that. We
are dealing with the economic lives of
more than 2 million people. Let us be
careful. Let us not be hasty. In our
desire to deal with a particular problem,
let us not make it worse.
That is why I think the statement
made a few moments ago by the gentle-
man from Ohio [Mr. DENNISON] is of
great importance, of great significance,
the statement he read to this House from
a letter he had received from the At-
torney General's Office.
We are all interested in the viewpoint
of the Department of Justice on this
bill. The Department of Justice, after
all, is primarily responsible for dealing
with subversion in this country. Its
opinion deserves our consideration. Lis-
ten to this: I read to the House a letter
dated July 10, 1958, from J. Walter Yeag-
ley, Acting Assistant Attorney General,
to Hon. DAVID S. DENNISON, House of
Representatives. I shall read the last
paragraph first, because it contains the
Department's recommendation.
In the first paragraph of the letter, the
Department reviews the course of this
legislation. Then it reviews its status
following the Supreme Court decision.
This is what the Department of Justice
says about this bill:
Under these circumstances, the Depart-
ment of Justice believes that the interests
of the individual employee as well as of the
Government?
The individual employee as well as of
the Government, both?
would best be served by deferring any legis-
lative action relating to this program until
the executive branch has completed its study
of the recommendations of the Commission
on Government Security.
That has reference to the Wright
Commission on the question of security.
Then they stated this:
This report contains extensive findings and
recommendations relating to the Federal
employee security program, study of which
Is presently nearing completion within the
executive branch.
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. YATES. I yield.
Mr. MURRAY. What date is that?
Mr. YATES. July 10, 1958.
Mr. MURRAY. Today.
Mr. YATES. That is right?as recent
as today. On the other hand, the recom-
mendation of the Department in the
committee report is 2 years old. This
letter states the latest opinion, this is
the latest viewpoint of the Department
of Justice.
If the Department of Justice wanted
this bill they would have told the com-
mittee that they wanted this bill. If the
Civil Service Commission had wanted
this bill they would have told the com-
mittee that they wanted the bill; and
yet, if you will read the report, you will
find in the last part of the report there
was a tacit acceptance because of the
pushing of the committee, if you please,
of some kind of stopgap legislation.
What is the need for stopgap legisla-
tion? The Department of Justice says,
"We are almost ready with the bill that
we think should be enacted in the inter-
ests of the individual employee and of
the Government." Why then should we
in haste, why then should we without
appropriate consideration, pass a piece
of legislation as important as this one?
I believe this legislation should be sent
back to committee to await the recom-
mendation of the Department of Justice.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Oregon.
The question was taken; and on a di-
vision (demanded by Mr. PORTER) there
were?ayes 28, noes 125.
So the amendment was rejected.
Mrs. CHURCH. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike out the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I take this time in
order that the RECORD may be clear on
one point. I believe that the gentleman
from California, who, like many in the
House, is seeking to make sure that there
are no loopholes in this legislation which
would do unnecessary damage while
seeking to do good, made the point that
on page 5, lines 7 and 8 there are sig-
nificantly the words "with respect to the
validity and truth of the charges."
I believe that the gentleman from
California pointed out also that the ques-
tion of the merits of the case Would thus
not be considered. I would like to ask
the chairman of the committee whether
in his opinion the words "with respect to
the validity and truth of the charges"
do not necessarily mean also that the
merits of the charges will be considered
by the Civil Service Commission?
? Mr. MURRAY. Certainly the charges
have to be valid hand must have merit.
Mrs. CHURCH. The question of not
only whether the charges are true and
valid but whether they have merit and
warrant suspension would be considered
by the Commission?
Mr. MURRAY. Yes, of course.
Mrs. CHURCH. I am glad to have
the RECORD show. that.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. CHURCH. I yield to the gentle-
man from California.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. I wish to respect-
fully differ with the chairman in his
interpretation. I may say to the gentle-
woman from Illinois that under the
Administrative Procedures Act only the
information allowed by the trial exam-
iner is permitted to be carried forward in
an appeal to a court on the merits of the
case itself. The examiners have a wide
latitude to discard testimony within their
own discretion as being pertinent or im-
pertinent to the subject at hand. There-
fore, there have been many cases where
even the judge himself has admitted that
the merit of the case was not considered
but only the point as to whether the
procedures under the law had been fol-
lowed and the procedures under the Ad-
ministrative Procedures Act had been
followed. The merit of the case itself
was never given consideration. If a
charge is made that a man, for instance,
was drinking whisky and this would af-
fect the security of the United States,
and it was found that he was drinking
whisky, whether that fact affected the
security of the United States would not
be considered, in my opinion, on an ap-
peal.
12191
Mrs. CHURCH. I may say to the
gentleman that my question arose be-
cause I understood that to be his inter-
pretation. But I would like to think now
that the expressed intent of the commit-
tee would mean that in the administra-
tion of the act the merits of each case
would be always definitely considered by
the Civil Service Commission, when the
appeal comes before it.
Mr. JOHANSEN. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. CHURCH. I yield to the gentle-
man from Michigan.
Mr. JOHANSEN. It is my under-
standing that the identical language is
used in the Veterans Preference Act
with respect to the validity and truth
of the charges made and with respect to
procedures and that in the hearing on
those appeals they are heard virtually
de novo. It is not a matter of procedural
questions only but it is a matter of the
merits of the case as well.
Mrs. CHURCH. In other words, the
gentleman from Michigan agrees with
the chairman of. the committee, in con-
nection with the words involved here,
"validity and truth," that the merits of
the charge will be considered as well as
the validity and truth of the charge.
Certainly the legislation should con-
tain such a safeguard.
(Mr. MULTER asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MULTER. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike out the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to direct
the attention of the Committee to sev-
eral things. The hearings on this bill
were conducted in July 1957, 1 year ago.
The bill we are considering was passed
by the other body August 8, 1957, 11
months ago. The report of the com-
mittee of this House on the bill that we
are considering here now is dated August
20, 1957, 11 months ago. Yet, the re-
port says this legislation is urgent. We
have gotten along without it all this
time. What is so urgent about it? I
have not heard anybody indicate that
our security has been impaired in the
slightest during these 11 or 12 months.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. MULTER. Gladly.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. The bill that
passed the other body is the short para-
graph on page 1 which has the lines
drawn through it, not the bill that we
have before us.
Mr. MULTER. The gentleman is
quite correct.
Throughout the report the bill is re-
ferred to as one of a temporary nature;
that you need this bill to fill a gap.
On page 6 it says that ."the committee
agrees that this legislation should be
temporary."
There is nothing temporary about the
act which this bill seeks to amend. It
is permanent legislation. There is
nothing temporary about this bill. It
is permanent legislation. There is
nothing temporary about it.
Now, let me indicate what you do.
The gentlewoman from Illinois can be
right and the gentleman from Cali-
fornia can be right, and if an aggrieved
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/02/05: CIA-RDP60-00321R000300100004-4
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/02/05: CIA-RDP60-00321R000300100004-4
12192 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
party comes to court, the court will
nevertheless say to the aggrieved party,
"Despite the fact that these distin-
guished Members of our body are right,
nevertheless there is nothing for the
court to review."
The matter of review of the truth and
validity and merits of the charges and
the procedures to be followed are re-
viewable by whom? By the Civil Serv-
ice Commission.
If you will, they can look at the ceil-
ing and say "By the stars there we
conclude that this proceeding was prop-
erly conducted and the man was guilty
as charged," and then in its decision
say "We find this man' guilty as
charged."
On page 5, line 14, it says, "The deter-
mination by the Commission of any
question or other matter connected with'
such review shall be final and coliclu-
sive." No court can review that deter-
mination by the Civil Service Commis-
sion. It is nothing like the Cole case
where they went in and attacked the
constitutionality of the statute. And,
the court said, "We do not have to con-
sider the constitutionality of the statute
because the Congress never legislated on
this problem, never gave the agency the
right to remove" and they never got to
the constitutionality of the statute.
Now, what we have done here now,
mind you, is this: No agency of our
Federal Government, no bureau, no
board, no department can have its de-
cision reviewed unless you have statu-
tory authority therefor, whether it be
in the apt which creates the board or
authority or in the administrative pro-
cedures act. Then, the review is limited
as stated by the statutes. Some statutes
give you the right of review as to the
weight of the evidence, some give you
the right of review as to whether there
was any evidence, and some give you the
right of review only as to whether the
procedure was followed as laid down.
But, this statute now takes from every
aggrieved employee who may be removed
under it and whose removal is confirmed
or affirmed by the Civil Service Com-
mission?it takes from him the right to
review anything except the constitu-
tionality of this act. When you say
here, as you do, that this Commission's
determination of any question or other
matter shall be final and conclusive,
that is what it means, and you are de-
priving every court in the land of the
right to review anything and everything
that was done prior to what the Com-
mission did and what the Commission
will do in its review.
.Mr. JOHANSEN. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. MULTER. Yes, I am happy to.
Mr. JOHANSEN. As I understand,
the gentleman interprets the words
"shall be conclusive and final" as bar-
ring any opportunity of judicial review.
Mr. MULTER. Of the proceedings
and the procedure and the merits and
the truth and the validity of the
charges; yes, sir.
Mr. JOHANSEN. And yet I read
those words, not from this bill, but from
Public Law 733 under which, in the Cole
case, an appeal was taken to the courts,
even to the Supreme Court.
Mr. MULTER. And the Court held,
not that they had a right to review what
the agency did; but found that this law'
did not give the agency the right to
remove the person for the reasons cited
against the removed employee.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from New York [Mr.
MuLTEril has expired.
Mr. WIER. Mr. Chairman, I move to
strike out the requisite number of words.
(Mr. WIER asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. WIER. Mr. Chairman, I must
make expression here of my opinion of
this bill, because I think there is more
opposition throughout the country to
this particular proposed legislation than
there is support for it.
I note here that every one of the Fed-
eral employees organizations?all of the
postal and Federal and other organiza-
tions representing employees of the Fed-
eral Government, appeared before the
committee in opposition to this bill.
In addition to that, many, many
Members of this House, including my-
self, received many, many letters from
the League of Women Voters, and I have
great respect for that organization and
I would like to heed their views in
opposition.
Mr. Chairman, in connection with this
bill, it covers every Federal employee.
I think we are going a little too far. I
think we have plenty of legislation on
the statute books to take care of any
so-called Communist peril.
Mr. JOHANSEN. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. WIER. I yield.
Mr. JOHANSEN. Would the gentle-
man feel that we have adequate legis-
lation if, as the record shows, , appar-
ently, we have 4 Communists in the post
office in New York City?
Mr. WIER. Mr. Chairman, let me say
this to the gentleman. I do not think
4 Communists, working in a post office
in these great United States, among 2
million Federal employees, represent any
great menace or threat.
Mr. JOHANSEN. Mr. Chairman, the
gentleman did not answer the question.
Mr. WIER. That is my feeling about
it. Mr. Chairman, I should like to take
the opportunity to refer to a story here
by one of our former administrators of
the so-called Security Act. That is ex-
Senator Harry Cain, and I want to quote
a statement made in this story which
was written by Marquis Childs. This is
a quotation ,from Cain's story, and is
what President Eisenhower said to him
when he received the appointment as
one of the Administrators of the Federal
Security Board in 1954:
In this country if someone accuses you,
he must confront you. He cannot assassi-
nate you or your character from behind
without suffering the penalties that an out-
raged citizenry will impose.
I believe that is very important, and
well said by the President. I think that
is the meat of the legislation. That
statement is a quotation from the Presi-
dent of, the United States. It is a clear
indication of how this administration
feels in the matter of protection against
July 10
slander, against stool pigeons, against
stooges and personal enemies who might
report anyone as a security risk. We
have had it in the Minneapolis post of-
fice?this kind of a situation where em-
ployees have been dismissed, not because
of the question of being subversive or
disloyal, but because somebody carried a
report to an inspector. Even an inspec-
tor in the post office can level these
charges, and you have no due process of
law or no protection here, in my opinion.
Mr. Chairman, I want to close by say-
ing that I cannot find my way clear to
support this bill.
[From the Washington Post and Times Herald
of January 21,19551
WHAT CAIN RAISED
(By Marquis Childs)
This capital is still reacting to the remark-
able speech made the other day by former
Senator Harry P. Cain of Washington in
which he subjected the whole system of em-
ployee security in the Federal Government to
the most searching scrutiny. He said in
conclusion \ that if the security system had
undermined confidence in the good faith of
the American people, then a whole clique
of spies could not do greater damage.
What made this speech so remarkable was
that in the Senate Cain was one of the ex-
tremists linked with the McCarthy-Jenner-
Welker trio. As he said in his address to
Republicans at Spokane, he has come to a
realization of the threat to freedom inher-
ent in the present security system as a result
of 2 years of sitting, listening, and thinking.
After his defeat for reelection in 1952, Cain
was appointed by President Eisenhower to
be a member of the Subversive Activities
Control Board. This Board has responsibility
for determining whether the Attorney Gen-
eral is correct in listing organizations as
dominated, controlled, and directed by the
Communist Party and therefore, subversive.
The Board holds extensive hearings and It
has generally been rated as copscientious and
thorough.
What was not known when Cain made his
speech was that he had conferred with White
House officials about what he was going to
say well in advance. This was in no sense
to get approval of his proposed criticisms
of the security system. But he wanted those
most immediately concerned with the prob-
lem to know the line of reasoning he had
reached.
Remembering Cain for his often wild-
eyed statements about the Communist
danger, the cynics were inclined to look
for a political motive in the speech. But
those close to Cain reject this cynical inter-
pretation. They say that for many months
he has been quietly discussing his doubts
of the system now in force and the injus-
tices it has caused. They believe this has
been a genuine process of soul-searching by
one who has been observing the loyalty-
security operation at first hand.
Cain quoted President Eisenhower's state-
ment of more than a year ago as follows:
"In this country if someone accuses you,
he must confront you; he cannot assassinate
you or your character from behind without
suffering the penalties an outraged citizenry
will impose."
If a security system is to work without en-
dangering freedom, the "outraged citizenry"
must cry out in indignation whenever the
citizen encounters or uncovers an act of in-
justice. He added the hope that "Republi-
can leaders will begin to acknowledge the
criticisms more rapidly and move more swift-
ly in correcting mistakes in judgment or
procedure when they occur." The former
Senator acknowledged that in years in the
Senate he often tried to cover too much
territory.
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/02/05: CIA-RDP60-06321R000300100004-4
? Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/02/05: CIA-RDP60-00321R000300100004-4
1958 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
In his speech Cain cited three instances
In which he said the internal security ap-
paratus had failed completely in one respect
or another to bafbnce the requirements of
freedom with the demands of security. The
first was the case of Wolf Ladejinsky, former
agricultural attach?n Tokyo, which re-
ceived wide publicity when the Department
of Agriculture denied him clearance and then
he was cleared and given a job by the For-
eign Operations Administration.
The second case, that of Victor Havris of
Detroit, is less well known. A master ser-
geant in the Air Force with 14 years of serv-
ice behind him, Havris was found to be a
security risk because when he was 12 years
old his father took him to a Communist
meeting. The Havris caSe is being reviewed
at a higher level.
The third case, that of Milo J. Radulovich,
an Air Force first lieutenant pronounced a
security risk because of his sister's alleged
pro-Communist activities, was resolved in
Radulovich's favor when Air Force Secretary
Harold Talbott overruled security officers.
? Out of his experience of the past 2 years
Cain lists what he believes to be the major
defects of the present security system. One,
which has been frequently cited, is that there
is no uniformity of standards between the
departments and bureaus and no top review
board. Another major defect is that security
officers are so often inexperienced, naive and
ignorant. One gathers from Cain's speech
that his own prescription-2 years of sitting,
listening and thinking?would do a great
deal for those who administer the security
program. Certainly, it has worked an ex-
traordinary transformation in Cain's own
case.
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. Chi "man, I ask
unanimous consent that all cate on
this amendment and all am? ,nents
thereto close in 5 minutes.
Mr. JACKSON. I object, Mr. Chair-
man.
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. Chairman, I move
that all debate on this amendment and
all amendments thereto 'Close in 5 min-
utes.
The motion was agreed to.
Mrs. CHURCH. Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment to the committee amend-
ment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mrs. CHURCH to the
committee amendment: On page 5, line 8,
after "truth" insert "and merit"; and strike
out the "and" between "validity" and "truth"
in lines 7 and 8.
Mrs. CHURCH. Mr. Chairman, I offer
this amendment merely to confirm in the
law itself the intent expressed by the
chairman of the committee and by a
member of the committee, the gentleman
from Michigan, in stating in one earlier
debate that the word "merit" is implied
in the words "validity" and "truth." I
want to make perfectly sure that -when
the final hearing on each case is held
before the Civil Service Commission the
merits of the case are considered and
judged, as well as the validity and truth
of the charges. I think that such an
amendment is made necessary because,
in reading the report of the committee
on page 7, I find these words:
The Commission's review extends to the
validity and truth of the charges as well as
the propriety bf the procedures used.
It seems quite imperative to me, Mr.
Chairman, that we extend the full right
of review to the merits of the charges as
No. 115-14
well as the truth and validity of the
charges. Each employee who appealed
would thus be guaranteed a full and im-
partial hearing and decision by the Civil
Service Commission as to the merits, as
well as to the validity and truth of the
charges brought against him.
I hope that the amendment is adopted.
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. Chairman, as far
as I am concerned, I accept the amend-
ment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment to the committee
amendment.
The amendment to the committee
amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Kansas [Mr.
REES].
Mr. REES of Kansas. Mr. Chairman,
may I remind the gentleman who sug-
gested certain groups may be opposed to
thislegislation I think he will find that
those groups did not object to the bill as
presently written. Amendments sug-
gested by employees organizations are
included in this legislation. If they
have objections to this measure I do not
know it.
Mr. PORTER. I know the League of
Women Voters is still opposed to this
bill. ?
Mr. REES of Kansas. I hardly think,
after they have opportunity to study this
bill rather carefully, they will be op-
posed to its intent and purpose.
Let me remind you again that this
legislation is intended to protect 2 mil-
lion loyal, patriotic workers in our Gov-
erment. They do not want Communist
minded, fellow travelers, or disloyal peo-
ple or other security risks in our Gov-
ernment. This legislation is as impor-
tant to them as it is to those outside
Government.
The approval of this legislation is of
extreme importance now.
[Mr. JACKSON addressed the Com-
mittee. His remarks will appear here-
after in the Appendix.]
Mr. DENNISON. Mr. Chairman, the
debate on this bill, S. 1411, has been of
great value. As you know the bill is an
attempt to alter the effect of the decision
of Cole v. Young (351 U. S. 536) decided
by Supreme Court on June 11, 1956.
When the Cole decision was an-
nounced it was felt by many that it was
of the utmost urgency to consider legis-
lation which would correct, as it were,
the decision of the Supreme Court. In
view of the passage of 25 months since
the decision of the Court, and in view
of statements and representations to the
House Post Office and Civil Service Com-
mittee in its rather brief hearings, and in
view of statements which I shall refer to
shortly, this sense of urgency does not
appear to be so critical.
As the members know, the Cole deci-
sion involved an appeal by one Kendrick
M. Cole who was a food and drug in-
spector for the New York District of the
Food and Drug Administration of the
Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare.
In November 1953, he was suspended
without pay from his position pending
an investigation to determine whether
Declassified and Approved For Release
12193
his employment should be terminated.
This suspension was ordered pursuant to
what is commonly referred to as Public
Law 733, 81st Congress?Sixty-fourth
United States Statutes at Large, page
476. Cole was given a written statement
of charges alleging "a close association
with individuals reliably reported to be
Communists" and that he had main-
tained "a sympathetic association" with,
had contributed funds and service to, and
had attended social gatherings of an al-
legedly subversive organization.
The Secretary of Health, Education,
and Welfare ultimately determined that
Cole's continued employment was not
"clearly consistent with the interests of
national security" and ordered the termi-
nation of his employment. Upon appeal
to the Supreme Court of the United
States, the Court determined first, that
there was no dearth of substantive
authority to dismiss this employee on
loyalty grounds, but that the question to
be decided was not whether the employee
could be dismissed on such grounds but
only the extent to which the summary
procedures prior to hearing are available
in such a case.
The Court held as a matter of inter-
pretation that Public Law 733, authoriz-
ing summary suspension and dismissal
in certain cases did not apply to persons
occupied in nonsensitive positions, and
that as a matter of fact Cole's position
with the Government was in a nonsensi-
tive capacity.
The bill before us declares that all
persons working for the Government of
the United States are engaged in posi-
tions involving national security and are,
therefore, in sensitive positions permit-
ting summary suspension and dismissal
of any Government employee.
In considering this legislation there
are several points which I would like to
call to the attention of the House.
First, is there a great need for this
law. On the books today 'Public Law
733, which provides for summary sus-
pension and dismissal of any Govern-
ment employee serving in a sensitive po-
sition, that is those directly concerned
with the protection of the Nation, in-
ternal subversion, or foreign aggression.
Notwithstanding the Cole decision,
Public Law 733 is today applicable to all
suitability cases and to all security risks,
and to all loyalty cases in sensitive posi-
tions.
In addition to Public Law 733, there
has been on the books since 1912 the
Lloyd LaFollette Act-37th United States
Statutes at Large, page 555?which pro-
vides for the regular method of discharge
of Government employees. Under that
act, the Civil Service Commission has
issued regulations establishing those
causes for which an employee may be
discharged. Section 2.106 provides as
follows:
(a) Grounds for disqualification: An ap-
plicant may be denied appointment for any
of the following reasons:
1. Dismissal from employment for delin-
quency or misconduct;
2. Physical or mental unfitness for the pd-
salon for which applied;
3. Criminal, infamous, 'dishonest, immoral,
or notoriously disgraceful conduct;
50-Yr 2014/02/05: CIA-RDP60-00321R000300100004-4
?
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/02/05: CIA-RDP60-00321R000300100004-4
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
12194
4. Intentional false statements or ,decep-
tion or fraud in examination or appoint-
ment;
5. Refusal to furnish testimony as required
by section 05.3 of rule V;
6. Habitual use of intoxicating beverages to
excess (sec. 8, 22 Stat. 406; 5 U. S. C. 640);
7. Reasonable doubt as to the loyalty Of
the person involved to the Government of
the United States; or
8. Any legal or other disqualification which
makes the applicant unfit for the service'.
Consequently statutory authority ex-
ists for the discharge of all persons who
deviate from the accepted norm whether
it be from a standard of loyalty or a
standard of personal behavior or con-
duct.
The hearings before our committee
held last year ,did not reveal any great
need or urgency for this legislation. The
subsequent delay of almost a year in
bringfhg the bill to the floor has not
added any support to the claim for
urgency.
As a matter of fact, a similar bill to
this was introduced in the 84th Congress,
but was never set for hearing or passed
upon.
A little over a year ago on June 21:
1957, the Wright Commission, which had
been appointed to consider and review
the entire loyalty-security program in
this country, submitted its report to the
President and to Congress together with
its recommendations for comprehensive
legislation in the entire loyalty-security
field. Practically all of the witnesses to
appear on this bill and the chairman
himself declared that any such measure
as we have before us today should be
temporary only until the recommenda-
tions of the Wright Commission could
be considered and adopted. The com-
mittee report bears this out.
In fact the Civil Service Commission
stated on July 30, 1957, in a letter to the
chairman of this committee, the dis-
tinguished gehtleman from Tennessee:
It is the Commission's view that any legis-
lation in this field should now await thor-
ough review and analysis of the report of
the Wright Commission. If the Congress
should decide to proceed with legislation
such as H. R. 981 in this session, we would
recommend that it be made temporary.
With the thought in mind that the
Wright Commission report would be con-
sidered during this session of Congress,
many on the Committee supported the
legislation before us today. However,
the fact is that we have not had one sin-
gle hearing on the Wright Commission
report. I am, however, pleased that the
chairman has promised hearings on this
important legislation.
Almost 2 years have elapsed since the
Cole decision and the delay on the part
of Congress in doing anything about this
decision has accorded the departments
of the Government some experience in
operating with the statutes presently on
the books, namely Public Law 733 and
the Lloyd LaFollette Act.
Since every provable ease involving
loyalty or security or Suitability of a Fed-
eral employee can be adequately handled
under the present law this measure in
many respects will duplicate existing
procedures.
My second point is: Is it true, as con-
tended in the report, that the Govern-
ment must accept all new employees and
then upon subsequent determination of
'their unsuitability or disloyalty be unable
to discharge them
Section 2.107 of the Civil SerOce Reg-
ulations as amended on November 14,
1957, provides:
(c) For a period of 1 year after the effec-
tive date of an appointment subject to in-
vestigation under paragraph (a) of this sec-
tion, the Commission may instruct the agen-
cy to rernove the employee if investigation
discloses that he is disqualified for any of
the reasons listed in section 2.106. There-
'after, the Commission may require removal
only on the basis of intentional false state-
ments or deception or fraud in examination
? or appointment. -
?
?s Accordingly, any employee who is dis-
qualified for reasons set forth in section
2.106, which I have previously read, may
be discharged within a year after hiring.
This certainly would give the Go_vern-
ment ample opportunity to consider the
record of any employee.
Lastly, what is the effect of this legis-
lation? This bill will affect in one way
or another 21/4 million fellow Americans.
Granted that these employees have no
vested right in their jobs any more than
an employee of a factory in your home
district or mine, the policy established
by this Government over 70 years ago in
setting up a civil-service system and
eliminating the old spoils system ac-
knowledged that Federal employees do
have certain rights, privileges, and secu-
rity with respect to their jobs.
This measure before us nevertheless
has certain safeguards in it which were
not in the original bill. The amend-
ments introduced on the floor have im-
proved it and although I still have
serious doubts about the need for this
legislation. I shall support it in view
of. the changes made and the representa-
tion made this afternoon by the Chair-
man in connection with the Wright
Commission hearings one word of cau-
tion.
All of us have an interest in not only
maintaining the quality of the civil
service of this country, but in improv-
ing it. A great deal of credit goes to the
countless thousands of loyal and-faithful
Americans who have devoted their lives
to the service of the public. They are
entitled to our respect and to our good
faith. Not only that, but they are en-
titled to the security which has been ac-
corded them through the years in the
Civil Service system. They are entitled
to be dealt with according to the usual
American standards of fair play.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the committee amendment as amended.
The committee amendment as amend-
ed was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the
Committee rises.
Accordingly the Committee rose; 'and
the Speaker pro tempore [Mr. McColl-
macx] having resumed the chair, Mr.
PRICE, Chairman of the Committee of
the Whole House on the State of the
Union reported that that Committee
having had under consideration the bill
(S. 1411) to amend the act of August 26,
1950, relating to the suspension of em-
ployment of civilian personnel of the
United States in the'interest of national
July 10
security, he reported the bill back to the
House with an amendment adopted by
the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under
the rule, the previous question is ordered.
The question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The ,
question is on the third reading of the
bill.
The bill Was ordered to be read a third
time, and was read the third time.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a
motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does
anf Member in the minority wish to of-
fer a motion to recommit?
Is the gentleman from Oregon opposed
to the bill? ?
Mr. PORTER. I am, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The
Clerk will report the motion to recom-
mit. ?
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. PORTER moves to recommit the bill to
the Post Office and Civil Service Committee
with instructions to amend the bill to pro-
vide for due process of law in hearings there-
under and for judicial review of all decisions
thereunder.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The
question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and on a di-
vision (demanded by Mr. PORTER) , there
,were?ayes 31, noes 197.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask f.or
the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were refused.
So the motion to recommit was re-
jected.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The
question is on the passage of the bill.
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. Speaker, on this
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The question was taken; and there
were?yeas 295, nays 46, not voting 89,
as follows:
Abbitt
Abernethy
Adair
Addonizio
Albert
Alexander
Alger
Allen, Calif.
Allen, Ill.
Andersen,'
H. Carl
Andrews
Ashmore
Auchincloss
Avery
Ayres
Baker
Baldwin
Barden
Bass, N. H.
Bates
Baunihart
Beamer
Beckworth
Belcher
Bennett, Fla
Bennett, Mich.
Bentley
Berry
Betts
Blitch
Boggs
Bolton
Bonner
Bosch
Bow
Bray
Breeding
Brooks, La.
Brooks, Tex.
[Roll No. 125]
YEAS-295
Broomfield
Brown, Ga.
Brown, Ohio
Brownson
Broyhill
Budge
Burleson
Bush
Byrd
Byrne, /11.
Byrne, Pa.
Byrnes, Wis.
Canfield
Cannon
Caranahan
Carrigg
Cederberg
Chamberlain
Chelf
Chenoweth
Chiperfield
Church
Coad
Collier
Colmer
Cooley
Corbett--
Coudert
Cramer
Cretella
Cunningham,
Iowa
Cunningham,
Nebr.
Curtin
Curtis, Mass.
Dague
Davis, Ga.
Davis, Tenn
Dawson, Utah
Dellay
Dennison
Dent
Denton
Devereux
Dixon
Donohue
Dorn, N. Y.
Dorn, S. C.
Doyle
Durham
Dwyer
Edmondson
Elliott
Everett
Fallon
Fascell
Feighan
Fenton
Fisher
Flood
Flynt
Forand
Ford
Forrester
Fountain
Frazier
Frelinghuysen
Friedel
Garmatz
Gary
Gathings
Gavin
George
Granahan
Grant
Gray
Gregor).
Griffin
Griffiths
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/02/05: CIA-RDP60-00321R000300100004-4
F
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/02/05: CIA-RDP60-00321R000300100004-4
1958 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
Gross Loser
Gubser McCormack
Hale MCCulloch
Haley McDonough
Halleek McGregor ,
Harden McIntire
Hardy McIntosh
Harris McVey
Harrison, Nebr. Mack, Ill.
Harrison, Va. Mahon
Harvey Mailliard
Haskell Marshall
Healey Matthews
Hemphill May
Henderson Meader
Herlong Merrow
Heselton Michel
Hess Miller, Md.
Hiestand Miller, Nebr.
Hill Miller, N. Y.
Hillings Mills
Hoeven Mitchell
Holland Moore
Holmes Morano
Holt Morgan
Horan Mumma
Hosmer Murray
Huddleston Natcher
Hull Neal
Hyde Nicholson
Ikard Nimtz
Jackson Nix
Jarman Norblad
Jennings O'Brien, Ill.
Jensen O'Konski
Johansen O'Neill
Johnson Osmers
Jonas Ostertag
Jones, Mo. Patman
Judd Patterson
Kean Pelly
Kearns Philbin
Keating Pilcher
Kee Pillion
Kelly, N.Y. Poage
Keogh Poff
Kilgore Polk
Kitchin Prouty
Knox Quie
Knutson Ray
Krueger Bess, Kans.
Laf ore Rhodes, Ariz,
Laird Rhodes, Pa,
Lane Riehlmaia
Lankford Riley
LeCompte Roberts
Lennon Robison, N. Y.
Lesinski Robsion, Ky.
Libonati Rodino
Lipscomb Rogers, Fla.
Ashley
Aspinall
Boland
Bolling
Boyle
Clark
Coffin
Dawson, Ill.
Dingell
Dollinger
Engle
Green, Oreg.
Hagen
Holifield
Holtzman
Karsten
Anderson,
Mont.
Anfuso
Arends
Bailey
Baring
Barrett
Bass, Tenn.
Becker
Blatnik
Boykin
Brown, Mo.
Buckley
Burdick
Celler
Christopher ,
Clevenger
Curtis, Mo.
Delaney
Derounian
Dies
Diggs
Dooley
Dowdy
Eberharter
Rogers, Mass.
Rogers, Tex.
Rooney
Rutherford
Sadlak
St. George
Saund
Schenck
Scherer
Schwengel
Scott, Pa.
Scrivner
Scudder
Seely-Brown.
Selden
Sheehan
Sheppard
Siler
Simpson, Ill
Smith, Calif.
Smith, Kans.
Smith, Miss.
Smith, Va.
Spence
Springer
Staggers
Stauffer
Steed
Taber
Taylor
Teague, Calif.
Teague, Tex.
Tewes
Thomas
Thompson, Tex.
Thomson, Wyo.
Tollef son
Tuck
Utt
Van Pelt
Van Zandt
Vorys '
Vursell
Walter
Watts
Westland
Whibener
Whitten
Widnali
Wigglesworth
Williams, Miss.
Wilson, Calif.
Wilson, Ind.
Winstead
Wright
Young
Younger
Zablocki
NAYS-46
King Price
Kirwan Rabaut
Kluczynski Reuss
McCarthy Rogers, Colo.
McFall Roosevelt-
McGovern Santangelo
Macdonald Sisk
Madden Sullivan
Magnuson Teller
Metcalf Udall
Miller, Calif. Ullman.
Moss Vanik
Multer . Wier
O'Hara, Ill. Yates
Pfost
Porter-
NOT VOTING-89
Evins Mason
Farbstein Minshall
Fmo Montoya
Fogarty Morris
Fulton Morrison
Glenn Moulder
Gordon Norrell
Green, Pa. O'Brien, N. Y.
ewinn O'Hara, Minn.
Hays, Ark. Passman.
Hays, Ohio Perkins
Haien Powell
Hoffman Preston
James Radwan
Jenkins Rains
Jones, Ala. Reece, Tenn.
Kearney Reed
Kilburn Rivers
Kilday Robeson, Va.
Landrum Saylor
Latham Scott, N. C.
McMillan Shelley
Machrowicz Shuford
Mack, Wash, Sieminski.
Martin Sikes
Simpson, Pa. Trimble
Tails Vinson
Thompson, La. Wainwright
Thompson, N. J.Weaver
Thornberry Wharton
So the bill was passed..
The Clerk announced the following
pairs:
On this vote:
Mr. Hebert for, with Mr. Anderson of
Montana against.
Mr. Glenn for, with Mr. Burdick against.
Mr. Arends for, with Mr. Celler against.
Mr. Green of Pennsylvania for, with Mr.
Farbstein against.
Mr. Martin for, with Mr. Zelenko against.
Mr. Delaney for, with Mr. Gordon against.
Mr. Fogarty for, with Mr. Machrowicz
against.
Mr. Hays of Ohio for, with Mr. Diggs
against.
Mr. Barrett for, with Mr. Blatnik against.
Mr. Preston for, with Mr. Shelley against.
Until further notice:
Mr. Landrum with Mr. Simpson of Penn-
sylvania.
Mr. Anfuso with Mr. Hoffman.
Mr. Buckley with Mr. Gwinn.
Mr. Moulder with Mr. Fino.
Mr. Morrison with Mr. Talle
Mr. Thompson of Louisiana with Mr.
Weaver.
Mr-Bailey with Mr. Becker.
Mr. Baring with Mr. Latham.
Mr. Hays of Arkansas with Mr. Reece
of Tennessee.
Mr. Thompson of New Jersey with Mr.
Wainwright.
Mr. Kilday with Mr. Kilburn.
Mr. Scott of North Carolina with Mr.
Kearney.
Mr. Robeson of Virginia with Mr. Curtis
of Missouri.
Mr. Willis with Mr. Minshall.
Mr. Norrell with Mr. Dooley.
Mr. O'Brien of New York with Mr. Clev-
enger.
Mr. Rains with Mr. Wolverton.
Mr. Evins with Mr. Saylor.
Mr. Dowdy with Mr. O'Hara of Minnesota.
Mr. Christopher with Mr. James.
Mr. BroW'n of Missouri with Mr. Fulton.
Mr. Thornberry with Mr. Derounian.
Mr. Trimble with Mr. Reed of New York.
Mr. Boykin with Mr. Wharton.
Mr. Rivers with Mr. Mack of Washington.
Mr. Montoya with Mr. Radwan.
Mr. Vinson with Mr. Withrow.
Mr. McMillan with Mr. Jenkins.
Mr. Morris with Mr. Williams of New
York.
Mr. Sikes with Mr. Mason.
Williams, N. Y.
Willis
Withrow
Wolverton
Zelenko
The result of the vote was announced
as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
GENERAL LEAVE TO EXTEND
REMARKS
Mr. REES of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I
ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to
extend their remarks on the bill S. 1411,
just passed.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there
objection to the request of the gentle-
man from Kansas?
There was no objection.
AUTHORIZING MILITARY
CONSTRUCTION
Mr. BROOKS of Louisiana. Mr.
Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
12195
in the engrossment of the bill (H. R.
13015) to authorize certain construction-
at military installations, and for other
purposes, which passed the House this
morning, the Clerk be authorized to cor-
rect section numbers and paragraph let-
ters in the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there
objection to the request of the gentleman
from Louisiana?
Mr. GROSS. Reserving the right to
object, Mr. Speaker, and I hope I shall
not have to object, this request is no
wise changes the purport of the amend-
ment I offered to the bill and which
makes necessary the technical changes?
Is that correct?
Mr. BROOKS of Louisiana. This re-
quest is made necessary by the Gross
amendment. It does not change in one
iota any portion of the bill, except the
section numbers and the paragraph
letters.
Mr. GROSS. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reserva-
tion of objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there
objection to the request of the gentle-
man from Louisiana?
There was no objection.
RENUMBERING OF SECTIONS
Mr. SMITH of California. Mr. Speak-
er, I ask unanimous consent that in the
engrossment of House Joint Resolution
424 the Clerk be authorized to correct
the section numbers.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there
objection to the re4uest of the gentle-
man from California?
There was no objection.
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Mr. MORGAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that the bill H. R.
13265 may be rereferred to the Commit-
tee on Armed Services.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there
objection to the request of the gentle-
man from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
-
\
/CONGRESSMAN CHARLES PORTER,
A FRIENDLY RECEPTION
(Mrs. GREEN of Oregon asked and
? was given permission to extend her re-
marks at this point in the RECORD and
include an editorial.)
Mrs. GREEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker,
on this9last Tuesday, I included in the
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD an editorial from
the New York Times commenting on the
excellent reception accorded the distin-
guished Representative from the Fourth
Congressional District of Oregon by the
people of Venezuela.
The enthusiastic greetings extended to
Mr. CHARLES 0. PORTER are reflected in
the press of Venezuela. It is most fit-
ting that on July 4, 1958, the newspaper
El Mundo, of Caracas, Venezuela, car-
ried an editorial entitled "Welcome, Mr.
PORTER." ,In it we again see admiration
expressed for a courageous Congressman
Who has won international respect for
hi, opposition to dictators?to tyranny
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/02/05: CIA-RDP60-00321R000300100004-4
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/02/05: CIA-RDP60-00321R000300100004-4
12196 s
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD --- HOUSE July 10
in any form. I am including herewith
a translation of that editorial: -
WELCOME, MR. PORTER
Today Congressman PORTER is a most wel-
come guest of Venezuela. Perhaps on this
occasion it is entirely fitting to use that
favorite phrase coined by hurried speakers
when they say, before some personage whose
brief biography they have to give, that no
introduction is necessary. Because in Latin
America the language of affection hat round-
ed off the nathe of CHARLES 0. PORTER. There
is no corner of America, stirred by the winds
of liberty, where the work and figure of the
North American Congressman have not ac-
quired the distinction reserved for a true
friend. CHARLES 0. PORTER is a Latin Amer-
ican by adoption, compatriot by that tie
stronger than laws, that of shared ideals and
emotions. When PORTER denounces the dic-
tators from his congressional seat, he erases
frontiers and makes of the United States and
Latin America one country united by identi-
cal preoccupations.
PORTER has been surrounded since his ar-
rival in Venezuelan territory by the warmth
of enthusiastic welcome. In the airport, the
morning breeze stirred messages of affection
toward the man who, in the House of Rep-
resentatives of the United States, has given
life again to those heroic feats of the solitary.
fighters who do not yield to indifference or
to the difficulties which encircle them.
Among friendly shouts from grateful Vene-
zuelans, Cubans, and Dominicans, PORTER
stepped upon this land which always was his
and which now he visits when liberty can
pay him the homage he deserves. Demo-
cratic solidarity, as demonstrated in the re-
ception accorded this illustrious North
American, is not a mere theoretical concept
but a reality which should be visibly Mani-
fested.
But more than the personality of PORTER
and the success which he is now gathering in
Venezuela, we should pay attention to the
causes that have brought Latin America to
accord him the vast credit of confidence
which he is now enjoying. PORTER proves
that in our continent there are not feelings
of hostility toward the United States. When
some personage of that country has been re-
pudiated, by acts whose aggressiveness we all
condemn, a policy of complacencrtoward
dictatorships, of oppressive economic pene-
tration, and of injustice in the relations be-
tween the two Americas is being challenged.
Neither Mr. NixoN, as an acknowledged leader
of the policy of his country, or even less the
name of his country, were insulted or scoffed
at in the manifestations which took place in
Latin America almost 2 months ago. In that
moment it was made clear the non-conform-
ity of a whole people toward procedures which
are not now geared to the maturity and the
dignity of our countries. That United States'
Was attacked which confuses its dividends
with democracy and which identifies the
cause of liberty with sustaining macabre des-
pots. But there is another United States,
that which CHARLES PORTER incarnates, the
United States which today recalls its Declara-
tion of Independence and that where the
message of Lincoln and of Roosevelt contin-
ues to instruct the intellectuals and- the
workers whose love of the principles of pro-
gressive democracy neither public relations
experts nor the interests of the great corpo-
rations have succeeded in erasing.
To that United States, which is not for
sale, which refuses to be weighed in the
balance of material desires, home of men and
torch of progress, we wish to hand over our
gratitude through the medium of CHARLES
0. PORTER.
Onward, PORTER.
UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES
(Mr. CUNNINGHAM of Nebraska (at
the request of Mr. HENDERSON) was given
permission to extend his remarks at this
point in the RECORD.)
Mr. CUNNINGHAM of Nebraska. Mr.
Speaker, for many years -the Congress
,
has acted to prevent big business from
swallowing up small competitors through
unfair business methods. Antitrust
laws, special consideration for small
businesses and antimonopoly laws are
examples of congressional action in this
field.
A need exists for further legislation in
this field to prevent large corporations
from unfairly competing with small busi-
nesses. I am introducing a bill today
which is designed to protect the small
merchant from one unfair business prac-
tice.
At present, big business is free to dis-
criminate by selling at unreasonably low
prices in some sections of the country
while holding prices high in other areas.
In doing that, they can destroy the small
businessman and create a monopoly.
My bill will allow small merchants to
defend themselves against such tactics.
It is needed because a recent United
States Supreme Court decision held
that small-business men cannot use sec-
tion 3 of the Robinson-Patman Act as a
basis of proceedings against big busi-
nesses _which discriminate in price for
the purpose of eliminating competition.
Section 3 of the Robinson-Patman Act
provides, in part, that it is unlawful for
a business to sell goods at a lower firice
in one part of the country than in other
parts of the country if such lower price.
is set for the purpose of destroying com-
petition. If this avenue is not open to
small-business men who are being ruined
by arbitrary price cuts by big-business
competitors, there is no place fpr them to
turn.
My bill amends section 1 of the Clay-
ton _Antitrust Act to provide that the
term "antitrust laws" as used therein
will be taken to include section 3 of the
Robinson-Patman Act. This will once
again give small-business men an oppor-
tunity to act against big national or
regional competitors who cut prices in
one area solely to drive out competition
1
and establish a monopoly.
PERSONAL ANNOUNCEMENT
Mr. GREEN of Pennsylvania. Mr.
Speaker, during the vote on S. 1411, the
so-called security bill, I was Conferring
with some constitutents in my office.
If I had been able to be in the Cham-
ber, I would have voted "yea," but I
had to miss the rollcall for that rea-
son.
ADJOURNMENT OVER
Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that when the House
adjourns today, it adjourn to meet on
Monday next.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is
there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Oklahoma?
There was no objection.
AUTHORIZING SPEAKER PRO TEM-
PORE TO SIGN ENROLLED BILLS
Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask'
unanimous consent thitt notwithstand-
ing the adjournment of the House until
Monday next, the clerk be authorized to
receive messages from the Senate and
that the Speaker pro tempore be au-
thorized to sign any enrolled bills and
joint resolutions duly-passed by the two
houses and found truly enrolled.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is
there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Oklahoma?
There was no objection.
CALENDAR WEDNESDAY
Mr. ALBERT. Mr. -speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that the call of the.
committees under the Calendar Wednes-
day rule may be dispensed with on
Wednesday next.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is
there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Oklahoma?
There was no objection.
EXEMPTION OF PROCESSING OF
CIGAR WRAPPER TOBACCO UN-
DER ' FAIR LABOR STANDARDS
ACT
(Mrs. BLITCH asked and was given
permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend her
remarks and to include a letter.)
Mrs. BUTCH. Mr. Speaker, yester-
day / introduced a bill designed to cor-
rect a serious injustice brought about as
a result of what is regarded by many as
a misinterpretation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
My bill would clarify the present defi-
nition of "Agriculture" so as to include
within the agricultural exemption the
processing of shade-grown tobacco used
as cigar Wrappers.
According to statistics?which will be
presented to the appropriate committee
of the House?passage of my bill will
increase the wages of 8,000 to 10,000
cigarmakers from $4 to $8 per week.
This means that the people who work
in cigar factories would receive, annual-
ly, somewhere between $1,600,000 and
$4 million in increased pay.
My bill is Supported by the Cigar
Makers' International Union of America,
AFL-CIO. Under permission granted, I
include at this point in my remarks a
letter from the president of the Cigar
Kakers Union to Chairman BARDEN, of
the Committee on Education and Labor:
CIGAR MAKERS' INTERNATIONAL
UNION OF' AMERICA,
Washington, D. C., May 14, 1957.
Hon. GRAHAM A. BARDEN,
Chairman, Committee on Education
and Labor, House of Representa-
tives, Washington, D. C.
DEAR CHAIRMAN BARDEN: Last year during
the course of the hearings before your com-
mittee the Florida-Georgia Cigar Leaf To-
bacco Growers Association asked that the
Fair Labor Standards Act be amended so as
to exempt from coverage approximately 5,000
farmworkers who, from time to time during
the tobacco season, also work in the tobacco
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/02/05: CIA-RDP60-00321R000300100004-4